"A man's home is his castle" stated English Common Law. The tradition of respect of safety in our own homes is all the more enduring for our ability to reinforce it. Americans have less concern than citizens in other countries about suffering a forcible home invasion. The reason for that is simple: predators who would break into an occupied home are very likely to be shot by the residents.

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.

Again, the inability of the predators to divine which house would be easy pickings and which would be defended effectively improves the safety even of those who would not keep arms for protection. An invader can't tell if you, your neighbor, both of you or neither of you would be equipped to end his criminal career on the spot. For that reason, burglars generally try to avoid contact with their victims.

Many lawful people say that they would not shoot even a criminal in order to protect their posessions. However, we have no way of reading the minds of those who break into homes of other people. They may be after loot, or they may be intent on doing damage to any people they encounter.

Some predators rely on surprise and superior numbers to effect home invasions. Such perpetrators must be repelled, as they often combine burglary with diversions such as rape and murder. Reasoning with them, pleading, appealing to their better side does not work.

Breaking into somebody's home is not an accidental act. A burglar who has no regard for the sanctity of your home would likely have no more regard for your physical well-being. With that in mind, please place your own safety first and foremost in your mind.

Your goal is to survive the invasion until cops show up in strength. Going to look for the intruder would not be safe. Make sure that you have accounted for all family members, then stay put in the safe room and cover the door with your weapon. Any damage visited upon the intruder would be his own fault.

Situations like this are one of the reasons why having more than one trained person in the family is helpful. You might be on the phone with police and distracted, but your spouse would cover you. Hopefully, the 911 emergency dispatch system would work well when you need it. In a city, police response may be rapid, but out in the country you may wait for an hour before help can get to you.

Pointing a gun at somebody is not very nice but neither is breaking into people's homes. Furthermore, use of any less effective means of self-defense plays into the hands of the criminal. That isn't noble, merely stupid.

Fortunately, most burglars won't dare to loiter once they realize that they have been spotted. They are in for the easy pickings and not for ending up between armed homeowners on one side and police on the other. On the other hand, if they suspect that the residents are not armed, they would attack at once to prevent a call for help.

"But how can you set yourself as jury, judge and executioner?" some would say. "Even criminals deserve a fair trial."

If a person must fire on an intruder, she would be doing so only in order to protect lives of self and dependents. Not to punish, not to discourage criminal behavior but to save lives from a predator. As a side effect, being shot in the process of committing a crime provides potent Pavlovian conditioning to the perpetrator.

hmmm... tadpole i wonder whether you are for the use of lethal weapons or against it.

Hmmm... I'd have to say I am very very for it...

hehe, me too. do you own any guns?? im 17 so i cant.

I own many, many guns. I am a Navy Weapons Specialist (Fire Control) and I am also a certified Navy Range Master, I really enjoy guns, so does my fiance and the rest of my family.

yea i enjoy them too. what is your favorite that you have fired or owned.

Well, I have 2 .50 caliber rifles I love, I have a Mini-14 that is awesome, but my favorite is and always will be my 2 M-14s. My favorite hand gun is my Beretta .40.


My favorite that I have fired would probably be either the .50 Cal Machine Gun, or the 25mm BushMaster. They are all so cool it's hard to choose.

Judge Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, and a lay Professor of the University of Michigan, in his book Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, published in 1878, wrote: "...the law favors the complete and undisturbed dominion of every man over his own premises, and protects him therein with such jealousy that he may defend his possessions against intruders, in person or by his servants or guests, even to the extent of taking the life of the intruder, if that seem essential to the defence. ...That in defence of himself, any member of his family, or his dwelling, a man has a right to employ all necessary violence, even to the taking of life... ...a man assaulted in his dwelling is under no obligation to retreat; his house is his castle, which he may defend to any extremity. And this means not simply the dwelling-house proper, but includes whatever is within the curtilage as understood at the common law. ...And in deciding what force it is necessary to employ in resisting the assault, a person must act upon the circumstances as they appear to him at the time; and he is not to be held criminal because on a calm survey of the facts afterwards it appears that the force employed in defence was excessive." In concert with this, it is provided in the Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article 1 Section 6: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


It was noted, in the case of US v Gomez: "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack."; also: " In modern society, the right to armed self-defense has become attenuated as we rely almost exclusively on organized societal responses, such as the police, to protect us from harm. See Levinson, 99 Yale L.J. at 656 ("[O]ne can argue that the rise of a professional police force to enforce the law has made irrelevant, and perhaps even counterproductive, the continuation of a strong notion of self-help as the remedy for crime."). The possession of firearms may therefore be regulated, even prohibited, because we are "compensated" for the loss of that right by the availability of organized societal protection. The tradeoff becomes more dubious, however, when a citizen makes a particularized showing that the organs of government charged with providing that protection are unwilling or unable to do so."

In 1925, Dr. Ossian H. Sweet, a successful gynecologist, and his wife, a black couple, purchased a home in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan; a "white" neighborhood. Dr. Sweet's two brothers, Otis, and Henry, along with seven other black friends, helped him move in.

This was a time when the Ford Motor Company had created a mass migration of workers into the Detroit area with his $5 day; and Mr. Ford was hiring black folk who had migrated from the South for a better life. Many whites were becoming "nervous" with this migration, and neighborhood "committees" were being formed, which had been called "Improvement Associations", to "deal" with the "problem". It was also a time of lynchings. Some of the Detroit neighborhood committees had forced other blacks to move from the homes that they had purchased in a white neighborhood by threat of violence.

Dr. Sweet was determined that this would not happen to him. Along with his furnishings, and such, he brought in some guns and ammunition.

It is recorded that on the first night of their occupancy, a large crowd of white folks gathered outside the house; milling about. On the second night, a larger crowd, "estimated at several hundred", gathered. About eight policemen were on duty to prevent disorder, but cries of "Niggers!" were heard. The house was pelted with stones, some landing on the roof, and some windows were broken. Suddenly, shots were fired from the house, and one of the crowd fell dead; another wounded. "The eleven Negroes in the house were immediately arrested and charged with first-degree murder."

Clarence Darrow, a lawyer from Chicago, Illinois, was asked to help with the defense. All eleven of the black folk were to be tried together for the murder of Leon Breiner.

Mr. Darrow elicited, from some of the prosecution witnesses, that, rather than there being just "a few" people milling about the house on the night in question, which was the contention of the prosecutor, there was a crowd of at least 500; and, when it was realized that some black folk had purchased the house, a "Water Works Improvement Association" had been formed to rid the neighborhood of the new occupants.

In his closing arguments, Mr. Darrow pointed out: "The Sweets spent their first night in their first home afraid to go to bed. The next night they spent in jail. Now the State wants them to spend the rest of their lives in the penitentiary." He concentrated on Mrs. Sweet, who was in the kitchen of the house cooking a ham for the rest who had come to help in their time of trouble. She was charged with first-degree murder for cooking a ham.

The jury could not reach a unanimous decision, and a mistrial was declared. A new trial was set, and the defense asked that each person be tried separately.

In April 1926, the trial of Henry Sweet, brother to Dr. Sweet, commenced, tried by an all white jury. In his closing arguments, Mr. Darrow noted: "...if it was reversed and eleven white men had shot and killed a black while protecting their home and their lives against a mob of blacks, nobody would have dreamed of having them indicted. ...there is no man in Detroit that doesn't know that these defendants, every one of them, did right. There isn't a man in Detroit who doesn't know that the defendant did his duty, and that this case is an attempt to send him and his companions to prison because they defended their constitutional rights. ...Gentlemen, that mob was bent not only on making an assault upon the rights of the owners of that house, not only making an assault upon their persons and their property, but they were making an assault on the constitution and the laws of the nation and the state under which they live. ...They took guns there that in case of need they might fight, fight even to death for their home, and for each other, for their people, for their race, for their rights under the Constitution and the laws under which all of us live; and unless men and women will do that, we will soon be a race of slaves, whether we are black or white. 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,' and it has always been so and always will be. ...No man lived a better life or died a better death than fighting for his home and his children, for himself, and for the eternal principles upon which life depends. Instead of being here under indictment, for murder, they should be honored for the brave stand they made for their rights and ours. Some day, both white and black, irrespective of color, will honor the memory of these men, whether they are inside prison walls or outside, and will recognize that they fought not only for themselves, but for every man who wishes to be free."

Mr. Darrow concluded: "He has a right to defend the life of his kinsman, servant, his friends, or those about him, and he has a right to defend, gentlemen, not from real danger, but from what seems to him real danger at the time. ...Now, let me tell you when a man has the right to shoot in self-defense, and in defense of his home; not when these vital things in life are in danger, but when he thinks they are. These despised blacks did not need to wait until the house was beaten down above their heads. They didn't need to wait until every window was broken. They didn't need to wait longer for that mob to grow more inflamed. There is nothing so dangerous as ignorance and bigotry when it is unleashed as it was here. The Court will tell you that these inmates of this house had the right to decide upon appearances, and if they did, even though they were mistaken, they are not guilty. ...I say that no free man need wait to see just how far an aggressor will go before he takes life. The first instinct a man has is to save his life. He doesn't need to experiment. He hasn't time to experiment. When he thinks it is time to save his life, he has the right to act. There isn't any question about it. It has been the law of every English-speaking country so long as we have had law. Every man's home is his castle, which even the king may not enter. Every man has a right to kill, to defend himself or his family, or others, either in the defense of the home or in the defense of themselves. ...The right to defend your home, the right to defend your person, is as sacred a right as any human being could fight for, and as sacred a cause as any jury could sustain. That issue not only involves the defendants in this case, but it involves every man who wants to live, every man who wants freedom to work and to breathe; it is an issue worth fighting for, and worth dying for, it is an issue worth the attention of this jury, who have a chance that is given to few juries to pass upon a real case that will mean something in the history of a race."

The next day the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty". Dr. Sweet and his family did not return to their home. It remained vacant.

I was reading, in another thread, that a poster would be banned. In my own personal opinion, I don't believe in banning a poster, unless, of course, the poster spams the boards with repeated vileness, and therefore filling the cyberspaces with vitriol. If you don't like what the poster has to say, don't read his posts; and especially, don't respond to the posts.

I have been on many message boards, and some with posters who attack like JunkYardDog. I can play JunkYardDog too, but how many posters, or those just reading the posts, would like to go through the vitriol of just two posters attacking each other constantly? Not very many.

Anyway, banning is a form of censorship, and truthseeking doesn't allow for censorship.

This site would never ban anyone because of their views on any subject, regardless, as we are very much against censorship of any kind. However we will not tolerate the juvenile disrespect that was being displayed. Repeated trolling offenses will get you banned as they diminish the quality of debate.