Type Username Here
Not a new member
I'm going to leave the question open-ended not to stifle different viewpoints or steer the conversation in any way.
Where do you stand on an individual's property rights/ ownership of land?
- Thread starter Type Username Here
- Start date
I think you might have made it a little too open-ended. The question is too vague/nonspecific to meaningfully answer IMO.
It's like asking "What's your opinion about wars" or "How do you feel about taxes". Only thing that comes to mind is "what about them?".
It's like asking "What's your opinion about wars" or "How do you feel about taxes". Only thing that comes to mind is "what about them?".
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Fair enough. I'm talking about private ownership of land, like let's say a home and land that surrounds it.
What do you believe is the right of that individual on his own property and what do you think should be the government's restrictions? I'm asking outside the context of any law or constitution.
I'm mostly pragmatic when it comes to this kind of thing. You should generally be able to do what you want as long as it's not hurting anybody, but if you're doing something that's detrimental to the community then the govt should be able to regulate/stop you as long as they can prove it.
If you're, say, wasting or destroying perfectly good farmland and there are food supply issues in your community, that would be reasonable grounds (IMO) for the government to condemn that shyt. And I don't have a problem with the government condemning property for public projects as long as the owners are compensated fairly. Obviously any government needs to be accountable to voters and able to prove that its acts are for the public good.
The individual has property rights, but the public does too, so you have to have some kind of balance.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Thanks for the answer.
What about this one scenario:
Does a law abiding citizen have the right to fire his weapon in the middle of the night if the government barges in without announcing their presence or entering the wrong house, or acting entering illegaly?
Indiana passed a law on this matter:
Thoughts?
Man....fukk the police.
But that said, I agree with the Indiana Supreme Court on this. I really don't think you should have a right to fire a weapon at anybody unless it's self-defense and you feel your life or someone else's life is at stake. I really don't like the idea, period, of making laws saying it's OK to shoot at people in this or that situation. IMO the line should be drawn at self-defense, point blank.
Trust me, I can appreciate that cops are often corrupt, but saying it's OK for people to start shooting at cops anytime cops enter their house and they don't like it is just way too slippery of a slope for me. It would just lead to more unnecessary shootouts/injuries/death, including against cops that aren't acting illegally. There's already enough gun violence as it is.
If you feel they did something illegal, press charges.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Man....fukk the police.
But that said, I agree with Indiana on this. I really don't think you should have a right to fire a weapon at anybody unless it's self-defense and you feel your life or someone else's life is at stake. I really don't like the idea, period, of making laws saying it's OK to shoot at people in this or that situation. IMO the line should be drawn at self-defense, point blank.
Trust me, I can appreciate that cops are often corrupt, but saying it's OK for people to start shooting at cops anytime cops enter their house and they don't like it is just way too slippery of a slope for me. It would just lead to more unnecessary shootouts/injuries/death, including against cops that aren't acting illegally.
If you feel the did something illegal, press charges.
I think you misread. Indiana passed this law.
So you think the government has a right to enter someone's property illegally and armed, and the property owner should face charges for acting in self defense?
I mean, I didn't make this thread solely based on shootings, but just asking while we are here.
Do you feel like the government has the right to legislate what consenting adults do on their own property?
I agreed with the Indiana Supreme Court decision. But you're misreading my response.
Nowhere did a say that the government "has a right to enter someone's property illegally and armed". In fact I said you should press charges if something like that happened. I just said that it's not grounds to just start shooting and passing this kind of law would probably just lead to more gun violence.
Just because someone does something illegal doesn't automatically mean it's ok to shoot them. If you feel your life/someone's life is threatened then it's ok to shoot, otherwise it's not.
As far as your second question, I'd say I answered that in my original post. Unless what you're doing on your own property is hurting someone, then no. If you're destroying the environment or something like that, then yeah, the govt should be able to do what they want. If two consenting adults are doing something that only effect them, then no, govt shouldn't be involved.
A good way to tell if the government should be involved is whether there's a "victim" of what you're doing. No such thing as a victimless crime IMO.
There should be no restrictions. As long as you aren't harming anyone... or you aren't putting some gross designs or pics on ur home... You should have full authority of your property. No search on your property unless its supposedly a crime scene or you're implicated in a rape or murder.
BlvdBrawler
Superstar
I say yes. If they don't announce, how do they expect the person to know he's not getting attacked.
john goodman
All Star
Eminent domain is bs... Pay a price they can't refuse or fukk off
Zoning is necessary though should encourage density and walkable residential areas
Zoning is necessary though should encourage density and walkable residential areas