Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 11:06:
Last December, a maintenance worker named Cesar Montelongo was checking on frozen pipes at an apartment complex in Texas when he was shot through a window by a resident who mistook him for a burglar. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. I couldn't find any info on what happened with the case after that. Maybe the resident faced justice, maybe not. But when so many people have guns and feel empowered to use them in this way, innocent people die as a result. I imagine most of those deaths don't make the news.
Read my above reply to Beamer. Personally, I would state that Castle Doctrine would not apply in that situation and that the individual who shot Montelongo, Sr. should face charges and prosecution. There was no direct, immediate threat to the resident and they were not defending themselves, their family, or their property as Montelongo Sr. was not within the interior confines of their apartment. Moreover, he was comporting his professional duties as the notification sent to all residents identified him as coming around to do.
I am guessing there is no further information about that incident in Grand Prairie because it has yet to go to trial.
I am a cynical, realistic pragmatist. I live in a country that has a culture drenched to the core in paranoia and violence. It is up to me to recognize that, understand that, and comport myself accordingly. I don't live my life in fear that I am going to be shot. Pearl clutching and panty bunching isn't going to change that. The "gun debate" is over. It doesn't matter what I want to believe or how I would like things to be. I must deal with the situation as it exists.
Being pragmatic, there are key points I know:
+ There are more firearms in the US than people.
+ The Supreme Court has shown a willingness and ability to rule that any state level constriction (not restriction) of the Second Amendment violates said Amendment and is unconstitutional.
+ Most of my fellow countrymen are fearful idiots.
+ There is a pervasive and ongoing campaign to propagate and continue class division and set people against one another. This brings with it a great many stressors which causes people to resort to their more primal "fight or flight" instinct much more rapidly than at previous points in history.
+ That confiscation is a non-starter and would be the death knell of any party that tried it, let alone a single politician that would attempt it, as it would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
+ That attempting to force registration would see an immediate legal challenge as a violation, in part, of both the Second and Fourth Amendments and would take decades to work out, if ever.
Ideally, if we as a country wanted to change, we would need to pass and ratify another Amendment that would limit and modernize the Second Amendment. However, that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify and that isn't going to happen. Certainly not in my lifetime.
Invariably in discussions such as this, someone will, with bright eyed ideology and ignorance, bring up examples of other countries. They fail to realize that those other countries do not share the same cultural background as the United States nor its legal framework. They usually bring up New Zealand and/or Australia. They also fail to realize that those countries had populations who as a whole were either amenable or indifferent to codified restrictions. That population does exist not within the United States. A significant portion of the population, and corporations and politicians, would fight any such restrictions tooth and nail for a variety of reasons.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.
“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau