Amazon.com Widgets
  • No, it is a form of vigilante justice

    There are already laws on the books which allow for self defence when an attacker makes a provocation. There is no difference between "stand your ground" and "take matters into your own hands." The only reason these laws presently exist is because there is a very small, vocal part of the population which holds an irrational paranoia toward the government and the police.

  • They might be constitutional, but I don't agree with the laws.

    The idea of "Stand your ground" might be constitutional, but I do not agree that this law needs to be in place. In the US, if you are being attacked and need to defend yourself, you can! You do not go to jail for shooting someone who breaks into your house and threatens your family. This law is a way for people to get away with murder without repercussions.

  • Yes, I believe stand your ground laws are constitutional, but need reform.

    I am no attorney, but I think I do understand the Constitution pretty well. I don't see anything in the Constitution that would make the 'Stand Your Ground' law unethical or wrong in Constitutional terms. With that said, I do feel that the law is a bit too broad. If an intruder is entering a home, 'Stand Your Ground' absolutely applies and absolutely SHOULD apply. But if a person has an opportunity to EASILY get away or hide, I don't think 'Stand Your Ground' should necessarily apply in all circumstances. In some ways, it seems the law could be used to justify outright homicide.

  • Yes, they just further state what is already your right.

    You have the right to defend yourself, or at least that is what the intent of the second amendment is. However, over time busy bodies that think they know what’s best for others, continue to attempt to erode something that really should not need to be spelled out any further. The fact is, the right just exists, it’s the government trying to be the one giving rights which is kind of backwards and wrong minded.

  • Self-protection is the highest moral principle.

    There is not a single word in the Constitution of the United States of America that would render current versions of Stand Your Ground laws unconstitutional. In fact, the second Amendment implies heavily that citizens have a right to own and maintaining means of doing just that. If anything, these laws should be enhanced to protect citizens from mentally ill and/or homicidal police officers.

  • No different than the right to bear arms.

    It is well within your constitutional right to protect your home if someone wants to break into it while you are there. The chances are that if an intruder breaks into your home and is caught in the act, chances are they will try to harm you and anyone else who may be in the home. I know personally, I would rather take care of the situation before it reaches the point where either myself or my family is put in harms way.

  • Stand your ground laws are constitutional

    I will defend myself If I feel in immediate danger facing serious bodily harm /death. I would find it absurd to hear someone say it is not justified to stand your ground. If someone throws popcorn in your face then no you are not in immediate danger but if an unwelcome individual enters your home or starts chasing you with a crow bar I would do whatever possible to protect myself and my family. Do we want our children to stand by while someone shoots up their school or if possible for them, do we want them to take a stand? This does not necessarily mean kill everyone who attempts to hurt you yet if it does happen and it can be proved that it was in self defense, the individual should be innocent.

  • Wtf people really

    Every time I read comments on the internet I feel sad for the future of our country. People really are stupid. Stand your ground just removes the duty to retreat in public places WHEN FACED with immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm or the reasonable fear of such, nothing more nothing less. It shifts the burden beyond a purponderance to the state not you.

    For the window lickers this means the state has to prove you weren't in immediate danger or had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. I am a Leo in ohio , if you are not in your car or house and use deadly force without first attempting to retreat, I have to arrest you- that's right you. Doesn't matter what the circumstances are, you may be found innocent or the DA could possibly no bill you but you will very likely lose everything you have or thousands of dollars at a minimum. So careful what you wish for.

    For the severe tards, yes SYG laws are very good for the law abiding citizen.

  • It Is For Your Protection

    People are against this but when someone comes and intrudes on them, they will think twice about this right because the police will be minutes away. Minutes in this situation could mean life or death. This is why we as Americans should use this law. It is in the constitution for a reason!!

  • Yes they are

    I believe that 'Stand your ground' laws are constitutional because it is a right. A right that all people should have for protection. This right allows all people to defend themselves and stand for your own beliefs. If a person is an intruder you have the right of self protection and to guard yourself from harm.

  • Seriously you people got to be kidding me of course it's unconstitional

    I think that if you can have a gun, why not use it to defend your self. Defending yourself is one thing but killing is another. Self defense should be allowed, but the shooter/ guns-man, should not aim for vital organs or muscles, but aim for arms, legs, and feet.

  • Deny due process and cruel and unusual punishment

    The stand your ground laws, particularly those in states that allow for the use of deadly force for the protection of property, deny due process to individuals before depriving them of life. Further, the imposition of a death penalty for the protection or recovery of property is excessive by any reasonable global standard. Would we advocate the death penalty as a reasonable punishment for conviction of a theft. That is effectively what we are imposing, randomly and without process. Therefore unconstitutional.

  • It is NOT constitutional! The NRA helped extend the Castle doctrine

    No, it is a form of vigilante justice

    There are already laws on the books which allow for self defence when an attacker makes a provocation. There is no difference between "stand your ground" and "take matters into your own hands." The only reason these laws presently exist is because there is a very small, vocal part of the population which holds an irrational paranoia toward the government and the police.

  • No it is not constitutional

    It is not constitutional because it is supporting murder. If it is constitutional I could kill someone and say it was in self defense. Even though the second amendment says you have the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to kill someone and get away with it.

  • NO WAY is it constitutional

    Just because someone is standing in front of you doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them. Because they are dead there is no way for them to dispute weather or not they were threatening you. Case closed no fair trail for the victim because their dead this violates the dead persons fourth amendment right.

  • No because of my explanation

    Just because you can own a gun, it doesn't mean you can just use it whenever you want. You cant just go around shooting people you don't like, see, that's called murder. Do you really think the founding fathers wanted us not only to have guns, but to kill everybody with them?

  • Is it Constitutional?

    Even though the second amendment says you have the right to bear arms it doesn't mean you have to use them. Without this law people wouldn't get away with as many murders. There also wouldn't be a "fair" trial which the bill of rights says you are entitled to have. Also if the person did this crime again they wouldn't be put on trail because the fifth amendment says you can't be under jeopardy which means you can't be accused for the same crime twice if not proven guilty on the first crime.

  • Are they constitutional? NOPE.

    Sure the constitution says you have the right to bear arms but if someone just really doesn't like someone and shoots them and then say "Oh yea i felt threatened by their presence and so i shot em." There would be no "fair" trial, which the bill of rights says that everyone is entitled to, because the other party would be dead and unable to testify, and the murderer would be released onto the streets as "not guilty" where he would be able to commit more crimes because he/she technically wouldn't be able to be tried again. BOOM. Unconstitutional. It violates the unalienable rights of one other.

  • We have gone to far

    I think that you have a right to self defense but it is not fair to take somebody's life away. I am not saying that nobody can have the right but I do think there is a limit to how far you can go with self defense. We have gone to far to have to say its okay to murder somebody.

  • It is unjust!

    Stand your ground laws are supporting murder. I personally do not support murder and do not understand why others do. People seem oblivious to the fact that others are getting killed because of it. I'm using the example most people use but Trayvon Martin might still be alive if this law did not exist. Even if he died his death would be justified by George Zimmerman sitting in jail as I write this.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.