I would read such a post, if you had the patience to write it out. I'm a big proponent of Castle Doctrine (the name is half of it) because defending your "nest" is so inherent to every living creature that demanding a human being not do the same strikes me as purposefully malicious. Is a man not entitled to the safety and security of his own domain?
In the mind of the communist, a man isn’t even entitled to his own domain. The removal of castle doctrine is just another step on the road to abolition of private property.
Part of the justification for traps being illegal is that an innocent person, like a mail carrier, or an "innocent" person, like a trespassing neighbor who doesn't intend to break other laws, can trigger the trap inadvertently. These are clearly flimsy justifications to prevent you from defending your home against feds.
In the first case, fair enough, but A) why is the potential of harm illegal rather than the act of having trapped an innocent person and B) if you turn your lawn into a Vietnamese rice field, are you just going to be cool with a rando setting it all off? You're not going to cancel your mail for a while or put up a sign or something?
In the second case, it essentially decriminalizes trespassing. As long as they don't touch anything, anybody can just wander around your property, apparently. That's the kind of argument that an entity with a vested interest in uninterrupted snooping would make.
I don't see how the home owner did anything wrong. Sure, he maybe didn't identify his target before firing, but if the eurotrash hadn't trespassed, the homeowner would be peppering the walls of his own garage. Is that illegal? I'm against any law or system that prevents finding out after fucking around.
I would read such a post, if you had the patience to write it out. I'm a big proponent of Castle Doctrine (the name is half of it) because defending your "nest" is so inherent to every living creature that demanding a human being not do the same strikes me as purposefully malicious. Is a man not entitled to the safety and security of his own domain?
In the mind of the communist, a man isn’t even entitled to his own domain. The removal of castle doctrine is just another step on the road to abolition of private property.
It was more ramble than anything.
Part of the justification for traps being illegal is that an innocent person, like a mail carrier, or an "innocent" person, like a trespassing neighbor who doesn't intend to break other laws, can trigger the trap inadvertently. These are clearly flimsy justifications to prevent you from defending your home against feds.
In the first case, fair enough, but A) why is the potential of harm illegal rather than the act of having trapped an innocent person and B) if you turn your lawn into a Vietnamese rice field, are you just going to be cool with a rando setting it all off? You're not going to cancel your mail for a while or put up a sign or something?
In the second case, it essentially decriminalizes trespassing. As long as they don't touch anything, anybody can just wander around your property, apparently. That's the kind of argument that an entity with a vested interest in uninterrupted snooping would make.
This case still blows my mind: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/montana-man-charged-with-shooting-teen-in-his-garage/
I don't see how the home owner did anything wrong. Sure, he maybe didn't identify his target before firing, but if the eurotrash hadn't trespassed, the homeowner would be peppering the walls of his own garage. Is that illegal? I'm against any law or system that prevents finding out after fucking around.
For the 'innocent person' you have a DMZ. Like the postbox, or a foyer, or the threshold of your door.
Anywhere else and FAFO.