Legal to have firearms in your house

Rast:
If I were the sort of person that would shoot a cop, I'd be an idiot to say that on a public forum, now wouldn't I? You're probably right; I'd not resist arrest, largely because it's unwise. But some people would, which makes it less likely that restrictive laws will be enforced.
I'm opposed to modern drug enforcement laws and policies because they're ineffective, and I'm opposed on general principle to anything being defined as a crime that impacts only the individual.
But I've said all this before, albeit circuituously; I can only conclude that you're not paying attention.

Rodri:
Thank you for your response. I admire and respect your faith in your government; I also have a degree of faith in my own.
That being said, I'd like to suggest that any system operated by a flawed humanity is vulnerable to abuse, corruption, and domination. "Who watches the watchmen?" has been a proverb since Roman times - and since the Praetorian Guard was instrumental in many Roman coups, it's small wonder.
While I would love to see peaceful resistance succeed, in my experience it only does so when there's a greater armed power in the wings. Gandhi would have had little success were it not for the world stage of opinion. Applying this domestically seems merely the next logical step.
I do not aim to convince you of the rightness of my perspective - merely its validity as a perspective.

Boleslav:
The UK shed Empire because it was forced to do so. Without democratic movements in the subject countries, I doubt they would have felt the need at all. If you disagree, look at the long history of Ireland and the present movements for home rule in Scotland and Wales.
I would suggest that there would have been little sympathy within the government of the U.K. for the revolutionaries without the sacrifice of thousands of people that wanted freedom. If that's not the case, why establish Empire to begin with?

Foxy:
Well stated, as always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

If I were the sort of person that would shoot a cop, I'd be an idiot to say that on a public forum, now wouldn't I?

---

But that's what you're alluding to, you act as if it's an unspoken vow between gun owners. You're attempting to go down the "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" road but then cop out when it comes to real violent civil disobedience.

Although I admire Gandhi for what he achieved and how he achieved it, peaceful opposition is not something you can always do, he fully understood that but refused to consider the possibility at times. For instance, during WW1 he heavily recruited Indians for combat. Later he had this to say about disturbances in his own country.

Gandhi stated, "There was a time when people listened to me because I showed them how to give fight to the British without arms when they had no arms...but today I am told that my non-violence can be of no avail against the [Hindu–Moslem riots] and, therefore, people should arm themselves for self-defense."

With WW2 he kind of misunderstood his own philosophy "Hitler," Gandhi said, "killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

And then went on to say...

"The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?"

Even Gandhi understood that physical defense of people was necessary in some cases, although it went completely against his philosophy and he refused to consider the benefits of armed conflict and what it can prevent.

No, Rast. Here's how it works:
- I rely on my fellow citizens to avoid trampling my rights.
- The police enforce laws designed to protect my rights and those of others.
- The government creates and defines laws to this end; incidentally, it also regulates the police.
- The people have the power to recreate government as they will.

That's the ideal. In practice, individuals in government are notorious for misusing all resources under their control - including the police force and the creation of laws.

An armed populace has a greater ability to recreate government in time of need. In non-revolutionary times, an armed populace can be a deterrent to tyrrany by the mere suggestion of armed risings in the minds of would-be tyrants. By extension, unjust and unpopular laws will be difficult to enforce.

There will be a cost to this, and it will at times be horrific; that is the price we pay for a free society. There is a similar price tag on the freedom to travel in automobile accidents and contagion. The price of a free market is periodic recession. The price of freedom of religion is the religion of other people. The price of a powerful military is high taxes and the moral debt incurred whenever it is employed wrongly.

Some would say that societies can be free without firearms. I would respond that societies can't seem to remain free even with firearms, so I prefer to retain what freedom I can.

There are moral codes that restrain us from abusing the right to keep and bear arms. There are societal contracts. There are laws. There is also the probablility of an armed bystander at the site of a heinous crime.

I see these things, and I sorrow. I grieve for those that die, and I regret the loss of safety in the inner cities. I hate that part in humanity that is corrupted when in power. And I believe the least horrible way to prevent loss of freedom and safety is to have a wise population, good government, good laws -- and an armed populace will help protect these things.

Killing people has consequences, even if they're in your house trying to rob you.

Killing people should have consequences.

As to whether you can be jailed for it... that depends on circumstance and jurisdiction. I'd hate to be forced to shoot a person, but if I have a firearm in my home for purposes of protection, I'm certain of the laws where I am. If I'm not in a place where I can shoot an intruder, I either move to where I can or I work to change local laws.

Governments and laws can be changed. You don't even have to leave your comfy armchair to do your bit; just email your representatives. If you're truly ambitious, call them, write them, send them a telegram. If you find someone you like and respect, donate a bit to the campaign. If you can't find someone you respect, find someone else to run. If you can't find a handy shmuck, run yourself - and make sure you're worthy of respect. If you aren't better than the other candidate, maybe you could rethink your respect level for them.

i dont get it is it has consequences or should have consequences

It does. It also should.

First and foremost: The guy you just killed? He's dead.
Second: Holy *! I just killed a guy!
Third: Honey, what was that noi--- WHY IS THERE BLOOD ON MY LAPTOP?!

Six months later, you still can't sleep nights and your ex-GF still has your laptop.

There should be consequences, because a species that can kill itself without some serious psychological and social repercussions is evolutionarily at a dead end. Humanity will never make anything of itself until we've abolished pointless warfare, random killings, slavery and gradual suicide through self-destructive behavior.

[munches on a Twinkie; sucks down Irish Coffee and a cig; scout-bombs some poor shmuck and forces him at ballista-point to join the alliance]

Having said that, I'm still in favor of an armed populace. Why? Well, we don't live in an ideal world; some things are worth sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

It does. It also should.

First and foremost: The guy you just killed? He's dead.
Second: Holy *! I just killed a guy!
Third: Honey, what was that noi--- WHY IS THERE BLOOD ON MY LAPTOP?!

Six months later, you still can't sleep nights and your ex-GF still has your laptop.

There should be consequences, because a species that can kill itself without some serious psychological and social repercussions is evolutionarily at a dead end. Humanity will never make anything of itself until we've abolished pointless warfare, random killings, slavery and gradual suicide through self-destructive behavior.

[munches on a Twinkie; sucks down Irish Coffee and a cig; scout-bombs some poor shmuck and forces him at ballista-point to join the alliance]

Having said that, I'm still in favor of an armed populace. Why? Well, we don't live in an ideal world; some things are worth sacrifice.

---

wait wait wait
i forgot who did i kill ?
u see i kill maybe 20-30 noobs a day so im gona sleep normal

Serious topic, Pred - and the consequences are serious too, despite my cynical humor.

Guns is bad, violence is bad, and loss of freedom is worse. That's really all I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PREDETOR

i dont get it is it has consequences or should have consequences

---

There's a reason every police officer has to see a councilor every time they discharge their firearm at someone. Shooting at another human being has psychological ramifications, no matter how justified the action may be.