Chuck Kuecker wrote:
>
> Would you deny someone who cannot use martial arts any defense? A person in
> a wheelchair, for instance? Someone with one arm in a cast?
Why must this always degenerate into extremes? I think for defenceless people I could make exceptions, but in general don't think guns are a good idea.
> In any case, once someone has forced entry to your private quarters, why
> should you have to even ask questions?
Just because someone has forced entry into your premises, why should you be allowed to kill them?
> This person is there illegally, or
> at least this should be the case. The fact that they are there at all
> should allow you to assume the worst of intents.
Sure, but not exact the worst punishment.
> Here in my county, I have heard tell of the sherriff's police advising
> citizens to be sure any intruder they shoot 'falls inside the house' so
> that the shooting is justifiable - even if this involves dragging that
> person a few feet. They don't want to charge someone who is defending
> themselves.
Yee har, what a country.
> One of the great travesties of our legal system is the way the victim has
> become the persecuted - criminals successfully suing because of injuries
> suffered in commission of crimes. Such suits (civil) would be rejected by
> any sensible person, but our judges and juries seem to think otherwise,
> when confronted by a cunning attorney.
This has nothing to do with gun ownership.
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and
wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....