Sure, baning guns is but a way to prevent people from revolting against the government, I'll give you that.
But in Brazil guns are forbidden, there's no hunting (with firearms) and nothings really changed since the law that banned firearms passed.
Sure, baning guns is but a way to prevent people from revolting against the government, I'll give you that.
But in Brazil guns are forbidden, there's no hunting (with firearms) and nothings really changed since the law that banned firearms passed.
I doubt it's an original Nintendo controller, in fact I don't think Nintendo do anything other than the standard remote (aka wiimote), nunchuk and the fitness board thingy.
The lack of an orange tip is the manufacturer's tiny, yet clever contribution to China's secret plans of invading the USA. Weaken the enemy by having it kill itself.
The lack of an orange tip is the manufacturer's tiny, yet clever contribution to China's secret plans of invading the USA. Weaken the enemy by having it kill itself.
Obviously the responsibility lies with the step-parent here. Leaving a loaded, chambered gun on a table in a location that's easily accessible to children is so irresponsible. People saying it would have been different if the gun was differently coloured or differently shaped are missing the point here and probably putting too much faith in the ability of a 3 year old gun to recognise the difference between a toy and a real gun.
well with my experiences as a three year old girl with a loaded gun on my table, with my step-dad upstairs sleeping, i remember seeing the orange tip and saying oh this one is safe, while seeing the other one without the tip and thinking, this is the one i will take over the government with :hide:
I think it's murder.
Just how has nature survived the last 2 billion years before humans invented guns to keep it from going out of control?
well the natural life cycle has now basically adapted to have us humans with our high demands and weapons and killing for sport along with eating, and even accidental, so if we eliminate guns for people, this will take away a HUGE part of the population of animals' slaughter which will make their population grow very thick.....so we will have to eat ALOT!! im in :hide:
Indeed. That's why we have dead animals turning into petrol at the blink of an eye, not to mention magically disappearing garbage and suicide cows whose only purpose in life is to become beef.
alright....so they have adapted to our hunting, and for some cases our eating.....sorry, sue me 
All I've got to say is: America, f*ck yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... xwpEE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... xwpEE&feature=related
I guarantee that if you take a wallet from a mugger, or more likely half a dozen or more wallets, you will not find theirs. No mugger ever went out carrying their own wallet. What you are doing therefor is liberation, finders keepers is a kids game and I don't hold with it. Now I didn't earlier say what I would then do with the things I'd mug from the mugger, but I don't bloody see why you'd hav me issue a receipt and pay income tax whilst retrieving stolen goods. Really, what planet are you on where someone in the process of a crime needs legal protection? There is no protection justified hen you assault somebody else.
It is not the act of mugging or burglary that bothers me, so much as the act of assault when burgled at home. Anyone using or threatening violence against mw should expect mento make a judgement call and a they are breaking the law, i'm damn well not going to pussy foot about it.
deliberate miss interpretation, aka trolling
[/quote]
personally I've never seen the justice system work sucessfully in any case that has effected my life or my families life. Mostly but not exclusively to my detriment. Even if I could find it in me to have some faith in the system we have: Just when is it ok for someone to mug someone and have full legal protection whilst doing it? Should they get health insurance whilst doing the mugging too... Oh wait, they actually do.
Tell you what, why don't we apply health and safety laws to criminals too to ensure they have a safe workplace when they are burgling us... Oh wait, we already do.
And now you expect me to not hit back, let them get away, assist them with any heavy objects and cove thei car insurance whilst parked on my drive?...
...two words, first begins in F. I'll just hit the tosspots thanks, using the weapon I took off the last idiot who thought he was hard enough.
You didn't even notice earlier ebb I used "tactical retreat before regrouping and coming back" in place of running away. You seem hell bent on giving assistance and government backing to anyone in the process of harming others. When someone runs that isn't always the end of it. The way I see it, the only satisfactory ending for anyone using violence against me is for me to be unhurt, and to do that, if I have to kick seven bells of he'll out of you and your mates: so be it. I'll make a judgement call - it won't always be correct, but it will always be with the intention to protect rather than to cause harm.
I'm not talking about being sued by a person who burns themselves while burgling you. I'm talking about using excessive violence on someone who's no longer a threat, and people *should* be protected from this, regardless of what they've done. Should you be allowed to go and punch someone you see ignore a 'do not walk on the grass' sign?
Or if this hypothetical mugger was then killed by someone else as you were chasing them down. Should the killer get let off?
Also, how long does this 'lenience period', where it's suddenly ok to beat someone up and rob them last? 10 seconds? An hour? Ten years?
Or if this hypothetical mugger was then killed by someone else as you were chasing them down. Should the killer get let off?
Also, how long does this 'lenience period', where it's suddenly ok to beat someone up and rob them last? 10 seconds? An hour? Ten years?
My comment about a burglar burning themselves on a victim's iron got me thinking:
What's people's opinions on the morals of booby-traps? If you booby-trapped your house and a burglar broke in and was killed (as opposed to just being hurt) by one of your traps, would that - morally at least, because I'm sure it would be legally - be a crime?
What's people's opinions on the morals of booby-traps? If you booby-trapped your house and a burglar broke in and was killed (as opposed to just being hurt) by one of your traps, would that - morally at least, because I'm sure it would be legally - be a crime?
morally? don't think so, you break into someone's place, you accepted the risk, you fall for it and you died, not my problem.
:iagree:
Im amazed the control is black and not white :S
Then again what a wii control is doing next to a real gun is beyond me.
Then again what a wii control is doing next to a real gun is beyond me.
When the threat is no longer present. When someone who attacks you runs the threat of violence has not been negated. when they have gone: then the problem is negated.
If I chase a burglar, we are still engaged in a conflict situation. The military use the word 'disengaged', the same applies in civilian life too, if I've managed to turn a situation sufficiently to my advantage when a burger has attacked me that they now run away, why do you think they should then be protected - when previous to that I had no protection at all. Do you think someone intent on causing harm will stop if I run away from a muggig, or will leave my possessions if I run away from a burglary?
There is no guilt amongst those convicted of defending themselves, it's why our armed forces are called 'defence', it's why Terry Martin should be cleared of murder, and a moral pansy on the side of injustice really doesn't have a chance of convincing me otherwise. It's not even a grey area.
You should meat out swift justice.
I find myself in total agreement with JJ72 and Becky Rose, although a fatal booby trap that could potentially kill a trespasser (without any intention of theft or injury to residents) is a bit rough. That is, if it's comparatively easy to accidentally trespass, farmland for example.
Breaking into a house is different though, you don't accidentally climb a wall or pick a lock. What happens to an intruder is entirely their responsibility.
Breaking into a house is different though, you don't accidentally climb a wall or pick a lock. What happens to an intruder is entirely their responsibility.
I completely agree with Becky and JJ72 as well. If somebody breaks into my house, his decision of either being "safe", or in "danger" was made when he stepped through my door/window. Even if he's retreating, it's my duty to get payback. Even if you can immobilize him until law enforcement arrives. I honestly can't understand why you believe that the burgler/mugger has a right to yell "uncle" and suddenly be safe to retreat without getting payback. Some people.
"Payback" is what the courts are for.
Justifications like "He spilled my beer so I shot his whole family" might seem reasonable to some people, but not most. That's why laws exist - to define what a society deems reasonable behaviour.
You guys keep using stupid examples that are way too damn extreme. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Does spilling beer endanger your family? Does spilling beer breach your sense of privacy/security? Is spilling beer illegal? And spilling beer 90% of the time is an accident, unlike breaking and entering.
But your justification sounds extreme to us. Does someone running away endanger your family? The reason you can't chase people down and shoot them in cold blood is because everybody else in your community who isn't a psycho will want you to go to jail for it.
Pot, kettle, black. I appreciate and understand the right to bear arms the people of the USA have, but when it was written do you think they envisaged it being used by people to buy ex-military automatic weapons to shoot down radio control aircraft? I don't think so...the intention was so that if the government was overstepping its authority (threatening the freedoms or security of the people, out of touch with the people etc) a "well regulated militia" could force them to rethink their position or to overthrow them for a better government. The fact of the matter is that the US government has seriously impinged on the freedoms of the people (Patriot Act etc) and has consistently endangered the people (their policy of funding terrorism directly and indirectly (see CIA + Timothy McVeigh, Taliban, Vietnam etc). When you get involved in covert conflicts and wars just to "stop the commies" you're putting your people at risk of reprisals because of it. If the framers of the constitution were alive today they would be horrified at what the people have allowed to happen.
When people have a right to own something, they can use that item for recreation. Not being able to shoot our firearms for recreation would be like the UK government telling you guys that you can ONLY use your car to go to/from school/work, you can't drive it to buy stuff, you can't go to track days, only use it when it is needed. That's the beauty of the 2nd amendment. We have a right to collect, shoot(responsibly), trade, and use it as a hobby. And those machine guns in that video aren't owned by the people firing them. Usually they are companies that offer a "machine gun shoot" day where you pay, and you and your friends/coworkers to go shoot. And having this right makes the government think twice about overstepping it's authority.
3 year old girl mistakes a real gun for a Wii-gun, kills herself
(139 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG