+1. I bet many of these cases are tied to violations of firearms laws or just plain stupidity (shooting a guy for stealing your car port roof? Really?)
Using/possessing an illegal firearm for self defense doesn't/shouldn't protect you from prosecution on firearms charges. Neither should shooting someone for a bonehead reason. Know the law, break it at your own risk.
The cause may be just, but drivel "press releases" like this serve no good purpose...
Look at the source -- CCRKBA ranks about the lowest on the scale of the various pro-gun advocacy groups (IMO, at least). They have previously "cried Wolf!" when the facts did not support their conclusion. Usually, their handwringing press release is accompanied with an appeal for donations. Of course, the NRA is guilty of that, too, but their press releases are usually fact-based.
You guys's heads are in the sand...... What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" do you not understand??
How can anyone justify or think that it is Constitutional to charge a "tax" before their 2nd Amendment right can be exercised?? That's equivalent to thinking a permit & fee is required before you can speak openly in public.
Move along sheeple.....nothing here for you to see....
How can anyone justify or think that it is Constitutional to charge a "tax" before their 2nd Amendment right can be exercised?? That's equivalent to thinking a permit & fee is required before you can speak openly in public.
Move along sheeple.....nothing here for you to see....
I think these reasonable people, or "sheeple" as you prefer to call them, believe that much like every other right, the 2nd isn't an absolute in the same way that you can't claim your 1st Amendment right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
But I accept that absolutes are what you understand.
Michael Brown
The difference between the First Amendment and the Second is vast. In the First, it deals with the use of something (language), the Second does not cover use. The Second only covers keep and bear. You can keep and bear language just as innocently as you can keep and bear arms, but in the First you have 'freedom of speech' protected but have no 'right to free speech' protected. Otherwise, you could lie all you wanted without consequence. There is no prohibition in the Second Amendment limiting certain governments from governing how you can USE your arms. Ergo, your right to keep and bear is absolute as far as government is concerned.
A law that says you can't discharge arms in the middle of town except in self defense would be quite constitutional for local government(The Feral(Federal) government has no power to create such law in the Constitution except for the military, Washington DC, needful buildings, forts, and dockyards.)
Woody
A law that says you can't discharge arms in the middle of town except in self defense would be quite constitutional for local government(The Feral(Federal) government has no power to create such law in the Constitution except for the military, Washington DC, needful buildings, forts, and dockyards.)
Woody
Okie dokie. Your rambling response means about as much as the "press release" in the original post.
Is our 2nd Amendment right at risk? Yes. But junk press releases like the one in the OP actually hurt the cause.
There are "sheeple" on both sides of the issue. Those that believe everything they read and then regurgitate and parrot it without any independent research.
