[Dr House]

self-protection is a right

-Dr House

There you go

No, but seriously. If a woman is attacked in a dark alley, I think she has the right to defend herself, seeing as society can't help her at that particular vulnerable moment. Like I said before, society can't be everywhere, and I wouldn't like them to be.

[Vera Politica]

Abood, the problem with your OP, is that you're saing 'liberal' as if only 'modern liberals' are liberal. Conservatives are liberal too.

Its modern Liberalism that just doesn't make any sense, not 'liberalism' in general as you put it.

[Zyx]

No, but seriously. If a woman is attacked in a dark alley, I think she has the right to defend herself, seeing as society can't help her at that particular vulnerable moment. Like I said before, society can't be everywhere, and I wouldn't like them to be.

I hope you realize that there is no right.

I am reminded of someone else signature where they quoted the rights as mentioned by Malcolm X. I am reminded of it because it goes to show how a reasonable statement can be well qualified and logical but can actually not be a right.

I would agree with you that a woman attacked should be able to attack back, but that is not a right and so when I say that it is not a right, I mean that it is not a right, rather that it is not unreasonable.

Just the same, if you were in a crowded train and a person took a bomb out of its bag and started to activate it, you DO NOT have a RIGHT to hit the person in the face and get rid of the bomb . . . it would be reasonable, yes, but it is NOT a right.

In other words, do not use the word right if there is no right pertaining to such.

You have a right to write up a newspaper, not a right to self-protection.

[Dr House]

By that definition, you also have a right to bear arms.

[Zyx]

Aye, but not in self-defense.

[Onion Poptarts]

I'm against almost all forms of gun control. I do however believe your average citizen has no need to own a 50 caliber machine gun and such a weapon should be restricted. I see the 2nd amendment as the 4th check and balance in the US government. By this I mean if for whatever reason the 3 checks and balances of the US government start working together against the people in such an extreme way that the people no longer feel the government has a right to govern them. Then as long as they still have weapons they can remove said government.

You can say "what good are these rifles and pistols against tanks and machine guns". The answer is, there very good. A tank can fire a 105 mm shell into a building and level it, killing God knows how many people. But the single bullet fired from a Remington 700 at 1000 meters into the head of a man kills him every time. A single bullet can remove a key political figure and change the course of a government. After all look at Fidel Castro and what few soldiers he had. Armed only with bolt action rifles all of which I believe were made in little old Illion New York, he was able to over throw a government(I know there was more to it but were talking about weapons here).

I can remember an occasion where I was in a bar in Lexington Kentucky, a fight broke out. One of the men involved was carrying a pistol. He ended up getting beat down, but he never at any point drew the pistol or threatened to use it. Because he understood what his weapon was for and when it is appropriate to use it. I don't think it can be said that owning a weapon makes you a more violent person with out a doubt. Its all about how you view the weapon you own. Do you see it as a tool to be used to resolve a situation where your life is in imminent danger. Or is it a tool which you can use to wield power in a situation you have no control over.

[Rancid]

what's the difference between a Remington 710 and 700? I was looking into getting a 710

[Zyx]

Onion Poptarts; would you shoot an American soldier maddened by American politicians to change your government?

Would you approve of the killing of a police officer under the killer's appeal of the officer enforcing a bad law?

Would you shoot a foreigner placed outside of your house by your nation's leaders?

Do answer the three questions; the last of which I would like a detailed account as to why or why not.

[Onion Poptarts]

The major difference between a 700 and 710, a 710 is a cheaper design using more plastic parts. I know a guy who got one for his son as his first hunting rifle and had some plastic part break on it almost instantly. Though there is some improvements which were made in how the bolt locks into the barrel, but I'm not familiar with how exactly how this new idea works or how it is an improvement upon the original design. If your in the market of getting a Remington rifle in the 700 series id recommend you get ether the police or military model. They have thicker barrels which cause less vibration and create greater accuracy at distance. However this adds weight, and if your getting the rifle to carry with you in the woods well your hunting id look into getting the time tested 700 or one of the improved models designed for the outdoors men. Not a cheaper model designed for a person on a smaller budget. With weapons like so many other things you get what you paid for, and especially with precision rifles I see no reason to not buy quality.

On to the questions!

would you shoot an American soldier maddened by American politicians to change your government?

I don't fully understand your first question. This soldier is mad at the politicians, I got that much. The next part confuses me though or maybe I don't understand it properly. So by shooting him this would change the government? I don't understand how a situation would come about where I'd have to shoot a soldier if he was already angry with the government. After all wouldn't he be on my side then?

Would you approve of the killing of a police officer under the killer's appeal of the officer enforcing a bad law?

Absolutely not. To quote Che Guevara.

Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

for this situation id apply the quote to mean that as long as a form of democracy still exist, it is possible to change laws by non-violent means. Now if the government made voting illegal and declared someone dictator or what have you for life, then I would approve the death of all enforcers of such a government as it is unconstitutional.

Would you shoot a foreigner placed outside of your house by your nation's leaders?

This question I also struggle to understand. So I wake up and there is a foreigner out side of my house whom my government told to be there? I would probably see him one morning and ask him why he's standing on my lawn. Then from him I would find out that the government told him to stand there. Then knowing this if he appeared peaceful and spoke to me in a friendly and respectable manor id invite him in for coffee. So we could talk further on what exactly brought him to my lawn and why he's there. As for killing him I couldn't really see my self doing that unless he was attempting to say burn my house down, or harm my family or property. In most of those situations id more likely just deprive him of means to do damage to my property or family and call the police. I guess I don't fully see the point of the question, if you rephrase it or clear up my confusion ill be happy to answer your questions.[/quote]

[Zyx]

I don't fully understand your first question. This soldier is mad at the politicians, I got that much. The next part confuses me though or maybe I don't understand it properly. So by shooting him this would change the government? I don't understand how a situation would come about where I'd have to shoot a soldier if he was already angry with the government. After all wouldn't he be on my side then?

Geez. I try to be ornate and then I get reminded as to why I am no writer.

No; the soldier is corrupted by the government. In essence, the American military, that comprises our neighbors (Americans), is turned against you by the government.

Would you shoot the child then?

Now if the government made voting illegal and declared someone dictator or what have you for life, then I would approve the death of all enforcers of such a government as it is unconstitutional.

Ok, so you are the enforcer of the constitution.

What if there were a constitutional convention . . .and you know how hard that is; would you cease it? Just an irrelevant side question.

I guess I don't fully see the point of the question, if you rephrase it or clear up my confusion ill be happy to answer your questions

Ok, well the first question was what the Government CAN do; that is, reappoint the military to its own corrupt will.

The second was what the Government does do.

The third, is what the Government of past WOULD have done . . . basically, a mercenary military by a tyrannical government, would you fight it?

I suppose you would, but it is certainly a character that would go through with such a task.

I doubt I would wage war against a mercenary army . . . but I can see how sometimes good hearted people would.

Anyway, understand the question . . . I suppose these are not very relevant.

But, how about this one. Where was your gun when the Government introduced the Patriot Act?

[Onion Poptarts]

Where was your gun when the Government introduced the Patriot Act?

I have to go back to my Che Guevara quote. As long as democratic means remain there is no need to remove the government by force. At the time it originally came into act I owned no fire arms and have purchased very few since then.

Now that I understand your first question I have to decline to answer. As it is illegal for me to answer it at this moment in time.

I would wage full out war against a mercenary army. Because they were mercenary's I couldn't see my self keeping any prisoners long term unless to exchange them with our own. So most likely after intelligence was extracted from the mercenary's id just execute them.

[Zyx]

Now that I understand your first question I have to decline to answer. As it is illegal for me to answer it at this moment in time.

Hmm, I suppose this means that you would . . . interesting.

I could not see it as brilliant to kill a soldier on either side . . . one who is just following orders at least, especially minimally.

Also, I wanted to see if you valued nationals over foreigners, though it is unclear whether you do or not . . . I find it strange though, just thinking about how the Second Amendment would need to be evoked . . . as in, thinking about how the government can become tyrannical. I would think that the homegrown military would be use, or else . . . we'd know something was up when they disbanded the military (or executed the whole of them.)

But I guess a gun to prepare for a mercenary army controlled by our government has its legitimacy, much the same as an umbrella does on a Sunny forecast, or a fire extinguisher in the polar artics.

Funny enough, I try to carry an umbrella with me all the time, but that's mostly because I do not check the forecast and it fit in my bag. Otherwise, being certain that it would not rain and carrying an umbrella is silly, much the same as carrying a gun to a government unlikely to appeal to mercenary soldiers (being that there are few about, to my knowledge--though that is limited.)

Are there mercenaries today that can take over nations?

[Onion Poptarts]

Absolutely there are mercenary's which could take over nations. Let me name a few Global security force and of course Black water.

Now keep in mind that neither of these groups like to be called mercenary's and they both claim there not mercenary's but rather professional soldiers for hire. I remember not to long ago I called a man who works for black water a mercenary. He got all up tight in a hurry, and said he wasn't a mercenary because black water only fights for NATO nations and never against them. I said but you left the US army to join black water so you could make more money doing the same thing, doesn't this make you a mercenary? He went on with pretty much the same argument he made earlier and after a good minute of arguing over what makes a mercenary a mercenary I agreed with him that he wasn't a mercenary just to shut him up. I still believe though that black water and its counter parts are in fact mercenary's.

I cant remember how long ago but I don't think it was more then 10 years ago. Black water was involved in a war some where in Africa. With only 300 men and 1 helicopter they defeated 3000 soldiers and installed a new government in the country.

Black water is labeled as a security force that works with the US military. True they do protect high ranking officials, but they also go out on patrol and conduct interrogation of prisoners. There not supposed to be direct combat units, but its not uncommon to find a black water guy giving you sniper over watch in Iraq or Afghanistan. I couldn't tell you how many of them there are but I know there numbers are growing as the US army is having quiet a problem keeping its green berets and rangers from going over to them. I don't think there strong enough to be able to seize Washington D.C. and hold it, but they are big enough to wield power in the international community and take over small countrys.

[Zyx]

I stand corrected, interesting stuff.

I was not really opposed to guns for a ward against governments; just guns as weapons of self-defense, hunting tools, or amendments to power.

Also, I feel as though a better repulsion [other than each citizen] against the government would suffice, like a militia armory room in every city [since it could be seized one at a time but probably not all at the same time] and also I felt as though nuclear weapons were real and well . . . victory against the US is undoable.

Oh well, but that Black Water is interesting stuff.

I do not know if everyone having a gun though is all that smart; or having a Samurai [people allowed to carry swords in courts] force.

A gun at home for when the government betrays is alright . . . but I find that if the government wants to kill you it can do so 20 times and a fight is not going to win against it.

Maybe I flail my hands too early though; I'm not one to fight wrestlers.