Write your own gun law
Ok, I will: Excluding self defense, it’s illegal to shoot someone.
That about covers it all, don’t it?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 am
Nice. Short, sweet and covers all the bases.
Works for me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Theyhave that on the books in Vermont. Can’t even point the gun at another person. Seems to work for them. Jack.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Too simple. Congress will not pass a law with less than 15,000 words.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one: Your wording is way too restrictive.
Protecting ones self is right up there. But your wording would seem to exclude killing in defense of life(self, family, friends, innocents in general), liberty, home, and property.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Shorter Unc-law: Thou Shalt Not Murder.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Doesn’t sound much like a gun law, but a law against unwarranted violence brought upon another. Which, (as noted above), ‘thou shalt not murder’ has been on the books longer than I can remember.
So are you really saying you are against ALL gun laws? With an attitude like that, how would the NRA barter liberties into membership privileges? Why would they be needed at all?
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
But what about all the people that just need killing?
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I think this is the wrong approach. It’s close but a little bit too simplistic. I think Paul has it right.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
How about “except in defense of self and/or others who are endangered it’s illegal to shoot someone”.
That would do nicely too. The trick would be convincing many judges in some states that there is such a thing as the right to self defense. (see Kalifornia)
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I tend to agree with you. Self-defense covers it all. After all, when someone is attempting to take your property, or that of another, you must sssuem, as the police do, that the potential for more violence is always there. As such, letal force is justified to protect, and to stop the assailant from fleeing. Because … failure to stop the criminal places others in danger. Isn’t that the rationale behind laws granting police the power to use lethal force to apprehend?
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Nope, some people just need killing for general principle.