It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Originally posted by Gadeff
The laws are put into effect by people who don't want a black eye or a broken cheek bone. They come into effect around people who are non-confrontational and quite passive. The common thought behind your situation is instead of breaking someones face you should have let law enforcement deal with it, and if they cannot handle it, you push the case to the higher-up jurisdiction. There are no words which will make you feel better, the system is not human and is pretty cut throat, there are no stones left unturned.
I'm not sorry for your punishment, because no one would be sorry for me if I were in your shoes. I could have been many times and I opted out. I took the passive "pussy" approach and the way it sits today, I have my rights and I don't get treated like # when I get pulled over. It's hard to live like a non-barbarian, and you end up looking like a pussy in social situations. Let me be the first to say, you can call me a pussy in front of a group of hot chicks because I didn't break your cheekbone, but I'll be sleeping tight with my guns and my security and my money because I didn't need to lash out violently to prove a point to save face in a social situation.
If I need to lash out violently to save someone from being seriously injured, there would be no problem for law enforcement to write the report out accordingly. Unless I'm somewhere I shouldn't be and racist witnesses are making false reports, during which LEO can usually tell the difference and write the report out well anyway.
Cheers, you're already a dangerous man, what do you need guns for?
You own a gun. If we are to judge who and who isn't a barbarian, I think most(Not on ATS of course) would take the view that you are one.
This just goes to show that what's socially acceptable and not a big deal in some circles, is in others. You call him a barbarian for throwing a punch, because that's not what you'd do. Well most people in the western world think of owning guns as pretty barbaric, it's not something civilised people tend to do.
You wouldn't punch a criminal, but presumably you have a gun so that you can shoot a criminal if the situation arises?
Playing devils advocate, I could pick up I'm sure many more things you do that others consider barbaric.
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged." - Matthew 7:2-12
Originally posted by onequestion
I hit someone once while i was drinking, there was already an ongoing battle between two other people. Lets just say that it was an oddball case. There was alchohol involved and it had an overall influence over the entire situation on all sides.
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Blarneystoner
If a person is truly a violent criminal, they will have a gun regardless.
In any even, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. A felon has every right to protect him/herself as any other person. If you have a right to live, you have a right to protect that life.edit on 18-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
Well, in 2008, the Supreme Court actually did state otherwise in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller. See section 2 of the Descision for this particular case...
en.wikipedia.org...
(yes, Wikipedia, but I assume this is a public document for which other sources are freely available).
But on a more interesting note, if the 2nd amendment is taken literally, then you could argue felons have a right to bear arms while actually in jail as the text does not say otherwise!
Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smurfy
I do say so and I know so based on your original reply.
Typically when I'm in a thread I don't like, rather then state that opinion I go to a different topic. Thanks for your input though.
I'm actually enjoying the replys post by most people for or against especially the conversations happening even 23 pages deep.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Blarneystoner
If a person is truly a violent criminal, they will have a gun regardless.
In any even, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. A felon has every right to protect him/herself as any other person. If you have a right to live, you have a right to protect that life.edit on 18-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
Well, in 2008, the Supreme Court actually did state otherwise in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller. See section 2 of the Descision for this particular case...
en.wikipedia.org...
(yes, Wikipedia, but I assume this is a public document for which other sources are freely available).
But on a more interesting note, if the 2nd amendment is taken literally, then you could argue felons have a right to bear arms while actually in jail as the text does not say otherwise!
You could argue that felons would be allowed arms in prison. That is an argument that I will leave for a day when relevance dictates neccessity.
But I have a deep disagreement with the Supreme Court on many issues, the 2nd Amendment is among the biggest.
"All men are created equal", unless you have a military uniform. In that case you are a little more equal, and will have access to higher grade weaponry.
Despite the fact that a standing army is, itself, unconstitutional.
I would presume that these are the points that you refer to? if not, just repost and I will respond.
But i would like to add: while "most' may consider any number of behaviors illegal, or whatever....that is irrelevant. To allow the majority to make rules for the minority is the very definition of mob rule. In the end, unless you have a clear victim directly caused by an action, I do not believe it to be a crime. A crime is an obvious act where there is an obvious victim.edit on 19-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
To allow the majority to make rules for the minority is the very definition of mob rule.