 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) I was using what you said... "Branch Davidians _perceived_ a rampage". It may have been their "perception" - but they have been wrong. (...) In either case, s/he'd be breaking the law. That, however, does not mean I have the absolute right to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Oh. Well, you don't expect me to pay attention when I'm typing, to you? (...) I think you meant "they may have been wrong." Anyway, I'm not sufficiently well-versed in the Waco story, but there are many who identify the use of riot tanks as (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) In the UK, the "potential danger" is almost nil. If I killed him in anything other than strict self defense, I'd be of to jail. See: (URL) If that (...) If he does not have the right to sue in the US... why/how does it happen? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's quite amazing to me. Does he have to have a proverbial knife to your throat/bat to your skull before you're able to act, or is there some point at which his presence or actions are sufficient to infer forcible self-defense as an (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
