One of the ongoing debates in the gun world is the question of should felons lose the right to self defense for life -regardless of the nature of the crime committed. Someone who has shoplifted more than $500 sometime in their life is just as barred as someone who killed a person, or several persons.
The context of this argument is the basis for most legal discussions of the the 2nd Amendment, which discussions begin with the premise that one of the inalienable and natural rights is the right to self defense (self preservation).
It's easy to say you did the crime, so now do the time. But then this sort of story comes up - who do you favor, the wife beater (probably also a felon) or the convicted felon?
Would you convict ?
http://www.ajc.com/news/local/man-f...uring-visit-with-kids/mpsFfCG5OTUqY28bTzDo4I/
There is scant information, but Mr. Watson is charged with felony murder, and the only felony with which he is charged that could serve as a predicate for that charge is the possession of a firearm charge. So based on this limited information it appears that if Mr. Watson had not been a felon, it would have been a "good shoot."
The context of this argument is the basis for most legal discussions of the the 2nd Amendment, which discussions begin with the premise that one of the inalienable and natural rights is the right to self defense (self preservation).
It's easy to say you did the crime, so now do the time. But then this sort of story comes up - who do you favor, the wife beater (probably also a felon) or the convicted felon?
Would you convict ?
http://www.ajc.com/news/local/man-f...uring-visit-with-kids/mpsFfCG5OTUqY28bTzDo4I/
There is scant information, but Mr. Watson is charged with felony murder, and the only felony with which he is charged that could serve as a predicate for that charge is the possession of a firearm charge. So based on this limited information it appears that if Mr. Watson had not been a felon, it would have been a "good shoot."