Supreme Court rules 5-4 for gun rights.

Update: Opinion here.

Obama answered the question the way he knew would bring him the most votes.

Ask yourself this....of the 5 justices who voted to ban the death penalty for child rapers...how many were liberals?

What kind of justices is Obama going to appoint? (yes, we can pretend argue about that but, his leftism is well documented and to argue would only be an excercise in ideological deflection)So, whetehr he answered a question “correctly” or not, his own mindset is responsible for the justices he supposedly disagrees with and it’s exactly those caliber of justices that he will nominate if elected. In short, what he say today is irrelevant...except for when it comes to fooling voters.

Bill said…

“You are justified in using deadly force in self-defense only when presented with an threat of imminent physical injury or death”

Absolutely. If such a situation does not exist then, you have no business even brandishing a weapon, much less using it. If the scenerio DOES exist then, shoot to kill. Just tell the detectives it was a lucky shot.

Obama did not make the Mike Dukakis mistake.  As the father of two little girls, he answered this question the way every mother and father in this nation would respond—if they were being truly honest.  Of course, there are sure to be some who are so politically correct and spiritually evolved who wlll disagree with me.  But, I gotta tell ya’, I am a moderate Republican and Obama answered this one dead-on.  Pun intended.

I am very interested in hearing more of the facts of the case you’re describing.  Do you know exactly what your guy was charged with, and where (I’m assuming NoVa, since they tend to be pretty anti-gun up there)?

BTW, when using a firearm in self-defense, you’re NEVER “trying to kill” the aggressor.  You are trying to “stop the threat.” You are justified in using deadly force in self-defense only when presented with an threat of imminent physical injury or death.  Your use of force is in response to that threat, and thus is justified only to the extent necessary to stop that threat.  The bogus nonsense about “shooting to wound” or “shooting to kill” comes from Hollywood idiots.  You’re shooting to stop the threat presented by the person.  You might end up killing him; you might only wound him.  Either way, you have stopped the threat. 

You never say to the police “I was trying to kill the guy.” Remember your mantra: “I feared for my life and I was trying to stop him.” Period.

Anyhow, I would be interested in knowing more of the details of your story so I can understand why the guy was charged.

Thanks!

Well, your friend broke the cardinal rule of gun ownership. “Never Pull A Gun On Someone Unless You Are Going To Kill Them.”

If you wound someone, no matter how justified you were in shooting them, you will get sued and likely arrested as well because the criminal will lie and lie and lie about the circumstances and “advocates” will lie and lie and lie on their behalf.

You may ultimately be found not guilty criminally but you will likely lose in civil court and either way, you will lose thousands of dollars defending yourself.

Unless the only witnesses left are yourself and the person being robbed.

Bill,

1. No I actually know someone this happened to. On top of that, he never tried to kill the punk & indeed only gave ‘im a minor wounding and probably a second-thought about robbing someone else in the future. This man wound up only having to pay something like $100 fine (misdemeanor) but still he was totally in the right with what he did.

2. Yes, you’re right, a person under the dire circumstances I described would likely not get convicted of anything heavy (i.e. no felony), but still would be initially charged, questioned, harrassed, etc. Remember, we as citizens are strongly encouraged to “call the police” first—even if we have no means of calling the police!

3. I also believe that police should be able to use ‘on-the-spot’ firepower, without having to wonder..."Gee, will I get suspended?”. I still say its a great way to stop high-speed chases. But, we’re too considerate for that. Public safety comes 2nd. The rights of crooks comes 1st!

4. Relax, no one at Barticles is forcing me to post under anonymous. Just following a strong suggestion. Which is the same thing as being forced, really.

Anonymous, I’m not so sure you’re correct in your scenario.  I doubt you would automatically be charged as you suggest.  There is a common law defense of “justification” and “necessity,” which includes acting in defense of yourself and others.  The question is very facts-and-circumstances specific.  So it really depends on the detailed facts and circumstances of the case, but if you shoot the scumbag who was presenting an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to the clerk, you would have a darn good argument that your actions were justified based on the specific facts and circumstances.

By the way, who’s forcing you to post under “anonymous”?

Bill, Obama is all for executing child rapists (this week) but he don’t care so much for babies born “mistakenly”

This is from Micheal Gerson of the WaPo.

“In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion.”

So, rape ‘em = bad

Leave ‘em on the table for the cats to play with = progressive!

Bob,

Leftists don’t need guns. They exploit ignorance, envy, hate and greed by promising Utopia for believers and pay back for “enemies”. They deliver misery, food lines, ever increasing tyranny to prop themselves up and syringes that get used 14 times before they’re thrown away.

And an elite class of pampered “leaders”.

I guess I am an exception on the left in that I am for gun rights and ownership.  Perhaps I am indulging my paranoia but there are a lot of right wing nut jobs out there. I doubt if I am going to get shot over politics but there are nut jobs out there. Its just a basic right that people have to self defense.
Besides, how are Obama and I going to pull off a Commie=Anarcho revolution without weapons . LOL

People should amply protect themselves, yes, but that still isn’t enough.

Let’s say you are a legal gun owner & you walk into your favorite convenience store, only to find some fleabag waving a gun at the clerk. Can you ‘pop’ the moron to defend the clerk’s life? Not in Virginia…

...you yourself would get a slew of charges, including ‘discharging a firearm in a densely populated zone’ or something like that. (I knew someone this had happened to, under circumstances similar to what I’m describing).

I honestly believe that the ‘self-protection’ clause should be extended to make swiss cheese out of anybody who has ANYONE in imminent life-or-death danger. I’m talking total swiss cheese too.

But no, we’re too damn ‘considerate’ for that. And we prefer to over-think simple black & white situations.

The Court stated.
On examining the wording of the Amendment,the Court came to the conclusion that “ we find they guarantee the individual right to posess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” in other words “FOR SELF- DEFENSE.” “ The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendmentright,” it added.

“The individual right interpretation,” the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” As far back as 17th Century Eegland, and gun rights laws in the states before and immediatly after the Amendment was put into the US Constitution. Congress, by drafting the Amendment codified a pre-existing right, rather than fashioning a new one.

U.S. v Miller 1939

The opinion stated that: “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a through
examination of the Second Amendment.”

The ruling will be difficult to oppose where self-defense is concerned

Scalia-"future evaluation” about the strength of the right,"it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Sometimes the law is not an ass after all.....

Post Your Comments: