Thread: Take down the barbed wire, thieves might get hurt!

If a govt entity is going to let you be the victim they should at least be held liable for any loss, sadly these are the same people who will tell you that they are not responsible. The castle law is getting a workout in missouri right now, we used to have the law where they better be in the house threatening you , but theyve changed it. IMO once you enter anothers reidence you are fair game, as for the gardener in the UK, God help him, as for the moron in Conn., If I knew where he lived I would make it known and whoever wanted to take advantage of him, God bless. BTW, when I was a kid and you did something stupid it was all on you.

Originally Posted by nickyspaghetti

it does mean the criminal has one and you don't. It is just safer generally.

how is it safer for the criminal to be armed and you to be unarmed??? I just really don't understand.

here in Texas, if someone is on your property, and they are misbehaving, it is perfectly legal to shoot them dead. Also, interesting enough, Texas is the ONLY state where you can kill someone over property without being in fear for your life. (old cattle rustling laws that are still on the books.) Interesting enough, if you catch someone with a runnin' iron, you can still shoot them. (Now how many people know what one of those is today, eh?)

Does anyone actually carry a running iron any more these days?

The way I see it, your land is your land. If someone comes uninvited onto your land, you have the right to do what you will. If your government tells you that you cannot protect yourself in your own home, then is it really yours? I would say no.

Even in my apartment, if someone came barging in right now, I would be perfectly within reason to pull out one of my weapons and beat the daylights out of that person. They would get charged with breaking and entering, and I would be a hero for beating them down.

We have to protect ourselves. Last night I caught a bear going through my garbage cans. I wonder if I could protect myself in that case too? I don't know. if I shot the bear they would probably charge me with something too.Not that I would unless I had to defend myself.

Keep in mind that as you answer here, that regardless of the Criminal case outcome..... You will most likely, be brought into court on a Civil case (read $$$$), especially if you use anything other than a gun to protect yourself.....
I am saying in the US, I am not sure of other countries laws ....

Also in regards to the bear, puma, coyote, etc: the un-written rule is Shoot , Shovel, Shut up......

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

The way I see it, your land is your land. If someone comes uninvited onto your land, you have the right to do what you will. If your government tells you that you cannot protect yourself in your own home, then is it really yours? I would say no.

I think it depends on the context. Do you think you have the right to capture the mailman as he walks up to your porch to deliver your latest RAD acquisition and then kidnap him and force him to be your test shave subject?

And is there an age limit? Do I have the right to snatch up the neighbor's toddler who wandered over to my side of the sidewalk and then cook him for dinner?

I don't think we should expect government to protect such "rights" as those that I just made up out of thin air

I like that. Shoot,Shovel, Shut up.

Thirty years ago there were bumper stickers that said,"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". It sounds like an oversimplification but it is really the truth.

Take the National_Firearms Act introduced in the 1930s limiting the ownership of fully automatic weapons. To legally own one you had to apply to ATF to be checked out and pay a fairly large tax. Seems like every cocaine cowboy that made the news was carrying an Uzi or some such weapon. Nowadays these kids in gangs doing the drive by shootins have them and I am sure they are not registered with the ATF.

Or the Sullivan law in NYC circa 1911. It is very stringent and hasn't stopped gun violence in NY since it was passed. Don't get me wrong, I believe that gun laws are appropriate. I just wish they would enforce what they have before they write new ones.

To be honest I would give up my small collection of guns if I thought that they could get them all off of the street. Unfortunately here in the USA the gun culture is so deep and has been around so long that they could never get them all and the criminals would be armed at the honest citizens peril.

There was another old saying popular back then,"I would rather be tried by twelve then carried by six". End of rant.

A few years back a man fell through a skylight into the living room of the house he was in the process of breaking into. When the would be burglar hit the floor he broke his collar bone. The homeowner was sued and lost to the burglar. The homeowner was found to be at fault because he installed the skylight in his living room ceiling. Apparently the skylight presented "an attractive nuisance". If it wasn't there, the guy would not have been tempted to break into that house.

YIKES!!!!

Brad

The question in my mind is - 'Is there any way to resolve such things?'. As far as know the current legal system in most of the world provides an escalation of the trials. Is that prohibitively expensive?
I just don't think that the judicial system is well represented by the cited cases - they seem to be the fringe exceptions, not the rule.