CBass1724 1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Really? Where did you think I was headed? (you have me intrigued and if we could discuss this reasonably, it might actually be interesting)Yeah where did you think he was headed? What does self defense mean to you antistuff?You live in NY for crying out loud and you don't realize that self defense could mean that you or your family's life could be in danger where you need to DEFEND YOURSELF? Hence, self defense. Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yeah where did you think he was headed? What does self defense mean to you antistuff?You live in NY for crying out loud and you don't realize that self defense could mean that you or your family's life could be in danger where you need to DEFEND YOURSELF? Hence, self defense.Yea, I'm not trying to be smart-assed or facetious at all. I'm genuinely interested in what other definition of self defense that there may be. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Man has gun pointed at your face, you have the ability to kill him and prevent your death. Do you?Man has gun pointed at your child's head, you have the ability to kill him and prevent his/her. Do you?Yes, I'm being very general because I have no desire to get into a debate on specifics, but please tell me that you do believe that there is SOME instance in life where taking a life is the answer.if you have the ability to kill him, you also have the ability to render him immobilized. there is no reason it has to be death Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yea, I'm not trying to be smart-assed or facetious at all. I'm genuinely interested in what other definition of self defense that there may be.I am trying to be all of that. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 shoot him in the kneecaps..i love that move Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 if you have the ability to kill him, you also have the ability to render him immobilized. there is no reason it has to be deathThat is not true. Not everybody is a good aim. Most times people would immobilize the person when they are trying to cause death. In a situation like that, I doubt the average person would stop to think "how can I shoot him so he is hurt, but not dead." It is safe to say if they are pointing a gun at you or your family, he is not thinking how to render you immobilized. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 but SUPPORT the TROOPS! Those ppl are dyng to keep our country safe.I dont want to get into a big deal here. and I love everyone of you. so its no personal attacks.but is this line really true?I'm confused because i was in vegas recently and i noticed that there is still plenty of drinking in the streets and gambling and partying. It seems to be the same across the country.I guess if Bush & Co. didnt ship troops over seas there wouldnt be any of this "partying" is that what i'm understanding now? Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 if you have the ability to kill him, you also have the ability to render him immobilized. there is no reason it has to be deathHow can you say that? What if you're only option is to drop a safe on him? What if you're only option is to shoot him in the head? Again, you're wanting specifics. I'm saying if THE ONLY option is to kill him. Also, say you think he is immobilized and he really isn't. You go to walk away and get knocked in the back of the head, no thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 That is not true. Not everybody is a good aim. Most times people would immobilize the person when they are trying to cause death. In a situation like that, I doubt the average person would stop to think "how can I shoot him so he is hurt, but not dead." It is safe to say if they are pointing a gun at you or your family, he is not thinking how to render you immobilized.now you have skewed off topic.it never said, you could only kill him with a gun.I'm sure if you knew some self defense training, boxing, kung fu. whatever.... that you could think of several ways that you can take someone out without killing them.I mean, police manage to do it daily. its obviously do-able.if you tell me that You HAVE to use a gun, then i'l reconsider the idea Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I dont want to get into a big deal here. and I love everyone of you. so its no personal attacks.I hope all of you know, I share this same sentiment. And even though we may disagree... nothing personal. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 How can you say that? What if you're only option is to drop a safe on him? What if you're only option is to shoot him in the head? Again, you're wanting specifics. I'm saying if THE ONLY option is to kill him. Also, say you think he is immobilized and he really isn't. You go to walk away and get knocked in the back of the head, no thanks.you watch too many movies.so now i can drop a safe on him?Ok. so the idea here is Kill or be killed right?well thats a stupid question because everyone picks Kill over be killed. Its human nature.If your son/daughter comes home and you noticed they stole something. (you find out somehow).. do you turn them into the police?If you own a store and you catch someone stealing. do you turn them into the police? Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 now you have skewed off topic.it never said, you could only kill him with a gun.I'm sure if you knew some self defense training, boxing, kung fu. whatever.... that you could think of several ways that you can take someone out without killing them.I mean, police manage to do it daily. its obviously do-able.if you tell me that You HAVE to use a gun, then i'l reconsider the ideaYea, in the example I put forth, there are no specifics. I'm saying your only option is to kill.Let's try this since it's more of a mental thing anyway and not practical:A man has a gun pointed at your head. He is counting down to 0 and WILL without a doubt, kill you. You have the ability to kill this man and prevent your death... by merely thinking it. If you think to yourself the word "DIE", this man will drop dead and you will live. Would you do it? Would you kill a man to save your life? Or the life of a family member, or the life of a complete stranger? Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 All I know is that if someone is pointing a gun at me, I am not going kung fu on him. Gun>sweep the leg.If I have a gun on me, they will be shot. Dead.Oh, and nothing is personal here. It is a discussion forum. We all <3 Royal Tour and Dogpatch. Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 well thats a stupid question because everyone picks Kill over be killed. Its human nature.If your son/daughter comes home and you noticed they stole something. (you find out somehow).. do you turn them into the police?If you own a store and you catch someone stealing. do you turn them into the police?How is it stupid? Anti said he would never kill anyone. I ask... NEVER?If my son stole, I would take him before the person he stole from and proceed from there. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yea, in the example I put forth, there are no specifics. I'm saying your only option is to kill.Let's try this since it's more of a mental thing anyway and not practical:A man has a gun pointed at your head. He is counting down to 0 and WILL without a doubt, kill you. You have the ability to kill this man and prevent your death... by merely thinking it. If you think to yourself the word "DIE", this man will drop dead and you will live. Would you do it? Would you kill a man to save your life? Or the life of a family member, or the life of a complete stranger? you watch too many movies.well thats a stupid question because everyone picks Kill over be killed. Its human nature. Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Yea, in the example I put forth, there are no specifics. I'm saying your only option is to kill.Let's try this since it's more of a mental thing anyway and not practical:A man has a gun pointed at your head. He is counting down to 0 and WILL without a doubt, kill you. You have the ability to kill this man and prevent your death... by merely thinking it. If you think to yourself the word "DIE", this man will drop dead and you will live. Would you do it? Would you kill a man to save your life? Or the life of a family member, or the life of a complete stranger?Absolutely. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 How is it stupid? Anti said he would never kill anyone. I ask... NEVER?If my son stole, I would take him before the person he stole from and proceed from there.he is lying.You cant control your fear. Like a cornered rat, you will do anything to survive Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 I guess if Bush & Co. didnt ship troops over seas there wouldnt be any of this "partying" is that what i'm understanding now?I take no personal attacks on these forums, lol. I think some healthy debate is a good way to hear opposing sides of an issue. Of course Vegas would still be Vegas had we not gone over there. But it is merely my personal belief that what we are doing in the war on terror, be in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, is keeping the world safer. I know sometimes it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but we are at least making small vicotires against some terrorist cells in various parts of the world. Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 you watch too many movies.I know it's far-fetched, but so is someone saying they would NEVER kill anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I take no personal attacks on these forums, lol. I think some healthy debate is a good way to hear opposing sides of an issue. Of course Vegas would still be Vegas had we not gone over there. But it is merely my personal belief that what we are doing in the war on terror, be in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, is keeping the world safer. I know sometimes it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but we are at least making small vicotires against some terrorist cells in various parts of the world. I respect your opinionI took a War and terrorism course in college. Very neutral since i'm canadian and in reality, we have no real reason to skew the info.The Gulf War was pretty wack, and now, 11 years later when Bush jr became president and the US is back into fighting aggression and terrorism etc.i dunno. I think you guys were lucky to get Clinton in there when you did. Its just amazing that he managed to serve 2 terms and his biggest known "oops" was a jizz stain.In your mind, when bush is finished, and troops are pulled out, which i'm sure is going to happen. What will your view of the world be? still scared of terrorist attacks?will you support the army/navy/airforce more after the fact? Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I hope all of you know, I share this same sentiment. And even though we may disagree... nothing personal.I agree with this sentiment, untill people make personal attacks on me.. then those people can get fcked.as for the question, I agree that there are many reasons that I would personally kill another person and almost all of them deal with me, my family or friends that I consider family being threatened. War goes far beyond this, how ever.. I have no problem with wars that are about defending yourself from an aggressive nation that threats your country. How ever few wars are that simple, and few wars the united states has ever fought have fallen under that category. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 In your mind, when bush is finished, and troops are pulled out, which i'm sure is going to happen. What will your view of the world be? still scared of terrorist attacks?I think I will always feel the threat of terrorist attacks, because they could always happen, whether our armyis across the globe or not.will you support the army/navy/airforce more after the fact? Again, I feel the same way about our armed forces now as I did 10 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I respect your opinionI took a War and terrorism course in college. Very neutral since i'm canadian and in reality, we have no real reason to skew the info.The Gulf War was pretty wack, and now, 11 years later when Bush jr became president and the US is back into fighting aggression and terrorism etc.i dunno. I think you guys were lucky to get Clinton in there when you did. Its just amazing that he managed to serve 2 terms and his biggest known "oops" was a jizz stain.In your mind, when bush is finished, and troops are pulled out, which i'm sure is going to happen. What will your view of the world be? still scared of terrorist attacks?will you support the army/navy/airforce more after the fact?Clinton was no innocent, and he was not above bombing Iraq, or getting involved in a minor conflict every time a scandal came out. This is one of the biggest things i have a problem with, is the Pres using to armed forces and war to push his own personal agendas. The most famous of these was nixon and kissenger. Kissenger helped derail the paris peace talks Between US/south Viet and North vietnam. He promised the south a better deal when nixon got ellected, and the whole peace talks fell apart. Then, Nixon and Kissenger purposefully delayed the pulling out of troops from Vietnam untill after the 72 election.. if you think that's just conspiracy theory nutballism... they have released the white house tape between Nixon/HK where HK recomends the delay... If you want to know more about the horrible way Kissenger/Nixon used that war as a politcal toy, I encourage you to read "the Trial of Henry Kissenger" by christopher hitchens or the documentary based on that work " The trials of Henry Kissenger". I've never been so angry as I was when I walked out of that movie.. I couldn't see straight.. so what did I do? I went to play omaha and played horrendously because I was already on tilt.. lol Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Clinton was no innocent, and he was not above bombing Iraq, or getting involved in a minor conflict every time a scandal came out. This is one of the biggest things i have a problem with, is the Pres using to armed forces and war to push his own personal agendas. The most famous of these was nixon and kissenger. Kissenger helped derail the paris peace talks Between US/south Viet and North vietnam. He promised the south a better deal when nixon got ellected, and the whole peace talks fell apart. Then, Nixon and Kissenger purposefully delayed the pulling out of troops from Vietnam untill after the 72 election.. if you think that's just conspiracy theory nutballism... they have released the white house tape between Nixon/HK where HK recomends the delay... If you want to know more about the horrible way Kissenger/Nixon used that war as a politcal toy, I encourage you to read "the Trial of Henry Kissenger" by christopher hitchens or the documentary based on that work " The trials of Henry Kissenger". I've never been so angry as I was when I walked out of that movie.. I couldn't see straight.. so what did I do? I went to play omaha and played horrendously because I was already on tilt.. lolNixon was a disaster. But before my time. Clinton came into office during the Gulf War. He managed to clean up most of the mess that was made by deploying ground troops into Iraq/KuwaitI personally think Clinton was a good president. I'm not sure how the rest of you feel, but I think the majority of the country would agree to an extent Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,354 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Nixon was a disaster. But before my time. Clinton came into office during the Gulf War. He managed to clean up most of the mess that was made by deploying ground troops into Iraq/KuwaitI personally think Clinton was a good president. I'm not sure how the rest of you feel, but I think the majority of the country would agree to an extentI have a pretty low opinion of presidents across the board.. clinton.. was a snappy dresser, I'll give that to him.. and he could tell a hell of a speech.. I loved him when I was a kid.. I hated him when I was a radical.. now, like many things, I am pretty "Meh" on him. He was brilliant, I give him big points for that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now