Are these reasonable questions? When will we see something like this in a public opinion poll? I'd like to see my legislators address these. I guess it's up to me to at least ask them.
1. Do you have the right to defend you and your family from a malicious, life threatening, unprovoked attack by a criminal:
a. in your home?
b. in your vehicle?
c. in a public place?
d. at your place of employment?
2. If you answered no to any of the above, upon what legal or moral grounds do you support your position that your life is less valuable at that particular location than it is at one of the locations where you answered yes?
The Supreme Court and other Federal case law has found no government entity, Federal, state, or local has a general legal duty, obligation or responsibility to protect people in their jurisdiction from any criminal activity, including violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder. (see here for case citations)
If you answered no to any part of question 1 does this information change your view?
3. Since no government entity, Federal, state, or local has a general legal duty, obligation or responsibility to protect you from any criminal activity including violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder, with who does the responsibility for your protection lie?
4. If you have the right and responsibility to defend yourself from a malicious, life threatening, unprovoked attack (since no government entity has any responsibility to protect you from any criminal activity including violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder), should any government entity which has no responsibility to protect you limit your ability to defend yourself and/or your family from violent criminal activity?
5. If you answered yes to question 4, upon what legal or moral grounds do you support your position that a government entity, which has no responsibility to protect you, may limit the means you may use to defend yourself and/or your family from violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder?
If property owners of public places (stores, parks, restaurants, public buildings) limit the means you may use to defend yourself by posting signs which disarm you on their premises (gun free zones, no weapons, etc.), should they be held liable for injuries or death caused by attacks on your person while you are disarmed on those premises because you complied with their posted limitations?
No comments:
Post a Comment