Terrorists and Assault Weapons

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The definition is a political scam that allows politicians to ban any and all firearms if they wish. "Gun control" is another scam in the USA, "gun ban" is what they are doing.

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
There is no way you typed this.

No.

Way.

Mrs. GS, give him the computer back.

LOL!!!

That is by far the funniest thing that I've seen typed here in quite awhile!!!

Thanks Saurdaukar!!

[mauser]

I'm another one waiting for the AWB to die.  And stay dead.  It's just plain horsepuckey - a law based on appearances.  There are firearms that are semi-auto, fire rifle caliber ammunition from magazines and are just as deadly as the average AR-15.  Difference is a wooden stock - look at the Mini-14.  Take a look at the M1 and M1a for that matter.  Semi-auto, even bigger caliber than the AR-15 - yet legal because it doesn't have a pistol grip, folding or extending stock.  Seems like Feinstein has made it her life goal to try and take away everyone's firearms, but instead of all at once (which wouldn't work because it would alarm everyone) she and her ilk do it a little at a time so no one notices.  Just like a pushy sales person who tries to sell you one thing and then after you agree, tries to sell you the accessories, then the protection plan, ad-nauseum until you're broke.  In this case, take away evil black rifles because they're so evil looking and the average hunter doesn't "need" it, then when they're gone conveniently notice that sniper rifles look just like hunting rifles (you don't "need" a scope and bipod - everyone can hunt with iron sights offhand).  Then what?  "Hey, entry teams use shotguns to blow door locks - you don't 'need' to blow locks either.   And shotguns are so deadly - just point in the general direction and shoot - they'll get knocked off their feet."  Sounds stupid, and shows a lack of understanding of the firearm involved - but that's just part of what got us the AWB in the first place.  The AWB doesn't make it any harder for terrorists - they got away with glorified razor blades the last time.  What makes it easier for them is for US to have the wrong mindset.  

mauser

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Life is a priviledge, not a right.

Some fairly important Americans did not agree.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[vorticon]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges?  A right is something written down that you have.  I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.

A priviledge is something you have to earn.  You earn a priviledge through good actions and deeds.  Last time I checked, stealing a car deserves quick removal of the priviledge of life.

first, writing down the rights simply makes sure that there "set in stone" the people of the country have to assume to have that right in the first place.

second, last i checked, stealing a car merely results in you leaving the company of society at large for a few years and spending some time with bubba.

third, the right to live is so basic and universal, that it doesnt need to be written down, and all countries have laws to destroy the scum who would idly waste it (murder laws, rape laws etc.)

[Sandman]

Originally posted by SaburoS
The people who choose to want to ban firearms don't really want to know what "an assault weapon" is. They've been influenced too much by hollywood. They will continually want to ban weapons as they go down the list. Maybe someday they will understand that it is a social issue, not a "weapons" issue.

I'm sorry... my question was rhetorical. While I tend to think that some gun control is a good thing, I think the AWB is a silly law written by politicians that want to appear as if they're affecting change without actually doing it.

[ra]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges?  A right is something written down that you have.  I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.

Life is the most basic of all rights, that's why there is no amendment to the constitution stating so.  Driving is a previlege.

ra

[GtoRA2]

Laser
 You may want to read up on your state laws. The use of deadly force to protect your car would prolly end up with you in the jail. Having just read them.

Have a link to help you out.


(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--

The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:


such request would be useless;
it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in dwelling.


So from that page, deadly force in protection of propertie only applies to dwellings not cars.

[tce2506]

Right, My car was in my garage, which is attached to my house and he had this big knife, and was coming at me...............

[vorticon]

Originally posted by tce2506
Right, My car was in my garage, which is attached to my house and he had this big knife, and was coming at me...............

at just the right moment you slammed the door in his face and held him down with duct tape until the cops arrived.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by GScholz
Let's just say that while you would kill the thief for stealing your property, I would kill you to save the thief's life.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Not that I advocate killing without being in fear of life, The above statement would certainly go a long way to show intent to commit murder. It also indicates a willingness to conspire to commit other felonies. Facilitation in the commission of a crime is in itself, a crime.

[Maverick]

Then quite frankly you would be committing murder.

Your premise is at best premature and at worst an indication of premeditation. You simply would not have sufficient time or knowledge to make the decision you have suggested. You would have a severe lack of data to act as an outsider to the situation.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
If I see a person trying to kill someone or inflict grievous bodily harm for whatever reason but self-defence or defence of another person, I will try and stop that person with any means necessary, including lethal force. This is not a crime (at least in my country), in fact it is a civil duty.

So if I see you trying to fire your firearm at a person stealing your car, barring if this thief is a threat to your life, I will try and stop you with any means necessary. Including killing you.

I'm sure you mean this as purely hypothetical right? You wouldn't actually shoot someone that was shooting at someone stealing their car, right?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'm sure you mean this as purely hypothetical right? You wouldn't actually shoot someone that was shooting at someone stealing their car, right?

using lethal force to stop someone from killing someone...i dont see anything wrong with that picture.

using lethal force to stop someone from stealing your insured car...i do see something wrong with that picture. not that you'd realisticly have a chance to try, it takes less than 20 seconds to steal a car.

[AKIron]

So, you would shoot me for trying to stop someone from kidnapping my family you don't see that is forced to lie down in the back seat? Or the child in the car seat below eye level? Wow, you guys are a little too quick on the trigger for me, hope you aren't allowed to carry.