The point is it's semantics under the law, by which you will be judged if it comes down to that.
Previously someone mentioned God. Hopefully nobody is really going to push that point because where does Gods law allow you to kill someone? Last time I checked the 6th Commandment I didn't see a footnote to "Thou shalt not kill." .
So, in fact, it is man's law/statute that allows you to kill in certain circumstances (at least without going to prison, anyway), not God's law. All the rhetoric doesn't change that.
You want to narrow Biblical believe down to a few verses in the Torah, therefore you wish to ignore the other 68 books of the Bible, but only in this instance. In the next argument you will chose one or two other verses to summarize all of Christianity or Judaism. In fact, before you narrow self defense down to one verse you should read all of the first five books of the Bible so you would find for example: Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed."
I did not mention God, I mentioned natural rights. I believe natural rights come from God, but many others believe they are inherent in our make up. Self defense is completely natural. Why do you think deer have antlers, cattle used to have horns, etc.? Our founding fathers understood natural law, some attributed it to God, others did not. Marcus Tullius Cicero, who died before Jesus was born, certainly understood naturally law and wrote and excellent treatise on just law.
People like you just want to take away the rights of others and wrap their politics in demogogary using words and phrases like red herring, vigilantism, redneck, word games, extremist, etc., etc., etc.
Let's take the instance of the Autozone incident. Here an employee chased off an armed robber with is own weapon, a Glock. He also exercised restraint and did not shoot the armed criminal. Had he shot the criminal (and don't tell me alleged), he would have paid and paid dearly. Not by being convicted, although a jury might convict based on all the circumstanced, but by much more. Still, I think any decent defense attorney could get him an acquittal based on self defense/defense of others, if he were charged. However, even if not charged he would pay in many other ways. It is never a minor thing to take the life of another.
__________________
2010 Vulcan 900 Classic LT, 2007 SeaRay 185, nine children, one wife.
People like you just want to take away the rights of others and wrap their politics in demogogary using words and phrases like red herring, vigilantism, redneck, word games, extremist, etc., etc., etc.
You're so hell bent on "there are not laws that hold me back" thing you haven't even heard a word I said. All you're doing is reading what you wanted to hear rather than what I actually said.
So, let me spell it out to you real slooow and easy.
1. I believe you have an inherent right to self defense. I have not said otherwise so don't bother looking.
2. How you exercise your inherent right to self defense will be judged by man, using man's law. It has been this way literally since the dawn of time and that's not changing.
You're so hell bent on "there are not laws that hold me back" thing you haven't even heard a word I said. All you're doing is reading what you wanted to hear rather than what I actually said. ....................
So, let me spell it out to you real slooow and easy. .........................
Clear enough?
Whoaru99,
This is exactly what I am talking about. None of these inciting phrases you like using lend any insight and only result in detracting from your views or logic. There is no need for it if you prefer a conducive environment for OPPOSING views as you espouse. So if you stick to the facts and the logic and avoid all else then maybe you will eventually stop thinking the way you do in that everyone else is myopic. AzPoseur is clearly using the logic and arguments based off of those paradigms and nothing more. Where's Rodney King when we need him?
__________________
It ain't about where you live; it's about how you live. So, ride to live, Bruh.
This has got to be one of the more interesting threads I have read. Regardless of lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, I believe we have the right to self defense. I will defend my family, and myself if in harms way. I will carry when traveling, especially through desolate areas (bike or car). As with most, just be descret. I would rather defend my actions with law enforcement than see one of my family injured or killed. I also hope to never be in a situation where I have to act (much like law enforcement hopes to never fire a weapon), but I do practice if the day ever comes, as does my wife and kids (both adults now).
__________________
"Freedom is Loving what you do, and the ability to Pursue It!"
2010 VN900 Classic
This is exactly what I am talking about. None of these inciting phrases you like using lend any insight and only result in detracting from your views or logic. There is no need for it if you prefer a conducive environment for OPPOSING views as you espouse. So if you stick to the facts and the logic and avoid all else then maybe you will eventually stop thinking the way you do in that everyone else is myopic. AzPoseur is clearly using the logic and arguments based off of those paradigms and nothing more. Where's Rodney King when we need him?
As you see I dont really oppose any of the core beliefs, and actually share them for the most part. What I oppose is silly talk like the comment back in post 165 about no such thing as illegal carry, to which my rebuttal was twisted and perverted into something else full of false accusation, thus needing the type of slap back to reality wording of post 173.
As you see I dont really oppose any of their core beliefs. What I oppose is silly talk about stuff like the comment about no such thing as illegal carry.
Well, we all have differing views of what silly is for us and thus different tolerance levels for our own views of what silly is. Differing views aside, focusing on "illegal carry" would imply that someone "knows" they are carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and thus be committing an illegal act or that their right to possess firearms isn't precluded or obviated by any constitutional restriction or protection due to criminal action(s) and thereby again committing an illegal act. Thus, there is no defense of ignorance when it comes to the law.
I personally am just awaiting the day they try to make everything UNLAWFUL. That is if I am still alive by then. It's coming eventually folks so get ready.
__________________
It ain't about where you live; it's about how you live. So, ride to live, Bruh.
Vulcan 500
Linear Mode
