Hmmm...not a definition I'd use.
Btw, I favor the 22 (40S&W) over the 17 (9mm).
They've done more.
But anything to avoid the question, eh.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Couple threatened for defending themselves agains a mob who broke in their property ?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
Btw, I favor the 22 (40S&W) over the 17 (9mm).
But anything to avoid the question, eh.
I sense bickering, rather than discussion of the issues.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
But the burning crosses were legal, IIRC, were they not?
Would you straight up kill a member of the KKK if you found them walking by your house?
What question?
Odd question.....
You haven't given me a reason.
Why would I want to?
My turn....
If you found Hitler sitting on your bidet in your bathroom, would you shoot him?
Post #6.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Curious George
Veteran Member
It comes down to what property is and what ownership is.
What does you think ownership means? I think there is a want to think of ownership in terms of possessing exclusively and entirely. With real estate this would translate to a fee simple absolute. But as we concede other types of ownership we realize that ownership is not quite so simple.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
They committed a crime against your property by trespassing, making it legal for you to hurt or kill them.
What exact reasons do you think speak against killing or injuring people for violating your property rights?
Firstly, I already told you that I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, I also do not condone killing people out of a matter of principle.
Thirdly, your example is contrived and loaded.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Lol, you simply generalized the response to deadly force as a response to violence. Nothing over which to get worked up. You just misunderstood.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
He's done that before.
I don't know if it's a debating tactic or if he really does not recognize a difference between lethal and nonlethal force.
Since you said "lounging", I wondered if you meant they were guests.
(I do know some unsavory people.)
If they'd broken in, I would have the legal right to shoot them.
Doesn't mean I would though.
What would you do in such a scenario?
I prefer to avoid harming anyone if I can reasonably avoid it.
You're still invited to opine.
Those in glass houses shouldn't toss stones at the intelligence of others.
Do you think that the McCloskeys would have been justified taking pot shots at the FedEx guy as he drives past their house heading to their neighbour's?
And do you understand what an easement is?
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Same answer I gave to your other contrived question.
If you want, we can play this for infinity turns. Here's an extremely contrived hypothetical of mine: If Pol Pot broke into your house and started asking annoying questions, would you shoot him right then and there, even though it would really mess up your carpet? What if Kate Middleton vouched for him with her royal pedigree? And would you still kill him if he brought a bag full of kittens?
Call the cops/neighbourhood watch/Antifa hit squad to sort it out. Yell at them for being racist scum.
Throw rotten eggs and vegetables at them. The possibilities are endless and not limited to killing people because they existed threateningly in my neighbourhood.
I've got a curious question, though: Do you actually believe that you could tell right away whether a stranger was a Bad Person that warranted shooting them?
But you are cool with others killing people for trespassing, in principle?
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Yes, as greed becomes more and more the motive behind every decision we make here in the U.S., these absurd laws are being written and passed. Eventually they will be challenged at the Supreme Court, and hopefully, there, they will finally be struck down. But until then, we will have these redneck states allowing people to play "wanna-be-lawman" behind the mask of 'ownership', or 'aggressive self-defense', or some other foolish reasoning, which will inevitably attract those among us who are just itching to shoot someone to feel the power.
I'm genuinely not seeing what different standard I'm employing here. If some pro-Trump protestors march down my street, and do so peacefully, I don't have a right to point a gun at them (although if they're open carrying, as some Trump supporters are wont to do, that does change the dynamic).
The actual double standard here is from law enforcement (and the Right broadly, which tends to be law enforcement sympathetic). Black people get killed in this country even when they're unarmed, and yet law enforcement and the Right make excuses and blame the victim, time after time. When white people literally point loaded weapons at unarmed protestors, law enforcement and the Right paint them as somehow victims or courageous heroes, and they're always alive at the end of the day to tell their side of the story. An armed black person, who dared to point a gun at a right-wing protestor? They would be dead right now.
That's systemic racism. That's why BLM is going to keep protesting through lily-white gated communities demanding justice. It's not engagement in a double standard. It's literally a protest against the double standard of an entire society.
I'm now inspired to go do some landscaping.
I'm off to do some landscaping.
Let's agree that no one should be pointing guns at protestors.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
Well, what's your specific strategy if you live in some unincorporated town, 20 miles away from any authority.. and someone comes and starts smashing stuff on your property? What if they break in, and start shoving stuff into a luggage bag in front of you. A problem is, that america is still a big spacey place. Some people live in pitch dark towns with no neighbors for several miles. At a far enough libertarian left position, you know you would believe as much in defense rights as would a right wing libertarian. The left's contemporary disgust with defense seems to be a trend toward some kind of red quadrant position, where apparently they try to condense all authority into metaphysical ideals.. Humans groups however, might always contain an authority class. And the red quadrant will inevitably lock down society more, the more the left tries to forcibly move toward it, where broader agreement from the populace is not indicated
Last edited:
I've not seen anyone state that they did not trespass.