Where did I say you said that? I didn't. The exchange was:Where did I say the other guy needed a gun for it to be a lethal attack??
In context of the OP and the thread topic, rape is a "forcible felony" and you can shoot someone for attempting it.Now you're being a vigilante: on-the-spot judge, jury, and executioner.Wrong. There is no second place when you or your family are the victim of an assault. You need to be able to kill your attacker.You do the best you can with what you've got. If you're overly concerned about personal protection I suggest martial arts classes. It also has the side benefit of keeping you physically active.
If it's not a lethal assault then, as far as I'm concerned, you're a murderer.
One does not have to be a vigilante to self defense and it does not take a weapon in the hands of the attacker to defend oneself with a firearm. In any physical attack it can reasonably be assumed the provocateur is armed even if a weapon is not immediately noticeable.Is that Florida thing still being hashed out? Man, I would have thought that was long over by now. I guess it's gonna' be like the OJ trial, publicized until after it's long dead. In the Florida case, though, the publicity may be a good thing. America shouldn't be a country of vigilantes. If we're going that way, we may as well just throw the law books out the window.
In my opinnion fundamental and inalienable rights are stronger than legally granted civil rights. The former is always there and the latter depends on laws.For those who have answered "No, it's [some other sort of right/privledge/thing]" a question for you all....
Do you think that [right/privledge/thinkg] is something that would be MORE or LESS important than a Civil Right?
IE, for those saying it's a "fundamental right". Are you suggesting that Fundamental Rights are even greater, or require even more protection, than a Civil Right would? Are you suggesting they need the same amount in general, but are different? Or are you suggesting a Fundamental right needs less protection?
(I imagine I know the answer, but figure it's better to ask for clarification)
One does not have to be a vigilante to self defense and it does not take a weapon in the hands of the attacker to defend oneself with a firearm. In any physical attack it can reasonably be assumed the provocateur is armed even if a weapon is not immediately noticeable.
You can reasonably meet force with force. If he has only fists, it's unreasonable to assume a weapon not in evidence, and shoot him. That's manslaughter at a minimum.
wrong in the states/. If someone jumps you on the street and starts hitting you you can shoot them. I know-I did
I don't believe it. Dubious source.
For those who have answered "No, it's [some other sort of right/privledge/thing]" a question for you all....
Do you think that [right/privledge/thinkg] is something that would be MORE or LESS important than a Civil Right?
There's nothing "left-wing nut" about Missouri. You can't just say "I feared for my life" - you have to show that any reasonable person would think the same thing and an unarmed man punching you doesn't pass muster.If someone walks up to me on the street and punches me and I fear for my life I do have the right to kill him in self defense and I can assure you except in a few left wing nut states I will never be arrested.
Then why did you even mention that pulling a knife on someone was a lethal attack? Or are you going to deny saying that, too? A knife is a lethal weapon as are many, many, many other things that are not guns. Even a hammer, which every carpenter carries around as a matter of course, can be considered a lethal weapon.Where did I say you said that? I didn't. The exchange was:
OK, where did HE say the other guy was armed with a knife or armed with anything at all??? "Assault" is NOT a lethal attack. Man, I wish you guys would get your facts straight and quite trying to change the scenario to fit your views.Wrong. There is no second place when you or your family are the victim of an assault. You need to be able to kill your attacker.
Yes, I checked Missouri law (as I said I would) and as of 2007 rape is a forcible felony and can be met with deadly force. Of course, that doesn't mean you actually have to kill them but if you do you're "covered". I have no doubt people like you only shoot to kill. Others feel differently.In context of the OP and the thread topic, rape is a "forcible felony" and you can shoot someone for attempting it.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and apparently neither do you.Then why did you even mention that pulling a knife on someone was a lethal attack? Or are you going to deny saying that, too? A knife is a lethal weapon as are many, many, many other things that are not guns. Even a hammer, which every carpenter carries around as a matter of course, can be considered a lethal weapon.
He said: OK, where did HE say the other guy was armed with a knife or armed with anything at all??? "Assault" is NOT a lethal attack. Man, I wish you guys would get your facts straight.
Yes, I checked Missouri law (as I said I would) and as of 2007 rape is a forcible felony and can be met with deadly force. Of course, that doesn't mean you actually have to kill them but if you do you're "covered". I have no doubt people like you only shoot to kill.
A civil right is defined as such:
"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."
Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Don't bother coming to Missouri, then, you'll only get thrown in jail.One does not have to be a vigilante to self defense and it does not take a weapon in the hands of the attacker to defend oneself with a firearm. In any physical attack it can reasonably be assumed the provocateur is armed even if a weapon is not immediately noticeable.
A civil right is defined as such:
"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."
Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
wrong in the states/. If someone jumps you on the street and starts hitting you you can shoot them. I know-I did
The laws in Ohio must be a whole lot different than Missouri, then.of course you don't-I proved you wrong and rather admit that an attorney in the USA knows more about the law than you do you'd rather spew something which you have no basis to believe is true. Its SOP with gun haters. Dishonesty and disinformation is the gun banners' stock in trade.
Great, then since everyone is in the Militia, we can buy machine guns.It's a right for a militia to do so.
Great, then since everyone is in the Militia, we can buy machine guns.
Nobody is in the militia. It was disband after we won the Revolutionary war.
USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Nobody is in the militia. It was disband after we won the Revolutionary war.
We're already part of the unorganized militia. This is how we can be drafted, because we're already affiliated with the military by default...the state can just 'call us up'. They're not enslaving a free man, they're activating a militiaman. The very purpose of the Selective Service is to record exactly who is in the unorganized militia should they need to be activated.
I've long been of the opinion that a 2-year term or service should be mandatory for everyone upon turning 18, because when you turn 18 you become part of the militia whether you like it or not. This is forced on you like taxes, so IMO just roll with it, use it to your advantage. Even if you choose not to continue to serve in the military, you are still in the militia and so you should have some base-level training to accompany it. You could be summarily deputized during a natural disaster before relief comes. You could be part of a neighborhood watch, etc. These civil duties would be greatly served by basic military training.
Militias were called up to quell union riots in the steel industry (which is why the left doesn't like the 2A) and were called up in CA, OR, and WA during WW2.
The militias, which are dotted throughout the US and, according to recent figures, are growing rapidly in numbers, claim they are bulwarks against tyranny. The US Department of Homeland Security takes a dimmer view, warning of a ‘rise in Right-wing anti-government extremist activity’ as far back as April 2009 and a ‘phenomenon of violent radicalisation’.
Indeed, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), which tracks extremist groups, the US has seen a dramatic spike in attempted domestic terrorism ever since Barack Obama started his campaign for office, including: two skinhead plots to assassinate him; a plan to set off a dirty bomb packed with radioactive materials during the inauguration; and a lone assassin, Keith Luke, who began murdering black people in Massachusetts.
Of course, militia activity is hardly new to the US. The very first article of the Constitution granted Congress the power to call on ‘the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions’ and the subsequent Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as every able-bodied male citizen over 18 and under 45.
It’s an act that has been embraced by a fair number of American citizens ever since, whether loners or disparate groups of armed, disgruntled civilians. In 1992, Randy Weaver, a former US Army Green Beret, moved himself and his family to an isolated cabin in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, to escape what they saw as a corrupt world. Rather than a peaceful nature-lover, officials claimed Weaver was a member of a race-hate group and he was charged with weapons violations. When he failed to appear in court, they stormed the cabin, resulting in the fatal shooting of Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and 14-year-old son, Sammy.
Wrong. The militia continued to exist long after that, and continues to exist today. A number of states, including mine, have a formal and officially recognized State Militia, seperate from the National Guard (which is a Federally instituted force).
Also the Founders were quite clear on who was the militia.... when they said "militia" they meant CITIZENS.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
Insane thugs. Just the kind that should NOT have military style weapons.
With one big exception. TODAY"S militia are domestic terrorists whose activities are subversive and dangerous to our society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?