|
So... it was effective after all... | by fitzso | 2006-12-13 12:38:50 |
|
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 12:55:03 |
|
Isn't that what we always tell you when you | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 13:00:38 |
|
You have one problem though | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 13:04:56 |
|
That's Bull, DR | by fitzso | 2006-12-13 13:14:48 |
|
Really? | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 13:26:52 |
|
*splutters diet coke on screen* | by Havoc | 2006-12-13 13:30:13 |
|
Who says I'm not? | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 13:43:53 |
|
Dude, there's a MASSIVE difference between | by subbywan | 2006-12-13 14:07:45 |
|
Not if you research what the founders thought | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 14:21:31 |
|
No, they didn't. | by Havoc | 2006-12-13 14:52:13 |
|
There's other documents | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 17:52:55 |
|
Do they apply | by fitzso | 2006-12-13 20:24:05 |
|
Where do I say they do? | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 20:51:22 |
|
When you say 'human right' then you are talking | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 20:59:23 |
|
First off | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 21:16:03 |
|
I don't know that much about US laws in detail, | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 21:27:17 |
|
Both rights can be lost via a felony conviction | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 21:36:36 |
|
Then I must be a da-- fool. | by fitzso | 2006-12-13 21:39:54 |
|
That is your choice, | by lheggland | 2006-12-13 21:45:54 |
|
at the cost of other people's rights. | by fitzso | 2006-12-13 21:47:57 |
|
How so? | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 21:49:47 |
| If you kill someone, you have violated his |
by Peace_man |
2006-12-13 22:05:11 |
right to life.
This right cannot be taken away except by a properly constituted court. It says so right in the Constitution, or so I've heard.
You may say that he forfeits that right when he attacks you and tries to take your life. But since you don't constitute a properly constituted court, there is no basis in law for that.
The right to self-defense has been established by precedent, though. However, a very good claim can be laid that you should not be allowed to shoot to kill in defense of your property alone. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
There is plenty basis in law for that | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 22:16:17 |
|
It is, however, not a Constitutional right. | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 22:21:52 |
|
The law is an implementation of the right | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 22:23:36 |
|
What does the law say about protecting | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 22:24:45 |
|
Absolutely nothing | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 22:34:24 |
|
That is must be justified. | by lheggland | 2006-12-13 22:37:53 |
|
s/is/it (n/t) | by lheggland | 2006-12-13 22:38:32 |
|
No, I don't. | by Peace_man | 2006-12-14 00:25:42 |
|
The group of really smart guys | by lheggland | 2006-12-13 22:25:31 |
|
Ah, I see. | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 22:29:24 |
|
Actually it says exactly what it means | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 22:38:55 |
|
That wasn't the part I was talking about. | by Peace_man | 2006-12-13 23:03:21 |
|
When you are analyzing the intent of | by lheggland | 2006-12-13 22:52:32 |
|
Seconded | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-13 22:57:54 |
|
Heh. You could even look at it another way, too. | by Peace_man | 2006-12-14 00:28:57 |
|
Well sure let's use your logic | by DesertRat66 | 2006-12-14 07:43:09 |
|
You forgot about quartering soldiers. (n/t) | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-05-09 04:42:37 |
