Poll: Could you kill someone

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 134
  1. #61
    Scruffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,560
    Reputation
    344
    Thanks
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
    id beat his ass,
    and only shoot him if he tried to do sumthing to my family
    implying that you, a 14 year old (?), could 'beat his ass'.

    Gifts
    Czar [x][x]
    Liz [x][x]

  2. #62
    Insomniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    9,295
    Reputation
    1056
    Thanks
    4,294,967,295
    i can kill someone and be fine with it
    its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
    @Scruffy im 16 now thank you

  3. #63
    Scruffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,560
    Reputation
    344
    Thanks
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
    i can kill someone and be fine with it
    its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
    @Scruffy im 16 now thank you
    If he was trespassing on your property, you have every right to end his life.
    and okay. However, my statement applies. The way I remember it, you're pretty skinny and lack the physique to handle a fight with any robber that I can think of. Not to mention, most robbers go in with a weapon of some sorts (switchblade, gun, bat, tire iron, etc.)

    In a 1on1 open room fight, even if you got the drop on him, in most cases, you would lose.

    Gifts
    Czar [x][x]
    Liz [x][x]

  4. #64
    Disturbed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    10,427
    Reputation
    1065
    Thanks
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
    i can kill someone and be fine with it
    its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
    @Scruffy im 16 now thank you
    The south FTW.

    Florida has a law statute called "Stand your ground". It basically states that if you feel threatened, the average citizen has the right to use deadly force. Etc, if someone is stalking you, breaks into your house, a store robbery, you can defend yourself and not face any charges.

    Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law has been controversial since Governor Jeb Bush signed it into law on April 26, 2005.

    The Protection of Persons/Use of Force Bill (the Judiciary Committee’s Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 436) expanded an individual’s legal right to use force in self-defense, including deadly force, without fear of criminal or civil consequences.
    In doing so, the law abrogated “the common
    law duty to retreat when attacked before using force, including deadly
    force in self-defense or defense of others.”


    Twenty three states have followed Florida’s lead in passing similar legislation, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
    https://www.law.miami.edu/studentorg/...no1/MIA102.pdf
    Last edited by Disturbed; 03-09-2011 at 10:07 PM.


  5. #65
    blacksaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,686
    Reputation
    12
    Thanks
    356
    My Mood
    Dead
    Quote Originally Posted by Insomniac View Post
    i can kill someone and be fine with it
    its just the results (like going to prison) which would make me pause
    @Scruffy im 16 now thank you
    Unless you're fit/get the jump on the attacker (if he breaks into your house chances are he'll have the jump on you) he's going to beat the shit out of you. A lot of people even have their own "personal defense" firearm turned on them by home invaders. Guns are pretty expensive, and thieves definitely steal/look for them


    Also, for the most part, the 2nd amendment really shouldn't be around anymore.
    Last edited by blacksaber; 03-09-2011 at 10:02 PM.
    Thanks for the sig Ryan

    Gifts:
    Frostythesnowman
    EPK

  6. #66
    Insomniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    9,295
    Reputation
    1056
    Thanks
    4,294,967,295
    im from the north

  7. #67
    Scruffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,560
    Reputation
    344
    Thanks
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by blacksaber View Post

    Also, for the most part, the 2nd amendment really shouldn't be around anymore.
    It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

    In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”

    Gifts
    Czar [x][x]
    Liz [x][x]

  8. #68
    blacksaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,686
    Reputation
    12
    Thanks
    356
    My Mood
    Dead
    Quote Originally Posted by Scruffy View Post


    It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

    In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”
    And with a standing army, and no militia, do we really need firearms to overthrow our government (what the amendment was originally written to enable)
    Thanks for the sig Ryan

    Gifts:
    Frostythesnowman
    EPK

  9. #69
    Threadstarter
    𝕡𝕠𝕔𝕜𝕖𝕥𝕤 𝕤𝕠 𝕗𝕒𝕥
    Admin
    arunforce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Gender
    male
    Location
    A place for amigos
    Posts
    22,707
    Reputation
    3409
    Thanks
    10,672
    My Mood
    Yeehaw
    Quote Originally Posted by Scruffy View Post


    It pretty much isn't thanks to this:

    In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, Justice John Paul Stevens said:
    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”
    Yeah, of course they had no intention of civilians carrying guns, I mean it's not like America has it's origin from revolting against a tyrannic government or anything. Not like they didn't plan that it would be needed in case of our own government, or anything. Idiot(s).



    v1.96 - Tutorials, Upgraded Town, Def Revamp
    v1.97 - Cutscenes/Quests, Friend List
    v1.98 - Classes, Necklace/Rings
    v1.99 - Guilds
    v2.00 - Open Beta


  10. #70
    Krypton1x's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Tacoma
    Posts
    13,305
    Reputation
    1184
    Thanks
    1,196
    My Mood
    Brooding
    I could easily do it.

  11. #71
    Scruffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,560
    Reputation
    344
    Thanks
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by blacksaber View Post
    And with a standing army, and no militia, do we really need firearms to overthrow our government (what the amendment was originally written to enable)
    Government only exists by the consent of the governed. If the majority of the population boycotted the government, eventually, it would cease to exist. So no, firearms are not necessarily needed.
    also, in any case of government overthrow, the group overthrowing the existing government didn't exactly care to practice good civic virtue

    Quote Originally Posted by arunforce View Post


    Yeah, of course they had no intention of civilians carrying guns, I mean it's not like America has it's origin from revolting against a tyrannic government or anything. Not like they didn't plan that it would be needed in case of our own government, or anything. Idiot(s).
    Not my statements. However, I agree that not every civilian should have the right to carry a gun.

    Also, in the case of revolutions, who cares about common law? Rebelling is against the law as it is. So, in a rebellion against the government, no one will be considering the 2nd amendment as they do not believe in the rest of what the government symbolizes.
    Last edited by Scruffy; 03-09-2011 at 10:37 PM.

    Gifts
    Czar [x][x]
    Liz [x][x]

  12. #72
    Threadstarter
    𝕡𝕠𝕔𝕜𝕖𝕥𝕤 𝕤𝕠 𝕗𝕒𝕥
    Admin
    arunforce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Gender
    male
    Location
    A place for amigos
    Posts
    22,707
    Reputation
    3409
    Thanks
    10,672
    My Mood
    Yeehaw
    Quote Originally Posted by Scruffy View Post

    Not my statements. However, I agree that not every civilian should have the right to carry a gun.

    Also, in the case of revolutions, who cares about common law? Rebelling is against the law as it is.
    Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

    Let the slaughter begin.

    So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

    Great idea.



    v1.96 - Tutorials, Upgraded Town, Def Revamp
    v1.97 - Cutscenes/Quests, Friend List
    v1.98 - Classes, Necklace/Rings
    v1.99 - Guilds
    v2.00 - Open Beta


  13. #73
    blacksaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    1,686
    Reputation
    12
    Thanks
    356
    My Mood
    Dead
    Quote Originally Posted by arunforce View Post


    Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

    Let the slaughter begin.

    So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

    Great idea.
    The robberies would only be on a 1 on 1 or home level though? Which is very low risk when compared to say... a bank robbery or holding up a 7-11?
    Thanks for the sig Ryan

    Gifts:
    Frostythesnowman
    EPK

  14. #74
    Scruffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,560
    Reputation
    344
    Thanks
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by arunforce View Post


    Lets say that the US government repeals the second amendment. Ok, now you don't have the right to bear arms. Now, they say since you don't have the need to bear guns, lets remove all guns from the USA. If the government takes all the guns, destroys them, blocks imports, etc, till the scarcity is incredibly high, the cost of obtaining them in a revolution or any particular matter becomes increasingly hard. Where's your gun(s) now? Ok, now we got a Libya on our hands. The only guns we can get our hands on maybe the very few soldiers we can kill, with the limited supply of ammo we can pick off them.

    Let the slaughter begin.

    So, those are big what ifs, right? Say that the government just bans guns and removes them. So we got an England on our hands. Sure, less gun related deaths, but more robberies now that guns are banned, the people who have them are already breaking the law, so they don't care about having guns. Easier to rob someone defending themselves with a kitchen knife. It sure is easier to rob someone knowing they don't have a gun.

    Great idea.
    Now you're just making random arguments. I said not every citizen should have the right. For instance, I believe that the background checks on those applying for firearms should be more rigorous and the person should take a 1 week course on gun safety and pass a test at the end of said course. Also, convicted felons and those who are classified as mentally unstable or retarded should be denied that right as well.
    Not to mention all you just did was present the extremes of a situation no one brought up until you just did.

    Gifts
    Czar [x][x]
    Liz [x][x]

  15. #75
    MC²'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Gender
    male
    Location
    somewhere between here and there
    Posts
    2,794
    Reputation
    174
    Thanks
    314
    My Mood
    Brooding
    hmmm that depends if im in a good mood that day lol

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast