A recent AP article discusses the increase in the number of states adopting Castle Doctrine laws and their effects. My take on the article is that it was biased against gun ownership and the use of justified deadly force. The argument from the soy swilling habitrail impresarios is that why would you kill someone for stealing a case of beer? My argument back to them is what is my life worth if someone will steal a case a beer and is willing to kill me in the process? I will assert that no one is under any obligation to retreat in defense of his life, liberty or property from anyone, including law enforcement and the government unless they have a legal warrant. I will go as far as to say eminent domain laws should be struck down as well, but that is another topic. A person's life, liberty and property are theirs, and theirs alone, and subject to the rights of self-determination within the limits of their natural rights and the natural rights of others. Rock on Mr. Singh and props to the NRA.
Thank you for reading this blog.
2 comments:
Taking lives is only justified if it's done to save another life. Since it is the basic right and liberty, it's a priority. You can't kill someone just because they were stealing your property without a threat to your life...
It depends. It depends on if there is a perceived threat, and if he is armed, that is prima facia evidence that he is a lethal threat. In the case of a store owner who went out and shot the guy who was unarmed, he should have gotten the plate # and called police. The criminal that was armed got his comeuppance.
Post a Comment