open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Self defense law: Joe Horn (Texas) vs Tony Martin (UK)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Author Topic

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.17 23:56:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Viceroy
TERRIBLE RETORT 0/10. PLEASE BUY MORE GUNS AND HATE MORE BLACKS TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS SHORTCOMING. THANK YOU.


Hey check it out, an all caps troll.


Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:09:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Notice that to have a license revoked, you need to be actually convicted of DUI/DWI/RR/etc FELONY. In other words, you have to be the repeat drunk driver or get caught breaking the law with an ALREADY expired license. Then they make it a felony. Then and only then are you barred the posession and use of guns...

And yet, you can still have a CAR because over the years I have met many old and present illegal road racers with felony convictions related to racing - and a few drunks with the same convictions - who could not own guns.

Yet they can get a license still, and walk into a car dealership and buy a car too. They can go and buy gas too.


You have a point, some drivers should never be allowed near a car again, like this guy. Still that's a whole different issue.

Funny thing is that dude received a much lighter sentence some of the recent cases related to the UK riots.

Talas Alusis
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:43:00 - [183]
 

Edited by: Talas Alusis on 18/08/2011 02:00:25

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

Hate to break it to you taking away a little slip of paper is as effective as writing a statement of your humans rights on a little slip of paper


Notice that to have a license revoked, you need to be actually convicted of DUI/DWI/RR/etc FELONY. In other words, you have to be the repeat drunk driver or get caught breaking the law with an ALREADY expired license. Then they make it a felony. Then and only then are you barred the posession and use of guns...



Then I know the problem and that is your law. Which is a petting zoo for the unreliable and undisciplined.

When I get caught drunk driving my licence is taken away instantly for multiple years. And when there is damage done it is a felony the first time. If I still drive without it and get caught it is another felony on me and I am in deep ****. The judge dont like my face and it is jail. Also I never get the licence back.

I really dont know if they find out instantly about my weapon licence as these are not central registered and I am not stupid to drive drunk. But when it has to be renewed they will find out at least and not give it back. And the police might come and check if I have sold my guns that need licence or kept them illegal.

And that is good since I did prove I am the unreliable idiot you can not trust with things like cars and guns.

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.18 05:16:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
It is about enshrining the ability of armed citizens to overthrow the government, should traditional political institutions fail.

Mandatory licensing/registering of firearms gives the government a list of EVERY gun-owner in the country, allowing citizens to be easily disarmed.

Further, it opens the door to future restrictions that impose progressively heavier burdens on the owners, many of which are imposed, merely to inconvenience the owner and cause them to voluntarily give them up, because "its too much trouble." (ie, Gun storage checks, insurance/security mandates, public listing of gun owners in newspapers, fees and taxes, etc...)

Pretty elementary stuff, but in my experience most Europeans are rather uninterested in events outside of their localities and don't really bother to learn much about American history. Confused


Wasn't me who promised to stay out of this thread. Also, I'm not European, try again. Wink (Not a "liberal" American either, before that gets guessed.)

My main gripe with the amendment idea in general is that the constitution was created 224 years ago. That was just a few years after the Americans finished a bloody revolution against the Brits. Of course they had a "Raah! Raah! Fight the Powah!" attitude back then.

Do you really believe that the largely untrained US population can, if armed with some guns, overthrow the government? Something has to go really, really badly if it even reaches that in this day and age. Hell, how do you know that it's the people who are going to be in the right and the government in the wrong? What if some extremist militia decides they want in on this government-overthrowing action?

And what if the other half of the armed population decides to side with the government, causing just as much harm as good in your hypothetical scenario? Or what if the US's allies decide to intervene, causing a general slaughter of American citizens?

Basically, what I'm getting at is, if the Americans do wake up one day and decide that their government sucks and they should start shooting it, it will make very little difference whether or not they have unlicensed guns, except that there will be a lot more death in the buildup to the outcome.

Whether or not gun licenses would actually make the US safer, well, I'm not entering that debate. I just get ****ed off whenever somebody uses the amendment argument, that's all. Laughing

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.18 06:24:00 - [185]
 

Edited by: Bart Starr on 18/08/2011 06:50:23
Well, not sure if I meant you when I was talking about Europeans - rather the other fellow that was talking about abusing 'alkohol'.

Even in the Revolutionary war, of course, there were civilians that fell on both sides of the conflict, Loyalists (a number of whom migrated up to what I am guessing is YOUR country....), and the Patriots.

On the topic of rebellion:
No, I don't think things are that bad - or even are approaching that point. If armed rebellion or civil war DID arise, we would probably see the unity of the US Military splinter as well, as the military is drawn from all segments of society, not just one sect/faction/ethnic group or another.

At which point simple political resistance turns into armed rebellion is a matter of individual conscience.

I'll be the first to admit I have some severe problems with, well, not so much blacks per se, but the totally self-inflicted black culture of crime and failure - a culture and attitude that seems to be spreading.

Yes, I am all for the defensive shooting home invaders of any race, and if the prisons are full, I'll vote to build more of them. I am completely OK with the death penalty.

YET, if some 'bizarro world' US Government began wholesale rounding them up and sending them off to Negro extermination camps? I'd be one of (hopefully) thousands shooting back at ANY individual representing such a government.

Far fetched? FDR (a "progressive") locked up every single Japanese-American on the West Coast - locked them up for years, without legal recourse. Not nearly as bad as what was happening in Germany, of course, but still dead wrong - even in the context of Pearl Harbor and world war.

Don't get me wrong, I think the US is a great place - but the Founders were right, even 220+ years ago.

That is, ANY system of centralized government, no matter how carefully conceived, poses an existential threat to individual liberties. Privately held firearms are a bulwark against that.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.18 06:53:00 - [186]
 

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 18/08/2011 06:53:18
Originally by: Roosterton


My main gripe with the amendment idea in general is that the constitution was created 224 years ago. ...

I just get ****ed off whenever somebody uses the amendment argument, that's all. Laughing


Do you get similarly annoyed when someone uses the "amendment argument," which is the foundation of our society's laws, when it is applied to the amendments you do like? Or do you save your annoyance just for the second one?

Viceroy
Posted - 2011.08.18 09:09:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Originally by: Viceroy
TERRIBLE RETORT 0/10. PLEASE BUY MORE GUNS AND HATE MORE BLACKS TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS SHORTCOMING. THANK YOU.


Whoa DOGGIE. All you talk about are blacks, guns and p_nises.

Pretty clear you have some kind of pron-fueled black r_pe fantasy?

Or perhaps mum got drunk and brought the wrong sort home when you were a lad, haunting you to this day?

Not really into the interracial stuff myself. I have trouble imagining myself with a black p_nis. Laughing


QUOTING FOR EXTREME IRONY. LET IT ALL OUT BART, LET THE HURT FLOW Crying or Very sad

Viceroy
Posted - 2011.08.18 09:24:00 - [188]
 

Quote:
Hey check it out, an all caps troll.


DO MY LARGE THROBBING MANLETTERS MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE HERZOG WOLFHAMMER?

Signal11th
Posted - 2011.08.18 13:55:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Ayieka
Originally by: Kel'Taran
Originally by: Ayieka
Edited by: Ayieka on 10/08/2011 15:31:09
breaking and entering doesn't warrent being allowed to kill someone over it.


It does when the person breaking and entering has a weapon and you are in fear of your life. To begin with if the person is not in my house by means other than me letting them in they have already declared their hostile intent. Secondly the have already shown that they have no respect for the law else they would not have broken in.

To be honest though before i get to them with my firearm, my dogs will have already made the degenerate crap his pants.


yeah but the only people breaking in were dumb kids, probably armed with nothing more than a bat. all he had to do was fire the gun in the air and they'd be gone. instead he chose to just kill the kid outright. i can see if the kids also had guns, or were attempting to hurt the guy, but they were just being idiots and looting.


Yeah because I'm going to take the risk with my families lives that he may or may not be armed.
Sorry I rather be read about in the papers for getting 5 years for killing a burglar than be read about in the papers for me and my family being killed by a burglar.


Azelor Delaria
Caldari
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:28:00 - [190]
 

Pretty much it comes down to a choice: Do you want the ability to defend your home, family, and your own life to be a:

a) Right, or;
b) Privilege

Personally - and I know for many Americans - we see the RIGHT to self-defense as a necessity, especially in this day and age. We have the RIGHT to fend off attackers through whatever means necessary, and laws are created to make sure that the defensive actions do not exceed what is needed to fend off an attack. Many Europeans probably look at such a thing as "barbaric", what with all their high-falootin' beliefs.

But tell me, which country is having riots and flash mobs...?

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.18 17:16:00 - [191]
 

Actually, US is getting hit pretty hard by flash mob crime. (They aren't really black - just racist whites dressed that way to frame them.)

Or stuff like this.

Lock and load.


Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.18 17:22:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Actually, US is getting hit pretty hard by flash mob crime. (They aren't really black - just racist whites dressed that way to frame them.)

Or stuff like this.

Lock and load.






Perhaps




Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.18 18:04:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Roosterton on 18/08/2011 18:06:06
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 18/08/2011 06:53:18
Originally by: Roosterton


My main gripe with the amendment idea in general is that the constitution was created 224 years ago. ...

I just get ****ed off whenever somebody uses the amendment argument, that's all. Laughing


Do you get similarly annoyed when someone uses the "amendment argument," which is the foundation of our society's laws, when it is applied to the amendments you do like? Or do you save your annoyance just for the second one?


As a matter of fact, yes, any argument which is based on "because they said we should" ****es me off if it isn't solidly backed up by the logic and opinions of the person making that argument.

So if, say, a child asked one of their parents "is murder bad?" and the person responding said "yes, because the law says so," I would be extremely annoyed with that parent because they didn't actually explain to their child why it's wrong to take somebody's life, spreading ignorance to their offspring. That doesn't mean I disagree with the notion that murder is bad.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.18 19:41:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Notice that to have a license revoked, you need to be actually convicted of DUI/DWI/RR/etc FELONY. In other words, you have to be the repeat drunk driver or get caught breaking the law with an ALREADY expired license. Then they make it a felony. Then and only then are you barred the posession and use of guns...

And yet, you can still have a CAR because over the years I have met many old and present illegal road racers with felony convictions related to racing - and a few drunks with the same convictions - who could not own guns.

Yet they can get a license still, and walk into a car dealership and buy a car too. They can go and buy gas too.


You have a point, some drivers should never be allowed near a car again, like this guy. Still that's a whole different issue.

Funny thing is that dude received a much lighter sentence some of the recent cases related to the UK riots.



There's a lot of double standard to be mad at though. If you molest a kid you will be treated better than if you hacked into a banking system, for example.

Almost every time there is a firearms accident or incident, I hear about it. And many times a hunter screws up, shoots somebody who was also not being a knucklehead (any hunter should now not to wear brown during the season and are REQUIRED on public hunting lands to wear orange during the gun season), they get charged with murder 2 or homicide with anything else they can tack on such as "criminal negligence", "assault" - lots of repeat double jeopardy stuff. The idea is that some county-level prosecutors like to show how "anti gun" they are to be vetted with a certain kind of constituency later on, so they throw the book at them.

Trouble is, people screw up with vehicles and industrial equipment, deaths and injury result, but they walk away. Why shouldn't they? It's bad enough to accidentally kill someone and even worse to send someone who is not intending on criminal acts to prison ("intent" in US law is a big part of any trial and if charged in accidental death, lack of intent might still prevent a guilty verdict) but when guns are involved, there is a double standard in place and intent does not matter.

All I want is equal justice under the law. People die over that, fighting for it or protecting it, this idea.



Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2011.08.18 20:23:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Trouble is, people screw up with vehicles and industrial equipment, deaths and injury result, but they walk away. Why shouldn't they? It's bad enough to accidentally kill someone and even worse to send someone who is not intending on criminal acts to prison ("intent" in US law is a big part of any trial and if charged in accidental death, lack of intent might still prevent a guilty verdict) but when guns are involved, there is a double standard in place and intent does not matter.


Im surprised the US isn't as strict as the UK in things like that, if a death or serious injury results from any breach in health and safety regulation or road safety law a prison sentence is pretty much guaranteed. If a company does things cheaply or cuts corners and somebody has an industrial accident the people responsible are charged with corporate manslaughter, if a driver is using a mobile phone or speeding, making a dangerous overtake or anything like that they will be in court for death by dangerous driving.

No proof of intent is needed, only proof that the person did whatever they did that breached the law. Of course in genuine accidents like a machine behaving in an unforeseen way or an unpreventable car accident no one is ever charged.

Cpt Placeholder
Posted - 2011.08.19 00:26:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: Cpt Placeholder on 19/08/2011 00:41:04
Originally by: Roosterton
My main gripe with the amendment idea in general is that the constitution was created 224 years ago. That was just a few years after the Americans finished a bloody revolution against the Brits.

The authors of the constitution have written down their thoughts on their decisions and most of their reasons that I've read carry today the same validity as back then.
Whether the proposed solutions are optimal is beyond me.

XIRUSPHERE
Gallente
Deadly Intent.
Posted - 2011.08.19 00:56:00 - [197]
 

The world would be a better place if the so called modern nations would adopt simple fair game policies when it comes to criminality and ones property. If you wish to breach the law and common civil order in the act of taking the livelihood of another or destroying it then the protections offered by the law should not be afforded to you.

At least in the states for the most part " I feared for my life " is sufficient.

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.19 04:00:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: XIRUSPHERE
The world would be a better place if the so called modern nations would adopt simple fair game policies when it comes to criminality and ones property. If you wish to breach the law and common civil order in the act of taking the livelihood of another or destroying it then the protections offered by the law should not be afforded to you.

At least in the states for the most part " I feared for my life " is sufficient.


You mean "aggression flag in highsec?" Laughing

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.19 13:27:00 - [199]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 19/08/2011 13:37:17
Originally by: XIRUSPHERE
The world would be a better place if the so called modern nations would adopt simple fair game policies when it comes to criminality and ones property. If you wish to breach the law and common civil order in the act of taking the livelihood of another or destroying it then the protections offered by the law should not be afforded to you.

At least in the states for the most part " I feared for my life " is sufficient.

While I cant really worry that much about a burglar being shot, but this is definately not the way anyone with more than 3 active brain cells wants it. There is a reason we seperated police and judges. Now you want a random person without any kind of specific training (btw also why jury system is bad) be the police, judge and executioner? Luckily it doesnt work like that.

Even if you would do that, you are pretty much forcing the small criminals to arm themselves. Luckily here you dont need guns for self-defense against burglars, since burglars dont have the habbit to kill the ones they are robbing, they want their stuff, not a murder.

Quote:
It is about enshrining the ability of armed citizens to overthrow the government, should traditional political institutions fail.

This imo is also a quite ridiculous statement. Yes I know it is the 'official' reason many americans are in favour of selling guns to pretty much everyone, but come on lets be a bit more realistic.
When the US constitution was made this was a possibility. Get some of your guns, steal few artillery peaces and you were just as well equipped as a regular standing army (if not better).
But now do you really think you can fight the US government with just rifles? Sure you can do some ****ty kind of guerilla war, but really an oppressive government can deal with that. So what would you need? Well at the very least patriot batteries (or similar, but really stingers dont cut it for this) and large ammounts of antitank weapons. Of course also something basic like military grade fully automatic assault rifles, and really preferably also just the tanks and fighter planes/helis themselves. A nice stack of anti-ship missiles and CIWS systems to defend your base also can never hurt. Not to mention artillery and radar guided counter artillery fire, top it off with anti-radiation missiles.

Then fun fact: you arent allowed to buy that. In other words, that reasoning is BS, with just guns there is no way you will be fighting a modern army, the entire idea is hilarious.

Quote:
Pretty elementary stuff, but in my experience most Europeans are rather uninterested in events outside of their localities and don't really bother to learn much about American history.

notsureifserious.jpg

Hell the majority of the americans themselve have not a clue about their own history.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.19 18:08:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

This imo is also a quite ridiculous statement. Yes I know it is the 'official' reason many americans are in favour of selling guns to pretty much everyone, but come on lets be a bit more realistic.
When the US constitution was made this was a possibility. Get some of your guns, steal few artillery peaces and you were just as well equipped as a regular standing army (if not better).
But now do you really think you can fight the US government with just rifles? Sure you can do some ****ty kind of guerilla war, but really an oppressive government can deal with that. So what would you need? Well at the very least patriot batteries (or similar, but really stingers dont cut it for this) and large ammounts of antitank weapons. Of course also something basic like military grade fully automatic assault rifles, and really preferably also just the tanks and fighter planes/helis themselves. A nice stack of anti-ship missiles and CIWS systems to defend your base also can never hurt. Not to mention artillery and radar guided counter artillery fire, top it off with anti-radiation missiles.

Then fun fact: you arent allowed to buy that. In other words, that reasoning is BS, with just guns there is no way you will be fighting a modern army, the entire idea is hilarious.


A) The major reason why burglary in the UK is 3x as common as in the US? Burglars aren't afraid of being shot. So, in the US, burglars just decide to become robbers, right? WRONG. And armed robbery is 30% more common in the UK - in the UK, criminals who DO have guns are completely unconcerned about their victims being similarly armed.

B) I already explained, if there was a serious enough fracture in the United States to cause armed rebellion, the US military would fracture as well. Probably not along state lines, like the Confederacy vs Union - as the US is less decentralized these days, but there are hundreds of thousands in National Guard units. On top of that, foreign actors may get involved, providing weapons in any major conflagration.

C) Even assuming the US Military remains united against some kind of mass insurrection: its still a stupid commentary, if you've been paying any attention at all to current events. Not endorsing their cause or their methods, however Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban show what is possible in an asymmetric military situation. Hell, the last part of the 20th century was dominated by it.

Do I think it will happen? No.
Could it happen? Of course. We've already seen it.

SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2011.08.22 11:30:00 - [201]
 

I wholeheartedly agree with the use of lethal force for self defence. Though I don't agree with the notion of outright killing a person unless it's absolutely necessary.

mr id
Caldari
Black Rise Service Group
Posted - 2011.08.22 15:03:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Edited by: stoicfaux on 10/08/2011 14:29:27
Originally by: Bart Starr
I've never understood the attitude that one can't be happy when someone meets a well-deserved end.


Trouble is, an assertion of "well-deserved" can't be made until afterwards. In the heat of the moment, you don't have all the facts, which means you're killing someone using snap judgement as an untrained individual serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Society tends to frown on that.



Maybe they shouldn't have made a "snap" judgement to break into my house in a state they are aware supports the Castle Doc.

Maria Selms
Posted - 2011.08.22 15:30:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Interestingly, disarming the population in the UK has led to a massive increase in robberies and aggravated assault, as well as far more burglaries. And that is just England and Wales. I imagine including Scotland and Northern Ireland (also part of the UK) would make the comparison even worse.

In fact, UK violent crime rates are far higher than in the United States.

Also, as I said earlier. There are magical places in the United States where guns are plentiful, gun control is nonexistant, yet gun crime is exceedingly rare.

These places (Iowa, Maine, Idaho, Dakotas, Utah, Minnesota, New Hampshire etc.) are awash in guns, gun control laws are nonexistent, and there are TONS of scary hunters and redneck 'gun nuts'. Idaho even has a reputation for skinhead compounds. Yet per capita firearm crime - almost zilch. There are plenty of safe places to live.

Why is that?

I'd fill in the blanks for you, but I've already been accused of racism once already. Rolling Eyes

The two charts have a disturbingly high degree of correlation.

Europeans LOVE to blame the largely white, middle class 'gun nuts' and NRA members for American gun crime, yet its pretty clear that they are NOT the problem. Get a clue.


Just to ensure, you understand the biased presented before you the daily mail is considered "right wing" (Only the telegraph does better) and the polar opposite to the daily mirror in between the two papers is middle ground and more accurate facts.

Personally, its a cultural thing i am happy America (and other places) love there guns i have never had a problem when i have been over thier a good number of times. However, i like England the way it is, knowing that i am likely to go through my quiet little life hanving never seeing a gun out of it's holster.


Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.24 06:34:00 - [204]
 

Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 24/08/2011 06:39:42
I've travelled in the UK quite a bit.
Don't know all the UK papers.
Anything with boobs on the front page, or 50% of its weight devoted to soccer I tend to ignore.

The Telegraph: Was one of the few credible papers I could find. Perhaps a bit moderate, for my taste. One of the columnists wrote an awesome editorial about the joys of Waitrose. Her only complaint was the narrow parking spaces, which 'caused her to get a scratch on her Mercedes'. Made me laugh out loud, it was so flagrantly elitist. Generally good stuff though.

The Independent: So-so, only bought it once, when I was desperate for reading material and couldn't find the Economist.

The Guardian: Mostly bull****. Sometimes well-written bull****, but there you are. If you are not capable of reading between the lines, this newspaper could easily lead you to draw incorrect conclusions about the issues.

The Economist: Probably the best newsmag out there, except, possibly, W.F. Buckley's National Review. Unfortunately, they tend to contradict themselves on American politics. Talk a good game on 'free trade' and 'small government', yet give our Negro president blowjobs nearly every week, while bashing his Tea Party opposition. Sadly, they've bought into the 'global warming' nonsense.

Also, on topics that I know a great deal about, I've noticed Economist often has serious flaws in their articles - which makes me wonder about their conclusions on topics I don't know as much about....

Guessing that the 'Daily Mail' and the 'Mirror' are the boob and soccer newspapers that I tended to discover left behind in pubs.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only