Russia proposes change in the Constitution.

[Foxrac]

Well, lets look at these possible scenarios:

Pull a gun on an armed robber without being prepared to fire it. The armed robber has the jump on you and shoots you while you hold the gun in your hand.

Pull a gun on an unarmed robber without being prepared to fire it. He takes the gun away from you and pistol whips you with it, leaving you with brain damage.

Pull a gun on an unarmed robber without being prepared to fire it. He realizes you are trying to bluff him and simply walks away.

Either way, you have still been robbed and placed yourself in greater danger of physical harm.

Never, ever pull a gun unless you are going to shoot. And if you pull the gun and shoot, you'd better have sufficient cause to show that your life itself was in danger.

Some of part that you don't get my word, never walk or stand closer to robber and need stay away at several distance, if threat has near to done then fire it. If you still don't get it then I'm going to make nevermind and too hard to explain how gun works.

Not just only for robber, it's useful for some of other crime as well.

No need to explain because I already know when some of my families gave an influence.

 

[jillio]

Some of part that you don't get my word, never walk or stand closer to robber and need stay away at several distance, if threat has near to done then fire it. If you still don't get it then I'm going to make nevermind and too hard to explain how gun works.

Not just only for robber, it's useful for some of other crime as well.

No need to explain because I already know when some of my families gave an influence.

No, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you do not pull a gun unless you are prepared to fire it. It puts you in a very dangerous position. Why pull a weapon if you don't plan to use it? Criminals are not that easily intimidated. And chances are better that you will piss them off rather than intimidate them by just standing there holding a gun.

Shooting someone just to protect property can land you in jail. Think back to the case of the man who went to jail for shooting and killing a teen ager stealing a bail of straw. It was his property, but his life was not in danger, and pulling a gun and shooting the teen was manslaughter. By the same token, the teen was already driving away, so if he had pulled the gun and ordered them to stop and wait for the police, they would have laughed at him and continued to drive away.

Of course, it is your decision, but I am not going to kill a human being over a piece of property that can be replaced. That's what I have insurance for.

 

[Foxrac]

No, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you do not pull a gun unless you are prepared to fire it. It puts you in a very dangerous position. Why pull a weapon if you don't plan to use it? Criminals are not that easily intimidated. And chances are better that you will piss them off rather than intimidate them by just standing there holding a gun.

Shooting someone just to protect property can land you in jail. Think back to the case of the man who went to jail for shooting and killing a teen ager stealing a bail of straw. It was his property, but his life was not in danger, and pulling a gun and shooting the teen was manslaughter. By the same token, the teen was already driving away, so if he had pulled the gun and ordered them to stop and wait for the police, they would have laughed at him and continued to drive away.

Of course, it is your decision, but I am not going to kill a human being over a piece of property that can be replaced. That's what I have insurance for.

Oh ok, I'm glad that you got it.

Yup, I know that guns aren't solve for any crime that's not put life in danger or threat, for me, if I own it then won't fire at any people that's not danger to my life, that's exactly about some of my family members are explain about it. In different cases, Americans can own guns as collection and hobbies, usually hunting or enjoy to practice in their private property.

I'm deaf, it seems useless or too difficult for me to manage with this crime, except for some situation.

 

[jillio]

Oh ok, I'm glad that you got it.

Yup, I know that guns aren't solve for any crime that's not put life in danger or threat, for me, if I own it then won't fire at any people that's not danger to my life, that's exactly about some of my family members are explain about it. In different cases, Americans can own guns as collection and hobbies, usually hunting or enjoy to practice in their private property.

I'm deaf, it seems useless or too difficult for me to manage with this crime, except for some situation.

I think we are on the same page on this one.

 

[Macian]

What makes you think British have no problem with our government? My dad votes British independant party to try and get out of europe.

Me, I don't think Britian is a police state in the way china is a police state. But I HAVE read about peaceful animal rights protesters being in prisoned. Also on another topic they were going to make it illigal to educate people. Fortunately it didn't get in.

Since I don't agree with the government and I have not been imprisoned yet I'm not sure it's really a police state as such and I've nowhere else to really compaire it with since I've never been in USA. Some british people are ok with the government. Some don't like the fact that they are losing freedom freedoms and so many camera's about.

I do have problem with our National Health service because my mum died of a curable cancer due to long waiting lists. I once went to hospital in france at it was much better. The hospital room was like a hotel room and mum could stay with me wheras in British hospital she was only limited to visiting hours.

me too dreama, no not the independent party, i feel it's a wasted vote, but I don't wnat anything to do with europe or their damn euro, europe as a federation of states only came about through french and german hatred of the US, basically, when there are trade disagreements when the US flexes it's muscle each of us have no chance of havign any effect on their economy, but europe as whole, would be a force to be reckoned with, but thats france for you, i dont share their views nor policies, I woudl much rather keep the "special friendship" alive, I wish to god the US would allow the UK to enter the north atlantic trade treaty so we can put this euro debate to bed once and for all, if we evertually get the euro, i'm up for emigration

 

[Macian]

No, not everyone likes the camera's. Some people hate them. My dad does anyway.

Like in USA not very many people vote as we don't have anyone to vote for. I wish we had a Sarah Palin in England to vote for.

read my text again dreama, I aid not everyone is for them, but the majority are. up here anyway, cant speak for england

 

[Macian]

sorry if these "criminals" were not treated conventionally as you like but this is unconventional warfare conducted by lawless, extremely dangerous, unconventional criminals. This is not your typical type of criminals where he killed a couple of people with a knife or gun. This is the man along with thousand others who conducted the act of terrorism with bombs and merciless murders against thousand of people. It's the new age, new warfare and I do agree that our justice system need to be updated to cover the terrorism because sadly the War Tribunal Court does not cover terrorists. As for now - the American policy and Gitmo Camp are within legal human rights.

Just be glad that we did not treat them like what Iran or Iraq did to terrorists.

Like I said - the evidence and information about them are NOT available to us because it's a highly sensitive matter and time-sensitive as well but that doesn't mean the government's sweeping it up under the carpet and nobody knows what. It's done and approved in a secret court and secret Senatorial hearings called FISA.

jiro, I said i'[d send them to the chair if they were guilty, but they need to be tried in a court of law, I agree they are terrible, barbaric even, but like i said in an earlier post, the world needs to see us setting an example, not lowering ourself to the terrorists standards.

 

[Macian]

reading up on your gun views, it looks like your views are slightly selfish to me, you only seem to worry about yourself, personally i would worry for kids, the disabled and the elderly who might not be able to bear arms and defend themself.

 

[Reba]

reading up on your gun views, it looks like your views are slightly selfish to me, you only seem to worry about yourself, personally i would worry for kids, the disabled and the elderly who might not be able to bear arms and defend themself.

The disabled and elderly can have and use guns, too. It's the great equalizer for people who aren't as physically strong.

Gun owners need to be responsible about their guns and kids.

 

[jillio]

The disabled and elderly can have and use guns, too. It's the great equalizer for people who aren't as physically strong.

Gun owners need to be responsible about their guns and kids.

Here's a wonderful scenario:

An aging Alzheimer's victim keeps a gun in the house for protection. He is at the stage where he is lucid one moment and suffering dementia the next. One afternoon, his wife goes out to check the mail, comes back in and he doesn't recognize her due to the Alzheimer's. He reaches into the drawer on the end table, pulls out a gun, and shoots her dead.

Yep. The great equalizer.

 

[Macian]

Here's a wonderful scenario:

An aging Alzheimer's victim keeps a gun in the house for protection. He is at the stage where he is lucid one moment and suffering dementia the next. One afternoon, his wife goes out to check the mail, comes back in and he doesn't recognize her due to the Alzheimer's. He reaches into the drawer on the end table, pulls out a gun, and shoots her dead.

Yep. The great equalizer.

my point exactly jillio, and what about the people with no arms, etc, it seems the guns are only to protect the fit people, its no use saying others will protect them, as that would assume someone was with them all the time.

i honestly believe your"right to bear arms" is outdated and needs changed, after all it was written donkeys eyars ago in different times, I'm pretty sure if the weapons we have now and the nutters it most certainly wouldnt have been a clause.

 

[BradB08]

The disabled and elderly can have and use guns, too. It's the great equalizer for people who aren't as physically strong.

Gun owners need to be responsible about their guns and kids.

Elderly people with guns?

Yes Reba, brilliant idea. Just brilliant.

 

[jillio]

Elderly people with guns?

Yes Reba, brilliant idea. Just brilliant.

Just hope beyond hope that the Parkinsin's is still at a mild stage before someone takes the gun away. We take driver's license away from the elderly when their reaction time is reduced to the point that they are a danger to themselves or others. But we should let them own guns. A 90 year old man with Parkinson's and an Uzi. There's a reasurring thought.

 

[Reba]

Better not be pointing that gun unless you are prepared to fire it.

Agreed.

And, if you shoot an unarmed burglar, you could find yourself charged with a crime.

Not in every state. States that have a "castle" doctrine don't charge homeowners who shoot intruders on their property. They no longer have a "duty to retreat", and "dwelling" can mean house, barn, tent, porch and some vehicles. Each gun owner needs to know the laws of his or her state.

An "unarmed" burglar can still be a legally accepted threat.

 

[Macian]

Just hope beyond hope that the Parkinsin's is still at a mild stage before someone takes the gun away. We take driver's license away from the elderly when their reaction time is reduced to the point that they are a danger to themselves or others. But we should let them own guns. A 90 year old man with Parkinson's and an Uzi. There's a reasurring thought.

tell me about it we just ahve to hope they are at a al queda meeting when they flip

 

[jillio]

Agreed.


Not in every state. States that have a "castle" doctrine don't charge homeowners who shoot intruders on their property. They no longer have a "duty to retreat", and "dwelling" can mean house, barn, tent, porch and some vehicles. Each gun owner needs to know the laws of his or her state.

An "unarmed" burglar can still be a legally accepted threat.

Which is why I used the term "could be." A burlar, armed or unarmed is a threat to property that can be replaced. That is why he is called a burglar. He burgles.

 

[jillio]

tell me about it we just ahve to hope they are at a al queda meeting when they flip

There you go! That would be a solution for all.

 

[Reba]

Which is why I used the term "could be." A burlar, armed or unarmed is a threat to property that can be replaced. That is why he is called a burglar. He burgles.

That's not the legal definition.

 

[jillio]

That's not the legal definition.

Then, pray tell, Reba, what is the legal definition of a burglar?

 

[Jiro]

Better not be pointing that gun unless you are prepared to fire it. And, if you shoot an unarmed burglar, you could find yourself charged with a crime.

only in liberal states but it depends on how he's shot. For ie - he was shot in the back and if the detective decided that the burglar was shot while fleeing... yes you can be charged with manslaughter/murder.