Comment: I think you asnswered the

(See in situ)

I think you asnswered the

I think you asnswered the first question as I would, although I do believe it is a myth that you can shoot to maim. I think if a gun is fired at another human being, it is with intent to kill and if one fears for his life, he has an absolute right to do that, as unfortunate and difficult as that would be on any caring person. I agree that the valuation thing, because of the prohibition, does cause more people to commit crimes such as that.

To be more specific, in a restored Constitutional Republic, where our freedoms and liberties were determined by free men and women, and there were no drug laws, only laws that protect persons and property rights, understanding that there will always be people with evil intent and people unable to defend themselves, how would we deal with a person who clearly committed an offense against another. I suppose as an example, a man who is generally a good man by all measures, decides to go out and drink alcohol and then smoke some marijuana. No one recognizes that he is very intoxicated and he leaves. As he is driving, he fails to recognize a red signal and crashes into the side of another car and kills the driver of that other car. At this point, what should become of him? Who should begin a claim against him and when? What kind of penalty should he suffer and who should carry out this penalty?

I wont bug you anymore and look forward to checking out this talkshoe thing, thats new to me, embarrassingly so, but thanks for the good conversation.