On 2 Mar 2003 at 0:16, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > At 08:31 PM 3/1/03 -0500, Gary L. Nunn wrote: > > > > One, there's a criminal who broke and entered, and thus must be > > > punished for such. > > > > > > Two, there's a criminal who owned and fired a unliscenced gun, and > > > thus must be punished for such. Andy Dawn Falcon > > > > > >So you are saying that the homeowner should NOT have protected his > >family with the gun because it wasn't licensed? > > > Of course not. He should have never had a gun in the first place. > The homeowner and his family are the ones who should be dead instead > of the robber. Besides, the only reason the robber was stealing from > the homeowner was that society had treated him badly because they > misunderstood him. He needed the money for drugs to dull the pain of > society's rejection of him-- > > *urp* > > [Sorry, I've got to stop this: I'm about to hurl. ;-) ]
Sigh. I'm sorry, but it's two issues. And I repeat - he was offered the slap on the wrist. He's forced it into court, where I don't think he'll get much sympathy if the judge does his job in terms of relevant evidence. I have NO sympathy for the robber. None. But that dosn't change the unliscenced gun issue. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
