nuttyjoe wrote:It wasn't a ruling, it was written into Judge Cooley's book Constitutional Limitations.

Also:Not so. All the homeowner has to do is ask for a jury trial and brings his rights before the jury, and the jury pronounces a resounding NOT GUILTY

That's how our rights are upheld.

In theory, yes; but in reality- the Not Guilty pronouncement is not so clear and sure as one would think. Unfortunately, this has led to the claims that we are too easy on crime and criminals. That is why we need to have a clear, unambiguous ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court.
For the record, I agree with your stance to defend by any means necessary my home, property, and loved ones. It just needs to be made exactly clear as to how.

But to get a "clear, unambiguous ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court" is going to be damn near impossible,unfortunately.

nuttyjoe wrote:What could be more affirmative than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

The only ambiguity in that statement in the Second Amendment is that , to me; it is unclear what the drafters of the Constitution defined as arms. It also does not deal with the usage of such arms as they might have intended back then. I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment; but, as I have stated, there is much ambiguity that really needs to be made clear. Remember, we are dealing with the thoughts and dreams of men who lived and died over 200 years ago. They could not have possibly known nor had any clue of the problems of America 2007. Their intentions were good, but since the Supreme Court is annointed with the duty of interpreting this Constitution over 200 years old; they need toalso apply it to today's society.

I think you did, sorry for any confusion. Just to clarify, what I meant was if someone breaks into your home I think you should be entitled to defend it by whatever means you deem fit. That's what I meant by getting what he deserves.

There was a famous case in the UK a few years ago of a farmer who shot an intruder in the back. (Although the right to bear arms isn't general in the UK, it's quite common for farmers to have licenced shotguns, theoretically to protect livestock from predators). Tony Martin was sentenced to life for murder, although he had a great deal of public support. He was released after three years.

From reading what you said I think the government should reimburse him at least financially for those three years.

Agreed. He had every right to protect his property and livestock.

But what right did he have to shoot and injure the burglar?

This is the sort of ambiguity that I was referring to a couple of posts back. Here in the U.S.; the "equal force " provision might have had Mr. Martin here in jail for substantially longer. Add to that the fact that the intruder was shot in the back-and you have a muddled legal situation. Now do you see what I mean by adopting clear unambiguous laws?