Islandpacket.com reports on some of the controversial decisions facing the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Why they are controversial or even being considered is beyond me. Of the three examples given, one is a shooting after the fact, Jerome Ersland style, or even worse. The other two are shootings in the back, for crying out loud.
The fact that gun-rights folks argue these types of incidents trying to justify them indicates that they aren't interested in the truth or what's right. They're only interested in expanding and extending gun rights.
The castle doctrine they want would allow for anyone who feels threatened to shoot and kill. Do they really think that will be used properly more times than it will be abused? I certainly don't. And I don't think they believe that either. I think they don't care how often it would be abused. They just want the rights expanded, regardless of the cost.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.