I think I understand the point you are making, and that understanding is dependent upon the likelihood of the intruder being armed. This does not apply in most other societies. Be that as it may, the assumption that anyone entering your property without permission is there with the express purpose of murder or rapine is not entirely logical in the absence of other contributing history. Burglary is a much greater probability, but the laws governing self-defence do not usually extend to burglary. We in the UK, and Australia, are not strangers to burglary, but the issue of personal danger seldom arises, because most burglaries are committed in unattended premises, and neither burglars or homeowners are armed. The typical response of a burglar interrupted in his felonious enterprise is to scarper without further ceremony. As I said, different options apply in different societal circumstances.
that's really silly. if you don't like our gun laws, don't come here. I think your gun laws suck so I'd never live in a country where the terrified sheep disarm the sheep dogs because they are terrified of a lone wolf here or there
actually, in an armed society like the USA, burglaries are at a higher ratio than home invasions because we are armed. in places like chicago-prior to the supreme court smacking it around, home invasion robberies were higher because robbers tend to be able to get more valuables than those stealing in unoccupied homes. Because robbers knew if a homeowner had a gun, he was in violation of the law and would be loathe to use one and robbers could blackmail the occupant with ratting him out in my state, if someone breaks in at night it is assumed he is there to harm the occupants so we tend to shoot such people
Like I said, luckily in our country we don't have to gamble on the intentions of an intruder. A burglar can easily become violent when confronted by the homeowner. He may be armed and the homeowner doesn't know until its too late. The best bet for a burglar is not to enter a home illegally if they don't want to get shot. It is entirely their decision. Bad decisions sometimes have bad consequences.
This is how crazy the UK has gotten. http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-bans-self-defense-expert-from-entering-country.html
What you call crazy, many Britons regard as sensible - what you regard as sensible (the 2nd Amendment, per example) many Britons consider crazy. Autres temps, autres murs. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18002220 As a consequence - Every society reserves the right to exclude an individual of whose activities it disapproves, or sees as harmful - it is common practice whether you like it or not.
If they had BRANDISHED the firearms, AT ALL, they violated texas law and trust me the cops would've been on them like white on rice. Texas open carry of long guns means the gun has to be slung over the shoulder, not held in the hand unless in justified use (which this wouldn't count as not that that needs explaining) and the muzzle cannot sweep any living thing. If its held in front? Illegal, jail. Point it at someone? 2 charges actually, double jail. So that article is being absurdly hyperbolic. Even when you're carrying legally you get jammed up. I can show you vid if you'd like, 1 from my hometown even and I actually know the constable who starts the stop. This would be freedom of expression in action, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms. Its only being called "bullying" because these harridans will scream about the sky being blue.
Surely a sign would work better than lighting a flag on fire in public. <<< See how that works? They didn't break any law, even went so far as to inform local police and request their presence to ensure order was kept and the law followed. If they'd broken the law by actually brandishing the arms they would've been locked up so fast it'd make your head spin. Cops DO NOT like open carry Texas and jam them up at every opportunity. Can provide vid if you like.
Stop using a term of art incorrectly. They did not BRANDISH those arms because BRANDISHING is ILLEGAL. The cops would've arrested them and been right to do so. << That's not what happened. Peacable assembly is a protected right. Just as the MDAs get to protest, so does Open Carry TX. The sword cuts both ways. .
Go google shannon watts and her tract (sic) record on telling the truth. LOL show me one of the patrons or the manager saying his customers were "terrified"
then there was something about a law being passed in the UK...something about going to jail if you holler at your wife.....how stupid is that?
Sounds fine to me. "Sandy Hook" shouldn't be relevant in the gun control debate anyway. Anymore than "9/11" should be relevant in a debate on whether or not Islam has 1st Amendment rights. The firearms used in Sandy Hook were not legally purchased, they were stolen, so unless the debate is about banning handguns or semi-automatic weapons altogether it has no relevance.
That's actually pretty darn intimidating. Take out flag and say a cross, that's pretty bad. So what does it look like if the police are standing there, doing nothing to them? It looks like they're sanctioning it, more specifically supporting it.
Yet burning a flag is pefectly protected speech. So is a cross by the way, so long as you're not sticking it in someone's yard, while wearing bedsheets and screaming racial slurs and death threats. So its your supposition that if the cops are standing around they automatically condone and actively support ANY behavior that occurs around them? Shall I show you pictures of black cops keeping order at KKK rallies so you can feel foolish and apologize? Perhaps they're waiting there hoping one of them will muzzle sweep the restaurant so he can arrest that person and break up the protest? Perhaps they're.... *gasps* DOING THEIR JOBS?
A bit of a difference between open carry and carrying around an assault rifle isn't there? A pistol in an open to carry state? Sure, that's common. An assault rifle? Why would someone carry around something that weighs 10-15 lbs when there isn't a need?
Oh really? Why is it then that most Americans don't feel safe even though they are statistically speaking? People think crime rates have gone up even though they have decreased around the world. You don't have to like California, but they do illustrate an important point. The government's job is to protect its citizens from harm, so they have to provide safety. - - - Updated - - - I think I'll let OrlandoChuck answer that question. But there really isn't much of a difference, they're both feelings in the end, no matter how you look at the world.
no feeling: NOUN 1.an emotional state or reaction: "a feeling of joy" synonyms: love · affection · fondness · tenderness · warmth · warmness · More ADJECTIVE showing emotion or sensitivity: "he had a warm and feeling heart" synonyms: sensitive · warm · warmhearted · tender · tenderhearted · knowing: adjective 1. affecting, implying, or deliberately revealing shrewd knowledge of secret or private information: a knowing glance. 2. that knows; having knowledge or information; intelligent. 3. shrewd, sharp, or astute. 4.conscious; intentional; deliberate. ergo, feeling and knowing are two very distinct things. Liberals have a tendency to group these two together and declare victory when the two are incompatable you might know what you're feeling, but you'll never feel what you know
What if we defined "conscious" as being aware of, as we have here: "aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc" "known to oneself; felt:" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscious And then you were aware of a feeling, and why you felt that way. Wouldn't that then be knowledge because you are conscious of yourself? - - - Updated - - - No I'm not saying that. I'm saying they have a right to do it, but they shouldn't. Key difference.
What they should have been doing? There in lies the paradox. If they weren't there, they would be seen as unresponsive or cowering. If they were there, they would have been seen as working with them. I'll have to think about that.
So you're saying you want to ban the protection of symbolic speech? You want to think through the consequences of that and retract?
