That's not a crime, that's an accident.

That's not a crime, that's an accident.

 

Yes, I understand that. So...back to my original question - there does have to be intent by someone for them to break the law, correct?

Yes, I understand that. So...back to my original question - there does have to be intent by someone for them to break the law, correct?

Actually no. Reckless behavior like drunk driving.

Yes, I understand that. So...back to my original question - there does have to be intent by someone for them to break the law, correct?

 

There are many different types of "intent". You don't have to intend on killing some one to be charged criminally for their death. Like someone else already mentioned, a DUI is a good example.

 

A person drives drunk, wrecks into another car and kills the passenger of the other car. He is still responsible for that persons death because he acted recklessly, even though he might not have intended to kill them.

Why am I surprised you're asking?

 

You claimed the following:

 

Rep Obama was against allowing citizens to defend themselves with guns with no caveats.

You then claimed that the law YOU CITED had NOTHING to do with self-defense.

 

The "self-defense" piece that you said it had nothing to do with even though it was clearly cited in the law was the KEY piece of the legislation. Rep Obama said that you cannot override local laws (feel free to disagree as it's a fair question) that prohibit guns. That means that he voted to support local law regardless if it was FOR or AGAINST gun ownership. To make a blanket statement like your first post in this thread was either ignorance of the real issue (I vote for this one) or pure speculation on your part as to his real intent.

 

Despite me pointing out several times that you missed the key point you continued the normal bashing of anyone that doesn't agree with you. Cammando 101.

Did you ever find that post where I said the bill had nothing to do with self-defense?? Didn't think so..