Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How did you manage to be so wrong so quickly?
A robber never sets out to attack anyone. Maybe you should look up the definition of the term "robber", huh?
Your fundamental problem is a total lack of knowledge and is typical of people who like to quote popular sayings without understanding what they mean. Robbers do not live by a sword or any other weapon. His tools of the trade are nimble fingers.
Guns are not natural means of defence but if you insist on thinking of them as such then criminals have the same needs.
How silly you are. You're about 16-years-old, right?
My list of situations in life includes being a war veteran where victims of crimes were everyday occurrences on both sides. I'm pretty sure I know much more about it than you.
Why are you so silly? Maybe you're not more than 12?
...... A robbery IS an artack. It is one person forcibly taking somebody elses property ....
You've got one hell of a fantasy.Tsk-tsk. There is no one on this forum who is "far older" than I. You are just a silly little boy........ the new model of robber frequently kills their victim for no reason at all.
I am far older than you, and based on your infantile talking points no doubt given you by your sock, joe b, you have never seen the elephant
Tsk-tsk. There is no one on this forum who is "far older" than I. You are just a silly little boy.
You are using a criminal act to try to counter a lawful right. It is incredible to me that you don’t see the falsehood in your scenario.Then it is also a "natural right" (your words, not mine) for a criminal to defend him-herself by the use of guns too.
Robber: "You see, your honour, I entered the deceased home with the intent of carrying out my duty as a burglar ... nothing more than that. But then the home-owner confronted me with an object, the type of which I could not decern in the dark".
Defence lawyer: "As you can clearly see, your honour, my client acted in self-defence by his natural right to defend himself with a gun."
Judge: "I concur. Release the accused, baillif."
Pistols are short-barreled objects that jettison metal, so-called "bullets" by a controlled explosion, the sole purpose (read, only purpose or exclusive purpose) of which is to put holes in anything (or anyone) it is pointed at. Rifles are long-barreled objects serving the very same purpose.
Any more questions?
You said that robbers do not live by the sword, but that his tools are his nimble fingers. The criminal uses implied force, since there is an implied danger of the criminal killing or maiming the victim.How did you manage to be so wrong so quickly?
A robber never sets out to attack anyone. Maybe you should look up the definition of the term "robber", huh?
Your fundamental problem is a total lack of knowledge and is typical of people who like to quote popular sayings without understanding what they mean. Robbers do not live by a sword or any other weapon. His tools of the trade are nimble fingers.
Guns are not natural means of defence but if you insist on thinking of them as such then criminals have the same needs.
How silly you are. You're about 16-years-old, right?
My list of situations in life includes being a war veteran where victims of crimes were everyday occurrences on both sides. I'm pretty sure I know much more about it than you.
Why are you so silly? Maybe you're not more than 12?
It takes a special kind of stupid to claim a robber isn't attacking their victim.
What "special kind of stupid" calls stealing someone's belongings "an attack" and refer to the stolen item as "a victim"?Sure thing troll.
Hello stupid...
I am not the one who claims that arming oneself with a gun is a "natural right". I am saying that it isn't. So don't bark up my tree. But if you believe that guns are a "natural right" then I invoke the "the goose & the gander" rule to demonstrate how silly you are.You are using a criminal act to try to counter a lawful right. It is incredible to me that you don’t see the falsehood in your scenario.
Take what you have said and put it into an actual event: let’s make you the criminal stand in, and you break into my house, and kill me.
If you tell the judge and jury, that you had a right to shoot me dead, before I shot you, how would that go over?
A key facet of the law is that what is done under its rubric, was done lawfully.
Now put yourself in the stead of any homeowner who shoots and kills any burglar. Where I live and in so many other places, the homeowner would not even be charged.
Thats because the homeowner has a right to be where he is. And the burglar is an outlaw. I killed an attacker once, and I set legal precedent for self defense in my home state. That’s because I acted with good sense and within natural law.
I was acquitted.
Correct. Absolutely CORRECT.You said that robbers do not live by the sword, but that his tools are his nimble fingers.
Now you are changing the subject ........... but OK.... do you think that all criminals are un-armed? ..... And do you honestly think that people will just meekly surrender to them?
It's not? Why then was it called the Nucular ARMS Race?
One would think that's obvious, but some people .......Nuclear weapons did not exist in 1791 so that cannot have been what the founders meant.
One would think that's obvious, but some people .......
Actually the Constitution says "keep and bear"The tools are relevant, not sure why you say they aren’t particularly when you say we already rules for it. IMO, rules need regularly revisited and modified or discarded as relevan.
Directly comparing each of the rights is hard because are so different from each other. Here is a better examp,e regarding free speech and relevant because it is a topic today, and that the internet and social media. Where as a persons words once took months to become “viral” now it is a matter of minutes with disinformation and outright lies spreading faster than the truth can keep up with. And that has challenged us to reconsider the extents and limits of free speech. That is a pretty good example compare with modern military grade guns.
Actually public IS very much a justification. It is why we have laws on speech that incites a riot or yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre or why free speech doesn’t allow you to make false claims on the latest snake oil cure.
Ya…there are those who do. But I agree. It is kind of like abortion, most favor some restrictions. The question is to what extent and why?
A lot of what you are claiming vis a vis crime rates and gun laws is arguable, but that is argued in a lot of threads already.
Here is what I think is reasonable.
1. In order to own a gun, a person must show he knows how to safely handle and store a firearm, how to maintain it, and be able to hit what he is aiming at. It is so basic it’s laughable. We demand similar from another potentially lethal, a car.
2. A national gun registry. This would help with tracking stolen weapons at the very least.
3. Concealed carry is not a right. It is a privilege. And it makes a job that much more dangerous for police. It should require a permit and something to show the person is responsible and knowledgeable.
4. Firearm safety and responsibility should be taught in schools along with drivers Ed.
5. Some guns, like machine guns, are and should highly restricted.
The right does specify what kind of arms we can bare.
Computers, telephones, cell phones and lots of other communications tech didn't exist either so i guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything but quill and inkOne would think that's obvious, but some people .......
I am armed with more than fists and feet, and your notions are silly.Correct. Absolutely CORRECT.
Now you are changing the subject ........... but OK.
Everyone is armed with fists and feet so I don't understand why you are confused.
"Meekly surrender" one's goods? You mean rather than to take someone's life over it? Yes, why not?
All there needs to be is the threat of harm.How did you manage to be so wrong so quickly?
A robber never sets out to attack anyone. Maybe you should look up the definition of the term "robber", huh?
Your fundamental problem is a total lack of knowledge and is typical of people who like to quote popular sayings without understanding what they mean. Robbers do not live by a sword or any other weapon. His tools of the trade are nimble fingers.
Guns are not natural means of defence but if you insist on thinking of them as such then criminals have the same needs.
How silly you are. You're about 16-years-old, right?
My list of situations in life includes being a war veteran where victims of crimes were everyday occurrences on both sides. I'm pretty sure I know much more about it than you.
Why are you so silly? Maybe you're not more than 12?
how about you show us those laws on yelling fire in a crowded theater and claims on snake oil???Actually public IS very much a justification. It is why we have laws on speech that incites a riot or yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre or why free speech doesn’t allow you to make false claims on the latest snake oil cure.
Deep down, I'm a liberal myself, so that's not the problem.Yea we're talking about liberals here, they bring "stupid" to a whole new level.
Do you know what "absurd" means? Look it up (I mean really look it up, don't fake it) and take a look in the mirror. You are so tied up in your own fantasy & paranoia that reality is way beyond your reach.I am armed with more than fists and feet, and your notions are silly.
Do you live by your own expectations and demands?
If you are burglarized, will you call the police? If the burglar demands that you pay him or he will kill you, would you pay him?
Would you get out of his way while he cleaned out your house?
I won’t let anyone walk all over me.
Spoken like a person who has never been the victim of a violent crime.Do you know what "absurd" means? Look it up (I mean really look it up, don't fake it) and take a look in the mirror. You are so tied up in your own fantasy & paranoia that reality is way beyond your reach.
That won't eradicate murders.Outlawing gun ownership & gun manufacture, and prosecuting owners of guns can be done in conjunction with your above suggestion. So, no ..... what you've said is NOT "all that can be done".
