Atleast the Court has a tad bit of common sense left.

The anti-gun people are screaming about the ruling and glad to hear it, they have that right....

Here is something to think about.
Washington DC has had a ban on guns for the past 32 years.
They lead the nation in murder rate by guns!
They have had over 8,000 murders in the past 30 years.

The only thing you control in the gun battle is the gov't.
Thank god, we still clling to our guns and god.
So lets go pray and shoot up the town!




“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

with such evidence, I wonder why people still want gun control. Are they A.stupid or B.evil? Its one or the other, there is no option C.

Score one for the Constitution. Nice to see the Supreme Court do the right thing for once.

I am one of those gun glinging americans and proud of it

I'm pretty indifferent to gun control outside of assault rifles. However, you guys do understand the difference between correlation and causality, right? A law banning guns in a relatively small geographic area is not going to prevent the influx of weapons from surrounding areas. This would have to be done on a national level for any significant effect to be observed. There's just too many weapons out there right now for any local bans to be productive. Bans are not the answer to our violent crime problem, but this is not a valid criticism of their effect. So Homey, it is more complicated that you assume.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

Just remember the 2nd makes all the rest happen.

The only people that harmed in gun control, would be the average citizen.

Here in good ol' cincy, we have ateast 1 ambush a week.
They kick in your doors and ambush you.

So how are you to protect your family?
A loaded clip in the gun, ready to use.
No safety features, no stupid laws preventing the citizen to truly defend himself, and no stupid laws forcing the citizen to try and flee his own home.

Those laws are stupid and uselss.
So 3 guys kick in your door in the mid of night, and you are to run to the other room and get a key to unlock your gun?
lol!

No, fully loaded mag and the right to defend at all cost....that is the only way!

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

"A law banning guns in a relatively small geographic area is not going to prevent the influx of weapons from surrounding areas."

Sorry BA, we live in a world community. Crack is banned nationwide, look how successful that is.

But it doesn't matter.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment says what the court says it says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Whether you capitalize the P in "people" or not, but esp. if you do as in the states' version, then the "Militia" and the "People" are one in the same.

Which means it says that in order to secure a free state, a militia that is armed, is necessary. And since militias in the 18th C were comprised of "the people" that's where it was important for "the people" to keep and bear arms so as part of that militia, the militia would have arms.

All that said, however doesn't change the fact that in today's world criminals have guns and the gun laws only seem to keep guns out of the hands of non-criminals.

What I think is necessary is a Constitutional Amendment rather than some cockamammie stretching of what the Constitution actually says. But then again, we have many of the people who cheer yesterday's Supreme Court decision to "stretch" the Constitution one way crying "foul" about the court's "stretching" of the Constitutional language in other cases...such as abortion.

Which all means that so long as there are human beings on the court, politics/ideology enters its decisions. We've all agreed to live with that. So be it. Note however the court left it wide open to continue to define and redefine what an "arm" is. So there is plenty of room in yesterday's interpretation to still outlaw certain kinds of "arms." Even though the Constitution makes no such distinction.

SWAMP

good ole thomas jefferson has alot to say on it:

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homocides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

(and off topic:)
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

----------------

.."The DC gun was also struck down today. The first substantive SC ruling on the 2nd A in quite some time. A victory for those of us that think "...the Right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed" meant that the people have that right."

I don't have any feeling about the policy of gun ownership, don't really care. From the Constitutional analysis though, if you leave out the well regulated Militia and only view the "Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed as important, the later part--"shall not be infringed," is absolute. That means if I get my hands on a suitcase nuke, my right to bear it shall not be infringed by the gov't. How many people on here think the 2nd amendment allows that?? If you say it does not, then obviously you do not believe that the "shall not be infringed" part is valid. I think its either an abosulte right, for all arms, or its not.

I just like that it took place right now.
Obama is a gun hater and he will put the most liberal judges on the bench and liberals are not big fans of gun rights.

Here is the deal, I have a right to bear arms and protect myself from criminals and gov't.

The second adm. gives you the freedom to protect yourself.

This not abortion or health care....it is flat out the most important adm. in the document.

When this rule is changed, if ever, the game is over!

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

..If you need to have the right to keep and bear arms to protect against the gov't, and the gov't has tanks, and nukes, then in order to defend yourself against a tyrannic gov't (like W's) then you need heavy weaponry, ie, nukes, tanks. Otherwise, just having a handgun really doesn't do much good. Soooo, I guess any crackpot, and god forbid Muslim-American, has the right to keep and bear nukes. Right???

"I just like that it took place right now.
Obama is a gun hater and he will put the most liberal judges on the bench and liberals are not big fans of gun rights."

Though you won't believe me on this one, this decision is GREAT for Obama. It quiets the NRA groups down now that they have their victory. Had this gone the other way, McCain could have rallied the NRA and gun-related groups into a huge problem in the fall for the Dems.

Having said that, Obama has always maintained gun ownership was an individual right derived from the consitution.

Regardless, I couldnt be more pleased with how this will play out politically.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Dacow, if they ban guns, do you believe gun violence will go down?

Also, you can have a successful guerrilla warefare campaign with just guns. At least you can take a couple out before they come for 'ya.

Normal wins again!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374223,00.html

....Dacow, if they ban guns, do you believe gun violence will go down?"

No I don't. Whether you SHOULD be able to own and possess a gun in your home for self defense is not the same as whether you have a constitutional right to do so. When the Supremes struck this law down, as in every successful constitutional challange, they went against the will of the people. The majority. Reading the second amendment, I think its clear that at least one of the purposes of the guaranteed right was to protect the public from the Federal gov't and its "standing army.' In that regard the Amendment makes clear that the right to be so armed cannot be infringed. It does not say abolished, its says infringed. Requiring a license is an infringment on a right. Being disqualified by felony status is an infringment on a right. THat choice of words is extremely protective. Literally any gov't action affecting one's ability to keep and bear arms runs against this protection.

SO once again, I ask, does Joe Citizen have a right to biological weapons, chemical weapons and nukes? After all, our Federal gov't has them, and if they become tyrannical, we have no way to defend ourselves against such a force without these arms. Thats what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. Murf, are you willing to go there??

One analysis of this right was to keep a milita "of the people" armed and ready to go, against all foes, foreign and domestic. In other words, as long as the arms were for that right they are protected, if they are for something else, ie. self-defense, hunting, etc, they are not. I don't know how one gets around the well regulated militia aspect of the Constitution when protecting handguns, and by the same token keeping nukes and chemical weapons out of the hands of citizens, if one really wants to be true to the language and purpose of the Amendment. Did the framers mean to say that we can protect ourselves from the Fed gov't with arms; however, we are not allowed to have good ones?? We have to give the Feds the advantage?? I can see Murf now holding fort against Obama's military--him with his pistol vs. tanks, nukes, and chemical weapons. Applying the 2nd amendment the way it was intended in the 21st Century is a hard pill to swallow. Saying it protects the right of a homeowner to have a hndgun, while preventing the citizens from possessing weapons to defend themselves from the military is perverting the Constitution.

Whether you should be able to keep and bear a handgun, is an argument for the legislature, and you would get no argument from me either way.

Exactly dacow. AND Gee do think a criminal is gonna give you enough time to find your gun to kill him in the middle of the night? Gun owners are just over compensating for a small penis and/or their insecure about their manhood.

Nice one Dunn, thats about as lame as the 'homophobes are insecure about their sexuality' argument.

Homey:

You really think it is OK to shoot unarmed men in the back because you "suspect" they are burglarizing, not even yourself, but your neighbor?

There is no claim to self-defense here. That is just a wacko with a shotgun who seems like he may have been waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone.

Don't you see the possibilities of killing innocent people that are mistaken as robbers? Vigilant justice only works in comic books and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle cartoons.

Remember that guy in Ft. Thomas that ran out of his house and shot someone that was stealing his car? I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you think he is some kind of hero, even though the person stealing his car turned out to be only 15 years old and was killed in the incident. The guy that shot him even admitted he regretted it and is haunted by the fact that he wasted a 15 year old, and for what?

That's what car and home insurance are for. The guy had car insurance and would have not lost a cent if they kid had got away (besides that they guy left his car running in his driveway to warm up while he went inside, kind of an inviting scenario for would be car thieves). Instead someone's child is now dead and the guy F'd up his own vehicle and so had to pay for the damages himself.

Either way, shooting unarmed men in the back is cowardly unless they are getting away with something irreplaceable (your child, government secrets, something like that), and shooting children is like hunting fawns or bear cubs for sport.

also, dacow, i think you are using a broad definition of the word arms to make a bad argument about the constitution. we can safely assume that the founders meant fire-arms not nuclear-arms.

Keep in mind it is legal in Texas to use deadly force to protect property. T

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

Well, draw, it is if you have reasonable fear of harm being done to you or (weirdly), if someone is burgalrizing your neighbor's property and they asked you to watch it (I give this law less than 20 years before its struck down now that this case publicized this archaic and barbaric law)

Also, CNN is a slightly different take on it

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/burglary.shooting.ap/index.html

Look at what this cowboy told the 911 operator before he carried out some justice...OMG

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

True, but that is the law in Texas in right now. The grand jury did not think there was enough evidence, despite the 911 call and his admission to the facts, to bind him over for trial.

Personally I conragulate the guy. I would love to have him as my neighbor.

I am stealing this from Ron White, but it is completely true. In Texas there is a bill pending that would limit you to one appeal on death penalty cases if there is three independent eyewitnesses who testify to guilt. While some states are trying to get rid of the death penalty, Texas is putting in an express lane.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"AND Gee do think a criminal is gonna give you enough time to find your gun to kill him in the middle of the night? Gun owners are just over compensating for a small penis and/or their insecure about their manhood. "


NOPE. I'll be prepared. As soon as you "cross the plain", Dunn---errrrrr criminal, I'm plugging your azz. Plain and simple. And if someone does cross the plain of your door, you do the right thing--YOU PLUG HIS AZZ. You do it right too--you kill the dickweed. There's no defense from the dead. Buh-bye. You don't deserve to be on my planet. And I won't lose a night's sleep over plugging you either. In fact, I'll sleep better knowing that your public threatening azz isn't out there buglarizing someone else's home.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Wow...I agree with Falc.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"I am stealing this from Ron White, but it is completely true. In Texas there is a bill pending that would limit you to one appeal on death penalty cases if there is three independent eyewitnesses who testify to guilt. While some states are trying to get rid of the death penalty, Texas is putting in an express lane."

Unfortunately, the most common factor in wrongful convictions is eyewitness testimony.

I think cross-racial eyewitness testimony is worthless (and has been proven to be notoriously unreliable). However, if the eyewitness testimony revolves around people the witnesses knew, I would support it more. Regardless, I think the Supremes would view this as a shortcut to the electric chair (and an infringement on due process) rather than a less convuluted way to speed through appeals.

Throw in some DNA evidence and murder weapon and they will likely have more success, but leaving it alone with eyewitness testimony is not only uninformed legislation, its also pretty stupid.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

...also, dacow, i think you are using a broad definition of the word arms to make a bad argument about the constitution. we can safely assume that the founders meant fire-arms not nuclear-arms."


Certainly we can assume they didn't mean nuclear arms because they couldn't fathom same. The question really deals with the purpose of the arms. They felt it necessary to introduce the need for the 2nd amendment as "a well regulated militia,being necessary for a free state" and that need was in part to protect from the Federal gov't. Therefore it seems that only weapons that protect that right are constitutionally protected. Logical?? I think so.

Look the framers didn't say, "well, you can have a slingshot, but not a musket. Only the feds are allowed muskets." Or as part of your local militia, "no cannons." Nope, thats not how it worked. They got equal footing with the Feds and that right could not be infringed, its a matter of protecting us from the Big Bad Feds.

Sooooo, if you accept the premise that protection from the Feds was a designated intent of the 2nd Amendment, it seems logical that ownership of a handgun would not get protection and a surface to air missile would. After all, if you were orgainizing a local militia to protect Butler County from the Feds, what do you want, a handgun or tanks, missiles, etc?

I am not saying that I don't support the right of gun ownwership, and I probably would vote to support that right. I just am not sure the 2nd amendment gives that. I have a really hard time understanding how it does not protect more serious weaponry. Scary.

If they would have said, "the right to be protected in ones home being absolute, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," then that would have been too easy, wouldn't it??

I am one of the most ardent 2nd A supporters around and even I do not think the right is absolute.

I have heard the theory that we should be armed as the avergage foot soldier (M-16), but not anti-tank weapons or grenades. No right in the Constitution is absolute and I think there is excellent case law to support this.

However it should be equally obvious that you cannot regulate something so much as to destroy it, like D.C.

The 2nd A is a right to the people, regardless of the prefatory clause. There are 3 other rights in the the Bill of Rights that are specifically granted to the people and it is impossible to read it any other way.

People think that because of our superior military power that it is a foregone conclusion the military could impose its will on the citizens armed or not. I think that armed U.S. citizens would be terrific guerilla fighters. It would be a huge factor in what the military does.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

..I have heard the theory that we should be armed as the avergage foot soldier (M-16), but not anti-tank weapons or grenades."

That would seem consisitent with the 2nd amendmentor at least answers the premise that I put forth. That is assuming that we all agree that a well regulated milita is still a necessity. Casue if it is not, then does the right still exist??

"A well regulated militia, being nescessary for the security of a free state"

I would propose that it is always nescessary for the security of a free state as long as we have humans in power.

There are 10 types of people in this world, those who undertsand binary, and those who do not.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

"I am not saying that I don't support the right of gun ownwership, and I probably would vote to support that right. I just am not sure the 2nd amendment gives that. I have a really hard time understanding how it does not protect more serious weaponry. Scary."


Come'on. Dude, you can say this same thing about the 1st Amendment. Like for instance yelling fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bom-bom-bomb). Even talk about assassinating some people (forget names--I'm not throwing up a red flag). Same thing applies here. There are somethings you can do--like say own a handgun or even an AK or AR (IMO). Nuclear Weapontry? Come'on. No really. Come'on.

Your argument is ridiculous, Cow. You usually have a good head on your shoulders. What happened here?





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

"Ludicrous Liberal Logic.

Come'on. Dude, you can say this same thing about the 1st Amendment. Like for instance yelling fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bom-bom-bomb)."oldschoolerfag

..."You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."~John McCain

....is not what I think people's rights should be its what the Constitution grants. Clearly, most people would read into the 2nd amendment the fact that its premised on the fact that a well regulated militia secures freedom and THATS WHY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The debate then becomes whats the militia for. If its to protect against the Feds, don't you have a right to be equally armed?? Obviously, most (hopefully all) don't want nuclear weapon bearing neighbors. But, you can't determine what the 2nd Amendment guarantees based upon what you think the rights SHOULD BE, instead it has to be based upon the meaning of the words in the Amendment.

Seems to me those words don't really work so well in the 21st century unless of course you ignore the words.

"Come'on. Dude, you can say this same thing about the 1st Amendment. Like for instance yelling fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bom-bom-bomb). Even talk about assassinating some people (forget names--I'm not throwing up a red flag). Same thing applies here. There are somethings you can do--like say own a handgun or even an AK or AR (IMO). Nuclear Weapontry? Come'on. No really. Come'on."

Not to be nit-picky, but those examples you set forth regarding the first amendment (yelling bomb and publicly stating you want to kill politicians) has been dealt by the Supreme Court on precisely those issues. The ones Dacow brought up have not been addressed.

"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

Remember that guy in Ft. Thomas that ran out of his house and shot someone that was stealing his car? I'm sure you do, and I'm sure you think he is some kind of hero, even though the person stealing his car turned out to be only 15 years old and was killed in the incident. The guy that shot him even admitted he regretted it and is haunted by the fact that he wasted a 15 year old, and for what?
~~~~~~~~~~

This a typical liberal response!
If the poor little innocent 15 year old, would have been doing something normal, instead of stealing a car that somone worked hard to pay for, he would have never been shot.
Stop trying to blame the victims!
Criminals are useless human beings.
If you are too fuching lazy to go to work and buy your own damn car and you would rather steal a car, then you deserve to get shot!

The question was asked earlier, if you think shooting someone in the back in your own home was right.......
Yes, I do! 100% without a doubt.
You enter a home to steal/rape or kill, then you deserve to die if the home owner fires that weapon.
You have no right to enter that home.....
What are you supposed to do if you wake and find someone in your house?
Call Dr. Phil and work the mental problems of the criminal?
Hell no, shoot just below the throat and keep shooitng untill he is not moving.

Once again, I have no sympathy for anyone stealing or breaking into a home.
That is a scum bag and needs to be in prison or terminated!

God Bless America and the right to protect what is mine!

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

So Murph, you never did anything when you were between the ages of 12 and 25 that misinterpreted could have gotten you shot? I didn't realize you were such an angel.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

..yes I do....

Actually what if the 15 yo was just gonna go joy riding around the block as a dare from his girlfriend and ended up dead?? Kinda harsh penalty for fuggin around. You know, a prank, joke. Its why we have laws that don't allow you to use such force. The debate continues.

What if the 15 year old was gonna steal the car and never give it back? This is like Sam Kinnison....

come here come here come here... murph.... yeah...murph this is a kid...yep a kid... KIDS DO STUPID THIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGS.... KIDDDDSSSS ARE STUUUUPPPPIIIIDDDDD..... o.k... murph..what is this??? that's right..that is a car....CAAAARRRSS ARE POSESSSSIONNNNSSSS.... POSESSIONNSSS CAN BE REPLLLLAAAACCEDD.... DON'T KILL A CHILD OVER A POSSSSEESSSSSIOOOONNNNNNN.....

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

What is more valuable? The douchbag killer's Olds Cutlass or the life of a stupid 15 year old kid?

Life is worth more than property.

The funny thing is that the people who normally advocate the shooter's rights in these cases also advocate pro-life in the abortion arena (and are normally pro-death penalty)

They believe life is precious except when someone steals a ho-ho out of your fridge and you plug them in the back as they are leaving through the front door.

With the exception of the back-asswards state of Texas, using deadly force to kill someone when you defend property is and always will be ridiculous.

By the way, no one is saying you cant kill someone if they are coming toward you and threatening you (we all agree with that one), but you cant kill people when they are leaving your house, with their backs behind you or when they are driving in your bucket of bolts cruising down the street.

Just because you get mad because someone stole your sh!t doesnt mean you can end their life. That is vigilantiasm and the PUNISHMENT DOES NOT MATCH THE CRIME.





"The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis."

.

No, never did anything like "steal a car" for some puszy!
Any normal girlfriend, would not condone you to steal a car!
Stop making excuses for useless people.

when I was 12-15, I would maybe walk thru a yard or maybe even spray paint something....no I did not steal a car.

Why are you making an excuse for a piece of sh!t that does not deserve to live?
If you work your azz off to buy a car that you like and you are scraping to make ends meet to pay for that car and some useless waste of good air, decides that he wants to joy ride or scrap the car, what are you to do?
Pray for him and just go another car?
Fuch no!
You shoot the son of b!tch and eliminate another criminal off of the streets!
Fuch the ecuses, fuch the criminal....get a fuching job and stop sucking on my tit!

you break into my house, you die, if I do my job!
I don't give a fuch about your excuses....stay the fuch away form my property and my family!

The 15 year old got what he asked for!


“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

What if it was your kid

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

If you think a young teen deserves to die for stealing a car you are nuts. Maybe he deserves to get roughed up and sent to jail, but die? Come on.

"Get a clue jack azz! Stop reading your history books" - quote from "Murf's Guide to Survivin' in Da Hood"

I am not saying that he DESERVES to die for stealing a car, I am saying that he got what he asked for when he decided to be a piece of sh!t.

That home owner did not wake up and decide to kill anyone, he was protecting his property and during that action, the kid got shot, so he asked for it by trying to steal that property.
If he would have been in bed, like a normal 15 year old, he would still be living.
He made the choice....he picked the wrong car to jack.


I work too hard to just allow people to steal my sh!t.
If my car got jacked, I have insr. to pay for the car, Yes, but what about everything in it?
What about the hassle of having to replace everything in it?

The criminal is at fault here, not the home owner.

Someone asked...what if it was my kid!
I hope I raised my child better.....very key to society.
Raise your kids and teach them that stealing a car is wrong.
That lady did not even care that her child was out all hours of the night, she told him to be home before school started or something crazy along those lines.
She failed that kid and she should face charges for being useless mother.



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

The problem is that our society has decided that teenagers are not intelligent enough to make rational decisions and that their improper actions should go relatively unpunished in most (not all) states. The juvenile detention system is a joke which allows repeat offenders to be back on the streets in a matter of days for the most part.

With little or no real punishment and the knowledge that their juvie record will disappear, teen criminals are offered more protection than the Bald Eagle. The rap sheets of some teens on the streets is staggering yet there they are, back on the streets and momma is at home watching TV. They can drop out of school in the 9th grade and nobody does anything. No punishment for the most part.

Did he deserve to die? No. Did he deserved to be PUBLICALLY punished (caining, whipping, stockade)? Yes. Of course this will never happen. We have decided as a society that all teen crimes are a result of poor upbringing so teen criminals get away with everything except murder and attempted murder.

Meanwhile, bad parents continue to receiver government assistance and are rarely if ever held accountable for their child's actions. Only middle class and wealthy parents are punished thru the civil court system.

The kid did something stupid and died. Plenty of kids do stupid stuff and die. When you decide to do something stupid, BAD THINGS can happen. BTW, don't ever try and steal something from a farm. Farmers have big dogs and large shotguns. Go after the soccer moms.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

Kids in our area used to get shot by farmers with Salt.

SF2, when you talk about kids getting off so easily are you referring to the 12and 13 year olds that are being tried as adults? You talk about how easy these kids have it, if they do something really serious they are tried as adults.

A long time ago I was actually a Texas probation officer... (does that tweek your brain Murph?) I also worked with the locked up kids in New Mexico... I'll tell you, most kids don't have it easy. Probation is difficult, lock up really really sucks. It is a far from perfect system, but kids get penalized for their activities. The real problem in my mind is that the kids are not provided with any kind of avenue whatsoever to get out of bad situations. There is no safe place provided for them when they get out, they are not given additional choices for their lives... what is that old saying...what is the definition of insanity????

Yes SF2 bad parenting is a real problem, most(not all) of these kids are just doing what they were taught. Their parents either don't give a crud, or they are both working, or mom and dad got divorced when they were 5 and nobody has wanted to risk being the bad guy since (cause who wants to be the mean parent in a divorce situation). On the other hand, there are also good kids with good parents that go through a brainless stage where they are trying to become an adult and they miss a few of the finer points of making good decisions for a little while in between.

Yes kids deserve to be punished, and if a kid was in someone's house and the owner felt threatened I can I see using deadly force. But someone running away, or stealing something from outside.... there are better alternatives.

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

and that's just it Belko.

No one on this board is saying you cant protect you and your family when you feel threatened.

However, if someone is leaving your house, with their back to you or they are taking your car (a material possession), you cant and shouldnt be able to kill them BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEADLY THREAT TO YOU.

Peop