Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 51
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)Page 3 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
I gotta work. I could use the practice though. My recent qualification score was disappointing.

"The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, ‘is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.’ But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S." The network reports failed to explain those details.

I first heard of this on talk radio but was skeptical since it came from, well, talk radio. But sure enough the major networks have indeed spun this one.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/7/2009 7:28:58 AM

Did ya shoot 'em up today Limey? Was there talk there about the amendment?

Did about 4 hours on the rifle range, another 90 min of shooting clays & by the time I got to the pistol range I was about done after putting 200 rnds thru the M&P 40 :)

Most of the talk was about motorcycles, there were 7 of us there & we all ride Kaws.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 53
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/8/2009 2:40:40 PM
Go Montana, Utah and Texas are following suit but are taking it further

http://zealfortruth.org/2009/05/montana-defies-feds-on-guns-ammo-silencers-and-other-accessories/
 JBNimbell
Joined: 2/9/2009
Msg: 54
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/12/2009 4:57:30 PM
I used to support gun control, but I find my attitudes moving in the opposite direction on much of this stuff. First, people tend to forget that the founders of the country were armed revolutionaries. Common sense tells you that the second amendment is in the bill of rights because they saw the right to bear arms as a protection of the people against the federal government, not a right of the federal government to create the national guard. These guys thought that if government became too oppressive, the people should be able to overthrow it. The "militia" argument was never more than an argument, never accepted by the courts, that was formulated by big government advocates that wanted this country to be more peaceful and civilized. Like Europe. We must face reality. This is a violent country. It was MEANT to be violent. It was meant to NOT be Europe. Maybe the constitution should be amended. It's allowed. But using the courts to impose your will on people who disagree with you should be a last resort. Do it too often and you will rip this country apart. Gun control is a hot button issue. Especially for law enforcement folks who would like to be the only people allowed to carry weapons. But if you are really worried about accidental death and maimings, maybe you should focus your attention on auto accidents. There's a real tragedy.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 55
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/12/2009 6:40:27 PM

We must face reality. This is a violent country. It was MEANT to be violent. It was meant to NOT be Europe.


I'm not sure that it was meant to be violent. I believe that the Framers were more of the school that an armed society is a polite society.


... using the courts to impose your will on people who disagree with you should be a last resort.


Yep. But tell me, when the legislature won't protect your rights and the executive won't either, what's left? And even if your concern is for someone else, like say, your grandchildren whose lives could be ruined by a devastated environment, do their rights count or not?


Do it too often and you will rip this country apart.


You mean, because the people who have heretofore had no voice will eventually rise up in rebellion, or because the people who want to keep them silent will resort to violence to keep them down?


Gun control is a hot button issue. Especially for law enforcement folks who would like to be the only people allowed to carry weapons. But if you are really worried about accidental death and maimings, maybe you should focus your attention on auto accidents. There's a real tragedy.


This is very well said. That is why I focus on universal training as a positive solution to this controversy.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/12/2009 10:23:02 PM
Apparently a 15 year old kid was seen Sunday night with what looked like a gun.... was told to drop it by officers............ the boy then pointed the toy plastic gun at the officer . Cop shot him. The boy, rushed to the hospital survived a direct hit to the torso. This officer will not be charged with anything and (if) this happened to a homeowner inside his own home being confronted by the same teen the same would apply to the homeowner.....

This happened in the worse possible part of Crimedale, sorry, Palmdale. WTF is a 15yo kid doing playing cops & robbers?? It's a frigging wonder he didn't die is a fusilade of gunfire from the gangbangers.
As for the wound he did receieve: the bullet just winged him under the left arm.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 57
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/15/2009 3:08:34 AM
AvWrench

I was taught in a similar manner by a friend. I was told that if I pointed the pistol anywhere but downrange we would go home. Many years later I had an accidental discharge but thanks to the habits instilled in me the bullet went nowhere near anyone.

If I had my way everyone would learn to shoot and have at least a couple semesters of hand to hand in the public schools. "An armed society is a polite society"
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 58
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/15/2009 7:55:43 AM

If I had my way everyone would learn to shoot and have at least a couple semesters of hand to hand in the public schools. "An armed society is a polite society"


When it comes to hand-to-hand, I rather like the nonviolent approach of Aikido. It's a derivative of Judo with a twist. You don't use your opponent's enery against him. You just channel it to the ground. When someone winds up flat on her/his back wondering what the hell happened enough times, eventually they just get tired.

I don't think it's necessary to be a threat to one another to ensure politeness. People just have to know that aggression won't work.

And yes, it can be irritating to have to administer that lesson, but if everyone walks away unhurt and the lesson takes, it could be well worth the inconvenience.
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 59
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/16/2009 7:53:27 PM
I agree. Look at how many murders happen in Canada and the U.K.

It is NOT a victory.
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 60
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/16/2009 7:59:21 PM
Sorry! That was not clear what I agreed with. I posted a reply to this.

HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 4/20/2009 11:09:40 PM
I have no problem with the private ownership of firearms, so long as they are in the hands of those who belong to "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. " (the second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. This "militia" in modern times is the National Guard. Not yahoos who squawk that they need AK-47s to to hunt deer. )

You need a shotgun or a 9mm semi-auto to defend your house? Okay. But neither you nor any other citizen of this country NEEDS automatic weapons. If you feel some doubt about this, talk to the families of the 9 U.S. police officers gunned down by automatic weapons in the hands of the lunatic fringe in this last month
 sanddallor
Joined: 8/30/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/16/2009 10:31:51 PM
What a hot potater. I grew up around guns and served in the Marine Corps, but like Tom Hanks said after making "Saving Private Ryan," I'm glad I never had to point a gun at anybody with the intent of shooting!

On the up side, even if Japan had of invaded our mainland during WW2, they would've never gotten past the coastal states because for every soldier they could've put on shore, we could've put 10 or 20 armed citizens. On the otherhand, we are a culture of violence. I read some statistics a while back that said for that year thousands of under age kids were killed with guns while in Canada and Europe the number was neglible.

I'm a staunch believer in our right to keep and bear arms, but neither am I riding any bandwagons!
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 62
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/16/2009 10:39:24 PM

But neither you nor any other citizen of this country NEEDS automatic weapons. If you feel some doubt about this, talk to the families of the 9 U.S. police officers gunned down by automatic weapons in the hands of the lunatic fringe in this last month

You may want to look up just how impossible it is to buy ANY *automatic* weapon & while you're at it, look up what weapons were actually used against the cops in those shootings.
Here's a start: Don't bother looking at the lies on the Brady Campaign website..

& you can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws... it's... insane..
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 63
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/17/2009 12:13:46 PM
HeyJenny I suggest you go back and read this thread from the first post. Your assumption of the 2nd amendment is clearly way off base.


Right of resistance

A topic central[56] to the gun control debate, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfully rebel against unjust governments. This right was codified into law as far back as Article 61 of the 1215 version of the Magna Carta, which made it legal to arise in rebellion, and even went so far as to require that the King of England himself order the people unwilling to rise in rebellion against himself and his officials, to do so, when the council of barrons serving as a check on his power found cause for this extreme action.[57] This right was exercised within the Declaration of Independence.[58] During the Constitutional debates, Patrick Henry questioned how the people could resist tyrants if their arms had been taken from them.[59][60] Article 10 of New Hampshire Bill of Rights recognizes this right and refers to it as The Right of Revolution.[61]

The Founding Fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton, recognized a Lockean right of revolution. He offered the following commentary:

[...]if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[53]

An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.[62] Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was cited in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, which ruled the District of Columbia's ban on handguns to be a violation of the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, quoted Spooner as saying the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[63]
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 64
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/17/2009 12:51:39 PM
I will offer my other 2 cents, everything in the Bill of Rights is fundamentally geared towards protecting the right of the individual and their liberty, and in the end the the only way to do that is to be able to defend your self against a government that has gone out of control. The key question is when and at what point does the government become overreaching, some will say we are already there. I would say that when we have lost the other 9 rights granted by the bill of rights, what you have left is number 2. If you are wondering the intentions of the 2nd amendment just read what the founding fathers wrote, and understand the historical context of it.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 JBNimbell
Joined: 2/9/2009
Msg: 65
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/17/2009 2:43:48 PM
Ace, I thought that your points were well taken and thought provoking. I especially appreciated that we could disagree without being disagreeable.

JBN
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 66
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/18/2009 9:45:47 AM
Hey JB,

Thanks for that. I appreciate that as well.

Sometimes I think people get hot when they haven't been heard. I know that makes me want to keep after someone. There's a big difference between saying, "I heard you, I've thought about it, I still disagree, and here's why," and "you conservatives are so callous" or "you liberals are so deluded."

Nobody learns anything when you stick them in a box like that. I do my best to limit my derisive remarks about conservatives only to those who pride themselves on being closed-minded.

The tough cases are the ones who are closed-minded but don't realize it. Thats true of both Left and Right. Anyone got any suggestions on how to raise awareness with them?

I have a sense that the ones who are closed minded, know it, and don't care, eventually marginalize themselves. People tend not to like it when pushed to adopt ideas that clearly don't work.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 67
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/18/2009 9:54:12 AM
HeyJenny,

I don't like the idea of combat weapons lying around in residential neighborhoods either. Damned spooky. However, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with protection against individual criminals. It had to do with protecting citizens from a tyrannical government by ensuring that we have the means to effectively rebel at our disposal.

So, if it would take automatic weapons in the hands of a significant number of citizens, in order to deter a government blitz, then we need to have access to them. If that's what it would take to hold off such a blitz long enough for the soldiers to figure out who they really should be fighting, then we need to have access to them. Those scenarios are also damned spooky.

But what would be even more spooky is for the citizens to have them, not know how to use them, and have a government use that fact to justify a blitz to confiscate them. Ownership without training is both useless and dangerous. Anyone remember David Koresh and the Branch Davidians?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 68
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/19/2009 2:06:13 PM
Thanks, Jack!

The only thing I fault the NRA for is that stupid misleading slogan. You can kill a lot more people with guns than you can without them. The fact that guns are lethal is exactly why the government should have no monopoly on them.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 69
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 5/27/2009 4:28:01 PM
Matchlight I would like you legal take on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJgPuNAh60
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 70
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/10/2009 9:49:14 PM
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you... Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 71
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/12/2009 6:18:37 AM
Let me take this to the next level. A friend of mine worked for the Anti gun people back in the 80s and he had a copy of the Anti Gun manifesto. Now jump to 2009 and the FDA is taking over regulating tobacco. What doe this have to do with guns. Well the manifesto said that they new they could never abolish the 2nd amendment, so they would need to regulate it out of existence through taxes and such. So what does the FDA have to do with this? Well, there manifesto determined that most gun owners are smokers and if they could get the FDA to declare nicotine a controlled substance then they would have a start. Then the next step is to get regulations passed that say if you have ever been addicted to a controlled substance you can not own firearms. They knew it would take years to do, its 2o years later and they are getting exactly what they want. These back door tactics are working and the NRA is cowtowing to them. We are being sold down the river. The manifesto was published in, I believe a 1988 issue of Soldier of Fortune. SOF was sued for publishing it because they did not have permission, I am still trying to find a copy of that issue, I had a copy of it long ago.
I can just imagine the politicians listening to these people, "Well that sounds reasonable" reasonable people will ruin this country and what it means to be truly American.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 72
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/12/2009 8:27:59 AM
One thing a lot of people don't realize about the 2d Amendment is that, like all the rest of the Bill of Rights, it directly limits the federal government only. Various parts of the BOR (most of the Amendments contain several provisions) apply to the states because of Supreme Court decisions. The 14th Amendment of 1868, among other things, extended a couple important requirements of the U.S. Constitution to the states. One of these was due process of law, which the 5th Amendment had required of the U.S.

In 1886, the Court for the first time held that the 14th Amendment applied another provision of the BOR (the "Taking Clause" of that same 5th Am.) to the states. And from then into the 1970's, in one decision after another, it applied more of them through what's usually called the "doctrine of incorporation." Almost every provision in the BOR now applies to the states--but the Court's never held that the 2d Amendment does. Heller was a D.C. case, and D.C.'s not a state. So the decision affects federal gun control, but it doesn't prevent states from imposing their own restrictions.

There was a gun rights case in Chicago recently that may be very important. I don't know the details of it offhand, but it upheld an Illinois gun control law. If the Court decided to hear the appeal, it would be an opportunity to apply the 2d Amendment to the states. But who knows how they'd decide it? Maybe that depends on how much empathy Judge Sotomayor has for gun owners.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 73
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/12/2009 10:19:22 AM

Well, there manifesto determined that most gun owners are smokers and if they could get the FDA to declare nicotine a controlled substance then they would have a start. Then the next step is to get regulations passed that say if you have ever been addicted to a controlled substance you can not own firearms.


And here is where Nixon's War on Drugs comes full circle to bite Conservatives. This is a variant of the strategy to ban marijuana so that they could incarcerate the antiwar protesters who smoked it.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 74
view profile
History
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/12/2009 11:35:03 PM

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

Tony Martin has been out of jail for years...
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 75
HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)
Posted: 6/13/2009 1:52:12 AM
Why did he go to jail in the first place? It's not like he went out hunting. The force he used was reasonable under the circumstances. Is there a "necessity" defense in English law?

I heard a 911 tape of the guy in Texas who shot someone burgling his neighbor's house. He said, "I'm going to go kill me some burglars." In California, he'd have gone to jail.

Many people called him a hero, but after I heard that, I didn't agree. Taking glee in killing is not a heroic attitude.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > HUGE victory in California today for the rights of gun owners :)