|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 13, 2006 13:41:08 GMT -5
"no innocent should ever die in a war, not one"
There are no innocents in modern times. The innocent died back about 4,000 years ago. Tell me that a six year old with a grenade is innocent and I will show you dead people.
If your contention is that nukes are useless you have not read very many texts on that subject. You are merely uninformed and not an innocent. Until you have heard the air raid sirens go off and waited after dark for the bombers you have no idea of the uses of weapons. We almost left Chicago that night via the railroad tracks in a car. The pure terror that just the threat of a nuclear strike can induce is enough to convince me that they serve a valuable purpose. If used people will die.
"Shoves a nuke at his opponent and says try this on for size!"
Wicked, yes we are and so we shall be. Better to be wicked and alive that nice and dead. So go be nice to a criminal and see where that gets you. Shot probably, or convicted of aiding and abetting.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 13, 2006 18:18:28 GMT -5
I'm not saying be nice, but in the situation about the child with the grenade, you could safely disarm him without killing him.
All life deserves a chance to live
If millions of people die because their government hasn't been america's lap dog then there is no point in our existance. We are useless to a point beyond recovery.
It is wrong for you to suffer as you have, but to sink to the level of the enemy, makes you less than him. By chosing his same path simply because he is on it dissolves your identity as an individual person. You would kill mercilessly just because no one showed mercy to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 14, 2006 11:17:39 GMT -5
You try that with a child that has had a minimum of ten minutes of training with a dummy grenade. Two dead at a minimum is what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami on Jun 14, 2006 12:53:36 GMT -5
There are no innocents in modern times. The innocent died back about 4,000 years ago. Tell me that a six year old with a grenade is innocent and I will show you dead people. ur telling me kids who are playing arent innocent? ur telling me when soldiers come raid ur town the people of that town arent innocent? point to me that little boy, and in 10 minutes ill point to u someone that he cared for dead. I bet i can find more. sry that got alil too personal for me. |
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 15, 2006 0:04:38 GMT -5
You're right bait, and it needs to change! People deserve better!
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 15, 2006 5:32:49 GMT -5
Dear Kami:
This was not meant as an affront to you. There was no personal attack in it. This was to a guy who has not experienced any of this. The soldiers are not innocent. The towns people are what they would like to say are "collateral". So that when the towns people get hurt they do not feel bad. This works only to a limited extent.
During WW2 the best information on what happens to people was documented by the Germans. I am not saying that what they did was right just that they documented everything that they did. When they sent soldiers out for retribution they limited the number of people that these soldiers were allowed to mow down. Even these soldiers went mentally absent after killing more than that limit. So that proves that all "legitimate killings" will drive any one insane if you are pushed hard enough.
I have now established that killing is not good for mental health. This is probably why our opponents use suicide bombers. If they survived they would go nuts and renounce the action that they took.
So yes the kid with the grenade did care for people. The people in the town are nice people. Kami you are good people. The ones that are bad are the ones teaching these suicides how to do it. They are the ones that are insane. Those are the ones who deserve to die. Because they cause the deaths and are committing suicide by starting the fight. Self defense is honorable. Any other argument is just nonsense.
Hypothetically speaking if I were to try to kill you then you would be justified in defending yourself. Nations were created to defend the citizens. They were allowed to form armies for that purpose. Those armies are allowed to go out and defend the country that formed them. That is the reason for the killing.
There is no excuse for random killings nor should there be any excuse. No killer or any of the supporting group is a nice person. They should be taken for what they are: murderers.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 15, 2006 8:14:57 GMT -5
The problem is that the army is protecting the government not the people. If an army invades this country, and succedes in capturing even part of america, the only thing that would be different is whos laws we follow (unless it is a ruthless dictator who kills all enemys he sees). We would bow to a new leader, that's all.
If a say 60ish year old man, malnurished, dieing, weak, with several diseases, that can barely walk, were to walk over to you and threaten your life (either with words or some kind of weapon), would you still consider it self defence to kill the man? I believe in self defence, and justifyable homicide. But, that's not it.
I take karate, and I have to fight almost every week, yet I'm known as the guy "who will back down because he's better." If my opponent is sick, or a kid, or somehow not at 100%, I won't fight them. I'll concede.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 15, 2006 9:39:21 GMT -5
That hypothetical man if armed is dead on the spot. If unarmed and touches me in any way he is pepper sprayed and citizen arrested on the spot. If he commits assault by threatening me with a verbal warning of a weapon he gets turned over to the proper authorities. In other words it depends upon the level of threat. I will not let any one survive if they come up with a weapon. I have been stupid enough to let my opponent survive before and have had the problem of dealing with it again. So learn this - if a weapon shows up - kill first - get an attorney - say nothing - that is the way it is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by UrbStylee on Jun 16, 2006 9:51:26 GMT -5
No matter how you slice it, if an enemy is armed and it's proven in court that you gained the upper hand and then killed him you could be subject to prosecution. UNLESS it is in your home and at night. (Maine law). I'm assumming though that as you get farther south people still walk around with six shooters and spit tabacki.
Urbal
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 16, 2006 23:59:29 GMT -5
I don't care if the person gets the drop on me, has the gun to my head, and half way squeezes the trigger, if I decide that the person does not deserve death, they won't get it. If that means that one day I die of a gunshot to the face then so be it, at least I'll die knowing that no one else had to
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 18, 2006 7:23:39 GMT -5
Good for you TEX, but I will bet more then even money you will be so hyped that the other guy dies at your hands or you cripple him/her.
In our state of Illinois, if you are threatened with a weapon you can defend yourself. There are qualifying circumstances that are so complex that after wards you had better talk only to your lawyer first so that you do not screw yourself. If at home or camping and some one comes in they can be killed. Just make certain they do not get out of your domicile.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 21, 2006 11:40:58 GMT -5
I'll defend myself, but not to the point to which I'll kill some cynial 90 year old grandpa with a m4. I can dissarm him without hurting anyone
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 21, 2006 20:05:27 GMT -5
Give the guy a muffin. If a guy or a gal that is 90 years old shows up with an M4 my advice is to take cover. You cannot run from a riffle bullet. After that figure your way out as the situation unfolds.
I have seen some might rilled old people lately and they are getting more violent. Nah old people always were violent.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 26, 2006 1:33:57 GMT -5
The classes you have to take to get a "carry and conseal" permit say to draw on a person you don't like if they aren't within 21 ft of you. If they are, they can make it to you and hurt you badly before you can unholster, take off the safety, and load a bullet into the chamber. I can cross 21 ft in less than 3 seconds. Even the most fit and prepared of people cannot draw a gun and be ready to fire in under 4 seconds. I don't need to outrun a rifle bullet
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 27, 2006 6:37:58 GMT -5
Properly trained reaction time is one second. You do not need to chamber a round, you carry cocked and locked or a double action. So before you try to take on an armed person be within arm reach distance or you will be dead. I ought to know, been there done that and lived to tell about it.
Both sides.
|
|
