[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 wrote:

Nice equivocation. Not biting.

It's a valid question. If it is okay for governments to protect their property or the property of other governments with massive amounts of lethal force then why can't I protect my home or my neighbors' home with lethal force? Why should I have a lesser right to my property than does a government?

[BartSimpson]

While we're at it, if it is wrong to use lethal force to protect property is it then wrong to call the police when someone burglarizes your property because of the fact that law enforcement will apply lethal force to apprehend a burglar if needed?

And then if you're denying my right to defend my property then isn't it equally wrong to tell me to call the police to defend my property since that's just an act of proxy?

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

Nice equivocation. Not biting.

It's a valid question. If it is okay for governments to protect their property or the property of other governments with massive amounts of lethal force then why can't I protect my home or my neighbors' home with lethal force? Why should I have a lesser right to my property than does a government?

If it is OK for your government to invade foreign nations and oppress their rights then it is OK for the government to invade and oppress yours. If it is OK for your government to have aircraft drop bombs on the houses of innocent people then it is certainly OK for your government to do it to its own citizens.

If your government has the right to detain foreigners without due process then it has that same right over you and if soldiers can kick in the front door of innocent people and shoot all its occupants dead and justify it then you had better believe they can do it to you.

Lastly, if you have the right to oppose any of these things if done by your government to you using force then so does everybody else and I know you do believe that.

Congratulations Bart. You are a insurgent at heart.

[ASLplease]

security clearances, safe firearms handling skills, expertise in self defense ....these are not things exclusive to the military or police service. I dont see why self defense or firearms possession ought to be exclusive to the military and police.

[ASLplease]

oh wait! self defense and firearms possession will continue to be in the domain of criminals, even if we do take it away from law abiding citizens.

[andyt]

ASLplease wrote:

oh wait! self defense and firearms possession will continue to be in the domain of criminals, even if we do take it away from law abiding citizens.

'Cmon, ASL. If you're going to chant the NRA mantra, at least do it in it's original form - it rolls off the tongue so much better than what you came up with. All together now: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Repeat until brain goes numb.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX wrote:

Congratulations Bart. You are a insurgent at heart.

I always have been.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

While we're at it, if it is wrong to use lethal force to protect property is it then wrong to call the police when someone burglarizes your property because of the fact that law enforcement will apply lethal force to apprehend a burglar if needed?

And then if you're denying my right to defend my property then isn't it equally wrong to tell me to call the police to defend my property since that's just an act of proxy?

Well, maybe in the USA, cops shoot people for stealing a TV, but here in Canada, cops (at least those I've talked to and read about) usually only shoot a robber if he pulls a weapon on them. Otherwise, the robber gets tackled/tasered, handcuffed and thrown in jail.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

Nice equivocation. Not biting.

It's a valid question. If it is okay for governments to protect their property or the property of other governments with massive amounts of lethal force then why can't I protect my home or my neighbors' home with lethal force? Why should I have a lesser right to my property than does a government?

No, it's not a valid question. The military invasion of one state by another is not at all the same as a person breaking and entering the home of another. I'm not going to participate in any further discussion of this false analogy and conflation of burglary and invasion.

[GreenTiger]

We aren't all super big on weapons, but it is nice to have the option.

[BartSimpson]

Which all goes back to my point that if anyone is so concerned about the welfare of burglars and thieves then feel free to offer them asylum in your country. In our country the rule is bag 'em and tag 'em.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

While we're at it, if it is wrong to use lethal force to protect property is it then wrong to call the police when someone burglarizes your property because of the fact that law enforcement will apply lethal force to apprehend a burglar if needed?

Because the police are, for the most part, properly trained the the proper use of force. Some yahoo with a shotgun and a chip on his shoulder the size of the state in which he lives is not.

Quote:

And then if you're denying my right to defend my property then isn't it equally wrong to tell me to call the police to defend my property since that's just an act of proxy?

I'm not denying anyone's right to defend their property. I'm denying them the bullet-proof right to kill to defend property. Pun intended.

[hurley_108]

ASLplease wrote:

oh wait! self defense and firearms possession will continue to be in the domain of criminals, even if we do take it away from law abiding citizens.

A specious argument when what we're discussing is the legalization of murder.

[hurley_108]

bootlegga wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

While we're at it, if it is wrong to use lethal force to protect property is it then wrong to call the police when someone burglarizes your property because of the fact that law enforcement will apply lethal force to apprehend a burglar if needed?

And then if you're denying my right to defend my property then isn't it equally wrong to tell me to call the police to defend my property since that's just an act of proxy?

Well, maybe in the USA, cops shoot people for stealing a TV, but here in Canada, cops (at least those I've talked to and read about) usually only shoot a robber if he pulls a weapon on them. Otherwise, the robber gets tackled/tasered, handcuffed and thrown in jail.

Hey, EyeBrock. If you're reading, what would you do if you arrived on the scene of a burglary in progress?

[GreenTiger]

hurley_108 wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

While we're at it, if it is wrong to use lethal force to protect property is it then wrong to call the police when someone burglarizes your property because of the fact that law enforcement will apply lethal force to apprehend a burglar if needed?

And then if you're denying my right to defend my property then isn't it equally wrong to tell me to call the police to defend my property since that's just an act of proxy?

Well, maybe in the USA, cops shoot people for stealing a TV, but here in Canada, cops (at least those I've talked to and read about) usually only shoot a robber if he pulls a weapon on them. Otherwise, the robber gets tackled/tasered, handcuffed and thrown in jail.

Hey, EyeBrock. If you're reading, what would you do if you arrived on the scene of a burglary in progress?

In spite of the Hyperbole in the States unless you do pull a weapon on a cop you will be "treated" with a least offensive non-lethal force. It's not the wild west down here as some might argue. Ask Iggy.