Topic: Obama or Romney ? - page 4. (Read 21126 times)

I spent 7 years studying martial arts 3 times a week. What I learned is that no one is a super hero. Fighting is risky stuff. So I would not use my martial arts training if I have my gun.
I learned to shoot from my Dad, who learned it in the FBI. I do know what to do if attacked. If during the attack my life is in danger then the attacker will die before he/she ever see the gun. Even if your law were in effect I would do this. I would rather live in jail than be dead.

The whole "proportional force" thing is a crock anyway. If you fear for your life, you shoot* to stop. The logic follows from there.




*(In England, you wave a toilet brush or pull a scary face and hope the attacker has a heart attack)

If you knew anything about the nervous system like I do you'd know where, in martial arts you get taught where the most vital points of a body are so you can avoid killing them by accident, as for guns well, of course the person is going to bleed to death anyway if you just leave them there, but you can't be that much of an asshole you'd just leave them to die right?

Having self-defense laws that make sense would mean you wouldn't have to waste as much money on a police and military while providing a lot of clarity for the people who are kept so it would drastically reduce the amount of money involved in law.

Did you attack this person? Yes? Then you're going to jail, it's that simple.

Why even put a self-defense law in a plan to reduce the deficit? That makes no sense. Also, self-defense is handled at the state level.

4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers"

Where should I shoot them then?

Uh huh. You keep saying that...

Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself.

Misleading, Obama has several deal breaker stance on issues for me, AA, STEM and legalization of illegals. There are huge differences on issues between Obama and Romney, to say they are the same, is highly misleading.

You didn't say anything here I disagree with.  Shooting someone while they are running away is not self defense, that is murder.

Shooting someone dead who breaks into your house with clear intent of bodily harm is self defense.

Scenario #1:

For example, hearing noises in your house in the middle of the night, you go to investigate, armed and prepared for the worst.  You find an intruder, aim your gun and tell him to drop to the ground and keep his hands where you can see them.

If he turns, and starts to pull a gun, you shoot, he dies, self defense.
If he turns, and starts running toward you with a knife drawn, you shoot, he dies, self defense.
If he turns, sees you means business, slowly raises his hands and gets down on his knees, then belly, with his hands outstretched, you'd better do nothing other than call 911, and hope he didn't come with a buddy.

Scenario #2:

Wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your daughter screaming for help.  You investigate and find someone molesting your daughter.  You point your gun and tell him to stop.  

If he turns and runs towards you.  You shoot, he dies, self defense.
If he stops, and runs away, you'd better leave him alone, even though you're seething that someone was molesting your daughter.

Scenario #3:

This one actually happened not too long ago.  Your 12 year daughter is home alone.  Some stranger knocks at the door.  She wisely leaves it alone.  He goes around back and starts pounding on the back door.  She calls 911, then you.  You tell her to get the family gun and hide.  She does just that, hiding a closet.  He breaks in, and she can hear him going through the house searching for her.  He comes to the room she is in, and starts to open the closet door she is in.  She fires.  Clear self defense.  In this case he got away wounded.  If she had chased him down, that'd be murder.  If she had killed him with the first shot, that'd be self defense.  If he didn't run after being shot and started to assault her, and she manages to get another shot off that ends his life, self defense.

I hope this proves my point that your statement about "not killing your attacker" doesn't fly.  Changing it to "killing your attacker is clear self defense is fine, otherwise you're no better off than the attacker" would be better.

The key is clear intent of bodily harm.

M

Edit: Put another way, if I have every reason to believe it's going to me (or family member), or the attacker, I going to do my best to make sure it's the attacker that loses.

Good luck. No government has ever been able to successfully enforce such a high sales tax.

An attacker is an attacker, it doesn't matter how a lawyer puts it, if someone attacks another person then they should be in jail because they are a threat to society, if they have mental hospital then they should be in a there own separate cell with care. Also if someone breaks into your home to attack you then that's just another case of self-defense, he's trying to attack you, you can defend yourself, it's when you shoot him and then shoot him again while he's running that I would make that against the law because then you're just murdering him.

This one's not good.  Not unless you add another one about getting rid of all the lawyers.  There are many cases of whacked out attackers suing their victims.  Dead people can't sue.

If someone poses an immediate threat to my life or my family's life, they'd better be prepared to meet their maker.  Dead people can't pull triggers either.

M

That's all you've got? Here's what I'd do

1. Default on the debt ( There's no way it's going to be paid back so don't even bother trying because that will just lengthen the depression )

2. Make it illegal for any government employee to borrow in the taxpayers name, no more borrowing at the expense of others or to get re-elected

3. introduce laws removing any restrictions on competing currencies

4. Make one self-defense law stating "If you are attacked then you have a right to defend yourself as long as you do not kill the attacker or attackers"

5. 5% flat tax rate to take care of the genuinely helpless who can't fend for themselves

6. Arrest all known board members of the Federal Reserve and shut the place down

7. Almost forgot, legalise prostitution and all drugs, for prostitution though I would make it so that pimping wouldn't be allowed to prevent the women in that situation being abused

As for Romney and Obama, they are both the same to me, nothing more than Imperialists wearing different symbols, they both want to expand the empire and they both support the military industrial complex.

Here's my # step plan designed to save the US economy.

#1. Freeze all Spending at current level.
#2. Remove Capital Gains tax.
#3. Remove Income Tax & associated employment related taxes.
#4. Install Flat (sales) Tax at 20%. Convert IRS into regulating entity for monitoring, collecting and reporting on income from this new tax.
#5. Open Borders. Remove tarifs.
#6. Wait a month.
#7. Look at the new report from the converted IRS - do the math on deficit new tax income.
#8. Reduce all government spending by the percentage needed to balance the budget + double the cost of interest on the national debt.
#9. Repeat 6-9 until nation is out of debt.

Simple easy and effective. It would take all the downward pressure off the economy. We'd have an initial 30-50% reduction in government spending and the total on collected taxes would rise to make up the lost income in under 2 years... aided by all the former illegals now paying sales taxes and the massive growth the economy would under go by making it much cheaper to employ someone.
And as soon as that happened then we can start growing entitlement programs and spending in all areas to consume the surplus. Being happy with a 10 or 20 or 50 year plan to pay off the debt.

haha, score voting written down sounds like instant runoff but with less benefits

The funny/sad thing is pretty much every other voting system is superior to plurality. I'm a big fan of the Schulze method, but since most people find it confusing I jump on the IRV bandwagon. IRV can fail too (they all can) but not as much as plurality has already failed. Score voting would be a great improvement too.

Part of the reason I'm leaning towards Jill Stein is her clear support of IRV, even though I agree with Gary Johnson on most other issues. IMHO the third party supporters need to stick together long enough to say "we need a better way".

Fixed?



Sounds like a fine way to pick a president.

what's range voting?

sorry I'd look it up but busy and want you to tell me hah

I was actually thinking range voting.