«

[Evad]

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE LAW, IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUN BEFORE TAKING ACTIONS TO DEFEND YOURSELF. BEFORE, YOU HAD TO SHOW MEASURES TO GET OUT OF THE SITUATION BEFORE RESORTING TO VIOLENCE. sorry bout caps. in other words, if a person mugged you on the street you would have had to run away, or at least try before you could kick the guy in the face. This is a touchy subject, i personally believe a person should be able to act pre-emptively. The way Gov' bush put it if i remember, he basically said he was extending the rights you have in your home to defend your person and belongings, out onto the street. It kinda makes sence. there are way too many laws that restrict victims rights out there. I'm no fan of republicans, or the Bush family, but I don't see the problem of this law.

[troop18546]

O.K. If I understood this correctly: I can kill if I THINK I'm threatened?
If such a stupid rule is declared than I'll be ranked as the most wanted gunman in all of Europe. I'll even go global :evil: . Seriously, if I'm short on cash, can I steal then? :eeeeeh:

[Jman4117]

From what I've read in the articles it's "meeting force with force"; if they pull a weapon and threaten you, you can pull out your own in defense. They have to actually demonstrate that they are a threat to your life for you to counter with leathal force, not just make you "feel threatened".

[troop18546]

Uhh... :eeeeeh: O.K.

[Evad]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Apr 28 2005, 08:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Apr 28 2005, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-OMG@Apr 28 2005, 02:35 PM
intentions (cuba, china)
but i dont look forwards to china becoming the new super power, but maybe it will be better, china tends to stay out of other countrys affairs.

China has real communism? Since when? Last time I checked most political analysts agreed China is far from a communist country.

And as for its so-called isolationism China has quite a few political- and economical links to the world, important ones at that. And its generally believed that when China becomes a superpower it will be a major player indeed (which it already is)
It'll be just like the US, believe you me. [/b][/quote]
china is already shooting a bid on the mideast, personally i think they are gonn abe the next super pwer.

[omg]

ok china is shooting a bid, but lets face it, what right have we had to enforce
the middle east security, we should have sorted this out after the invasion of kuwait. not now in the 21st century. if we have a right to enforce the security of the middle east as western global powers so do they as the eastern global power. as for this shooting law. fair enought if someone pulls a gun on you and you have one you should be allowed to defend yourself. i think the problem is how the lawyers of the rich are going to be able to stretch this "intent" thing.

[Evad]

I absolutley agree. from what i remember the only reasons usa was in mid-east were:
1)cause iraq was supporting terrorists. This was questionable, 'cause everyone over there knows how much B.L and Sad'm hate each other. I guess sad'm was paying suicyde bmbr families 50 g's a pop or something like that, hardly reason to enforce 10 years of murderous embargos. Also we all realizse the horrors of "shock and awe" now. 2)wmd's which is proven now to be totally and absolutely false.
Like you say at least china is connected geographically to interest. USA as far as I'm concerned is strictly financial.

[irrelevantjet]

Originally posted by taikara@Apr 27 2005, 07:21 AM
any person with a weapon has a right to shoot and KILL someone if they feel "threatened" by that person.

change the words "threatened by" to "cheerful towards"

the words "a weapon" to "pants"

and the words "shoot and KILL someone" to "encourage a round of golf"

and it makes for a much friendlier law :angel:

[omg]

if only the american people had elected you into power. the world would probably be a freindlier place.