Political Crossfire Forums

[airo]

Thank God we're a Republic, not a democracy!

[Mikate8]

airo wrote: Thank God we're a Republic, not a democracy!

Don't you mean, Thank God we're not in England

and all those other european countries

[britboy]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

How about if a completely fair refurendum was held denying the right of black people to vote?

Naah, I don't think thats a good idea personally.

Why not its another example of the majority removing supressing the rights of a minority by the mandate of the many.

If you can ban guns, why not sufferage? Why not freedom of speech.

What makes one a completely ok propisition but another not?

Your faith in the god of democracy is misfounded.

Silly argument.

If we can ban underage sex, why not guns? If we can ban guns, why not suffrage of speech. Silly 'total freedom' argument .. I expected better!

[Atlas Bergeron]

britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum) i don't care what the majority think but I probably would abide since it would be too much of a risk with not enough benefit to do otherwise.

[lilwolf]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum) i don't care what the majority think but I probably would abide since it would be too much of a risk with not enough benefit to do otherwise.


Then you will be defenseless and a potential vicitm from bad guys who will still have guns.....but that is your choice :roll:

[mathurin]

britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum)

How about if a completely fair refurendum was held denying the right of black people to vote?

Naah, I don't think thats a good idea personally.

Why not its another example of the majority removing supressing the rights of a minority by the mandate of the many.

If you can ban guns, why not sufferage? Why not freedom of speech.

What makes one a completely ok propisition but another not?

Your faith in the god of democracy is misfounded.

Silly argument.

If we can ban underage sex, why not guns? If we can ban guns, why not suffrage of speech. Silly 'total freedom' argument .. I expected better!

we cannot ban underage sex, 2 minors having sex is not illegal, we do ban an adult having sex with a minor, mostly because sex without consent is illegal, and a minor is incapable of giving consent, at least legally, this does not tread on rights, rather it preserves the right of a parent

the problem is that you dont see arms as a fundamental right, and we do, it is obvious to you at this moment that certain freedoms are fundamental and cannot be removed, but what about tommorrow, arms in america was considered so important that it was put into our main governing document right beside what even you consider to be the most important group of freedoms (the 1st ammendment of course)
how can you explain that away

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: britboy wrote: If a completely fair referendum was held in your country deciding whether or not to allow handguns in private hands -- a competely democratic - free vote ..

If the decision went AGAINST your personal view, would you respect the decision and abide by any new rules imposed thereafter, or think 'Who cares what my fellow countrymen have voted for -- I'm gonna fight against this one ..' and break the new law?

?

(US -- er .. the politicians are all united in saying the constitution will be altered if necessary on the basis of this referendum) i don't care what the majority think but I probably would abide since it would be too much of a risk with not enough benefit to do otherwise.


Then you will be defenseless and a potential vicitm from bad guys who will still have guns.....but that is your choice :roll:

You're a potential victim Lilwolf. He doesn't have the risk of people breaking in to steal his guns.

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: You're a potential victim Lilwolf. He doesn't have the risk of people breaking in to steal his guns.

No, but he has the risk of being shot to death by one, much like anyone who would try and take my mode of defense away.

[britboy]

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: You're a potential victim Lilwolf. He doesn't have the risk of people breaking in to steal his guns.

No, but he has the risk of being shot to death by one, much like anyone who would try and take my mode of defense away.

If I had a baseball bat in my house and the police wanted to take it away -- to be honest I wouldn't beat them to death with it. I think if I did I may have a murder charge on my head.

I also don't think you'd shoot the police officer and you're just saying you would to appear tough. If you would -- you'd be a murderer -- and thats just slightly lower than pond scum.

[bigstick61]

If the police came and arbitrarily tried to take any of your property away, it is legal to shoot them. In some States, you won't get away with it even when it is legal because of the corruption in the system, but in most States this is not entirely so. In some States, this would be hands down nothing other than a justifiable homicide. Defense of yourself, your property, and your liberty/rights with lethal force is not murder.

[mathurin]

defending property with lethal force is not legal anywhere, you may defend your life if you feel it is in danger, but not your property.

regardless, britboy, if america tried to outlaw guns it would fall into civl unrest if not civil war, most likely an immediate injunction would be issued by a court until the matter could be decided, then the courts would deliberate, and if they went against the consitution there would be war
make no mistake, a large number of american police and military joined because they get to play with guns, most would defect i feel, hopefully allowing a bloodless coup, perhaps the newly modified constitution would be more clearly defined

[chilirainbow]

Texas Concealed Handgun Laws


PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[micfranklin]

bigstick61 wrote: If the police came and arbitrarily tried to take any of your property away, it is legal to shoot them. In some States, you won't get away with it even when it is legal because of the corruption in the system, but in most States this is not entirely so. In some States, this would be hands down nothing other than a justifiable homicide. Defense of yourself, your property, and your liberty/rights with lethal force is not murder.

Agreed. Of course, our government (or the UKs) could always find a way so that it is murder.

[britboy]

chilirainbow wrote: Texas Concealed Handgun Laws


PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.


So, you can blow someone's brains out if the 13 year old kid tries to nick your playstation 2.

Fantastic. For the masses, by the masses.

[Mikate8]

You've obviously never heard of a middle ground, just either 1 or 2, right or wrong, nothing in between. Just because it says you can defend your property with deadly force doesnt mean you can just start shooting at kids that steal from you. What you don't realize and what alot of anti-gun people don't realize is this, "Sometimes it depends on the CIRCUMSTANCES." See that word? Its a nice word. It depends on the circumstances whether or not you will get in trouble for defending your property with deadly force. "DER DER DER." Shooting a kid for stealing a video game system will most definitely land you in jail unless he was waving a gun around or attempting to stab you. See that : o "Circumstances"

[bigstick61]

britboy, I think you fail to understand that the right to property is one of the three most fundamental rights, the others being those to life and liberty, and that all rights stem from these three. Defense of the most fundamental rights with lethal force if necessary is morally correct and necessary to ultimately preserve those rights.