Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah
You're the guy who suggested "victims" might be well served with their own firearms.

In the interest of clearing up some misconception, I'd like you to cite the post where I said that.

As for defending the Second Amendment, show me where I have not.

As for 'victims', I see firearms as a means of preventing one from joining their ranks. While that does not stop good, honest, people from becoming victims through the criminal use of firearms, it does level the playing field somewhat. If this six foot, two hundred pound 'child' was harassing or even terrorizing someone, then he placed himself in harm's way. While I cannot argue (in absence of the facts) that the punishment is in any way appropriate for the crime, the fact remains that if the 'child' had not been there, he would not have been killed.

Certain legal constraints have been applied to the use of deadly force, at a minimum, these should be observed. Consider them Rules of Engagement.

As others have pointed out (and I agree), just because the legal parameters are met, there is not necessarily sufficient moral cause to use lethal force. Beyond the legalities, moral or other issues may apply, depending on the individuals involved.

This in no way abrogates the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, merely urges the responsible use of those arms.

As for Christianty being a founding force in the formation of this nation, the fact is pretty obvious when one considers that several colonies were founded to escape religious persecution, by Catholic and Protestant denominations alike. The Magna Carta and English (pre- and post-Anglican)Common Law were definite factors in the attitude of the Founders toward individual rights, even though those rights were not conferred on everyone equally.

511 posted on 11/02/2003 5:12:28 PM PST by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies ]


To: Smokin' Joe
Your post #507 contains this paragraph: "In literally millions more instances each year, firearms are used in self defense, more often than not without requiring a shot to be fired. The mere presence of the firearm in the hands of the potential victim is sufficient deterrent."

You might not consider the "kid" a "potential victim", although he was (because it's quite clear he became a "victim"). If he'd had a firearm, as you suggest, would that have prevented his assailant from firing on him?

In a few days we will hear more about this case.

512 posted on 11/02/2003 5:20:56 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]

To: Smokin' Joe
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGASJGPNJMD.html

We didn't have to wait a few days. Here's the article about the coroner reporting, FUR SHUR, that the kid was SHOT IN THE BACK.

Whole 'nuther story. Guy's going to have to prove some stuff he's not likely to be able to prove.

God have mercy on his soul.

513 posted on 11/02/2003 5:48:51 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson