You are the one who has admitted to the fact that you would commit a crime.Well you must be a criminal to correct? I hope not.
Yet more castle doctrine laws!
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
Of course. You give up your rights when you decide to try to steal rights from someone else.
Don't tread on my rights and I won't tread on yours.
I'm aware of what the laws are. I think they are full of crap, but I know what they are.
I personally wouldn't shoot to defend property anyway, but the fact that people can makes criminals less likely to offend, and gives the rest of the population more safety, at little expense to liberty.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
You may live in a society where authorities cannot realistically keep you from obtaining a firearm but that doesn't mean they can't put you in prison for the rest of your life when you make a bad choice with it. Don't confuse the two.
So I can shoot the CEO of a bank that wrongfully forecloses on someone?
I've never seen a convincing reason why that shouldn't be legal.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
The biggest problem with "castle doctrine" laws in America is that too many people believe that they give them the right to shoot and kill no matter what.
Laws vary from state to state, but most castle doctrine laws just remove the duty to retreat when you're in your own domicile. The prerequisites of legitimate self-defense claims like reasonable fear of life and immediate danger of bodily harm still apply.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
So it is morally permissible to shoot someone for stealing your lollypop?
Yet you're against gay marriage and you're anti-abortion
The Cognitive dissonance is laughable
GhostWriter16
Deity
First morals =/= legal...
Second, there is a certain degree of common sense here. If I snatch your lollipop, first of all, you don't NEED lethal violence to get it back, and secondly, its not really a big deal anyways.
Even still I would argue that criminals should not be hiding behind the protection of the law. You still shouldn't kill over something like that though.
It makes perfect sense with abortion. Don't tread on your child's rights and I won't tread on yours.
Gay marriage is much more complex. I'm not "Against gay marriage" so much as I am against the government subsidy towards gay marriage. I'm not really in favor of the government recognizing marriage at all though, its too holy for Uncle Sam to mess with.
Is a flat screen tv a big enough deal to justify violating your pro-life principles? How about shooting a CEO of a bank that has wrongfully foreclosed on someone's property?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
I'm not baiting you...
...I'm debating you.
But seriously, disagreement ≠ baiting. Every time I've disagreed with you in this thread, you've responded with accusations, condescension, and a dodging of questions.
A foetus doesn't become a child till they are born.
But you're okay with hetro's getting the same subsidy
What happened to dont tread on my rights and I won't tread on yours?
Marriages have always been a government recognising it
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
I wouldn't think it justifiable to kill anyone for property, but the problem is is someone breaks into my home I don't know what their intentions are. I know they are not good, but can't know how bad. Do I wait until try to kill or rape? Screw that, come into my home I'm shooting first.
GhostWriter16
Deity
That's your opinion based on certain premises. If I believe life starts at conception, which I do, I'm being 100% consistent.
I'm more iffy on it than I'm giving credit for here, but I would say that I don't want the government changing the definition of marriage. I'm very pro-civil union.
I've mostly given up the issue though. I'm more than happy to let you win this one. Just don't force it on the more conservative states with a crappy court decision, wait until you can get an amendment, and best of luck.
I have like a million issues I care more about fighting than whether or not the government lets two dudes or two chicks get married.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I am not asking about legality. Just morality.
But what if I do need to employ lethal violence to get it back? I understand it not being a big deal but what if there is no possible way for me to get the lollipop except through lethal violence? Am I in the moral right if I kill in order to retrieve my lolliproperty?
Why do people assume I'm an American?
I don't need to force it on anyone cus Labour and the Lib Dems are in favour of it.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Lollipops are compact and would not burden the lolliperpetrator in his escape; in fact, he might even eat the whole thing while he has the chance. A bullet or two to the back would end the sweet-stealing confection conman's reign of tasty terror.
...I mean, it is your property, after all, its theft is a felony, and you could retrieve it by shooting the thief, so does one not have as much a right to kill for a lollipop as for a television?
It's just common sense that flat screen tv > life > lollipop. If a woman must forego a flat screen tv in order to carry a pregnancy to term, the obvious choice is an abortion.
Similar threads
