Unlawful entry

[PHILBERT]

Ok, a theif breaks into your home. You know there is a theif, but you do not know if he is armed or not. You have a weapon, sword, knife, gun, staff, missle launcher, nuclear missle, whatever. What would you do to the theif if you do not know if he is armed or not? Would you let him take what he wants and leave without hurting him? Would you attack him and let the police arrest him? Or would you kill him?

Post how you would react.

[Ish]

I would sneak up on him/her and smash his/her head with the bat i keep next to my bed. I would try to jst knock them out till the police got there but if i accidentaly broke their skull it would make them think twice about breaking into my house again

[scotty1]

Pretty difficult. People get done for assaulting a burglar in England.
I would have thought that it was quite common for thieves to sue houseowners in America for basing them. Not true?

Personally speaking, if I was feeling up for it, I would try to knock them out with a large object and call the fuzz. Or call the fuzz and then, if they were going to leave before the Police arrived, then I'd knock them out.

[Dark Knight]

Depending on the state, but for most you can shoot him. Then call the police.

Mass finally changed their laws, but before if they were killing your kids and you could get out, you had to leave. If there was no threat to you, you had no right to stop them in your own home.

[Dark Knight]

"I would try to knock them out with a large object and call the fuzz."

What if he is armed? you may not know until you get close to him, and its too late.

I was supprised to see that in England you do not have the right to protect your home like in the US.

[Qi dup]

I think it's called the 'Make my day law' where if someone breaks into your house then you are allowed to shoot them. I'm not to sure though

[Cyborg]

In Tx you're allowed to shoot an intruder IF: they're all the way in your house and it's dark. They don't have to be armed under those circumstances. Although it's not wise to boast about shooting an unarmed person before the trial. :D

I've got a friend who is on probation because he made two mistakes. 1 - he shot him while the burglar was in the doorway,
2 - he failed to kill him and got sued!:mad:

Any thief that gets out of my house alive will be very lucky...

[myosimka]

You are allowed to use deadly force if faced with a threat of deadly force. The reason this works for 'in the dark' situations is you can argue you thought he was armed. Qi dup, that's why you shouldn't make statements like that. That rule does not apply. True you may be able to convince a jury and jury decisions of not guilty are final but shooting someone because they are in your house does not constitute self defense.
Dark knight, again that's not true. Many people have gotten off for this because there are many jurors who don't make decisions based on the law. The change in some state statutes to include defense of others still prohibits deadly force if a threat of deadly force does not exist. You have the right to defend your home with non-deadly force and the recommended method is calling the cops.

[Kevin73]

It's best to talk to either a lawyer or LEO while making your strategy. But, here are a couple things I know from MI.

1) He has to have come completly in the house

2) He has to presend a reasonable threat to you that you feel you are in danger of either serious threat or death.

3) You better shoot him from the front, if he's hit in the back YOU are in big trouble because it's automatically assumed he was trying to leave when you shot him.

4) In other self defense scenarios you have what is called "the duty to retreat" which means you have to try and leave if possible. In Michigan, while in your house you don't have to do this, you can stand there and defend your home/property with as much force as you feel is reasonable AT THAT TIME. This means that you have to know he has a weapon or other tool to cause you serious bodily harm, the means to do it, AND that he is attempting to.

(these were pulled from my LEO classes and MI crim. proc. book)

[KungFuGuy!]

Someone broke into my house when I was 14. I was on the computer in the basement and I heard my window being pushed in. I grabbed a broom stick and quietly went upstairs, he was going through the drawers in my kitchen. I then charged at him and broke the broom stick over his shoulder. Then I was frozen, I had no idea what to do. He stood up, paused for a second, then pushed through me and bolted out the front door (which was unlocked the whole time lol). I called the cops right afterwards. When they got there, one of them told me that if the robber heard me coming up the stairs, he would have grabbed one of the huge knives from the kitchen and tried to stab me. All I could say was "oops".

[Qi dup]

I think your absolutly right myosimka. This is one of those things I'm really not sure what I'm talking about. I just remember hearing about the make my day law on the news and that was a bout it. I never stoped to think about the legal side of it because well, I never pictured shooting an intruder seeing as I don't own a gun. I have an antique revolver but i'm not old enough to by bullets for it. I'm glad you said what you did because I see how people could get the wrong idea from my saying that if someone is in your house you can shoot them. My bad and good call myosimka! Big Truck

[Jax]

I remember my friend telling me about one night after training when he arrived home to find two teenage theives in his house. He was in his full training Gi. (6'2, Built like a brick sh*t house with a black tip in traditional TKD.)

The two guys shat their pants and just bolted out the back door.
He grabed his old medievil broadsword off the wall and chased them down the street while shouting fond remarks.
:D

I wish i was there to see that one.

[scotty1]

"I would try to knock them out with a large object and call the fuzz."

What if he is armed? you may not know until you get close to him, and its too late.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. And no, we don't have the right to protect our homes.

Check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4010130,00.html

[Ish]

We might not have the rite to protect our homes but we can protect ourselves. I take this to mean if no one else is around which there usually isnt when im at home, it was self defence. I would think of a good story while i was waiting for the fuzz.

[Metal Fist]

In most cases, here in the USA, one is allowed to shoot an intruder in the home, if intruder is completely inside the home.
Some states allow this if there is no other way to avoid it or if the home owner can't escape, some do not allow it at all, aren't these SOCIALIST states wonderful?, they give the bottom-feeding, useless predators more rights than a useful, law-abiding citizen. Thankfully my state allows extermination of these worthless .


Scotty1- Ain't Socialsim and forced multi-culterism wonderful?
I'd leave ASAP if you can. Unfortunately England is the example of which the rest of the world is heading.:mad:

[ewallace]

I heard a story a few months ago about somebody here in san antonio that had somebody break into their house. As the thief was exiting thru the window in which he/she/it broke in, the homeowner shot and killed the theif. The person then dragged the thief back into the house and placed the body by the window where he shot the theif and waited for police. Of course forensics could have determined where the events took place and ended, but the homeowner was never charged with a crime. My feeling is that they (SAPD) figured that he got what he deserved...and he did. I have no way to confirm this happened, but the person that told me had no reason to make it up.

I personally would not wait around to have a sit down and kindly ask an intruder whether or not he wanted to harm my wife and daughter, or just to aquire some of my belongings. The fact is that if my windows or doors are locked, that means that no one other than us should be in the home unless invited.

[JerryLove]

The law varies widely from state to state withing the US. In some areas, you can shoot almost anyone (heck, Texas you can shoot someone driving off in your car). Regardless of what is and is not allowed, I'm going to persue what I feel is prudent. That said...

If there is a safe exit for everyone, I'll take it. If an exit is not available, it depends. In my current situation, there are no children, so there is just myself and my girlfriend in an room with only one entrance. I would grab the gun, wait in ambush near the entrance to the bedroom, and dial 911 on the cordless. If there were children in another room, I am going to act to preserve their safety as well. If it is reasonable to grab them and leave, I will. If there is a reasonable point of defence (say stairwell access) that I can ambush, I will. And if I have to actively presue and kill the thief to protect them, I will.

In all cases, I am adapted to teh darkness, and know the layout of the house well. One thing I will add is "BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET". Do not shoot uncle Bob.

[Dark Knight]

Victim Disarmament Crowd on the Run

". . . (T)o the anti-gun lobby, the worst news of all had to be the way in which tens of thousands of Americans reacted to the atrocities of Sept. 11: They went out and bought guns. 'Steep Rise in Gun Sales Reflects Post-Attack Fears,' reported the Sunday New York Times in a Page 1, above-the-fold story on Dec. 16.

"Drawing on FBI statistics and surveys by gun owners organizations, it noted that 'guns and ammunition sales across the country have risen sharply,' with many of the weapons being acquired by 'a steady stream of serious-minded first-time buyers.' The number of background checks for gun purchases surged sharply after Sept. 11, peaking in October at 1,029,691 -- almost 22 percent higher than in the same month a year earlier. Meanwhile, 'around the country, gun instruction classes have shown significant increases in enrollment.'"

- Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby

[fa_jing]

A gun is a self-justifying right. Farmer Bob shouldn't have shot the kid in the back as he was trying to escape, although I think his act was far from murder. Anyway, if people want to take our guns away (100, 000 gun owners in this country, no I don't own one currently) their ultimate recourse is to shoot the person trying to arrest them or take it away. "give me that gun, son!" "wait a second, this is precisely why I own this sucker. Come take it, fool!" Think about it. Do you trust your government more than you trust yourself? Do you think there will ever ever be a situation in the USA where criminals will find it difficult to get a gun?

-FJ

[Outcast]

Last year someone decided to try and steal my car off the driveway, its a sturdy old thing and the locks resisted their best attempts. However when they couldnt nick it they decided to sabotage it. The result was that I crashed the car leaving my village and then I reported it to the police they said there was no point coming out but they would add it to their reports.

Great! I report a crime and my insurance goes up.....that makes sence. would hate to think what would have happened if I had caught the @*!~#$£& and took them on. One of two things probably

1. Got injured and they got away
2. Came out on top of a fight but got prosecuted.

Sometimes I hate living in the UK

[JerryLove]

Farmer Bob shouldn't have shot the kid in the back as he was trying to escape, although I think his act was far from murder. Then you consider it "justified homicide" and as such, he should have done it (It was, after all, justified).

--------------------------------


Think about it. Do you trust your government more than you trust yourself? Not the only issue. Do you want that woman in the apartment next store (between which and you there is no bullet-proof barrier) who get's moddy once a month and tries to kill her boyfriend, to have a firearm handy? How about that guy on the corner by your kids bus-stop that mumbles about it "raining on the furnature"? How about uncle Bill who is a post-man because no other uniformed service (police, army, etc) will accept him? How much to do you trust *these* people with guns?

--------------------------------


Last year someone decided to try and steal my car off the driveway, its a sturdy old thing and the locks resisted their best attempts. However when they couldnt nick it they decided to sabotage it. I am incredulious. Sabotaging makes no sense, if they wanted the car, they can smash the window. Perhaps you are rationalizing?


Great! I report a crime and my insurance goes up.....that makes sence. While I am the last person to point out spelling mistakes, one of my two peeves is on "sense", there is no "sence", only "cents", "sense", and "since". That said, what would you prefer? Should they be jailed on your say-so? Should we invest a few hundred thousand dollars in arresting, detaining, and prosecuting them when they cannot be convicted? You would rather have your taxes go up for extra $250,000 prosecustions than have your insurance go up for extra $30,000 cars? Interesting.


1. Got injured and they got away
2. Came out on top of a fight but got prosecuted. Let me make sure I am acid testing your opinion properly. There is a magic mechanism in the English judicial system that knows the difference between "bad-guy" and "good-guy" and when a "bad-guy" is on trial for beating up a "good-guy", he get's off, but when the situation is reversed, the "good-guy" is penalized?

Does that even make sense to you?

[fa_jing]

I don't think of things in a legalistic sense. After all, I didn't make those laws. I don't think what farmer Bob did was right at all, so for you to imply I think this is "justifiable homicide" because I said it wasn't murder is just incorrect. To me a justifiable homicide would be where you thought you or your loved ones were being seriously threatened. How about erroneous homicide?
2. All of these people have complete access to guns in my country, sorry to disillusion you. The only barrier is money. Given that they may have guns, I want mine too as a law-abiding citizen. What is your scenario to take guns out of the hands of the people? You can't do away with 200,000 guns, and the criminals and violent-minded people will be the second-to-last to give them up, the last being I and the rest of the gun nuts.
Secondly, as long as government agents have guns, and I am forced to support the system through payroll-deducted taxes, I want my gun and the right to defend myself, at my own discretion.
Why would I enable others to have guns but not myself, once again, I trust myself more than my government. In fact my personal experiences and the news are enough to make me extremely distrustful of the government.
If you could press a button and all the guns would melt into liquid, great. Please apply this to the entire planet earth.
Of course, they could fight a "war on guns" the way they fight the "war on drugs" a model of effective social policy and deterrence. (dripping with sarcasm)

-FJ

[uncle]

If I was in the house alone I would probably use martial arts.Then again if I know my wife and kids were in the house I would shoot them till my gun was empty, then I 'd reload, check the guy out and then and only then i'd call the cops. My first responsibility is to my family. I have no idea what there intent is breaking into my home, whether its robbery or some kind of physical harm on my kids,once they cross my doorway or the window it becomes " their problem".God have mercy on 'em cause I'm not gonna"

[Outcast]

Thanks or your post, I see your still as sharp as ever.

I guess my reply relating to: ****ed if you do, ****ed if you dont response, kind of relates to one thought, which is I just want to be left alone on my own property and no matter how I respond, if my privacy is breached my response to it will always be frowned upon by someone. As regards insurance I simply mean why should I report crimes when the police dont even turn out, let alone solve the crime, its just another crime figure against my post code.

The reason why they probably didn't smash the window is that I live in a quiet village and the sound of a window being put through would wake several people and a fair number of the local dogs. I have no idea why they chose to cut the return fuel line (possibly the misguided thought that they could syphon off some fuel) however that cut fuel line poured fuel over the rear wheels, when the car was started the next day that caused the accident.

I am sorry for my poor english but I have always had difficulties with it, and I have to cope with doing the best I can with a limited skill (no amount of working on it and tellings off by those who can has ever worked I am afraid).

All the best to you Jerry hope to see you in the chat room soon

Outcast

(al)

[JerryLove]

Fajing,

In the event of a homicide (the killing of a human being by another huma nbeing), there are two possabilities. Either the homicide is justified, or it is not. If it is not, it is an illegal homicide (the definition of murder); if it is, it is a justtifiable homicide.

And yes, you did make those laws (to the percentage that you represent the population). Laws are passed either by direct referrendum of the populus, or by representative vote. In the latter case, you elected the representitive.

The people who don't like something about the way America is run, really need to take responsability for their complaicence in allowing that to occur.

2. You and I are in the same country, and I own several firearms. Heck, it's actually less expensive to get one illegally than to get one legally.

I have no scienrio to remove guns, nor am I claiming I do. I am not trying to remove firearms from the populus. I am not sure why you keep returning to "guns because the government has them". I doubt sincerely that you could raise any resistance should "the government" decide it wanted you dead. You do, after-all lack any sort of air defenses, I doubt you could even make your presence know to a tank. So if it's "to defeat the government", I would really recommend a different tack.

[JerryLove]

"All the best to you Jerry hope to see you in the chat room soon "

You too, sorry to hear about the problems with your local criminals.

[fa_jing]

I have never voted. I am 27. I do not wish to provide a mandate to those in power. The two possiblities you mentioned are based on a set of laws I don't agree with. The end. I pay taxes because I don't want trouble. I need to comply very carefully with the tax law as I am sponsering immigrants. If no one voted, there would be no government, at least not one mandated by the people. I hope nobody votes. I am in a situation where through the threat of force I am forced to monetarily support a system which barred my fiancee from entering the country for over a year. Where a fellow had to plea no contest to a felony he didn't commit, and pay over ten thousand dollars for a well-recognized laywer to not do jack over a period of months. He ended up with the same plea-bargain deal he could have gotten after the arraignment with no lawyer. Some of that money ended up in the judges re-election campaign fund, I have that confirmed. Did you know that successful laywers regularly contribute to the campaign funding for their favorite "we all **** in the same pot" judges? I also benefit from government policies, but as long as they take direct action against me and my loved ones, I will be in an adversarial situation, one where I would like to have "the ultimate recourse." Maybe I should be happy that my tax money went to a 53-million dollar payment to the Taliban early last year? Most americans are compliant, yes. They go to the voting booths and buy into this ridiculous two-party one-philosophy sham that passes for representative government here. Most want things to stay the same, I look at certain people here in the corporate world and I'm telling you, the corporate world is 2/3 bull****ers and 1/4 productivity. The higher-ups do the least, get paid the most, complain about really petty nonsense, made up on the fly, and disrespect people with families. The client is deceived regularly, the client deceives the company, and when a boss got switched over to another department, most sheep around here chipped in 10 bucks for a going away gift, yeah that makes sense, those who do most of the work and get paid the least pay more money to boss when he leaves, as if he ever stuck his neck out for any of us. All he did was to promulgate the same lies and bull****. People say there's no alternative system then our sham-fest "democracy." The truth is there are hundreds anyway you want to manage things, if you can just get the people to agree to it. How bought "peace on earth" as the basis for your system?? Capatilism works because everyone loves money, but don't realize that it's not anything resembling a fair system. In fact, it requires a level of bull**** just to exist. For instance, do you think that a bank can only lend out the money that has been deposited? In reality, the government has allowed banks to lend out 10 times (1000%) the deposited money, thus inventing money that doesn't exist, all so banks and credit companies can make their money. In the mean time children are forced to go to public schools in inner cities which serve them zilch, those who have power stay in power and the system is designed to keep them in power and the only way they'll let a poor person into the upper echelons of society is if they can make even more money off him. Getting back to the subject at hand, I think the government would love to take guns out of the hands of the people, it's happened before all over the world in history, every time before an oppresive regime is trying to take over. If they could they'd take your guns, then take away all sorts of other rights. England is OK because the police don't carry, at least it's reasonably fair. Without a gun, a man has less of a voice. It's clear to see that voting is a complete sham, and a completly ineffective way of inducing change in government. Mass demonstrations are a step up from voting. You may think things aren't bad now, but they could change real fast. They want you to think it's going to be like this forever, the lull in world warefare is going to turn into lasting peace, that 401k plan is going to be around 40 years from now and mature and tax laws won't significantly change between now and then and social security will be there and your money will be there. Definitely no one will ever blow up the building you're working in. All it takes is some social issue like bio-engineering to set off conflict again, if violence isn't between countries due to nuclear deterrence, then it'll be civil war or street violence or some loose cannon police officer and there will be war, war, war. If not you then your son and if not your son then your son's son. If any human being has a right to a weapon it needs to be all human beings. I wish I had a tank. It is just self-preservation and common sense to want a gun in the world we live in, and it's to protect yourself against anyone else with a gun, be they your average joe or be they member of a group traditionally considered friendly.

-FJ

"An armed society is a peaceful society" - One of the "Founding Fathers"

[fa_jing]

I couldn't defend myself if the government wanted me dead, but if the government wanted 1,000,000 of us dead, or even 10,000 of us dead and we all had guns, we could put up a decent defense. In fact, I submit that this is already the case, police don't move into certain areas because of the large number of armed individuals in those areas. Thus owning a gun is a political statement, a very effective one. Much more effective than voting.
-FJ

[jaz1069]

No room for heroes!

The theory I practice, and the one I've taught my wife if she is home alone is this...

* Get to the bedroom and secure the door. Most idiots come in after lights out anyway so you are usually already in the bedroom.

* Call police from bedroom

* Let German Shepherd do her job

* DO NOT search house looking for prowler

* If prowler gets past dog and attempts to break bedroom door warn that you have gun and will shoot if he enters...the moment the door gives...good night.

Make sure that you have called 911 and keep the line open as they record all calls and will be able to provide evidence that you are baricaded in bedroom and warned intruder that you will shoot. It sounds like a lot of work, and the Dirty Harry type will say, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" but why not make sure you win.

[JerryLove]

"I have never voted. I am 27" - By never voting, you are even more responsable for the abuses you rail against. At least those who did vote (or better yet, ran for office) have attempted to effect the changes they want, rather than just complain about the state of the world they made.

"I hope nobody votes." - And then what? You think anarchy would work? I hope you don't want roads or water or electricity. And I hope you make your own medicines and grow your own food. In-fact, I hope you raise horses, because cars will discontinue as supply lines disappear and money looses all value.

"a fellow had to plea no contest to a felony he didn't commit" - And without a government would have simply been killed in the middle of the night by the complainant.

"Did you know that successful laywers regularly contribute to the campaign funding for their favorite" - Anti-capatalist too. Withoug government, that's all you have left. There certainly is not socialism in anarchy.

"The higher-ups do the least, get paid the most" - Oh, this is one of those "the world is unfair, poor me" rants.

"How bought "peace on earth" as the basis for your system??" - They got conqured and deported.

"but don't realize that it's not anything resembling a fair system." - Like communism? No wait, that's a government.

"inventing money that doesn't exist, all so banks and credit companies can make their money." - Silly me, I thought it tied into the concept that loans to business are the foundation of expansion and new growth.

"In the mean time children are forced to go to public schools in inner cities which serve them zilch" - And I know that you are down voulenteering at yours to help because it's only through such actions that children will be educated when you overthrow the government and the school system vansihes entirely.

"the system is designed to keep them in power" - As long as everyone that wants them in power votes and those that do not, don't. You are correct.

"I think the government would love to take guns out of the hands of the people" - Probably, of course, it was the "government" that originally gave you the right to posess firearms.

"Without a gun, a man has less of a voice." - So Gandi, or Martin Luther (or Martin Luther King) or the Pope have (had) less of a voice than, say, you? Interesting.

"It's clear to see that voting is a complete sham" - Really?

"You may think things aren't bad now, but they could change real fast." - Can't find something wrong enough you hope not voting will make it worse so you can be right?

"They want you to think it's going to be like this forever, the lull in world warefare is going to turn into lasting peace" - What lul would that be? 2 wars in the past 10 years.

[fa_jing]

It's clear that you too work for the government. Your complete lack of logic in responding to my post was insulting. It must make you feel good to put words in the mouths of others. I never advocated anarchy. I want a resounding change in the way society is formed, where they don't steal from you and abuse you. Not voting is the best way to effect change, you buy into the brainwashing. Voting only gives power to self-propogating entrenched interests. You're free to disagree. But you sound like an ignorant fool with a hidden agenda. In fact, I do dedicate my time and money to helping disadvantaged children, extensively. Our government is a gigantic, imoral waste. All roads, utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run semi-privately. You go to third world countries they know that the police are there to "serve and protect" the government only. When's the last time a police officer saved your ass, or anyone you know? Not to diss all police, some are good people and contributing members of society, in fact my Sifu is a Cook County Sheriff. But their primary reason for existence is to prop up the government. Now look at welfare. Only 10% on the money that goes into the welfare system actually reaches the recipients. It is estimated that 90% of commerce goes into the government coffers via taxes. This is because taxes take place at multiple levels of every transaction. Again, the case of the fellow, you've got it ass-backwards. He would have defended himself in the first place, because it was the instigator who was the complaintant.

Your foolish quotes:

"How bought "peace on earth" as the basis for your system??" - They got conqured and deported

-I suppose you advocate conquest and deportation of those who advocate peace on earth?

"I have never voted. I am 27" - By never voting, you are even more responsable for the abuses you rail against. At least those who did vote (or better yet, ran for office) have attempted to effect the changes they want, rather than just complain about the state of the world they made.

So, voting has been effective in engendering changes in society? Like what? What good is it to attempt if that attempt is gauranteed to fail? And nowadays, what are the differences between those who would govern? Very little. In such a situation, the only real option is to delegitimize the process. You're free to disagree.

"inventing money that doesn't exist, all so banks and credit companies can make their money." - Silly me, I thought it tied into the concept that loans to business are the foundation of expansion and new growth.

-Tell that to third world nations whose governments have sold their people out to the U.S. It's clear once again, you are the beneficiary of the bulls-hit, you give no thought to those who suffer and die because of it.

"I think the government would love to take guns out of the hands of the people" - Probably, of course, it was the "government" that originally gave you the right to posess firearms.

-God gave me the right to posses a firearm.

"They want you to think it's going to be like this forever, the lull in world warefare is going to turn into lasting peace" - What lul would that be? 2 wars in the past 10 years.

-Minimal casualties, dumbsh-it! Your average american watched those wars on TV with a bowl of Cheetos.

"Without a gun, a man has less of a voice." - So Gandi, or Martin Luther (or Martin Luther King) or the Pope have (had) less of a voice than, say, you? Interesting.

-I don't own a gun. The pope commands troops, historically armies. MLK and Ghandi ended up dead, a fate I don't plan to share.

JerryLove - You're a disgrace.

-FJ

[JerryLove]

It's clear that you too work for the government. Your complete lack of logic in responding to my post was insulting. It's interesting you put those two together; whatever you may find "clear" I am not a government employee.


I never advocated anarchy. From your post 01-13-2002 09:00 PM "If no one voted, there would be no government, at least not one mandated by the people. I hope nobody votes."

Feel free to find the holes. You feel non-voting = no government. You wish no one voted. You wish there was no government. No government is the definition of anarchy.


Voting only gives power to self-propogating entrenched interests. A conclusion you have yet to explain. As I said before, it is *not* voting that gives up your power and allows those who do to take it. Activism (voting drives and PSAs) allow further influence, through the vote.


Our government is a gigantic, imoral waste. All roads, utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run semi-privately. Name a location that works.


You go to third world countries they know that the police are there to "serve and protect" the government only. This relates to the US how?


in fact my Sifu is a Cook County Sheriff. But their primary reason for existence is to prop up the government. So you are, in your own mind, paying money to, and studying from, the person who is responsable for the problem. The person who wants to take your firearms aways so that he can excercise his undue authority over you. The millitant hand of the tyrannical government itself, the police officer.


Now look at welfare. I miss the conncetion. Can you not keep your rant down to the subject at hand? Or aree you hoping that if you switch topics fast enough you can spout out your opinions without rebuke?


Only 10% on the money that goes into the welfare system actually reaches the recipients. It is estimated that 90% of commerce goes into the government coffers via taxes. Estimated by whom? In what study? Where is your support?


Again, the case of the fellow, you've got it ass-backwards. He would have defended himself in the first place, because it was the instigator who was the complaintant. You are back to "private vengance over public justice", something the Greeks first got rid of in Western society some 3,000 years ago. You would have neither as there is no court. The one who decided to shoot first (or bash, as governmentless people are not know for their ability to support a manufacturing base) would win the argument through the death of the other. If the other had family, a feud would commence.


I suppose you advocate conquest and deportation of those who advocate peace on earth? Advocation is irrellevent. The price of peace is strength, the price of freedom eternal vigilance.


So, voting has been effective in engendering changes in society? Like what? Universal sufferage, civil rights, really everything after the first congressional congress.


And nowadays, what are the differences between those who would govern? There are many, but you look only at the "primary two". Mass. showed that thrid-party candidates are electable.


In such a situation, the only real option is to delegitimize the process And then? What would you put in it's place (since you calim you are not advocating anarchy).


Tell that to third world nations whose governments have sold their people out to the U.S. It's clear once again, you are the beneficiary of the bulls-hit, you give no thought to those who suffer and die because of it. I have a house whose mortguage was gotten with moey the government loans to the banks. I have friends and relatives with businesses started the same way.


God gave me the right to posses a firearm. God is fictional, he gave you nothing.


Minimal casualties, dumbsh-it! Your average american watched those wars on TV with a bowl of Cheetos. How is us being successful at war "a lul in the world's warfare"? How minimal were the casualties among the Iraqui conscripts? How about the Kurds? What do the casualty firgues (or choice in chips) have to do with anything? Would you feel better if (like WWII) we watched war-reels in theatres with popcorn?


I don't own a gun. Intersting considering they are legal in your state, you are over 21, and you have repeatedly asserted that you want one.


The pope commands troops, historically armies. MLK and Ghandi ended up dead, a fate I don't plan to share. Perhaps a discussion in biology and the lifespan of replicating cells is in order. You will end up dead, regardless of your plan. Further, the vatican is far from what I would call a "useful millitary". I do not believe they are even menbers of Interpol.

You commented on the ability to affect change. Ghandi, Martin Luther,pope John Paul , and Martin Luther King all effected change without the use of violence or a gun. And all (save pope John Paul) would be jsut as dead today if they were armed.

[fa_jing]

Well, I'm sure we've left any interested readers long behind. That just leaves me and you, and I gather from your attitude you won't be changing your mind or your ways. However, I can't just let it go, here are the spots that need clarification--
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never advocated anarchy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From your post 01-13-2002 09:00 PM "If no one voted, there would be no government, at least not one mandated by the people. I hope nobody votes."

Feel free to find the holes. You feel non-voting = no government. You wish no one voted. You wish there was no government. No government is the definition of anarchy.

ME - You got me on this one. No government is the definition of anarchy. However, I don't actually advocate this to be a lasting state. Just long enough so that we can see where we really are and the truth can come out in more certain terms. We are all used to living in an ordered society, so if persons like-minded to myself end up deligitimizing the voting process, I imagine that some organizational structure would take it's place. No government and no paper money would be disastrous, in the short term, but the shock would pass. We might find out that we don't want to completely do away with these things, but a system more in line with the will of the people would be the result. I am also talking about diminishing the "tyranny of the majority" that we see today. My original statement was off-the-cuff and I'm not surprised you took it that way. For instance, the idea of direct democracy is more palatable to me then representative democracy, because under the current state of affairs, those who would win a popular vote are subject to the campaign contributors, besides being members of a ruling class to start with, for the most part. Ignorance of the masses might still be an issue if we go to another system, I would advocate shaking it up to create almost an experimental atmosphere to find out what works. I think the first thing you would find in an anrachy situation is that popular demand for the armed forces would stay the same, obviously we don't want Panama taking revenge for the invasion, right? Change is scary but no change means no hope for a significant minority of U.S. residents.
To put it another way, if no one voted, there would be such a shock that change would come rapidly, they would be forced to gave us some real options, so some of us might be convinced to get inside a voting booth, and anarchy might be just a passing phase. Also, one of the points you raised leads me to believe that I would vote in a referendum, I just wouldn't vote to elect an official in the current state of affairs.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our government is a gigantic, imoral waste. All roads, utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run semi-privately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name a location that works.

ME - I don't have too, or want to. In fact, all systems of government in this world are based on "might makes right," which is humanistically flawed. This just supports my argument.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You go to third world countries they know that the police are there to "serve and protect" the government only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This relates to the US how?

ME - it shows that people are capable of seeing the police for who and what they are - skewed toward serving and protecting the government, not the people. Too much brainwashing going on here, for instance, hot debates in the elementary schools over "that's not constitutional," as if this was some document form a higher plane, disregarding the fact that the Constitution is selectively interpreted and enforced.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in fact my Sifu is a Cook County Sheriff. But their primary reason for existence is to prop up the government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are, in your own mind, paying money to, and studying from, the person who is responsable for the problem. The person who wants to take your firearms aways so that he can excercise his undue authority over you. The millitant hand of the tyrannical government itself, the police officer.

ME- I like and respect my Sifu. I don't think he advocates addtional gun control measures. He is a good cop. He makes very little money off of us. But one day, I might find him knocking on my door asking for my gun, because he has to follow orders. Or maybe he'll be asking my son to go to a war fought only for political reasons. You know what? I've made the personal decision not to hold it against him. All in all, it's a miniscule contribution. At least he doesn't report the income to the government. While, probably far worse, is that I make a huge yearly contribution to the government on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, and my work is for a telcom business, they've made all kinds of shady dealings such as the Telcom Act of 1996, plus every other Telcom act, and I've probably made millions of dollars for the company, some of which will go right back to the government in taxes. I might be buying the gun for somebody to shoot me with. It's a lot of give and take and gray morals in this modern world (as opposed to the pre-historic world). I have a family to support and I've made the decision to feed the system in order to feed myself. But at least I don't vote!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now look at welfare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I miss the conncetion. Can you not keep your rant down to the subject at hand? Or aree you hoping that if you switch topics fast enough you can spout out your opinions without rebuke?

ME- Welfare is a well-known example of government waste, ineptitude, and mis-guidedness. That's the connection, you didn't see it because you have pre-supposed that everything I say is wrong. That's why I got upset the other day.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the case of the fellow, you've got it ass-backwards. He would have defended himself in the first place, because it was the instigator who was the complaintant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are back to "private vengance over public justice", something the Greeks first got rid of in Western society some 3,000 years ago. You would have neither as there is no court. The one who decided to shoot first (or bash, as governmentless people are not know for their ability to support a manufacturing base) would win the argument through the death of the other. If the other had family, a feud would commence.

ME - There has to be some allowance for private vengance. Public vengance is an extra degree of artificiality, and many times fails. Yet, public vengance can be a good thing, for the defenseless. Then again, we could all contribute to a fund that hires private avengers to help the defenseless. We could protect our older relatives better. There are other possibilities. Change can come, it's not all or none as you would suggest.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you advocate conquest and deportation of those who advocate peace on earth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocation is irrellevent. The price of peace is strength, the price of freedom eternal vigilance.

ME- the price of peace is apparently getting f-ucked up the ass with a toilet plunger.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, voting has been effective in engendering changes in society? Like what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Universal sufferage, civil rights, really everything after the first congressional congress.

ME - I wasn't aware of that. Guess things have changed, nowadays as I am saying there are few real choices. You know what else? I would vote in a referendum, I just wouldn't vote to elect an official over me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell that to third world nations whose governments have sold their people out to the U.S. It's clear once again, you are the beneficiary of the bulls-hit, you give no thought to those who suffer and die because of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a house whose mortguage was gotten with moey the government loans to the banks. I have friends and relatives with businesses started the same way.

ME- you entered into a business agreement where you will pay
2-3 times the value of the property. I, too, will enter into such an arangement. But you won't find me bragging about this aspect of it. In fact, I'll be p-issed.

(continued)

[fa_jing]

(continued)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God gave me the right to posses a firearm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is fictional, he gave you nothing.

God is what God is. No matter how you look at it, guns were invented, guns are available, and I can have one. The government did not "allow" me to have one any more than it "allows" me to wipe my ass with Charmin. The Government is not the distributor of natural rights, which is the kind of right I'm talking about.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimal casualties, dumbsh-it! Your average american watched those wars on TV with a bowl of Cheetos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is us being successful at war "a lul in the world's warfare"? How minimal were the casualties among the Iraqui conscripts? How about the Kurds? What do the casualty firgues (or choice in chips) have to do with anything? Would you feel better if (like WWII) we watched war-reels in theatres with popcorn?

ME- Once again, ignoring my point entirely, and displaying poor debating style. The subject was whether the average american could expect to be involved in a deadly confict in his/her lifetime. These few recent decades say no, but history tells us yes, there is a significant chance.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't own a gun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intersting considering they are legal in your state, you are over 21, and you have repeatedly asserted that you want one.

ME- Not interesting. I have had one, I don't have one now because I live in an apartment with small children who like to get into stuff. I trust them, but the risk is not worth the reward. When I get a house I will re-stock. Thank you for your interest.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pope commands troops, historically armies. MLK and Ghandi ended up dead, a fate I don't plan to share.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps a discussion in biology and the lifespan of replicating cells is in order. You will end up dead, regardless of your plan. Further, the vatican is far from what I would call a "useful millitary". I do not believe they are even menbers of Interpol.

You commented on the ability to affect change. Ghandi, Martin Luther,pope John Paul , and Martin Luther King all effected change without the use of violence or a gun. And all (save pope John Paul) would be jsut as dead today if they were armed.

ME - Again diverging from the point. The AVERAGE man has more of a voice if he owns a firearm. But, in the spirit of your response:
The pope historically commanded vast, vicious armies. These armies were quick to respond to those who would ignore the pope. The "voice" of the present day pope is 95% because of past military victories of previous papacies. The influence of the pope would be 0 to 5% of what it is now, without those armies.
You would have done far better to suggest Jesus, well, I guess he was killed too.
Yes, MLK and Ghandi would be dead anyway, maybe you don't mind dying early or violently, but I sure do. Are you really such a nihilist, or are you knit-picking at my verbage again and ingnoring the thrust of my argument??

-FJ

[JOHNNY]

This thread has turned into a discussion between the two of you. I am thinking of closing it but due to Outcast I will leave it. If you guys want to have a debate please send private messages to each other. This bickering between the two is getting of the subject.
Thanks
johnny:D

[JerryLove]

Five-days into not posting, the same could have been accomplished by letting the thread die. For that matter, the boards PM systems could have been used to send that info.

Also, I am not aware there was a minimum number of people in a discussion to qualify it. Interesting.

[JOHNNY]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Five-days into not posting, the same could have been accomplished by letting the thread die. For that matter, the boards PM systems could have been used to send that info.

Also, I am not aware there was a minimum number of people in a discussion to qualify it. Interesting.
Who said that there is a minimum? I told you if you wanted to have a discussion regarding name calling with you and fa_jing you can do that privately. If you have a serious problems with me or the rules you may email me at the address above. Thanks for your cooperation.
JOHNNY@MARTIALARTSMART.COM
semper fi:D