NomNomPizza
Active Member
What if instead of land mines you just have very aggresive bunch of dogs so they slowly but surely just kill somebody , maybe wolfes would it be considered self defense?
Technically they just guard a therritory
Upvote
0
Guns and The Right to Self Defense
- Thread starter Tree of Life
- Start date
Technically they just guard a therritory
The right to self defense does not entail that you may lawfully kill someone who is merely trespassing.
Upvote
0
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Having a right to something is not the same as having government permission for something. If one truly believes that an individual has a right to self defense then one ought to concede that that individual has a right to possess whatever means are necessary to ensure that individual's self defense. If there are guns and there is the possibility that one might be personally attacked with such a weapon, then telling the individual that he/she is not allowed to have a gun is tantamount to telling the individual that he/she does not have a right to a competent self defense thereby denying that such an innate right exists at all. What it tells the individual is that the government grants one not a human right ( human rights are innate not bestowed upon people by government.) but a civil right, aka a privilege, to a handicapped form of self defense which will not be of much use when attacked by someone with a more competent weapon.
Upvote
0
If the dogs belong to you then they are your responsibility. If they attack and kill a trespasser then you could be held responsible.
Upvote
0
NomNomPizza
Active Member
Thats kinda stupid then, so self desense only works when somebody alredy start stabbing me or shooting at me?
Upvote
0
Darkhorse
just horsing around
- Aug 10, 2005
- 10,078
- 3,977
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, you don't have to wait to be attacked, but do have to have a reasonable fear that you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily injury before you use deadly force against someone.
The underlined words above have great legal consequence and will be decided by a jury.
You can always use self-defense which is proportional to your attacker's attack. If someone strikes you, you may strike them with equal force until their threat is neutralized. This counter-attack is not authorized as retribution, but only to stop their attack.
In your previous examples, you cannot legally set up "booby traps" which injure or kill people indiscriminately, regardless of whether or not they pose a serious hazard to you.
Upvote
0
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If they aren't attacking you then you don't need to defend yourself. That is why it is called self defense not self offense.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Depends on the jurisdiction.
In most Western, industrialised countries, yes.
In the US, no.
Very few countries have any rights to arms enshrined in law. Most legal systems bar the ownership of firearms purely for self-defense purposes.
In the Western world, I think only Switzerland and the Czech Republic also have constitutional rights to own firearms for self defense. Italy has some limitations on firearm ownership, but fewer than the rest of Europe.
Some Islamic states with Sharia-compliant constitutions also have a right to bear arms - although firearms ownership is a mixed bag.
As an example, I'm a gun owner living in Australia. In order to have a firearms license, I need to provide valid reasons to own and use a gun (and go through checks and training). Those reasons do not include self defense - but they do include pest control on rural property. As a result, the guns and the ammunition are stored in separate safes. The bolts for the firearms are stored in a different house.
In this sense, my firearms are tools.
If I owned them for self defense, they would be weapons.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevil
Godless and without morals
Can you be more specific?No need, the media has already decided just about everything.
Depending on which media shows I watch I can get polar opposite views/opinions.
BLM is peaceful protest on one media show but is violent looting and fires on another show.
Capital insurrection by Trump loyalists and confederate flag waving white supremacists on one media show and peaceful assembly accept for Antifa doing violent things with MAGA hats on the other show.
Biden wins election which is the most secure election in recent history on one media show and the other has it with Trump by a landslide but stolen with widespread and massive voter fraud on the other.
Coronavirus is a pandemic that will be the worst since the Spanish flu a hundred years ago that could kill millions world wide on one media but on the other it is a Democratic conspiracy that is a plandemic which is no worse than the common flu on the other
Russians meddling in USA presidential election on one media, on the other it is Ukraine or the Chinese or some fat guy living in his mother's basement, definitely not Putin, the intelligence agencies are wrong, Putin is right and Trump says so too.
One one media channel, the collusion investigation is started by FBI due to Popodopalos statements to the Australians and continued by order of Rossenstien the Republican AG but on the other media channel it is a Democratic conspiracy, a witch hunt, started due to a dirty dossier and fraudulently sourced by Clinton and misrepresented to the judge.
So which media channel gets to decide gun control policy in USA?
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry, I should have put 'decided' in quotes. They often sound like the final arbiter of many issues. Their obvious aim is to sway public opinion on behalf of liberal thought. Regarding the differences you point out there is Fox News vs all the others.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
Yes, and Fox news is media too, but there are also other right media too. Brietbart, OAN etc. Various different narratives, some liberal, some conservative, some balanced.
Whilst I understand that some do show a bias towards liberal, they don't tend to put out the level of coordinated lies and conspiracy theories that Fox News does.
Fox News have been way off in all those items I listed. FoxNews even go to the courts in defence of defamation and claim that listeners know they aren't getting truth from their presenters.
But, anyways, gun control is determined by the governing bodies and congress, and it seems because the Republican party get massive donations by NRA and gun lobbies that they will never accept taking any measures towards saving people's lives.
For some strange and unknown reason the Republic party has also been against Pandemic measures and hence they have been against any measures towards saving people's lives.
The only time the Republican party (and many of their base) seem interested in saving lives its with regards to abortion. Only interested in life upto birth, after that it is every man for himself.
Upvote
0
Ray Glenn
Active Member
- Jun 10, 2021
- 329
- 134
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The concept of the right to bear arms is not an American concept. That was a British concept adapted by the US. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights introduced to bring all thirteen colonies into to the union. The last holdouts signing with the adopted Bill of Rights. The right to abolish a tyrannical government if needed. The break away was not a 100% agreed break from England.
One good thing about breaking away … we’re not paying for the Royals. LOL
After the end of WW2, A US Admiral was dining with new ally, a Japanese Admiral.
“ You had the California Coast, yet you did not invade, why?”
(Remember some of the Japanese Officers had educated in the US)
“We knew every other house in America had a gun. We also knew Americans practiced using their guns. Behind every blade of grass would an American facing our troops. We would not win.”
One good thing about breaking away … we’re not paying for the Royals. LOL
After the end of WW2, A US Admiral was dining with new ally, a Japanese Admiral.
“ You had the California Coast, yet you did not invade, why?”
(Remember some of the Japanese Officers had educated in the US)
“We knew every other house in America had a gun. We also knew Americans practiced using their guns. Behind every blade of grass would an American facing our troops. We would not win.”
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That's a debatable presumption. I would argue that "rights" don't exist without a powerful authority to guarantee them, and are unalienable only to the extent that authority will guarantee them.
Jesus, for instance, does not guarantee us an inalienable right to this mortal life, only eternal life.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
