And over here in the UK, we do not have the right to protect our homes however we see fit<<Lee
Well I'm sorry to hear that Lee and I guess my views stem greatly from the fact that it is different in the US especially here in Texas, Arizona and other states that have the Castle Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine I've never had any problem so far with being around to find an intruder or someone robbing the place but I've always had good dogs and mostly have monitored security alarm systems when not living in a rural area. What I'm hearing as of late, though, is an increase in home invasions and bold attempts by criminals to commit crimes. Such brazen acts are consistent with dire financial times and will continue if counteraction is not taken. People do desperate things in desperate times so being prepared is key, I'm glad to have the castle law should I decide to purchase a shotgun for protection. I look at it like ridding the city of vermin. There are some good point being made as to the unnecessary killing of an intruder. My property is surrounded by fencing so anyone on my property is obviously an intruder with ill intent. However, I would have to feel imminent threat substantial enough to use deadly force. I can't just go out and slaughter someone because they are standing on my property, that is merely trespassing. If the intruder has a weapon and threatens me with it, I have the legal right to defend myself with deadly force. I find this to be fair reasoning. Without the castle law all the good decent people will be needlessly slaughtered by free roaming criminals until there aren't any good people left. It's time we take a stance and stamp out the cockroaches of society, sending the message that their behaviour will not be tolerated. The police are impotent in the sense they are not there when you need them, but the shotgun in the closet is there when you need it. Remember that background checks are important and deter criminals from obtaining guns legally. So it's not that everyone is going to be walking around with a gun just because the law changes to allow for the right to own and protect. I suggest you all appeal to HMG to establish new laws concerning the right to protect yourselves. At least talk to Prince Charles horse. On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey SD, > > Yes funny, more of the scare mongering though, but funny never-the- > less. > > You ask what matter what weapon you choose to defend yourself? I > belive that I have already answered that one, yes I could kill > somebody with a lump of wood, I would have to try harder, but yes it > can be done. > > And over here in the UK, we do not have the right to protect our homes > however we see fit. No not at all, we have a little thing called > 'reasonable force'. Even if I did manage to bludgeon to death an > intruder I can expect to go to trial for that. > > What would I do armed with a wooden club agianst a man armed with a > magnum .44? Nowt, I would do nowt mainly because I never expect to be > in such a situation. Now let me ask you how many times have you been > in such a situation? > > On 5 Feb, 14:10, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > News Bulletin!! > > > Man kills intruder with wooden club. After sustaining several blows to > > the body and head the gun wielding intruder fell dead to the floor. > > Homeowner, Mindseye Lee, stated that the intruder would not heed his > > warnings and continued to threaten the Lee family with his gun, > > demanding they hand over their valuables, "that's when I took my > > wooden club and beat him to death", Lee said. "he wouldn't stop and > > kept pointing that gun at me and my family", Lee continued, "I do > > think that intruders can be dealt with with violence, and indeed > > should anybody break into my house I'll be waiting for them armed and > > ready, just not with a gun". Lee stated that he didn't intend to kill > > the intruder but just wanted to protect his family from the gun toting > > creep. No charges will be filed against Mindseye Lee. > > The intruder, identified as Vato Inyaface, was wanted by police on > > several warrants including two for murder of innocent homeowners > > during a burglary by Inyaface. Though illegal, Inyaface had several > > weapons in his vehicle. Police commended Mr. Lee for ridding society > > of this lowlife career criminal who might have gone on to kill more > > innocent homeowners. > > > Lee, > > What does it matter what weapon you use when being armed and ready to > > mete out violent justice. One could just as easily kill a intruder > > with a iron skillet. The point really is "You have the RIGHT to > > protect your home however you see fit" and as KC points out you see > > fit to use your wooden club. Personally I don't have the strength or > > agility to take on one or several intruders with a baseball bat so I > > would prefer to have the right to own a firearm. I will not be told > > by some politician that I don't have the right to keep an intruder > > from raping and killing my family. Besides, what are you going to > > accomplish with a wooden club when 3 creeps come barging into your > > home? > > > I don't have to kill the intruder, I could easily shoot him in the leg > > and wait for the police to come and haul him off. I could keep the > > intruder at bay without firing a shot at all. The idea is that if I > > don't have a means of leveling out the playing field then I am at the > > mercy of a merciless person. What are you going to do with a wooden > > club against a 44 magnum? > > > On Feb 5, 5:55 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Vam, > > > > Indeed I do not find that fear is a suitible answer to many things, > > > down that road lies sooo much crap that it starts to appal me if I > > > dwell on it too long. > > > > We have seen in our histopry, and contiune to see now what sorts of > > > responses fear can illicit. > > > Fear of the black man, fear of the Muslim extreamist, fear of the > > > homosexual agenda regards the institue of marriage(which I just don't > > > understand BTW). > > > > To me life is ultimate, I don't belive that any of us have the right > > > to take another(human) life, easecily if doing so is motivated by such > > > a thing as fear. > > > > Of course some fear must remain, such fear is quite healthy. > > > > In answer to your questions though, I don't really advocate that > > > striving for a fearless state is an ideal to try and achive, nor do I > > > think that anybody should lay down their lives for such. > > > > I do think that intruders can be dealt with with violence, and indeed > > > should anybody brake into my house I'll be waiting for them armed and > > > ready, just not with a gun. > > > > I have used gun before, I was an air cadet at some stage in my life, > > > and have soot both on rangesm and out hunting rabbits, I see the > > > appeal of guns, I have enjoyed myself when ever I have fired one. > > > They still scare me shitless though, probably becuse it's sole use is > > > to kill, and as you can probably tell by now, that's a big no no in my > > > book. > > > > My comment about America, is really my admision that I have no idea > > > what should be done for the best there. Many Americans will not give > > > up their right to bear arms, and as it is enshrined in their law, then > > > I really don't see why they should, however the title of this thread > > > is Guns in Britain, and as a residant I say that we neither require > > > them nor want them. > > > > On 5 Feb, 11:28, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lee, if I have understood the discussion : > > > > > ( 1 ) Fear is an argument for gun ownership, and KC says that it is > > > > good enough, particularly since the law so permits. > > > > > ( 2 ) In addition, KC and others are saying, the " perceived " ( may > > > > not be actual ) danger of harm ( not necessarily of life ) is enough > > > > to kill an intruder, especially since it is impossible to determine > > > > precisely if the danger is actual or not, if the danger is to life or > > > > not. > > > > > It is all then fear, as I read it. > > > > > ( 3 ) The third fact in the argument is that my life, the life of my > > > > near ones, is more precious ( valuable ) than that of the intruder > > > > ( even if he is only perceived as a killer, and may not indeed be > > > > so ). > > > > > This survival instinct is natural to each one of us. It too > > > > reduces us to being in a state of constant fear and insecurity, such > > > > as is common among animals. > > > > > In the face of above, I see that the discussion must address the > > > > issue : Is striving for a state of being without fear worthwhile > > > > enough to risk one's life, the life of one's near and dear ones or > > > > loss of property ? Is an attempt to rise beyond the ( natural, > > > > animalistic ) state of fear and insecurity, to a state of trust of > > > > others and freedom from fear, a worthwhile human value to pursue, even > > > > at the risk of one's life, pain, loss and discomfort ? > > > > > You've answered, Lee ! You clearly seem to be saying : Yes, Yes. The > > > > only limitation I sense in your affirmation is that you are ambiguous > > > > about the global value of the pursuit. You seem to be saying that the > > > > value may not be relevant to Americans, who have their own history in > > > > which the answer to fear is gun - ownership. > > > > > However, I find Ian unequivocal on the value ! He seems to be saying > > > > even Americans, their history and law notwithstanding, must strive for > > > > the state of freedom from fear, without resort to gun - ownership ! > > > > > Sorry, if I erred in summarising as above. > > > > > On Feb 5, 2:52 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hey KC, > > > > > > I hope that you do not mean me? I don't see the need for the general > > > > > populous to own guns, and of course I can only realte to my own > > > > > experiances due to my own upbringing and the country that I live in. > > > > > > I have always said that I feel it would be better if the USA did not > > > > > have the history of gun culture and ownership that it has, but > > > > > obviously that means nowt. Over there, your arguments may hold more > > > > > sway, over here though I do not belive so. > > > > > > In essance all I'm really asking is, is fear a good enough argument > > > > > for pro gun ownership? > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 04:25, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Vam, > > > > > > No the discussion isn't over. I'm only drawing what I see as the > > > > > > intricacies of the discussion. As in, those who are defending gun > > > > > > rights are arguing for the status quo. Those who are arguing > > > > > > against > > > > > > gun rights are calling for affirmative action, for a change. They > > > > > > are > > > > > > asking that those of us in our houses who wish to defend ourselves > > > > > > by > > > > > > force ought not be able to. Where as, we as the defenders of self > > > > > > defense are not saying that you must defend yourself with a weapon. > > > > > > In other words, those taking an anti-gun stance are forcing > > > > > > something > > > > > > on those who take a pro gun stance. They are threatening to take > > > > > > away > > > > > > a freedom that we have historically enjoyed (and by enjoy I don't > > > > > > mean > > > > > > get a kick out of). So personal feelings about self defense, and > > > > > > what > > > > > > you would or wouldn't do in a situation are really irrelevant to > > > > > > this > > > > > > discussion. That's why I brought up the "to each his own" argument. > > > > > > But by all means. Let us continue the discussion. > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 9:11 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So, KC, is the discussion at an end ? After all, you are saying : > > > > > > > You do yours, I'll do mine. Which ends the matter. > > > > > > > > In truth, we seem to be refusing to see the moral issue, as > > > > > > > distinct > > > > > > > from the legal ( or even, the pragmatic one ) : freedom from > > > > > > > fear. > > > > > > > > But, perhaps, that is not the issue being discussed in this > > > > > > > thread ! ? However, I could appreciate Lee's position only in the > > > > > > > light of that moral. > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 10:00 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
