Is it legal to kill someone for invading your house?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#151 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] Than explain your amazing plan to get criminals in the USA to give up their guns. How would you go about making sure every single gun was taken out of their hands. On top of that you would never be able to get all the guns away from regular citizens as well. Many would not give them up and would likely shoot you if you tried to take their guns. I think you are being very naive if you actually think its possible to get rid of all the guns in the USA. It will never happen ever

testfactor888

Regular citizens who would shoot you if you try to take their guns are nutters IMO. I think you're being naive and paranoid if you really think the situation is so far gone.

So you have no viable plan than I can assume. Since of course you are not answering the question. Many people say that the government can have their guns when they pry them from their cold dead hands. I would of course acknowledge not everyone that says that means it but I would also be quite certain there are quite a few people out there that do. You are being naive sir to think that your gun-less utopia could ever take place in the USA. Before you make another post replying to me why not stop trying to blow smoke into this thread and come up with a real idea about how to get guns out of peoples hands here. Something that has the possibility of working. I get the feeling you can't since you have so far dodged that question

See the post before yours. Do I have to come up with a complete strategy for the gradual phasing out of firearms for my argument to even be possible in your opinion?

So far, all you've done is stated that it's impossible in America because Americans love their guns. Over the years, almost every developed country has managed to abolish private gun ownership apart from America. I don't know why you think that America is incapable of taking that step too.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#152 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] I agree 100% despite you thinking sarcasm will make you actually have a believable argument in this thread. So far you haven't realistically said how you plan to get all the guns out of the criminals hands in the USA to make your gun-less utopia become a reality.

testfactor888

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.

You really don't know the USA do you. Doesn't matter if the murder rate went to 0 people will still want to own guns for hunting and also just because they feel it is their right. People get very defensive especially about the ownership of guns. You have no idea how strong the gun culture is in this country do you? Doesn't matter if they stopped selling guns as people would still have them and they last for a very long time. They don't just suddenly stop being able to be used overnight. The guns we have now could go for hundreds of years still and work if properly maintained. Licenses don't mean alot since banning the sale of guns from your original idea would create an even bigger black market than there already might be. Don't need an arms license to sell or buy that way. Your ideas have no real basis in reality for what the USA is like. Guns will never be able to be outlawed in this country and for you to think otherwise shows me you don't look at what the truth really is out here. Other countries might be successful in keeping guns out of their citizens hands but the USA will never have that happen. There are far to many guns out there and there is no way possible to get rid of them all.

Ok, mate. I'll let you cling to that. I don't think it's something I want to argue with you because it seems to be a matter of faith - like trying to argue with a creationist. :P

Avatar image for testfactor888
#153 Posted by testfactor888 (7157 posts) -

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Regular citizens who would shoot you if you try to take their guns are nutters IMO. I think you're being naive and paranoid if you really think the situation is so far gone.jimmyjammer69

So you have no viable plan than I can assume. Since of course you are not answering the question. Many people say that the government can have their guns when they pry them from their cold dead hands. I would of course acknowledge not everyone that says that means it but I would also be quite certain there are quite a few people out there that do. You are being naive sir to think that your gun-less utopia could ever take place in the USA. Before you make another post replying to me why not stop trying to blow smoke into this thread and come up with a real idea about how to get guns out of peoples hands here. Something that has the possibility of working. I get the feeling you can't since you have so far dodged that question

See the post before yours. Do I have to come up with a complete strategy for the gradual phasing out of firearms for my argument to even be possible in your opinion?

So far, all you've done is stated that it's impossible in America because Americans love their guns. Over the years, almost every developed country has managed to abolish private gun ownership apart from America. I don't know why you think that America is incapable of taking that step too.

Because the majority don't want to take that step? I read your previous post and it isn't based in reality and I replied showing you why I felt that way. Guns will never go away in the USA. Just the way it is here
Avatar image for testfactor888
#154 Posted by testfactor888 (7157 posts) -

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.jimmyjammer69

You really don't know the USA do you. Doesn't matter if the murder rate went to 0 people will still want to own guns for hunting and also just because they feel it is their right. People get very defensive especially about the ownership of guns. You have no idea how strong the gun culture is in this country do you? Doesn't matter if they stopped selling guns as people would still have them and they last for a very long time. They don't just suddenly stop being able to be used overnight. The guns we have now could go for hundreds of years still and work if properly maintained. Licenses don't mean alot since banning the sale of guns from your original idea would create an even bigger black market than there already might be. Don't need an arms license to sell or buy that way. Your ideas have no real basis in reality for what the USA is like. Guns will never be able to be outlawed in this country and for you to think otherwise shows me you don't look at what the truth really is out here. Other countries might be successful in keeping guns out of their citizens hands but the USA will never have that happen. There are far to many guns out there and there is no way possible to get rid of them all.

Ok, mate. I'll let you cling to that. I don't think it's something I want to argue with you because it seems to be a matter of faith - like trying to argue with a creationist. :P

It is quite good that you have seen my point and given up arguing anymore. Your ideas we're getting more ridiculous as the thread went on. Regardless your throwing in the "creationist" jab at the end of your post is quite clever. Considering I don't have faith or a religion of any sort it doesn't really effect me though. Keep pretending you have any realistic basis for your ideas though if it makes you feel better. Have a good one
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#155 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] You really don't know the USA do you. Doesn't matter if the murder rate went to 0 people will still want to own guns for hunting and also just because they feel it is their right. People get very defensive especially about the ownership of guns. You have no idea how strong the gun culture is in this country do you? Doesn't matter if they stopped selling guns as people would still have them and they last for a very long time. They don't just suddenly stop being able to be used overnight. The guns we have now could go for hundreds of years still and work if properly maintained. Licenses don't mean alot since banning the sale of guns from your original idea would create an even bigger black market than there already might be. Don't need an arms license to sell or buy that way. Your ideas have no real basis in reality for what the USA is like. Guns will never be able to be outlawed in this country and for you to think otherwise shows me you don't look at what the truth really is out here. Other countries might be successful in keeping guns out of their citizens hands but the USA will never have that happen. There are far to many guns out there and there is no way possible to get rid of them all.testfactor888

Ok, mate. I'll let you cling to that. I don't think it's something I want to argue with you because it seems to be a matter of faith - like trying to argue with a creationist. :P

It is quite good that you have seen my point and given up arguing anymore. Your ideas we're getting more ridiculous as the thread went on. Regardless your throwing in the "creationist" jab at the end of your post is quite clever. Considering I don't have faith or a religion of any sort it doesn't really effect me though. Keep pretending you have any realistic basis for your ideas though if it makes you feel better. Have a good one

Thanks dude, you too!
Avatar image for Chaos_HL21
#156 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5288 posts) -

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Or set up automatic sentries along the perimiter of your property and teach those filthy revolutionary commies to have some proper respect for trespass laws.jimmyjammer69

I agree 100% despite you thinking sarcasm will make you actually have a believable argument in this thread. So far you haven't realistically said how you plan to get all the guns out of the criminals hands in the USA to make your gun-less utopia become a reality.

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#157 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] I agree 100% despite you thinking sarcasm will make you actually have a believable argument in this thread. So far you haven't realistically said how you plan to get all the guns out of the criminals hands in the USA to make your gun-less utopia become a reality.

Chaos_HL21

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared: Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit; guns cannot.

Phasing out would involve: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons and enacting some sort of confiscation measures, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.

Avatar image for Chrypt22
#159 Posted by Chrypt22 (1387 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] I agree 100% despite you thinking sarcasm will make you actually have a believable argument in this thread. So far you haven't realistically said how you plan to get all the guns out of the criminals hands in the USA to make your gun-less utopia become a reality.

Chaos_HL21

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

This. There are so many guns out there it would be impossible to "disarm" the public, moreover, how would you compensate people for the loss?? Guns arent cheap and saying to bad so sad won't fly. Also, nearly all criminals have guns illegally so where would that leave people that obey the law??

Avatar image for killyou060606
#160 Posted by killyou060606 (27091 posts) -
Yeah and i've been told you can also keep the corpse, for eating or stuffing it doesn't matter.
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#161 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.Chrypt22

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

This. There are so many guns out there it would be impossible to "disarm" the public, moreover, how would you compensate people for the loss?? Guns arent cheap and saying to bad so sad won't fly. Also, nearly all criminals have guns illegally so where would that leave people that obey the law??

Good point. Armistices could involve financial compensation. Re. bad guys with guns: sure, that sounds nasty, but that's how it's worked in most countries, until those crooks run out of a ready and cheap source of weapons due to limited supply.
Avatar image for thegerg
#162 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared: Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit; guns cannot.

Phasing out would involve: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons and enacting some sort of confiscation measures, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.

jimmyjammer69

Let me ask a simple question. Why do you think that our Constitution recognizes our human right to bear arms?

Avatar image for Chaos_HL21
#163 Posted by Chaos_HL21 (5288 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but no longer selling guns is a good first step. No longer issuing arms licences is a good second step. Watching murder statistics drop in subsequent years would be a nice means of persuading the public that guns do more harm than good.jimmyjammer69

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared. Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit. It would take: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.

How wwould you get the weapons away from the criminals? How about weapons coming into the country illegally, it worked with Drugs and alcohol. What if you could not get the public to see that gun ownership would be unnecessary, would you crackdown on people speaking out about the right to bear arms?

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#165 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared: Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit; guns cannot.

Phasing out would involve: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons and enacting some sort of confiscation measures, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.

thegerg

Let me ask a simple question. Why do you think that our Constitution recognizes our human right to bear arms?

Because you were terrified of the then realistic threat of homeland invasion involving guns?
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#166 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

So what about the criminals who have guns? I am pretty sure they would not care about the law. In the 1920s the US tried to ban alcohol, did that stop people from buyng alcohol? Nope, it only gave the criminals a ton of money. The Same thing for the 'war on drugs'. Stuff like Marijuana is illegal in the US, but the goverment have problems enforcing it. Banning firearms will only end up in disarmming the 'good guys', the people who follow the laws.

But hey the Criminals will love it, No longer having to worry about being shot if they break into a persons house.

Chaos_HL21

It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared. Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit. It would take: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.

How wwould you get the weapons away from the criminals? How about weapons coming into the country illegally, it worked with Drugs and alcohol. What if you could not get the public to see that gun ownership would be unnecessary, would you crackdown on people speaking out about the right to bear arms?

As I said, zero might be an unachievable statistic, but you could probably realistically cut gun crime down to 1% of its current level.
Avatar image for thegerg
#167 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

Because you were terrified of the then realistic threat of homeland invasion involving guns?jimmyjammer69

Not exactly. The Constitution recognizes the right to own weapons because the existence of a free state is dependant on the ability of its citizens to form a militia. Free men have the right to bear arms because it is necessary to ensure that that freedom will be protected.

Avatar image for thegerg
#168 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]It's not a one-step solution, but alcohol and guns are not so easily compared. Alcohol can be brewed by anyone with access to fruit. It would take: 1)the public to agree that gun ownership was unnecessary and destructive, 2)a ban on distribution or ownership of weapons, and 3)time. Of course you'd never reach zero gun ownership but the majority of countries which have banned gun ownership have managed to go from unrestricted possession to very limited gun crime/ownership.jimmyjammer69

How wwould you get the weapons away from the criminals? How about weapons coming into the country illegally, it worked with Drugs and alcohol. What if you could not get the public to see that gun ownership would be unnecessary, would you crackdown on people speaking out about the right to bear arms?

As I said, zero might be an unachievable statistic, but you could probably realistically cut gun crime down to 1% of its current level.

You could cut down drunk driving deaths by as much by outlawing cars. You could drastically reduce knee and ankle injuries by making basketball illegal. We could cut down the threat of terrorism by appealing a few constitutional amendments too, but that doesn't mean that it is the right answer.

Avatar image for Allicrombie
#169 Posted by Allicrombie (26213 posts) -
here I'm pretty sure its only legal if they try to kill you first.
Avatar image for fishing666
#170 Posted by fishing666 (2113 posts) -
ok..so you say it's legal to kill a intruder to your house. what if you invited someone you hate to your home then shoot the living **** outta them and call it a day justified murder?
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#171 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Because you were terrified of the then realistic threat of homeland invasion involving guns?thegerg

Not exactly. The Constitution recognizes the right to own weapons because the existence of a free state is dependant on the ability of its citizens to form a militia. Free men have the right to bear arms because it is necessary to ensure that that freedom will be protected.

I see your point, but a free state is more or less a contradiction in terms. We all sacrifice certain freedoms to guarantee happiness and safety as part of the social contract. Living in fear of being shot is also not true freedom.
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#172 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

How wwould you get the weapons away from the criminals? How about weapons coming into the country illegally, it worked with Drugs and alcohol. What if you could not get the public to see that gun ownership would be unnecessary, would you crackdown on people speaking out about the right to bear arms?

thegerg

As I said, zero might be an unachievable statistic, but you could probably realistically cut gun crime down to 1% of its current level.

You could cut down drunk driving deaths by as much by outlawing cars. You could drastically reduce knee and ankle injuries by making basketball illegal. We could cut down the threat of terrorism by appealing a few constitutional amendments too, but that doesn't mean that it is the right answer.

Civilian ownership of cars does much more harm than good, basketball likewise. I don't agree that free ownership of guns does more harm than good.
Avatar image for T_P_O
#173 Posted by T_P_O (5388 posts) -
[QUOTE="fishing666"]ok..so you say it's legal to kill a intruder to your house. what if you invited someone you hate to your home then shoot the living **** outta them and call it a day justified murder?

They need to enter unlawfully or forcibly for it to apply.
Avatar image for Penguinchow
#174 Posted by Penguinchow (1629 posts) -
Arkansas doesn't have castle law, but our laws actually protect a home owner defending himself MORE than castle law. In arkansas, if you don't think you can flee with absolute safety, you are authorized to use deadly force. Not that I'm going to be thinking about that if someone breaks into a house that contains my family.
Avatar image for thegerg
#175 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

I see your point, but a free state is more or less a contradiction in terms. We all sacrifice certain freedoms to guarantee happiness and safety as part of the social contract. Living in fear of being shot is also not true freedom. jimmyjammer69

Sacrificing the ability to defend oneself is not a freedom that we should consider giving away. As long as guns exist, which they will regardless of the law, there is a possibility that you will be shot. I have a feeling that you really don't understand from whom we are we are most importantly intended to defend ourselves with our weapons.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#176 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I see your point, but a free state is more or less a contradiction in terms. We all sacrifice certain freedoms to guarantee happiness and safety as part of the social contract. Living in fear of being shot is also not true freedom. thegerg

Sacrificing the ability to defend oneself is not a freedom that we should consider giving away. As long as guns exist, which they will regardless of the law, there is a possibility that you will be shot. I have a feeling that you really don't understand from whom we are we are most importantly intended to defend ourselves with our weapons.

You would still be able to defend yourself, just not with guns or rockets or enriched uranium.

I guess there is a cultural aspect to it which I never will understand. US gun laws do seem kind of crazy to a lot of foreigners, so, yeah, much of it must be upbringing. Then again, British fireworks laws might seem excessively liberal to you guys. Go figure. :P

Avatar image for thegerg
#177 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

You would still be able to defend yourself, just not with guns or rockets or enriched uranium.

I guess there is a cultural aspect to it which I never will understand. US gun laws do seem kind of crazy to a lot of foreigners, so, yeah, much of it must be upbringing. Then again, British fireworks laws might seem excessively liberal to you guys. Go figure. :P

jimmyjammer69

From whom do you think our gun laws are meant to allow us to defend ourselves?

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#178 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

You would still be able to defend yourself, just not with guns or rockets or enriched uranium.

I guess there is a cultural aspect to it which I never will understand. US gun laws do seem kind of crazy to a lot of foreigners, so, yeah, much of it must be upbringing. Then again, British fireworks laws might seem excessively liberal to you guys. Go figure. :P

thegerg

From whom do you think our gun laws are meant to allow us to defend ourselves?

Other guys with guns?
Avatar image for thegerg
#179 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

Other guys with guns?jimmyjammer69

More specifically...?

EDIT: I'll give you a hint. It's a group from which the government would never take weapons.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#180 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Other guys with guns?thegerg

More specifically...?

I dunno, these questions are hard. :(
Avatar image for thegerg
#181 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

I dunno, these questions are hard. :(jimmyjammer69

Think about guys in camouflage uniforms with big guns and a flag on their shoulder.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#182 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I dunno, these questions are hard. :(thegerg

Think about guys in camouflage uniforms with big guns and a flag on their shoulder.

Whose flag?
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#183 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -
Wait, we're talking about civil war re-enactment enthusiasts right?
Avatar image for thegerg
#184 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

Whose flag?jimmyjammer69

In my case, the US flag.

Avatar image for thegerg
#185 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

Wait, we're talking about civil war re-enactment enthusiasts right?jimmyjammer69

The have the same rights as any other man.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#186 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Whose flag?thegerg

In my case, the US flag.

I'm not sure what to say. I think I'm going to bow out here. I guess it's like you say, something I'm not going to understand.
Avatar image for resevl4rlz
#187 Posted by resevl4rlz (3763 posts) -

yeah it is. You know if a robber breaks in your house and he tricks and breaks his leg in your property, he can sue you. If a robber breaks in and you beat his ass, he can still sue you. If you shot him, he can sue you.J-WOW

sadly this

Avatar image for thegerg
#188 Posted by thegerg (18397 posts) -

I'm not sure what to say. I think I'm going to bow out here. I guess it's like you say, something I'm not going to understand.jimmyjammer69

Something along the lines of "Yeah, I guess you're right. The ability to defend myself from those to whom I grant so much power, and to whom I give the ability to take money an d do violence in my name, is very important to me. In the past many governments, including seemingly benevolent ones, have enslaved their citizens and murdered innocents. My government works for me, but the power that it has to do its bidding can corrupt. I understand that sacrificing my ability does not, as I was arguing earlier, make me secure." would suffice.

The simple fact is that the right of men to bear arms is not recognized by out Constitution so that hunters can shoot deer, orso that we can protect ourselves from armed robbers. The fundemental reason that populations of free men must own weapons is to ensure that their freedom is protected.

Avatar image for testfactor888
#189 Posted by testfactor888 (7157 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I'm not sure what to say. I think I'm going to bow out here. I guess it's like you say, something I'm not going to understand.thegerg

Something along the lines of "Yeah, I guess you're right. The ability to defend myself from those to whom I grant so much power, and to whom I give the ability to take money an d do violence in my name, is very important to me" would suffice.

He won't admit when he is wrong in this thread. Going over the pages that becomes clear.
Avatar image for gmaster456
#190 Posted by gmaster456 (7568 posts) -
Even if it is illegal i'd do it to protect my family and gladly go to Jail for it if it means my family is safe. Those who read the gun thread somebody made earlier today know what I'm packing too ;)
Avatar image for Penguinchow
#191 Posted by Penguinchow (1629 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Whose flag?jimmyjammer69

In my case, the US flag.

I'm not sure what to say. I think I'm going to bow out here. I guess it's like you say, something I'm not going to understand.

He's talking about the U.S. military. Guns are protection against dictatorship and tyrannical rule by government. Not that I'm saying that is an issue here or looks like it will ever be. But if only the government has weapons they can do whatever they want in a worst-case scenario
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#192 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

He won't admit when he is wrong in this thread. Going over the pages that becomes clear.testfactor888

lol TF888's still butthurt from pages back :P

Something along the lines of "Yeah, I guess you're right. The ability to defend myself from those to whom I grant so much power, and to whom I give the ability to take money an d do violence in my name, is very important to me. In the past many governments, including seemingly benevolent ones, have enslaved their citizens and murdered innocents. My government works for me, but the power that it has to do its bidding can corrupt. I understand that sacrificing my ability does not, as I was arguing earlier, make me secure." would suffice.

The simple fact is that the right of men to bear arms is not recognized by out Constitution so that hunters can shoot deer, orso that we can protect ourselves from armed robbers. The fundemental reason that populations of free men must own weapons is to ensure that their freedom is protected.

thegerg

Ok, I'll bite. No, actually I'll nibble and then run away. :D

Here's the thing: I don't feel insecure with my government for not arming citizens because I see its primary legitimate role as to ensure their safety, and I wouldn't feel safe with people walking about the street with guns in their jackets, guns in their cars or guns in their homes. If a government can't guarantee its citizens the basic safety of not having everyone around them equipped with killing mechanisms in a paranoid arms race frenzy, then I'm not surprised they wouldn't trust it.

Honestly, I think the obsession with guns is an (understandable) atavism in a relatively young nation with a bloody internal history, which will eventually disappear along with this relentless paranoia towards government. Or maybe the US will eventually buckle under internal tensions and disappear from the world stage during Civil War II, which seems to be what half its citizens want.

Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#193 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="thegerg"]

In my case, the US flag.

Penguinchow

I'm not sure what to say. I think I'm going to bow out here. I guess it's like you say, something I'm not going to understand.

He's talking about the U.S. military. Guns are protection against dictatorship and tyrannical rule by government. Not that I'm saying that is an issue here or looks like it will ever be. But if only the government has weapons they can do whatever they want in a worst-case scenario

That makes sense, but at the same time having armed citizens constantly shooting each other seems like a pretty good pretext for expanding government to me.

Avatar image for testfactor888
#194 Posted by testfactor888 (7157 posts) -
lol TF888's still butthurt from pages back :P jimmyjammer69
Considering you gave up and lost the argument earlier not sure how you see it as being butt hurt. Just see every argument you have given as rather naive. You called me a creationist and yet I don't believe in god so that really diden't upset me. Just made you look quite juvenile
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#195 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]lol TF888's still butthurt from pages back :P testfactor888
Considering you gave up and lost the argument earlier not sure how you see it as being butt hurt. Just see every argument you have given as rather naive. You called me a creationist and yet I don't believe in god so that really diden't upset me. Just made you look quite juvenile

Yah TF. Your argument came down to a special faith in the American people and how not being American, I wouldn't understand. I'd say you totally had me on the ropes there.
Avatar image for dkrustyklown
#196 Posted by dkrustyklown (2387 posts) -

No, it's illegal. I can't imagine any property I have being worth more than a human life either, so that makes sense to me. Using proportionate force in a situation where life was in danger would be legal though.jimmyjammer69

An empty beer can sitting on my coffee table is worth more than a burglar's life. A burglar is inherently a savage; a barbarian. Devoid of reason, morality, or an understanding of the bounderies of personal space and property, a burglar automaticaly forfeits his life by entering another man's home seeking plunder.

A burglar is the type of person that is fit for only two things: death or endless servitude. Since modern society doesn't commonly allow the latter, then I prefer the former.

Avatar image for testfactor888
#197 Posted by testfactor888 (7157 posts) -
[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]lol TF888's still butthurt from pages back :P jimmyjammer69
Considering you gave up and lost the argument earlier not sure how you see it as being butt hurt. Just see every argument you have given as rather naive. You called me a creationist and yet I don't believe in god so that really diden't upset me. Just made you look quite juvenile

Yah TF. Your argument came down to a special faith in the American people and how not being American, I wouldn't understand. I'd say you totally had me on the ropes there.

Glad you can admit that. Its a good first step
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#198 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]No, it's illegal. I can't imagine any property I have being worth more than a human life either, so that makes sense to me. Using proportionate force in a situation where life was in danger would be legal though.dkrustyklown

An empty beer can sitting on my coffee table is worth more than a burglar's life. A burglar is inherently a savage; a barbarian. Devoid of reason, morality, or an understanding of the bounderies of personal space and property, a burglar automaticaly forfeits his life by entering another man's home seeking plunder.

A burglar is the type of person that is fit for only two things: death or endless servitude. Since modern society doesn't commonly allow the latter, then I prefer the former.

How very provocative.
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
#199 Posted by jimmyjammer69 (12239 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] Considering you gave up and lost the argument earlier not sure how you see it as being butt hurt. Just see every argument you have given as rather naive. You called me a creationist and yet I don't believe in god so that really diden't upset me. Just made you look quite juveniletestfactor888
Yah TF. Your argument came down to a special faith in the American people and how not being American, I wouldn't understand. I'd say you totally had me on the ropes there.

Glad you can admit that. Its a good first step

Wow. You won't let go, will you. Still stinging? :lol:

Avatar image for GHlegend77
#200 Posted by GHlegend77 (10328 posts) -

It's only legal unless you feel that your life is being threatened.

arad96
But if you feel you're going to be shot in the head, then it's illegal. :P