Your views on Stand-Your-Ground, AKA Lethal Self Defense, laws - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 11-10-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Ask someone whose had their life taken whether this is true.

ask someone who's had their liberty and dignity taken if they would rather have died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

There is a very important saying that many people would do well to understand

"it is better to live on your knee's than to die on your feet"

The misunderstanding of this statement causes many problems.

are you sure you got that right? because i've always heard that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Baraka_Guru · 11-10-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

are you sure you got that right? because i've always heard that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

General Emiliano Zapata Salazar, leading figure in the Mexican Revolution.

Aliases:

"El Tigre del Sur"- Tiger of the South
"El Tigre"- The Tiger
"El Tigrillo"- Little Tiger
"El Caudillo del Sur"- Caudillo of the South
"El Atila del Sur"- The Atilla of the South

Es mejor morir a pie que vivir arrodillado (Translation: It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 03:52 PM

I wasn't going to say anything... the irony of using said quote backward was too much.

filtherton · 11-10-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

ask someone who's had their liberty and dignity taken if they would rather have died.

Are we talking about someone who has had their wallet stolen, because that's just being a little overly dramatic, don't you think?

Otherwise, the city i live in is full of refugees from war torn areas, especially somalia. These are people who have definitely had their liberty and dignity taken from them, and not in some sort of "romantic justification for carrying a gun" kind of way. These are people who've actually experienced civil war, as opposed to merely fantasizing about civil war because they want an excuse to use their guns righteously. Some of them probably would rather be dead, since suicidal depression is often a symptom of ptsd, but, judging by the rather lively community that many of them have helped create, i imagine that they are rather happy that they are still alive, despite having been robbed of liberty and dignity back home.

uncle phil · 11-10-2007, 04:06 PM

is there a problem in texas? sorry, i haven't played with guns in over 35 years, and i find the use of them to supposedly protect ones home and hearth somewhat, shall i say, silly? i guess it depends upon the neighborhood in which one chooses to live...

debaser · 11-10-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Ask someone whose had their life taken whether this is true.

I mean no offense good sir, but this is the most inane thing I have ever read on this board.

filtherton · 11-10-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

I mean no offense good sir, but this is the most inane thing I have ever read on this board.

It was more inane than empty platitudes about things that are worse than death?

debaser · 11-10-2007, 04:59 PM

If you feel that death is absolutely the worst thing that can befall you, then I offer my condolences.

By the way, in the intervening minutes since my last post I held several "unscientific polls" in graveyards and morgues. I can report that when I voiced the opinion I put forth in post #76, I heard absolutely no objections. So it seems that the constituency you wish so ferverently to avoid joining does not espouse your views after all.

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

is there a problem in texas? sorry, i haven't played with guns in over 35 years, and i find the use of them to supposedly protect ones home and hearth somewhat, shall i say, silly? i guess it depends upon the neighborhood in which one chooses to live...

In the best of all possible worlds... my guns would be motorcycle parts.

uncle phil · 11-10-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

In the best of all possible worlds... my guns would be motorcycle parts.

the ones i used to use probably are...and, here we are...

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 05:17 PM

M14s got sold off at hardware stores...

M16s (pre A1s) are still be used by the USAF! (saw them in '06)

...

I like the gun hobby because they're cheaper than golf.

And they might be useful in case of a home invasion.

Or zombie attack.

filtherton · 11-10-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser

If you feel that death is absolutely the worst thing that can befall you, then I offer my condolences.

Actually, i don't think that death is the worst thing that can befall a person. There are a lot more important things that i'd be willing to die for than temporary loss of dignity and liberty. Honestly, i think that there are many instances where choosing death over temporary loss of liberty and dignity is the irresponsible choice.

I don't think that being stripped of liberty and dignity is necessarily and absolutely worse than death, which is what i meant when i responded to your post claiming otherwise. Really, i find the notion laughable, especially in the context of this thread, where essentially you're saying that you'd rather die than suffer the loss of liberty and dignity associated with getting mugged. I mean, you're entitled to your own opinion, but excuse me if i think you're being a little bit of a drama queen over here. What's next? You'd rather die than get shitty customer service?
"'Tis better to die while covered by warranty than be denied by best buy's shitty quality assurance plan."

Quote:

By the way, in the intervening minutes since my last post I held several "unscientific polls" in graveyards and morgues. I can report that when I voiced the opinion I put forth in post #76, I heard absolutely no objections. So it seems that the constituency you wish so ferverently to avoid joining does not espouse your views after all.

They wouldn't object if you had asked them whether you could make love to their corpses either. So lube up, i guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Or zombie attack.

You'd need a lot of bullets.

dksuddeth · 11-10-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

is there a problem in texas? sorry, i haven't played with guns in over 35 years, and i find the use of them to supposedly protect ones home and hearth somewhat, shall i say, silly? i guess it depends upon the neighborhood in which one chooses to live...

unless you live in the governers mansion with state police on 24 hour guard duty, your neighborhood (wherever that may be) is not sacrosanct and you very well could experience violent crime. IF you do, would you be prepared?

as for a 'problem in texas', in case you haven't been paying attention, there are problems everywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

You'd need a lot of bullets.

just shoot em in the head.

debaser · 11-10-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

They wouldn't object if you had asked them whether you could make love to their corpses either. So lube up, i guess.

Awesome, I thought you'd never ask...

Plan9 · 11-10-2007, 06:25 PM

Oh, I'm starting to think guns are too phallic to be trusted by gentlemen like you.

(hides his Anaconda)

analog · 11-10-2007, 08:33 PM

You know, killing is definitely wrong, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that notion. Sure, it's absolutely necessary to protect your own life or the life of another, but that doesn't make it right- it makes it legally acceptable.

I don't think anyone here truly "wants" to kill someone just for taking a laptop. I think the heart of the matter is that when confronting someone in your home, it's near impossible to leave any margin for error. It's not like when several police officers come across a suspect, ordering them to put down their weapon, with real training to help with the reality of the confrontation. In the home, you're not going to stand there like a lump yelling "put your hands in the air"- one movement you don't like, and it's history.

We (most of us) are not professionals in capturing and securing an individual, let alone one who may or may not be armed. Our only recourse is to use our best judgment to err on the side of personal safety, and not on the side of the scumbag who is trying to steal your property and likely will kill you, instead, if given even a second's hesitation.

My major point here is this: both "sides" are fighting over whether or not someone's life is worth a television set or a DVD player. I don't think it's as simple as "what's mine is mine", I think it's really more about the inability to take chances when someone has penetrated the safety of your home. They already intend to steal things, there's no way of knowing what else they had in mind, or what they're capable of when confronted. We need only look as far and as simple as nature to see exactly what happens when you corner an animal. The only responsible and sane course of action is to do what you need to do to ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones. If that means pulling the trigger because they're in your house and there's no way of knowing what they want, then you pull the trigger.

LazyBoy · 11-10-2007, 11:51 PM

Its like Darwin intended it

-Will

Plan9 · 11-11-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

My major point here is this: both "sides" are fighting over whether or not someone's life is worth a television set or a DVD player. I don't think it's as simple as "what's mine is mine", I think it's really more about the inability to take chances when someone has penetrated the safety of your home. They already intend to steal things, there's no way of knowing what else they had in mind, or what they're capable of when confronted. We need only look as far and as simple as nature to see exactly what happens when you corner an animal. The only responsible and sane course of action is to do what you need to do to ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones. If that means pulling the trigger because they're in your house and there's no way of knowing what they want, then you pull the trigger.

You can play the coulda-woulda-shoulda game all you want, but that only equates to a pile of dead bodies. AND HOW:

Meh. I've been in a quite a few situations where shooting someone at 10 feet with an assault rifle would have been 100% legit and yet I didn't... I know how that shit-your-pants fear makes me act. It makes me deathly tired after the encounter... gives me this horrible shit-mouth taste... and often makes me resort to telling bad jokes on the ride back.

Logic is: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

We can all pretty much argue that restraint can get you killed in these bullshit "defending my possessions" scenarios... but it doesn't take a genius to see that going the opposite way is far worse.

A lot of factors go into a righteous shoot. There are huge tomes on this mess.

Location of attack. Time of attack. Weight disparity. Weapons present. Proper target identification. Race. Gender. Retreat factors. Etc.

Somebody breaks into my house with a gun... they better have a note for their family. A firearm represents an immediate lethal threat to my person regardless of how they are brandishing it or what their intended crime is at the time.

Somebody breaks into my house with a crowbar... no such threat. Hopefully they can hear the slide racking on the Mossberg before I get downstairs to clown their ass with some disparaging remarks like a hopped-up crackhead.

MSD · 11-11-2007, 11:17 AM

I just did some quick checking and it seems that the number of crimes and violent crimes in Florida in the first half of 2007 is higher than it was during the same time period in 2006. State officials have stated that the trend cannot be analyzed accurately until population and demographic data are released for the state and yearly crime statistics are released. State attorneys also commented that gangs have become more prevalent over the past year; it's worth noting that a huge portion of perpetrators and victims of acquaintance murders, robberies, and "child" murders (includes people up to age 24) are gang members, so we'll have to wait and see how the trend changed, if at all. There's also the slowdown of the economy to consider as a factor in property crime and robbery.

Overall, it looks like this new law in Florida may not have caused a decrease in violent crime, but it certainly hasn't caused the blood in the streets that anti-gun groups warned about. I suspect that the trend of increasing crime rate from last year that prompted this law will continue pretty much unchanged when population growth is factored in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

All in all, what these laws imply is that the public is capable of making decisions that are normally within the realm of law enforcement. Ideally, it means the public is given responsibility beyond what is normally expected of them. It is a responsibility typically reserved for those who are both empowered and held accountable for enforcing laws and keeping the peace.

These laws very simple give people the right to defend themselves in public as they would in their home. I would probably err on the side of just giving the guy what he wants, but at the first sign of "Oh shit, I might die," he's on the ground while I call the police and make an attempt to perform first aid until medics arrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The only justified reason to kill in self defence is to defend your own life, or the lives of others.

I agree with everyone who has said that to kill to defend property is unjustified.

I personally have been burgled this year. Did it piss me off? Of course. Would I for one second have considered killing the person who broke into my house, ending a human life, so that I could keep $2000 worth of consumer goods? Not for a second.

I also would not kill to defend property. Burglary is a crime against property and robbery is a crime against a person. If I caught someone running off with my TV (aside from the comedy factor of seeing a normal-sized human carry that thing,) I would call the police and file a report, and probably look around the neighborhood for a guy crushed under a 200 pound TV. It's only when a criminal displays will and intent to kill unjustly that I would consider preemptively using lethal force to defend myself. I also think I'd be more likely to use lethal force in defense of others around me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is commendable of you, should you do. I've simply read of too many cases of public disorder that I believe laws such as these should be heavily scrutinized. There is no sense making it easer for people to kill one another without valid reason. There is a lot of room for corrupt practices.

Again, these laws only permit people to defend themselves when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. It removes the duty to retreat if it isn't reasonable or possible to do so safely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

"'Tis better to die while covered by warranty than be denied by best buy's shitty quality assurance plan."

I know you were being facetious, but I want to mention that you'll probably wish you were dead if you bought a service plan from Best Buy and actually tried to get the product serviced.

filtherton · 11-11-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I know you were being facetious, but I want to mention that you'll probably wish you were dead if you bought a service plan from Best Buy and actually tried to get the product serviced.

I know someone who used to be a supervisor at one of their service call centers back when they handled such things in house. According to him, if a best buy salesperson claims something is covered by the service plan you should just assume that it isn't- because the salespeople are either liars or idiots when it comes to the service plans.

uncle phil · 11-11-2007, 03:42 PM

just out of curiosity, any of you "2nd amendment" types ever been in combat?

debaser · 11-11-2007, 03:46 PM

dksuddeth · 11-11-2007, 05:16 PM

Terrell · 11-11-2007, 05:22 PM

I support the stand your ground law. Duty to retreat only gives criminals a free shot at your back. In my opinion, if you initiate a forcible felony, or any other crime against another person, you assume the risk that they will be armed and willing to shoot you.

Jadast · 11-11-2007, 05:33 PM

I taught my wife to shoot. My oldest children, ages 16 and 17, can also safely handle a firearm. So I would say we are prepared.

Fortunately I have yet to be placed in a situation where I would actually have to defend myself or my family. The question is could I. Shooting targets is one thing - shooting another person would probably take more than I have in me.

Plan9 · 11-11-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

just out of curiosity, any of you "2nd amendment" types ever been in combat?

Twice. I still have nightmares about the horrible MRE shits.

Fire · 11-12-2007, 01:20 AM

we just passed the castle doctrine in MO - I am all for it- If someone breaks into my house, I do not intend to risk my loved ones by trying to ask their intentions- they made the choice to break in, and I will use what force I is needed with the law now firmly on my side.......

Push-Pull · 11-13-2007, 07:05 AM

Just thought I'd add this to the discussion.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...took_sl-1.html

Moral of the story? You'd better be proficient with your firearm before you attack someone holding ANY weapon....

Quote:

The armed robber who burst into a Queens bodega with his gun blazing wound up begging for his life after the deli owner hacked him with a machete.

"He whipped out his gun. I whipped out my machete, and we went to war," said Joan Marte, 46, the owner of Erick Grocery in Woodhaven. "When I hit him with the machete, he said, 'Please don't kill me.'"

When it was over, the suspect, Omar Rodriguez, 27, of Brooklyn, was missing a finger and part of an ear. Instead of demanding cash, the robber was asking the grocer to call 911, Marte said.

An ambulance took Rodriguez to Jamaica Hospital. Now he's facing attempted murder, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon charges. Rodriguez fired two shots from a semiautomatic pistol, which was recovered, cops said.

Marte, who immigrated from the Dominican Republic about 23 years ago and saved to buy the deli last year, was not injured.

Police do not believe Marte, a married father of four, will be charged with a crime.

Although neighbors outside the store yesterday hailed him as a hero, Marte said he was only trying to protect himself and his livelihood.

"It isn't worth it to kill a robber," he said. "I'm not an assassin, or a killer."

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 07:21 AM

Extensive mandatory training for weapon carry certification is a good idea.

dksuddeth · 11-13-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Extensive mandatory training for weapon carry certification is a good idea.

kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, ya think? or do you prefer to turn it in to a privilege?

Baraka_Guru · 11-13-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, ya think? or do you prefer to turn it in to a privilege?

What a capital idea! Top drawer, ol' sport!

MSD · 11-13-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Push-Pull

Just thought I'd add this to the discussion.....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...took_sl-1.html

Moral of the story? You'd better be proficient with your firearm before you attack someone holding ANY weapon....

I wish NYC would let its honest, law-abiding citizens arm themselves for self defense, but that is just badass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I know someone who used to be a supervisor at one of their service call centers back when they handled such things in house. According to him, if a best buy salesperson claims something is covered by the service plan you should just assume that it isn't- because the salespeople are either liars or idiots when it comes to the service plans.

You should be able to defend yourself with lethal force if a Best Buy employee tries to sell you an extended warranty.

filtherton · 11-13-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

You should be able to defend yourself with lethal force if a Best Buy employee tries to sell you an extended warranty.

I concur- it's implicit in the second amendment.

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, ya think? or do you prefer to turn it in to a privilege?

EEERRRRR! Wrong. The 2nd Amendment "right" has been gone since early 1900s.

Wake up, dude. Our modern gun "rights" are already heavily restricted. Do you think you have gun rights? Wrong again. State and federal laws. You have gun privileges that they can take away. How do you know? Whenever you fill out those damn state / local forms to buy a firearm. Whenever you head into CA / NYC / Chicago and just about everything you have in your vehicle is now illegal. Whenever you head into DC... where no firearms are allowed and yet the gun crime rate is one of the highest in the nation.

The only way to "restore" our "rights" is to negotiate with the system.

Joe Citizen: "We should let everybody in the country carry weapons."
Gummint: "Oh no! CHAOS! ANARCHY! Only cops, soldiers, and the guys raping our wives need guns!"
Joe Citizen: "What if we have a national training certification standard?"
Gummint: "Okay, and you'll pay $500 for the plastic card."

Republicans are pro-gun because their pro-gun lobbies support them well.

Democrats are anti-gun because their anti-gun lobbies support them well.

...

When guns are outlawed... only outlaws and paranoid white people will have guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

we just passed the castle doctrine in MO - I am all for it- If someone breaks into my house, I do not intend to risk my loved ones by trying to ask their intentions- they made the choice to break in, and I will use what force I is needed with the law now firmly on my side.......

I'm also for this kind of legislation as well. The general deterrence it provides is amazing.

Strangers have no business in the homes of others. They know this. The idea that invading someone's home is a ticket to getting shot without appeal is good.

Hell, I could just hang a "Protected by H&K" sign in my windows.

dksuddeth · 11-13-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

What a capital idea! Top drawer, ol' sport!

now all you have to do is actually rewrite the constitution. let me know how you fare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

EEERRRRR! Wrong. The 2nd Amendment "right" has been gone since early 1900s.

Wake up, dude. Our modern gun "rights" are already heavily restricted. Do you think you have gun rights? Wrong again. State and federal laws. You have gun privileges that they can take away. How do you know? Whenever you fill out those damn state / local forms to buy a firearm. Whenever you head into CA / NYC / Chicago and just about everything you have in your vehicle is now illegal. Whenever you head into DC... where no firearms are allowed and yet the gun crime rate is one of the highest in the nation.

Now, ask willravel why he supports this unconstitutional legislation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

The only way to "restore" our "rights" is to negotiate with the system.

not the only way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Joe Citizen: "We should let everybody in the country carry weapons."
Gummint: "Oh no! CHAOS! ANARCHY! Only cops, soldiers, and the guys raping our wives need guns!"
Joe Citizen: "What if we have a national training certification standard?"
Gummint: "Okay, and you'll pay $500 for the plastic card."

in other words, we'll accept it being a privilege now. what else would you like to convert from a right to a privilege, big brother gov?

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 09:44 AM

Not the only way, huh? Oh, I gotcha. Here:

*gets you a copy of Red Dawn, a Ryder truck, some ANFO*

Go ahead, tough guy. Been done already. Just make sure your compound has enough razorwire.

...

Ugh, this argument is really tough. Don't get me wrong, man... I'm ALL for my 2nd Amendment rights being preserved in their original form, but they're so damn trampled right now that I'm taking what I can get. I feel that anything that increases the number of lawful citizens buying firearms and using them in safe, lawful manner is a damn fine start.

Freedom requires more responsibility than most citizens are willing to stand.

Why do you think we have big government, the Patriot act, hometown SWAT?

...

My dilemma and one that I think I share with you and others here:

How can I defend my 2nd Amendment rights without seeming like a nutjob?

A most difficult task.

dc_dux · 11-13-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

now all you have to do is actually rewrite the constitution. let me know how you fare.

Now, ask willravel why he supports this unconstitutional legislation?

not the only way.

in other words, we'll accept it being a privilege now. what else would you like to convert from a right to a privilege, big brother gov?

Justice dk....imposing your own interpretation of the Constitution again?

When has it is ever been determined that an individual's right to bear arms is ABSOLUTE (without restriction)...aummm.....NEVER?

Its a shame the Supreme Court did not take up the DC gun law today. It may have finally resolved the issue of the "individual" right to bear arms vs. the right of the "state" to form and arm a milita of individuals.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has never answered the Second Amendment question directly, and it has been nearly 70 years since the court even approached it obliquely.

Supreme Court Punts on DC Gun Ban

The Court may still decide later this month (it only takes 4 votes among the Justices to decide to take the case)

filtherton · 11-13-2007, 09:55 AM

I've always wondered, and i guess it kind of clinches it for me in terms of how many grains of salt i take with the second amendment, but how far can you go with the definition of "arms"? It seems like contemporary references only refer to guns, but why?

If i were writing a constitution, and wanted to ensure that the citizens of the government for which it was intended would be able to protect themselves from government tyranny (assuming that that was the case) i would probably want to go a little further than just protecting the right to bear arms. I imagine that i'd want to protect the right ammunition, too, since without ammunition you're probably better off with a crowbar than with a gun. And shit, if i were serious, i'd make it so the government couldn't limit the type of gun owned, since it would be all to easy for a tyrannical government to simply issue everybody an air pistol, outlaw everything else and say, "There you go, there's your arm, we're within the letter of the law, shut the fuck up."

Now, i'm not a fucking genius, but if i were there writing the constitution i might have been a little less vauge if i thought it was important.

Plan9 · 11-13-2007, 09:56 AM

I'm even less of a genius than you, Filtherton. Science has proven it.

However, I feel that vagueness is what often maintains rights instead of restricting them.

Do you think we'd have any guns today if the second amendment wasn't there?

Martian · 11-13-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what else would you like to convert from a right to a privilege, big brother gov?

That strikes me as a bit melodramatic. Most of the world does not share your right to keep and bear arms, yet somehow we survive with our liberties intact (and indeed, some of us seemingly have more liberties than you do; I could legally marry another man, if that were my inclination).

I should state now that I have nothing against firearms themselves or firearm owners. Hell, I like guns; I can appreciate them both from the engineering standpoint as well as the testosterone-informed enjoyment of anything that makes big noises and blows shit up. I have no personal desire to own a gun, but if that's your bag than I say more power to you

What I specifically fail to comprehend is the mindset that some people seem to have regarding this issue. Part of this is due to what I see as an ungrounded fear; I simply do not understand the thought process of an individual who is so afraid for their personal safety that they feel the need to be armed at all times. I can't help but wonder if that ties into the whole second amendment deal itself. Maybe the reason that I don't feel the need to carry a weapon outside of my home (or indeed, inside it) is because I know that guns are restricted here sufficiently that the odds of me encountering one in my day-to-day life that isn't strapped to the hip of one of our fine officers of the law is exceedingly small? I don't know, just a bit of random conjecture.

But yeah. The point is that I have no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. You want to keep them in your home to defend yourself and your loved ones? Well, sure, go for it. I can get behind that. And if you really, really feel that it's such an untamed wilderness out there that you need personal protection while going about your daily routine, I guess I can kind of dig it. I mean, I don't share that particular fear, but then Jello creeps me out. I don't see that we need to have the right to carry a concealed weapon in my part of the world, but that's a choice that you as a nation have made and I'm not about to tell you otherwise.

At the same time, I think it's foolish for anyone not to recognize that a firearm is a weapon, designed with the specific intent of injuring and/or killing other living beings. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate place in the world. What it does mean is that owning a firearm carries with it a large burden of responsibility; it is my opinion and one I don't expect to have contested that when you make the decision to acquire a firearm you are taking on the responsibility that said firearm does not contribute to the harm of others except when it's completely unavoidable. If someone is going to be injured or killed, it's better that it be the aggressor. Otherwise, it's up to you to show the necessary wisdom to keep your weapon in a manner that will not lead to injury of yourself or others. Do you think every individual is capable of this?

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. If, however, you give guns to everyone, outlaws will still have guns, but so will every individual who lacks the necessary judgment to handle them responsibly. Clearly, there needs to be a middle ground.

EDIT - Holy hotbed, Batman! Look at all the replies!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Freedom requires more responsibility than most citizens are willing to stand.

Very insightful. I would take the argument further, however, and suggest that many citizens are not capable of bearing the level of responsibility required. This, of course, is going from the frying pan to the fire, as one is required to ask how much can we abridge individual freedoms for an individual's own good? It's a very fine line to walk.

11-10-2007, 03:52 PM	#83 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I wasn't going to say anything... the irony of using said quote backward was too much. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-10-2007, 04:06 PM	#85 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	is there a problem in texas? sorry, i haven't played with guns in over 35 years, and i find the use of them to supposedly protect ones home and hearth somewhat, shall i say, silly? i guess it depends upon the neighborhood in which one chooses to live... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it. Last edited by uncle phil; 11-10-2007 at 04:09 PM..

11-10-2007, 04:59 PM	#88 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	If you feel that death is absolutely the worst thing that can befall you, then I offer my condolences. By the way, in the intervening minutes since my last post I held several "unscientific polls" in graveyards and morgues. I can report that when I voiced the opinion I put forth in post #76, I heard absolutely no objections. So it seems that the constituency you wish so ferverently to avoid joining does not espouse your views after all. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while. Last edited by debaser; 11-10-2007 at 05:07 PM..

11-10-2007, 05:17 PM	#91 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	M14s got sold off at hardware stores... M16s (pre A1s) are still be used by the USAF! (saw them in '06) ... I like the gun hobby because they're cheaper than golf. And they might be useful in case of a home invasion. Or zombie attack. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-10-2007, 06:25 PM	#95 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Oh, I'm starting to think guns are too phallic to be trusted by gentlemen like you. (hides his Anaconda) __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-10-2007, 08:33 PM	#96 (permalink)
analog Banned	You know, killing is definitely wrong, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that notion. Sure, it's absolutely necessary to protect your own life or the life of another, but that doesn't make it right- it makes it legally acceptable. I don't think anyone here truly "wants" to kill someone just for taking a laptop. I think the heart of the matter is that when confronting someone in your home, it's near impossible to leave any margin for error. It's not like when several police officers come across a suspect, ordering them to put down their weapon, with real training to help with the reality of the confrontation. In the home, you're not going to stand there like a lump yelling "put your hands in the air"- one movement you don't like, and it's history. We (most of us) are not professionals in capturing and securing an individual, let alone one who may or may not be armed. Our only recourse is to use our best judgment to err on the side of personal safety, and not on the side of the scumbag who is trying to steal your property and likely will kill you, instead, if given even a second's hesitation. My major point here is this: both "sides" are fighting over whether or not someone's life is worth a television set or a DVD player. I don't think it's as simple as "what's mine is mine", I think it's really more about the inability to take chances when someone has penetrated the safety of your home. They already intend to steal things, there's no way of knowing what else they had in mind, or what they're capable of when confronted. We need only look as far and as simple as nature to see exactly what happens when you corner an animal. The only responsible and sane course of action is to do what you need to do to ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones. If that means pulling the trigger because they're in your house and there's no way of knowing what they want, then you pull the trigger.

11-10-2007, 11:51 PM	#97 (permalink)
LazyBoy Insane Location: Memphis Area	Its like Darwin intended it -Will __________________ Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between...

11-11-2007, 03:42 PM	#101 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	just out of curiosity, any of you "2nd amendment" types ever been in combat? __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

11-11-2007, 03:46 PM	#102 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Yes. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

11-11-2007, 05:16 PM	#103 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	yes. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-11-2007, 05:22 PM	#104 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	I support the stand your ground law. Duty to retreat only gives criminals a free shot at your back. In my opinion, if you initiate a forcible felony, or any other crime against another person, you assume the risk that they will be armed and willing to shoot you.

11-11-2007, 05:33 PM	#105 (permalink)
Jadast Upright Location: Summerville, SC	I taught my wife to shoot. My oldest children, ages 16 and 17, can also safely handle a firearm. So I would say we are prepared. Fortunately I have yet to be placed in a situation where I would actually have to defend myself or my family. The question is could I. Shooting targets is one thing - shooting another person would probably take more than I have in me.

11-12-2007, 01:20 AM	#107 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	we just passed the castle doctrine in MO - I am all for it- If someone breaks into my house, I do not intend to risk my loved ones by trying to ask their intentions- they made the choice to break in, and I will use what force I is needed with the law now firmly on my side....... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

11-13-2007, 07:21 AM	#109 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Extensive mandatory training for weapon carry certification is a good idea. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-13-2007, 09:44 AM	#116 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Not the only way, huh? Oh, I gotcha. Here: **gets you a copy of Red Dawn, a Ryder truck, some ANFO Go ahead, tough guy. Been done already. Just make sure your compound has enough razorwire. ... Ugh, this argument is really tough. Don't get me wrong, man... I'm ALL for my 2nd Amendment rights being preserved in their original form, but they're so damn trampled right now that I'm taking what I can get. I feel that anything that increases the number of lawful citizens buying firearms and using them in safe, lawful manner is a damn fine start. Freedom requires more responsibility than most citizens are willing to stand. Why do you think we have big government, the Patriot act, hometown SWAT? ... My dilemma and one that I think I share with you and others here: How can I defend my 2nd Amendment rights without seeming like a nutjob? A most difficult task. __________________ Whatever you can carry.** "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 11-13-2007 at 09:50 AM..

11-13-2007, 09:55 AM	#118 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I've always wondered, and i guess it kind of clinches it for me in terms of how many grains of salt i take with the second amendment, but how far can you go with the definition of "arms"? It seems like contemporary references only refer to guns, but why? If i were writing a constitution, and wanted to ensure that the citizens of the government for which it was intended would be able to protect themselves from government tyranny (assuming that that was the case) i would probably want to go a little further than just protecting the right to bear arms. I imagine that i'd want to protect the right ammunition, too, since without ammunition you're probably better off with a crowbar than with a gun. And shit, if i were serious, i'd make it so the government couldn't limit the type of gun owned, since it would be all to easy for a tyrannical government to simply issue everybody an air pistol, outlaw everything else and say, "There you go, there's your arm, we're within the letter of the law, shut the fuck up." Now, i'm not a fucking genius, but if i were there writing the constitution i might have been a little less vauge if i thought it was important.

11-13-2007, 09:56 AM	#119 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I'm even less of a genius than you, Filtherton. Science has proven it. However, I feel that vagueness is what often maintains rights instead of restricting them. Do you think we'd have any guns today if the second amendment wasn't there? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."