Best
123 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    I disagree with a law that allows 16 year old kids to buy guns and carry them concealed, but I also disagree that I have a "duty" to flee from my home if someone breaks in and threatens my family and myself.
  • #6
    !
    Well said Dan. No 16 year old should be allowed to carry, even mine who shoots like Annie Oakley. Also the castle doctrine should never be questioned, you should always have the right to protect your property, and your loved ones.
  • #14
    !
    Yes, Florida has a 'stand your ground law' that is being questioned and possibly overturned because of one case. If the law is used properly, I don't understand the problem. Seems to me I should have the right to defend myself and my home. But every time something happens, a bunch of people come out wanting new and revised laws.
  • #33
    !
    @ACTSmom The Stand your ground law is NOT only about your home. It is ANY place you (and even the victim) have a legal right to be, if you feel threatened you can kill them rather than give up your ground. It is ridiculous as it has no outline in how this fear is based, just that a threat is perceived.
    That is totally different than someone coming in your home or in your car where they have no legal right to be.
  • #50
    !
    @jamie91

    Over simplification to demonize it at its best right there. Just because someone looks at you sternly doesn't mean you have the legal right to draw down on them and take them out. If you kill someone within the confines of the castle doctrine you still have to show a reasonable cause for you to fear for your life or great bodily harm. Failure to do so will end up with you getting charged with manslaughter, murder, or the like.
  • #57
    !
    @John_Matrix 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

    And Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe in the castle doctrine, just not Florida's Stand your ground. Why? Because it is about the perception of a threat. We've already seen what this law leads to. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone in your house without your permission is in there to cause harm. But legal to shoot someone who has done nothing wrong because you perceive a threat.... nope, that is dangerous.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    HMMM. Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont. Guess I'd choose Arizona! Warmer and they don't do Daylight savings time also.....LOL. Anyone want to buy a nice 3 bdrm, 2 bath 1800 sq ft house......hey, at least I'm not threatening to leave the country. Only looking to be part of "settling" the wild west (always thought, if reincarnation was true, that I was an "old west" outlaw....most likely hung for my crimes....lmao)
  • #17
    !
    Especially if you went before Judge Parker! My husband would have loved living during that old west period...think he'd like living out in the woods prospecting for gold. And he really likes his guns, including his 1873 Winchester and a Colt handgun. But, he has no assault rifles...
  • #10
    !
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Every single story for the last 48 hours has been about nothing but the school shooting. What about the fiscal cliff that obama has promised to push us over? What about Syria and Iran? There are so many calamities going on that we are not focusing on. My wife grieved all weekend long of those beautiful precious children that were taken away from us far too soon, but gun control is not the solution. And 50 articles trying to convince the voting public that gun control is a good thing will not work.
  • #41
    !
    @mtkopf - Because a lack of gun control is not why the Connecticut massacre took place. The guns were obtained legally by the mother, but stolen by the son. No amount of laws would prevent a person dedicated to violating the law from doing so. Also, if someone is truly committed to killing a group of other people, they will use any method available to them. If not a gun, then a knife, or a bomb, or some other mechanism. Norway has very strict gun control, didn't help them any.
  • #83
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix
    Definition of crazy: doing the same thing over and over yet expect different results.

    There are an estimated 300,000,000million + firearms in the u.s. While the gun manufacturers continue to flood the market with more and more guns, some eventually wind up in the hands of criminals and crazies. Now to combat the bad guys, you say more guns, which leads to more firearms in the hands of the bad guys. Your circular logic is not working. Your reasoning is like the logic of the arms race during the cold war. The only difference is innocent children are being killed and being killed everyday.
    Its quite apparent that the strategy of letting the NRA and gun manufacturers dictate gun control policy in this country is not working.

    As to your other point of knives and bombs being used I only have to reply by asking:
    How many bombings occurred in the u.s. this year? How about last year?
    How many children were killed during that stabbing rampage in China?
  • #121
    !
    Agreed, Im tired of almost every issue being guns,and on the shooting . Are they useing this as a smoke screen? There are other important issues that need discussed.
  • #38
    !
    Limiting the power of the federal government to subjugate the populace is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and nothing in it restricts the use of arms consistent with maintaining proficiency consistent with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What we do with guns is the subject of existing criminal law, but having them is not. Arguments against the 2nd Amendment based on recreational use of arms and the futility of home defense are deflections. Under the 2nd Amendment, owning and using guns is not simply permitted, but is presumed; local, even federal, laws and regulations cannot lawfully infringe on it. The 2nd Amendment is always susceptible to tyrants, but is vulnerable if too many of us are ignorant of its purpose.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_re...
  • #52
    !
    @martydotcom if you compare the British version of the militia,being as the longbow was superior to the weapons of the time then by those standards we should be able to have at our disposal the most modern of weaponry?
  • #119
    !
    Four states - Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont - allow concealed carry of guns without any permit.

    AND THAT A GOOD THING!!!
    ANTI GUN PEOPLE , ARE OF THE IDEALS OF "ONLY ALLOW CRIMINALS TO HAVE GUNS"
    MY THOUGHT IS THIS "CRIMINALS DO NOT LIKE ARMED VICTIMS"
  • #88
    !
    It may be controversial but the people of the states have the right to decide, at the state level, on their laws. So if the writer is calling this "crazy" and I take it he is, what are you suggesting? A Federal police force come in and make a one size fits all law overriding state soveriegnty? You should go back and read the constitution, I know how bad you Libs hate that word and that document!
  • #79
    !
    Vermont is ranked the safest state in the country, so maybe making it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain guns is not a bad idea. The only people that follow gun laws are law abiding citizens. The criminals will get them anyway, so who would you rather have them.

    &fe ature=share
  • #73
    !
    All I know is if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had a gun strapped to his hip and some guy came in the bank to rob it, when the Po-Po showed up there would be a bad guy laying on the floor.
    Yes maybe a good guy too, for a while. But people would stop wanting to risk dying for the chance to rob a bank.
    I agree with open carry, I realize for a short while some good people may die, but I for one, am willing to roll those dice in order to take back our streets and towns.
    I can see the bad guy now trying to rob a cashier, when he turns around and see's 20 guns pointed at his chest. He will first wet his pants, then he either gives up, or die's, totally his call.
  • #69
    !
    well if laws stopped crime, then we should be safer now than ever before. with all the thousands and thousands of laws, they have passed in the last sixty years. but the fact is no amount of laws, makes any society safer. and we are less safe today, than we were 60 years ago. they used to operate with one lawman per 10,000 people. now we have like i lawman per 100. and we are less safe now, than 60 years ago. so obviously we are fooling ourselves, with the law. as to what the real problem, with our society actually is.
  • #5
    !
    actually every American has the constitutional right to conceal carry without explaining anything to the gov't. Here is where logic leaves the plantation. Instead of pointing out that these states have lower crime rates than New York or California, the writer feigns confusion at how this could be allowed.
  • #7
    !
    The Constitution protects the right to bear arms but I see nothing in it that says you have a right to hide them on your person.
  • #12
    !
    @Dan_Tien if you have the right to keep them and bear them, that doesn't mean you have the right to go home and get them out of your gunsafe. It is worse to carry them visibly because that provides intimidation.
  • #13
    !
    @Dan_Tien That is why gun ownership is a crime deterrent. Most criminals are cowards looking for a victim not a fight. In places like Alaska where virtually everyone has a gun, you seldom hear of home invasions. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, they understand that they don't want to get shot.
  • #15
    !
    @Calfkiller An intimidating appearance is an effective deterrent to attack. It is one of the reasons that uniformed police officers wear their side arms in plain view, although they often have a backup weapon concealed as well. You are extrapolating from the right to bear arms a right to conceal them, but that is not stated in the Constitution.
  • #18
    !
    @Dan_Tien you are splitting hairs. Police officers are assumed to be armed. Some jackass with an NRA t-shirt and a 44.magnum half the length of his leg bitching at the cashier is a different story. You have to have a badge to carry visibly. In my state atleast. Although it would get you a bit more respect from some knuckle dragging cop if you did have ten pounds of stainless strapped to your belt. But who said it was limited to pistols? Why can't I carry my AK-47with me the next time I go Christmas shopping at Wally world? probably wouldn't have any old ladies running their cart up my calves trying to get the last fruitcake.
  • R Load more replies

  • #122
    !
    The Castle doctrines I can understand. If I was endanger, Id do whatever I can to get out of danger if it means fight back or kill my attacker. The other two.... a little dumb
  • #120
    !
    Most police departments aren't under a duty to protect you. Everyone has the right to defend home and family. Nobody's happy about this - we need better ways of finding these nuts earlier - maybe everyone needs a once a year physical (more money for Obama"care"
  • #117
    !
    I am all for the 2nd Amendment. Where is the spotlight on mental health issues and what could have caused this guy to do this?..
  • #116
    !
    I disagree with allowing a minor child (16 year old) from carrying a concealed weapon, but my home is my home. If someone breaks in and threatens my family, why do I have to surrender my home to them. The Castle Doctrine is the right idea. If the Chinese invade the US do we just surrender the country and walk away. Not likely. Well, my home is my home. The invader has no right to my home or any right to enter my home. I guarantee you no cop would surrender his home to an invader, why should I.
  • #110
    !
    I don't condone sixteen year olds carrying concealed weapons, but I do believe we have the right to use deadly force against an intruder into our own home, and I don't understand why I can't keep a gun in my car, whether I'm parked on company premises, or a public parking lot, or wherever. My house is my castle, but so is my car.
  • #108
    !
    I am absolutely in favor of concealed carry with a license. I am also in favor of the castle doctrine. There is no reason that you should have to hide in a back room while someone ransacks the rest of your home or break into your vehicles and out buildings. Now, what is so controversial about that? Anyone who will not do what is necessary to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property is at the mercy of any criminal who would do them harm. Remember...when danger is seconds away, the police are minutes away....at best.
  • #106
    !
    I wonder if Dylan Matthews finds laws permitting idiots, morons and retards to posses and use word processors and computers without adult supervision to be crazy?

    The eyebrow raising aspect of his discovery comes from HIS lack of knowledge and intellect.

    Vermont like all other states allow 16 year olds to own posses and operate something hundreds of times more dangerous... CARS, which by the way Dylan are NOT considered a “Right to Keep and Bear” by ANY State.

    Castle Doctrine is “Crazy”? It's OK for someone to enter YOUR HOME and do as they wish? Dylan, THAT isn't crazy... it's fucking STUPID and my guess is that were you actually faced with the situation FOR REAL you would concur.
  • #92
    !
    No one walks into the NRA or a gun show to start shooting, they choose "soft targets" like malls, theaters, schools. There's a reason for that.
  • R Load more comments...
Post