Appears.....That's exactly why it works because it confuses the hell out of your western thinking.
I guess you were successful in achieving your objective then. Hope you feel better.
Appears.....That's exactly why it works because it confuses the hell out of your western thinking.
Giving the wingnuts the power over the Charter would be the ultimate nightmare.
Why do I need to harm someone to defend myself?
Who wants to kill me?Kevlar is one possibility. Or you could use your superior intellect (or your x-ray vision) to stop an oncoming bullet. Or direct a super-bolt of cosmic energy to melt a threatening knife blade. Some might even prefer to sit behind a computer and continue to avoid the possibility of physical confrontation with a real live threat.
Maybe just an iota of hypocrisy there -after saying for months that killing is wrong even for those who kill children, it seems it's alright if he's the one in danger. (His debating skills still need a little work :lol::lol::lol![]()
It is you who appear to be confused JLM, not me. I go by what the law says, it is that simple, I don’t try to impose my views on others (regarding death penalty for instance).
Law says death penalty is wrong, it is illegal. Law also provides for killing in self defense. That is good enough for me. If you think that is hypocrisy, why that is your right..
You probably have very little opinion of Canadian jurisprudence (seeing that you want to legalize hanging and Canada wouldn’t hear of it). So it is reasonable that you would think that Canada’s legal system is hypocritical. I can understand your frustration
However, the law says death penalty is illegal, killing in self defense is not, that is good enough for me.
Hmm, I'm trying to connect all your dots on this issue...I'm thinking that if a person is in danger of being murdered but can't bring him/herself to defend him/herself effectively because they are against killing another person, and it they end up being murdered themselves, are they then committing suicide?
On the other hand, if they do succeed in killing the would-be murderer as part of self-defence, have they not then invoked the dealth penalty (without the help of the state, of course).
And, if killing can be justified in a war, are not most wars run by "the authorities" (the "state")? If so, how can that same state not be justified in invoking the death penalty (i.e. killing people)?
Laws change all the time. There is a vast difference between what is legal and what is ethiclal- I'll take ethical any day. :smile:
Well, if you think that not having death penalty is unethical, try to change the law and bring back the death penalty. The problem with labeling something as unethical is that ethics varies from person to person. What is unethical to you may not be unethical to me.
If something is illegal on the other hand, we can all agree that it is wrong. Legality is an objective standard, ethics is very subjective.
No, I don't believe that because something is illegal it is wrong, in fact sometimes the ONLY reason I don't do something is because it's against the law, not because it's wrong.
Always good to hear the opinion of a real man..
Yes life if a gift... and I enjoy it to the fullest, and be damned the one that harms my kids in any way..
Death penalty also to parents who kill their kids, no analysis, just death... eye for an eye...
I do agree with the following: The Florida law holds that a crime victim may “stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary.” To defend homes and vehicles, an owner can wield lethal force with a freedom not granted to the police.
Who wants to kill me?
There are people who will threaten with harsh weapons but all they want is my stuff.
They are scared ****less and the last thing I want to do is panic a frightened idiot with a weapon.
If they need the time and want my watch no biggie.
Take it.
If you are so frightened go spend $25 and take a basic self defense course and wise up a little.
Even better spend $50 and learn how to disarm someone who is coming at you with a knife.
That is malarky. You can't use more force than is necessary to subdue a criminal or your self defense claims falls apart really quick.To defend homes and vehicles, an owner can wield lethal force with a freedom not granted to the police.
Will they really? Where are all these people? Can you spot them? Did they kill you a few times already?How wants to kill you? A criminal with murderous intent comes to mind.
Don't think that every crinimal with a weapon just 'wants your stuff.'
Persons whom have robbed/thugged people with weapons multiple times are quite in control of their actions (because they have experience) and are not 'scared sh*tless' as you might think.
Oh they'll take your watch and then some, but first they'll probably take you down to make it easier especially if they're on edge.
You really think a 25$ or 50$ defence course will solve your problem? Disarming an individual must become second nature for that to work properly. Why do you think military and police forces practice combat skills over and over? So that it becomes second nature, instant reflex. A four hour defence course won't do that.
Will they really? Where are all these people? Can you spot them? Did they kill you a few times already?
Ever tried Xanax?Where are all these people? In every city and town across the country, criminals are everywere.
So they aren't criminals if you aren't looking?Yeah I can spot them if I see them doing a crime.
If something is illegal, we don’t do it, end of story.
...
My advice to a gay man in Saudi Arabia would be, don’t make your homosexuality public, the law says it is wrong. Either try to change the law or get out of Saudi Arabia. But again, there is an objective framework there.
That is malarky. You can't use more force than is necessary to subdue a criminal or your self defense claims falls apart really quick.