quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I keep on reading Bama's sig lines, Thompson, and keep on wondering if they're *ever* going to kick in for him, outside of the two matters of taxation and the endlessly boring, brainless and depressing issue of *fucking* gun ownership. I mean, really:

""Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take anything you have" Thomas Jefferson

" Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one" Thomas Paine ."

- Don't these two lines hint at least *some* testicles when it comes to resistance against the powers-that-be? Tom Paine, at least, had true grit when it came to defending the powerless against the powerful. To me, it's just a crying travesty to see his name used in support of the dismal, narrow little world of the gun-freedom whingers in the USA and absolutely fuck all else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well.

Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant.
So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it.

In your story about the steak knife the broomstick and your stepson how much time did you spend in jail. You committed the final act so the legal cost should have, according to you logic been on you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think no one is questioning that's self defence when someone is actually trying to shoot at you, but between "it's reasonable to think" and "without any doubt" is where the protection of the right of life comes in question. It also comes in question when you move from the "duty to retreat" to the "stand your ground" principles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I knew what you meant, the right to life is tantamount so we must keep people from defending theirs.

The whole point is that there *is* no trade. There's no 'the life of X is worth more than the life of Y', therefore the 'the life of Y can be sacrificed for the life of X'.

When y decides that someone is going to die x has the right to see to it that it is not him.
You forget that if x takes your moral position and dies and y afterwards kills someone else the math becomes y or x and x if y is willing to kill once he will do it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well.

Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant.
So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it.

In your story about the steak knife the broomstick and your stepson how much time did you spend in jail. You committed the final act so the legal cost should have, according to you logic been on you.

Actually, no.
He did the final act - I just disarmed him and nobody was severely injured or killed.

That's a totally different scenario to incidents where someone dies as a result of some action.
#

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You suffer from the delusion that most anti gun people do.
Shooting someone is the last line of defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You simply refuse to take a realistic view of legitimate gun owners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
...And any force can be lethal force so the principal is exactly the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AQRMZ

I usually make an attempt to remain courteous and polite,

BUT, in the case of any individuals defending the rights of the criminal, and especially those of you that are not citizens of the USA, then,

YES,

I said criminal,

IF he is in my house, on my property, in my car, on the public sidewalk, at the park, or in ____________________ you fuckin name it;

AND

he is threating my life or the life and safety of anyone in my presence, and I can manage it, he is one fuckin sorry ass.

AND

remember: big can hurt little, hard can injure soft, sharp can poke holes,

OK you get the idea, I ain't gonna spell it out for you any more.

Any of you fucking pro-criminal, anti-gun jerks have a problem with that, then just sit back and make a will.

Cause we all will just shake our heads when it happens to you.


NOW, having said all of the above, if I could I would de-escalate the problem as I have done in the past;

I have and would again and then things would settle down as they have before.

Cops would be called or the dude would just bug on out of the place.



OH AND THANK THE COSMOS FOR THE "HIDE" BUTTON ON HERE. SAVES A LOT OF SPACE ON THE PAGE AND DOESN'T WEAR OUT THE SCROLL BUTTON SO MUCH.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And there was no independent witness with your stepson.

quote:

You suffer from the delusion [Etc.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
How can the product of such an advanced society cannot comprehend that the moral culpability for the violence rests on the assailant and so the cost for such action should rest there as well.

Culpability and responsibility lies on both/all parties involved - not just the assailant.
So the cost for such action should rest upon the individual who performs the final act, not just the one that instigates it.

In your story about the steak knife the broomstick and your stepson how much time did you spend in jail. You committed the final act so the legal cost should have, according to you logic been on you.

Actually, no.
He did the final act - I just disarmed him and nobody was severely injured or killed.

That's a totally different scenario to incidents where someone dies as a result of some action.
#

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

You suffer from the delusion [Etc.]

Once again, Bama ... hopefully this will obtrude on your consciousness this time: you are shooting the messenger, here. I've told you what the ethical principle is. Please try, as far as you possibly can, to shift your head past the point of 'You're either on the side of the attacker or the defender', mmh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

When you say it is as bad for me to shoot an attacker as for him to shoot me you are saying he has as much a right to attack me as I have to defend myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No he did nothing after you injured him so your assault and battery was the last act. If we follow your rules you should be in jail. How could the law know you didn't just start beating him and intimidate him into backing your story. Why didn't you retreat. He wasn't going to hurt you so the only one with any right to do anything to him was your daughter. See how stupid your rules are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When you say it is as bad for me to shoot an attacker as for him to shoot me you are saying he has as much a right to attack me as I have to defend myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It's one of those 'guilty until proven innocent' types of case...

Exactly. Guilty until proven innocent. That is the principle you are recommending as enlightened and civilized.

I've always enjoyed British humor. [:D]

K.