BrownNoeser's forum posts

Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] It's not more of threat than walking past someone who has a gun; neither is guaranteed to kill you but both potentially could. Ok, say if you had a really valuable diamond that was worth more than your house. If someone stole it from you on the street would you be able to shoot at them?spazzx625
Why are you so enraptured by the theft aspect of this? The whole point is personal safety. Self defense. If someone is attempting to harm you, regardless of if you're in your home or not you can defend yourself within reason. If someone is coming at you with a plastic straw you can't use a firearm, since they are unequal.

I'm not "enraptured by the theft" aspect, I am trying the lack of reasoning behind your "right" to shoot people in your house. Self-defence is not the issue. Like I said, people pose a threat to you all the time; you aren't allowed to kill them for it. Oh, and what does it matter if the trespasser has a gun or a straw, you're still allowed to shoot them aren't you? Whether they are "unequal" or not.

Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] So everyone breaking into your home is assumed to be a killer? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty in that country. Like I said in the above post too, your safety could potentially be threatened just by someone taking your soda (and then putting poison in it). Don't talk about the financial standpoint; I can steal more money from you out of your hands than your house is worth and you still wouldn't be legally allowed to kill me (or would you?) Also, personal privacy? If I spy on you from outside your house are you allowed to kill me? No. So what exactly is it that makes "the home" so important?

If someone is physically breaking into your home, that is always a threat to either yourself or your property. :| Also, I don't tend to carry $300k on myself at any time ever, so no...Someone could not just steal that amount of money from me. You are content comparing apples to oranges here, so I don't know why anyone is trying to bother arguing your point.

It's not more of threat than walking past someone who has a gun; neither is guaranteed to kill you but both potentially could. Ok, say if you had a really valuable diamond that was worth more than your house. If someone stole it from you on the street would you be able to shoot at them?
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There is a difference in between someone stealing your soda, and breaking into your house. The latter poses a serious threat to life and limb...

bloodling

Not necessarily. The man who broke into her house could potentially have been coming in to say hello. Someone who steals your soda may be planning to lace it with poison. Someone who I meet on the street potentially poses a "serious threat to life and limb", but you can't just randomly shoot someone on the street, Can you? So the question remains: why is "the home" more sacred private property to soda.

If someone takes your soda and puts poison in it, you don't need to kill the guy, just don't drink it... Your arguments doesn't make sense at all...

If someone tries to break into your house he is a serious threat to your life... How can you not see this...

Of course he poses a serious threat to your life! I never denied that. I just said that anyone, anywhere poses a threat to your life (especially when everyone potentially has a gun). Therefore, in America, you can't shoot someone just because they may pose a threat to your life. It isn't to do with theft either, because you can't just shoot someone for stealing your soda. It isn't to do with privacy because you can't shoot someone for spying on you outside your house. It's not to do with safety; if your in a public place and someone has a gun on them your aren't allowed to automatically shoot them; even though they could kill you if they wished. There is no real reason why you should be able to shoot someone who's in your house. All these things you propose (safety etc.) are inconsistent.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="BrownNoeser"]I was wondering, seeing as I don't live there, why is it not the case in America when if someone steals, say, a sip of your "soda" why can't you shoot the thief with a gun? Why is "the home" more sacred "private property" than soda? Both "belong" to you don't they? Private property is private property.

Home invasion != sipping a soda. Aside from a financial standpoint, personal privacy and safety is the most important issue.

So everyone breaking into your home is assumed to be a killer? I thought it was innocent until proven guilty in that country. Like I said in the above post too, your safety could potentially be threatened just by someone taking your soda (and then putting poison in it). Don't talk about the financial standpoint; I can steal more money from you out of your hands than your house is worth and you still wouldn't be legally allowed to kill me (or would you?) Also, personal privacy? If I spy on you from outside your house are you allowed to kill me? No. So what exactly is it that makes "the home" so important?
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"]I was wondering, seeing as I don't live there, why is it not the case in America when if someone steals, say, a sip of your "soda" why can't you shoot the thief with a gun? Why is "the home" more sacred "private property" than soda? Both "belong" to you don't they? Private property is private property.coolbeans90

There is a difference in between someone stealing your soda, and breaking into your house. The latter poses a serious threat to life and limb...

Not necessarily. The man who broke into her house could potentially have been coming in to say hello. Someone who steals your soda may be planning to lace it with poison. Someone who I meet on the street potentially poses a "serious threat to life and limb", but you can't just randomly shoot someone on the street, Can you? So the question remains: why is "the home" more sacred private property to soda.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
I was wondering, seeing as I don't live there, why is it not the case in America when if someone steals, say, a sip of your "soda" why can't you shoot the thief with a gun? Why is "the home" more sacred "private property" than soda? Both "belong" to you don't they? Private property is private property.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
What you are talking about is solipsism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism Imagining that you literally are the centre of the Universe is what might make you think this way.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

I think we're winning the war on Terror. It can never Truly be won though. There will always be another Al Qaeda.

rawr_xd

We aren't winning the war on terror.. We are the terrorists.

Please tell me you're joking... ? You should move elsewhere if that is your view on the U.S. We may not be the best country in the world in terms of a lot of scattered things, but we are not terrorists. You should be ashamed of yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwRvzXULtg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_8773TUmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yLMlJtwaKU&feature=related

Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts
[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"]How about you name me a US president who wasn't an imperialist, murderous, warmongering bastard.Bourbons3
William Henry Harrison. He didn't really have time - he was only President for 31 days. :P

He managed to kill some Native Americans at some part in his life though.
Avatar image for BrownNoeser
BrownNoeser

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 BrownNoeser
Member since 2009 • 50 Posts

[QUOTE="BrownNoeser"] The invasion of Afghanistan is no more legal or justified than the invasion of Iraq.BumFluff122

Aside from the backing of the UN for one and not the other, which is the reason why it is labelled illegal.

Your evidence for this? UN Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001) "Welcoming developments in Afghanistan that will allow for all Afghans to enjoy inalienable rights and freedom unfettered by oppression and terror, Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves," This does seem like a jingoist way of saying "yes, invading Afghanistan is fine." Either way, whether the UN label it "legal" or not: the US troops are doing no better in Afghanistan than in Iraq.