Subject:
|
Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:28:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1225 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > But can't you say that about everything in a debate of this sort? And if
> > > you're going to make a relativist claim like that, then you undermine your
> > > own stance, as well.
> >
> > I was using what you said... "Branch Davidians _perceived_ a rampage".
>
> Oh. Well, you don't expect me to pay attention when I'm typing, to you?
>
> > It may have been their "perception" - but they have been wrong.
>
> 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 somewhat excessive given the situation at hand.
>
> > > I perceive a burglar entering my home, but he
> > > perceives himself as a clever entrepeneur who's figured out a way to beat
> > > the high cost of living. Who is right?
> >
> > In either case, s/he'd be breaking the law. That, however, does not mean I
> > have the absolute right to claim his life. Personally, if it was a choice
> > between him taking my stereo - or me taking his life. I'd let him have the
> > stereo... and my CD's - I'm insured.
>
> Really? I'll have to make a note of your address in that case. I'm
> quibbling now, but even if you don't have the "absolute right" to take his
> life, you do have the right to stop him by any means necessary given the
> potential danger you and your family face because of his presence.
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:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_717000/717511.stm
> If that
> results in his death, then he has reaped the fruits of his decision to
> burglarize the home of someone willing to protect it. If he is maimed,
> likewise. But certainly doesn't have a right to sue you (as he is currently
> able to do in parts of my fine, litigious nation).
If he does not have the right to sue in the US... why/how does it happen?
Scott A
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
