• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws Be Federal Law [W18]

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Be Federal Law?

  • Yes, I should be protected under Federal Law to be a Man and defend me and mine.

    Votes: 14 70.0%

  • No, I'm a coward who should be made to run and hide.

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Goshin said:
Only by de special permission of de management. Since I am somma de management, I geeve you de special permission, dees one time-a. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! If not for Gipper's sig, I'd have never seen one of the funniest mod warnings EVAR... and my life would not have been enriched. I literally lol'd! :lol:

/derail

As to the topic, I might be in favor of federal protection such as a SYG law. Some jurisdictions have laws on the books that make the homeowner the perpetrator if the bad guy gets hurt while breaking into an occupied residence. That is wrong on so many levels...
 
notquiteright said:
He's new, sometimes ad hominem is the best response.... :peace
Click to expand...


Moderator's Warning:
Seriously, notquite, let's not get in the habit of quoting mod boxes, its a bad habit that could lead to 6a violations, mmmkay?
 
DiAnna said:
Thanks for that! If not for Gipper's sig, I'd have never seen one of the funniest mod warnings EVAR... and my life would not have been enriched. I literally lol'd! :lol:

/derail

As to the topic, I might be in favor of federal protection such as a SYG law. Some jurisdictions have laws on the books that make the homeowner the perpetrator if the bad guy gets hurt while breaking into an occupied residence. That is wrong on so many levels...
Click to expand...

First of all, I bow for the recognition.

Having said that, the only reason that I may be okay with it being federal as opposed to state is that some of the more liberal states can't be quite so pro-criminal in situations like this. However, as I said, people should have the right to live in a state that essentially espouses their beliefs, even if their beliefs are batcrap crazy.
 
Goshin said:
So is a 70yo Granny supposed to open a six-pack of Mixed Martial Arts WhupAss on a 20yo thug that attacks her? :lamo




View attachment 67147288
Click to expand...

Dude, if a 20 year old attacks a 70 year old woman, the time for skinning those smoke wagons has passed, the thug that didn't need a gun now has one.

Now, on the other hand, here's a little vignette from my youth that may entertain you, it did me...

When I was 17, in the summer between my junior and senior year in high school, I was living on my own in an apartment in South Florida. Me and high school buddy had a few beers and went walking down the sidewalk on A1A. We saw this old, old guy jogging down the sidewalk doing a Rocky thing, kind of shadow boxing as he jogged. My friend thought this was funny. I had a lot more respect for my elders. So my idiot friend makes fun of the guy, loud enough to be obnoxious. The guy hears him and basically scolds him. My idiot friend gets more obnoxious. The old guy, I'm guessing 75 years old, basically dares my friend to say something to his face. My idiot friend, a pretty aggressive guy in his own right, laughing the whole time, ignoring my admonitions, does just that, walks right up to the guy and laughs in his face.

This 75 year old guy rabbit punched my idiot friend in the face about 30 times in as many seconds and he crumbled like a bag of meat.

The guy looked at me, like he was wondering if I wanted to bite off a piece of this action.

I just looked back at him, laughed, told him that was awesome and I hoped I would be half as bad ass when I was his age.

He waved and kept on jogging.

Respect your elders.
 
ChezC3 said:
You're not seeing it in the correct context, it isn't about being what's allowed, it is being about what the law is limited to. That's what the Constitution was, a limitation of what government can do not what its citizens can't...
Click to expand...

I may not be looking at his the way you might prefer that I looked at it, but I'm pretty confident I am looking at it correctly, that I don't need the government's permission to defend me and mine.
 
rocket88 said:
States rights. So no.
Click to expand...
States do not have any right to regulate guns in any way. The right to arms is a right specifically enumerated in the constitution, and so it's the fed's to regulate, not the states.
 
Licencing and Castle Doctrine should both be Federal law. Your carry permit should be valid in every state of the union, nearly everywhere you have a legal right to be. Likewise, anyone legally carrying a gun aught to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'.
 
Jerry said:
Licencing and Castle Doctrine should both be Federal law. Your carry permit should be valid in every state of the union, nearly everywhere you have a legal right to be. Likewise, anyone legally carrying a gun aught to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'.
Click to expand...

Why do guns get special rights, can't I refuse to retreat and defend others with my swinging cod - and of course lefty and the widow maker (righty).
 
ChezC3 said:
Below is a wonderful story of a man defending his home from intrusion.

[video]http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/70-year-old-man-fights-back-after-finding-intruder-in-his-gardner-home/[/video]

My problem is when you watch the video, you'll hear the narrator state Law Enforcement officials advise that home owners when faced with intrusion should flee.

This to me is the most asinine, cowardly, depend on nanny state, thinking one could have and it really is disturbing that Law Enforcement officials, who have already been proven NOT to have a constitutional obligation of protecting you and yours would tell you and me to tuck tale and flee.

If an intruder invades my home it will be by God's grace that he is capable of leaving it vertically. I will not flee, I will fight.

I feel that this is a universal right, not one that should be subject to review or under the purview of anyone or anybody. Therefore, it should -- in my opinion -- fall under Federal statute, not to be limited or restricted in any way by State, County, or local levels of government.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Ya damn skippy.
 
Jerry said:
People have rights, not guns.
Click to expand...

And yet you said, " Likewise, anyone legally carrying a gun aught to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'."

So why do guns make those people special?

Why not " Likewise, anyone ought to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'."?
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Why do guns get special rights, can't I refuse to retreat and defend others with my swinging cod - and of course lefty and the widow maker (righty).
Click to expand...

ALL arms are protected under the constitution not just firearms. So go ahead and defend your home with your cod pieces. I prefer medieval style arms if I can control the situation, there's not much that's more frightening than having a big broadsword or mace or flail coming toward your head at speed. :devil: Of course having a flintlock loaded with a .65 inch lead ball pointed at your chest does come quite close.:mrgreen:
 
Jerry said:
They don't.
Click to expand...

So, again, why did NOT say " Likewise, anyone ought to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'."?

Why the gun qualification? Mistake? Admit it.

Or admit you want special rules for people carrying.

Got to be one or the other.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
So, again, why did NOT say " Likewise, anyone ought to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'."?

Why the gun qualification? Mistake? Admit it.

Or admit you want special rules for people carrying.

Got to be one or the other.
Click to expand...
Castle doctrine doesn't apply to only firearms. It applies to any form of lethal force.
 
Jerry said:
Licencing and Castle Doctrine should both be Federal law. Your carry permit should be valid in every state of the union, nearly everywhere you have a legal right to be. Likewise, anyone legally carrying a gun aught to have certain automatic legal protections, to include defense-of-other and no 'duty to retreat'.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't need a permit to carry period.
 
PirateMk1 said:
ALL arms are protected under the constitution not just firearms. So go ahead and defend your home with your cod pieces. I prefer medieval style arms if I can control the situation, there's not much that's more frightening than having a big broadsword or mace or flail coming toward your head at speed. :devil: Of course having a flintlock loaded with a .65 inch lead ball pointed at your chest does come quite close.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

My swinging cod might be a bit medieval, but my real question was why any special protection and exemption for the amed at all. If I can protect and defend with my fists, why the "anyone legally carrying ought" nonsense ?
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
My swinging cod might be a bit medieval, but my real question was why any special protection and exemption for the amed at all. If I can protect and defend with my fists, why the "anyone legally carrying ought" nonsense ?
Click to expand...

Don't know to be honest. Don't particularly care about it either to tell the truth, because my family and home and property will be vigorously defended regardless of the law. Your right, there shouldn't be a difference in legal outcome regardless of HOW you defend yourself, your family, your home, or your property, it should be completely legal do so as you see fit.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Okay, so a mistake, fine, good.
Click to expand...

Guess that answered that question.

Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post

Castle doctrine doesn't apply to only firearms. It applies to any form of lethal force.
 
ChezC3 said:
My problem is when you watch the video, you'll hear the narrator state Law Enforcement officials advise that home owners when faced with intrusion should flee.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think stand your ground and especially castle doctrine especially should be legal on a national level. However the video is kind of right. And kind of wrong. As are you. There is no one-size-fits-all response to having an intruder in your home. If you can get your family and leave safely, that's a pretty smart idea. At worst they're going to steal some stuff, and likely you're insured for it. After all, the people breaking in may have guns too. And even if shooting someone in self defense is legal, it doesn't mean a jury will agree that it was self defense.

Sometimes retreat, while it might hurt your pride, is the smarter decision.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, I think stand your ground and especially castle doctrine especially should be legal on a national level. However the video is kind of right. And kind of wrong. As are you. There is no one-size-fits-all response to having an intruder in your home. If you can get your family and leave safely, that's a pretty smart idea. At worst they're going to steal some stuff, and likely you're insured for it. After all, the people breaking in may have guns too. And even if shooting someone in self defense is legal, it doesn't mean a jury will agree that it was self defense.

Sometimes retreat, while it might hurt your pride, is the smarter decision.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but any person who will break into another persons home deserves to be shot. There are some lines that should not be crossed.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I may not be looking at his the way you might prefer that I looked at it, but I'm pretty confident I am looking at it correctly, that I don't need the government's permission to defend me and mine.
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement, however the government thinks differently.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry, but any person who will break into another persons home deserves to be shot. There are some lines that should not be crossed.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they don't deserve it or that it should be illegal, I'm saying that sometimes getting out of the house and calling 911 is a smarter idea than hanging around trying to shoot them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom