For our last post I choose a topic we haven't covered that is very controversial: the right to use guns. Last week a committee at the MN state legislature debated a bill that would have "authorized deadly force against intruders who enter a porch, garage or occupied car." In MN it is already legal to kill intruders in their homes.
Minnesota Public Radio covered this issue last week in their article, "House panel rejects bill to expand right to shoot in self defense".
1. Do you think the Second Amendment gives people the right to use weapons to shoot intruders in their homes, cars, or porches?
2. If you were in the MN state legislature, would you have supported the bill? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
I believe that the 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect our property and self. So i do think that it gives us the right to shoot and kill people that invade our areas. I would have supported the bill because we must give citizens the chose of if they want to have a gun or not.
I think the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves when in danger. But, i still believe little force as possible should be used. If someone is attacking you in on your property, then yes shooting them would be legit. But, if someone was stealing from you then no, I don't believe this would be the proper action to take. I would not support the bill because theft or a misunderstanding could lead to death.
I would have had this bill passed if I had the choice. Right to bear arms is a right everyone has. The state doesn't have a right to limit it, if someone is scared for their lives they should be able to protect themselves. Many more innocent people will be convicted for shooting someone since that law wasn't passed. They will be put in jail for protecting their lives since a garage or car doesn't count. MY car, MY garage, MY porch just like MY house. These are all things people pay for and own. If someone is invading on their property and seems very scary the person who is the victim has a right to protect themselves. Either put innocent people in jail for only wanting to protect themselves or put those who kill the innocent person in jail just because we didn't pass a more in depth self defense law. A garage, car and porch are a persons property. No one else owns it, so who has the right to take away our rights to protect ourselves and the things we own.
The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, not the right to shoot people at free will. I would not support the bill because if they are on your porch, in your garage, or car, then you shouldn't be allowed to kill them. Porches, garages, and cars aren't houses where you live and expect to stay safe, so you should only be allowed to shoot someone if they are in one of those places.
People should have the right to protect themselves. I agree with gov. Pawlenty. If your in your own garage, which is basically part of your home, and someone is trying to harm you, you should be allowed to defend yourself. The rule should be the same in your porch and garage. The second amendment I believe covers the right of people to defend themselves and their family. Put yourself in a car with your little children when all of a sudden someone jumps into your car at a stoplight and points the gun at you or your children. If I was a member of the State Legislature I would support the bill and gov. Pawlenty 100%.
I believe the second amendment does give people the right to fire in self-defense. If you're given the right to bear arms, then you're granted the ability and opportunity to shoot in your defense. Why give someone the right to possess a firearm, if you can't operate the use of it for one's protection? I must say that if I was an MN legislature I'd vote in favor of the self-defense argument of owning a gun. Most people own a firearm just for self-defense, if you take away their right for protection than you're violating their right to privacy and giving the consent to everyone that it's okay to be a criminal with zero consequences. Let's face it, our legal system is nothing but a flawed pile of dog crap, it's in-perfect on many levels and if you can't own a gun for self-defense purposes, than you're leaving the world without any justice left in it.
Yes, I do think the Second Amendment give people the right to use weapons to shoot intruders in their home, cars, and porches. Yes I would have supported the bill because, if someone intrudes on your property you should be able to defend yourself. If they do not have a weapon then I don't think you they the right to shoot them, but if they do you should be able to shoot them.
1. Yes, I believe that anyone has the right to shoot someone who is on their property and who is putting them in danger's way. We need this right, so that people can feel safe within their home, and also so that they can know that if someone is to invade their home, that they can use the force necessary to keep themselves as well as their family safe.
2. If I was in the MN state legislature, I would support this bill. I think that it will help Minnesotans to protect themselves under many more circumstances.
I believe that if their is an intruder in your house, you should have the full right to defend yourself in any way possible. If that means shooting the person, then so be it. It was his/her decision to break the law and enter your house, it is your property and you should have the full right to defend yourself and your property from criminals. If this person has invaded something outside the house like your car or your porch, i think the same rules apply as long as the person is still on your property. If the person is breaking into your car in a parking lot, i do not think you have the right to take out a gun and shoot him/her in front of everyone. However if the car is parked in your garage or on your driveway, you should have the right to defend your property. If the intruder is on your porch, technically it is still part of your property and the same rules should apply.
I think that if someone is breaking into your home, car, or something and they have a gun or some type of weapon and they also pose a threat to your life or your family's then i think you should shoot them. The second amendment i believe was set up as protection. There were English soldiers were invading American homes and they needed some way to protect themselves.
i would not support the bill. You can shoot someone in self defense but not just anybody you think is a threat. If they are in your home or attacking you in your car, threatening your life and your family's then you should have every right to shoot them but not if someone steps on your lawn and he or she looks suspicious.
I think the second amendment allows for people to shoot intruders when they feel in danger. The current law allows for this right now but this law seems like it would clarify that and expand it to more of a person's rightful property. I think self-defense is an important right for people to have.
I would definitely support the bill because this law would favor the person who owns the property and feels their life is in danger. It also has a great deal of support from the public.
In response to Jenny:
In a way, I agree with you, but not completely. It is YOUR property, so you would think you'd be able to defend it and yourself from an intruder. But, your garage, porch, and car is not your house, where you live and eat and sleep and expect to stay safe.
Haley Winckler here...
The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms, but do not give the right to kill people. If someone invades your property I believe that you should have the right to defend your home and family, but shooting someone may not be the answer. Of course someone should call 911, but I agree with the fact that if someone is inside your house you should be able to use any force necessary to protect yourself. I do not think that you should use deadly force to protect your porch or car, but possibly your garage depending on the circumstances.
If I was on the MN state legislature I would have not agreed with the bill. I think that if you go onto someone's property for criminal purposes you should be aware that the homeowner may retaliate. The reason I would not agree would be because maybe someone is fleeing from someone, runs onto your property or asks for help and then gets shot. Also, police officers can go on property if in pursuit of someone or if looking for something. In that case they could get shot for no reason other than being on your property. In conclusion, you should only have the right to shoot someone if they have intruded into your house and seem a threat to your life. Who cares about your car or porch, you should only care about where your family is.
Yes I believe the Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms in your home, garage, and car. I agree with the author when he states, “Seems to me if you're in your own home and somebody intrudes and invades, and they're presenting a threat to you or your family, you should not have to retreat or flee from your own home.” If you discover someone in your garage or car and they are posing danger on you or your family wouldn't the first instinct be to protect yourself and your loved ones? I think that the issue gets a little shady though. If you discover someone and they flee you cant chase after them to kill them. They aren't posing danger on you anymore. I think if I were voting for the bill I would have voted yes. I am not really all that big on guns but I do believe we have the right to protect ourselves from dangerous people. If your only option to protect yourself is to shoot someone, you should be able to without being charged with homicide.
1. Yes, I do think the second amendment gives you the right to shoot intruder's in your home because you need to be able to use self defense in your own home if there is a intruder. Other wise what if they try to kill you and you cant do anything about it. Self defense is a human right.
2. Yes, I would support the bill because I think that its a good idea and some people cant defend themselves in any other way, and they need to be able to feel safe. Also if someone is on your property you are being attacked and you should have the right to defend yourself in those situations.
I agree with the law that says we should shoot an intruder but to just shoot anyone that comes on your porch is rediculous. What if a group of kids don't have anywhere to hang out and they just decide to sit on a random porch? Do you just automatically get to shoot everyone on the porch? If a person hasn't shown a sign of harming you then why shot them? If I were a legislature I would not vote for this law because anyone can be shot for no reasonable purpose. What If you were the new family on the block and someone wanted to bring you a cake or a pie are you going to shoot them? I think they should rethink about this law.
The second amendment is the right to bear arms not use them, it gives you the right to have a gun not use it. The bill is unconstitutional, i can understand the garage portion of the bill but that all. If a man is in your car then how can u have a gun? If your being car-jacked you would be driving and having access to a gun at that time would be illegal. All guns must be unloaded and locked in the trunk while in a car. I also don't think that you should have the right to kill someone who is on your porch. Maybe this is a dramatization, but wouldn't the bill then allow you to kill an “unwanted” solicitor. The only part i can somewhat understand being practical is the garage portion, because most garages are linked to a house. This means that a persons garage can be used to break into the house and that the garage is also part of the house, thus protected by previous laws. I think this bill supports the whole “eye for an eye” theory, making it unconstitutional.
1. Yes I think the second Amendment gives us the right to use weapons in self-defense. Your right to defend yourself shouldn't end the moment you leave your front door.
2. I would support the bill because I think we should have the right to defend ourselves in our cars and on our porches, not just our house.
I think it depends on the situation. I think think if they are intruding into your personal area and they are using force that it would be okay to use weapons. I agree with what Pawlenty say's on how if they are intruding or invading your property they are presenting a threat to you and your family. I don't think that the second amendment give people the right to use weapons on people though. If I was on the MN state legislature I would have choose in favor of the bill. I think that your property kind of represents you and if it is invaded you have to protect it. Also if the intruder doesn't want to be shot or hurt then they shouldn't intrude.
I don't agree with Smundstock1 when they say " Porches, garages, and cars aren't houses where you live and expect to stay safe." You own all these things and all these places are private. You don't invite strangers into your car and random people don't hang out in your garage or porch. If some random person was there you would wonder what was going on and not expect a good result. No one has a right to be on your property unless you say so. You should feel safe in all these private places, since for one you own them and two because no one else has a right to be on them.
I do think that the 2nd
Amendment gives people the right to shoot others when intruding their homes. Your home is your place of safety and your only self-owned property. If someone intrudes that space, then your safety and property is being violated and you should have the right to self-defense. I also agree with Doug Johnson. Allowing people to shoot others when they are invading your car is putting too much freedom in the hands of the people. Even though it is your car and you own it, it's a small and "easy to get out of" space. This would also increase the carrying of guns, and guns would be present in cars more often. This would most likely increase car jackings or car robberies because others would want the guns kept in the cars. Allowing people to shoot in their garages, cars, or porches is just an unnecessary act.
I would not have supported the bill because it's an unnecessary law that just allows people to shoot others. It could get way out of hand and increase the amount of shootings too. People would claim self-defense when they weren't in any harm in the first place.
1. Do you think the Second Amendment gives people the right to use weapons to shoot intruders in their homes, cars, or porches?
I believe the second amendment gives us the right to own guns for our protection. It extends to when we are in danger. We have the right to defend ourselves if we are under attack.
2. If you were in the MN state legislature, would you have supported the bill? Why or why not?
I believe there are better ways to solve things but if your in danger you should be able to defend yourself. I would support the bill, because it allows us to better defend ourselves.
I disagree with Niles. We do have the right to protect our own property but going to the extent to kill someone is too much. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves when were in danger. If a person is on your porch or looking in your garage maybe they seen something and are on there way to inform you about your safety.
I fully agree with the decision made by the House on March 14th. I would not have supported the bill. I believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves, but not to the extreme event advocated by the new bill. As stated by Doug Johnson ( Washington County attorney), “We do not want you to go eyeball to eyeball”. If the law were to be passed individuals would have greater freedom to carry around weapons ( protecting cars) and more freedom to fire said weapons. A person could plea”self defense” when in reality they were being malicious with the weapon. The second amendment protects the right to bear arms, but I believe in a stricter interpretation than those advocating the bill. The amendment was ment to protect those in times of war claiming, “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.” ( Findlaw.com). The Founders obviously wrote the law to protect state militias versus malicious individuals who wants to keep a pistol in the glove compartment.
I fully agree with the decision made by the House on March 14th. I would not have supported the bill. I believe that an individual has the right to defend themselves, but not to the extreme event advocated by the new bill. As stated by Doug Johnson ( Washington County attorney), “We do not want you to go eyeball to eyeball”. If the law were to be passed individuals would have greater freedom to carry around weapons ( protecting cars) and more freedom to fire said weapons. A person could plea”self defense” when in reality they were being malicious with the weapon. The second amendment protects the right to bear arms, but I believe in a stricter interpretation than those advocating the bill. The amendment was ment to protect those in times of war claiming, “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.” ( Findlaw.com). The Founders obviously wrote the law to protect state militias versus malicious individuals who want to keep a pistol in the glove compartment.
In response to Jenny33...
I agree with what you said about people should be able to protect themselves. I disagree with what you said about shooting someone that is trying to steal or damage your property. I believe that because that is not self defense in my opinion, let the police handle that because it is their job. The intruders are not pressing a threat to you if they are stealing you car, so i agree with you at about fifty percent.
from Haley Winckler
I don't believe that people should have the right to use deadly force with so little provocation. Even if people feel threatened, without any real proof, they should not have the right to kill someone. People should try different options before resorting to deadly force. It's more true in your home that you should have the right to defend your property with force, not necessarily deadly, though. I agree with the MN police department saying that we shouldn't be like the old west. I think that will just cause more deaths.
Within America we have crime. Plain and simple. Anyone who denies there is crime in the United States is just ignorant. We try to express the development and advancement of our crime prevention measures but no matter how advanced they get, there will always be crime. Now with the understanding that this fact is true, one would believe that the average American would be guaranteed a few privileges to defend himself from the crime that his government does not. An American should expect that when he/she buys property, the American government should protect it. If the government can not protect it then the owner should be able to defend his property through use of force.
If you were sitting in your garage fixing your car and a man came in unannounced and said i am going to kill your wife and kids then you should be guaranteed the right to use force to stop him.
This is a touchy subject, but the second amendment was created for the purposes of defending your property and family. Sure, this amendment was made at a time when we had just come out of a revolution and citizens owning firearms were more important. But it does give us the right to protect ourselves and our property. It's a touchy subject when it comes down to where and when this right should be exercised. In my opinion, if someone is a potential danger to your family and property you can use it. But if someone is backing off and not trying anything funny then the shooter should be open to prosecution. Basically people need to use discretion.
If this bill had exceptions and clearly laid out when it is alright to shoot at somebody I would support it. In the article it says that "someone who takes a life without justification or reasonableness could still be prosecuted." That leads me to believe that I'd support this bill if I read through it.
I agree with Melanie. We should be able to defend ourselves if we are in danger but we don’t necessarily need to try to kill someone for stepping on our property. If it is to defend yourself or your family you should have the right to use force. There is a chance this bill could be taken out of hand. It could provide people with a reason for shooting first and asking questions later.
In response to Niles:
I agree with you because your statement on owning guns grant us the very freedom of choice, that is, whether or not we can shoot somene in self-defense or not, is correct. There is countless reasons as to why we should own a gun, but if the government commands us on how we should use and operate it, is a violation of our privacy. The second amendment: "right to bear arms" allows us the liberty to own a gun. If we own a gun, then we own the very property of it and it's ours to keep and do what we will with it. It's almost like purchasing a pack of gum from the super market, and the clerk demands you to chew it a certain way, it's ludicrous. This is yet another example and way of the government trying to grasp more power then they need or deserve. This is getting to the point where the government's actions might even be considered criminal.
I think that it gives them the right to protect their property but the scenarios given were to vague.We are protected with self defense laws anytime our lives are in danger but limiting it to those three does not give enough information.I would not have supported the bill in hopes that it would be rewritten and more specific.
I disagree with Haley when she said, "The reason I would not agree would be because maybe someone is fleeing from someone, runs onto your property or asks for help and then gets shot. Also, police officers can go on property if in pursuit of someone or if looking for something. In that case they could get shot for no reason other than being on your property." When they speak of intruders, they are speaking of someone that is putting your life in danger, and I don't think that someone would shoot a police officer or a person fleeing from someone else simply because they were on their property. Most people are smarter than that.
I feel that the second amendment does allow people to defend themselves on their property. If a person is on their own property, they have the right to defend themselves against intruders. End of story.
Yes, if someone were to break into my house I would want to defend myself, using whatever means necessary to keep myself and my family safe.
I agree with Canetha. I think that if this bill is going to be passed it needs to be specific as to the amount of danger present. No, I don't think that if someone is just on your porch you can shoot then and I also don't think that excuse would ever hold up in court. I do not agree with Sarah Munstock's opionion. Yes, a porch, garage, or car isn't your house but its not like you leave your safety at the door when you get into your car. We expect that we are still safe in all these areas. A person has the same amount of right to protect themselves from danger when they are in their car as when they are in thier home.
1. Do you think the Second Amendment gives people the right to use weapons to shoot intruders in their homes, cars, or porches?
Yes in the case that someone is intruding but if your standing on your balcony and you see someone walking toward your car in the parking lot and you shoot them.. that's a little un-called for.
2. If you were in the MN state legislature, would you have supported the bill? Why or why not?
Yes because I am sure there are a lot of issues currently with safety and protection. I think this bill would show people when they do and don't have the right to defend themselves.
in response to Niles..
I agree with you on the fact that it's the right to protect your property and yourself and they shouldn't say you can't do that. It's like why would you let someone break in your house and be ok with it? I feel they should be aware of the risks their taking by breaking and entering and with the clarity of this bill
Responding to Ryan,
I don't think this will end up making our neighborhoods like the west where people are shooting left and right. I t seems like the law is made to protect more areas of a person's property. I also think that if you are waiting for some real proof to see if the guy with a gun actually means business, you'll re-think whether you might need to use any force necessary.
To Ryan.
If someone breaks into your house or car, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. If people don't want to get shot then don't break into someones house or car and you will be fine. That sounds like a very simple rule to follow.
I believe that the right to bear arms does not extend to the right to use that gun in any way a person so chooses. I don't think its alright to be able to shoot to kill anybody who comes onto your property with malintent or not. For instance, many burglars do not want to rob a house that is occupied because they don't want things to come down to physical conflict. It is too extreme to allow people to shoot and kill somebody in their garage. There are many alternatives to protecting yourself. Simply pointing a gun at an intruder may scare him or her off without having to fire a shot.
I am not sure if I would support the bill or not. I agree with the Police when they say that they do not want things coming down to eye to eye confrontation. If you feel threatened call 911 and let the police do their job. Only if you are in immediate danger do I feel that it is okay to shoot. Sometimes it is alright to "flight" and not "fight" when danger is presented. If you run from your house when there is an intruder, at the end of the day there is a greater chance that you will still be alive and that you will have time to call the police.
In response to Wiseman I completely disagree with you saying that the legal system is a flawed pile of dog crap and that people need to be able to defend themselves more. I believe your comment takes credit away from the hard working men and women of the legal system including the peace officers who risk their lives everyday to protect people like you so that you don't have to resort to self defense. Guns and citizen vigilantes do not equal justice, fair trials and good old fashion police work do. I also think that comparing the government telling people how to safely operate a gun in respect to human life and chewing gum is completely out of context.
I agree with niles that the second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves. We should be able to shoot who ever invades our property with out our consent. I would have supported the bill with him
I think that the second ammendment gives somebody the right to protect themselves if there is danger. Whether a person has invaded your porch, car, or house you should be able to protect yourself and do whatever you need to in order for that to happen. I do believe that this is true but I think that as little force as possible should be used. If a stranger is attacking you then I could see how you might shoot them but if a stranger is robbing you I don't think that you necessarily should shoot at them. I would support the bill because citizens should have the right to protect themselves when they're in danger.
I agree with Josh in saying that its a very simple thing to do. If you're a stranger to someone don't invade thier space. Such as their yard, house, or car. Then there will be no complications or anything.
I disagree with Niles and Wiseman about the right to kill people on your property. If your in your car, not necessarily in your garage then your also on public property. Shooting someone on public property is more of a danger to others than if you are in your own home. I think that the right to own a gun in your home is okay, but once you step outside your home there needs to be permits issued and more rules that go with the responsibility of carrying it around.
I don't think the second amendment clearly states that people have the right to shoot people that enter their homes. The second amendment says 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. It is saying that if a the security of the state is at risk, people have the right to bear arms, not if someone randomly comes into their house. I don't think the second amendment wanted people waking up with a gun in their hand and shoot five bullets through a creaky door. Also, there are stories about kids who come home late and get shot by their parents who think they are intruders. I would not have supported this bill because I believe that gun use should be limited, not extended. If there were no guns sold at all, we would not have to worry about people breaking into our homes with guns, and would have no need to shoot them.
In response to Jenny and Meghan I still disagree. You bring very convincing arguments that people should be allowed to protect themselves within their own home, and I agree. But, according to the article " a person on a street or in a bar would have no duty to retreat before using deadly force against someone they believed threatened them with "substantial" harm, compared with the standard of "great" bodily harm written into current law." So I think this means that you would have the same right out on the streets. I think the most convincing argument for this law is the prevention of crime. I feel that if I were a burglar and I knew that if I entered someone's house that they could legally kill me, I would be more deterred than if I knew they couldn't. The main thing that I would be worried about is people abusing this right. How do we know that people are not going to wake up shooting at shadows and kill their little kids accidentally. Also, what if the burglar is trying to escape, if we allow people to shoot and kill burglars, even if they are trying to escape, this is no longer self defense, but there would be no way to prove this. So passing this law gives a higher chance that people abuse their gun rights because there is no way to regulate the law.
i agree with niles about this issue.It is clearly stated in the second amendment that we have the right to bear arms and like any other right that we have as citizens it should not be taken away.
Post a Comment