United Nations: You Have No Right To Self-Defense

The problem is that they don't classify criminal bottomfeeders as such, they are just unfortunate specimens and it's our social obligation to help them.

Sorry.

I value my life and time more than trying to help a dead cause in these individuals.
 
no, it wasn't

Perhaps "legally get away with" was not the right phrase to use,
Click to expand...

In the Texas penal code, and I expect in other states' as well, the phrase is "affirmative defense to prosecution". Fact is, though, that by definition an assault is a criminal act. You may hit someone in self defense. You may shoot someone in self defense. But you do not assault in self defense, because the two are an oxymoron.

The UN needs to go sit on somebody else's expensive real estate. Maybe they'd like to set up shop in Beirut? Darfur? Oh, no, wait...probably not... :barf: And the ACLU can go with 'em.

Springmom
 
Kowboy said:
While I don't agree with all their positions, I am proud to be an ACLU member.

The UN is a speck on the screen compared to the complete disregard and contempt George Bush and company have displayed for the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

This may surprise some here that have known me since I went under the moniker sensop here on TFL, but I have some grounds for agreement with Kowboy here.

There was a time ... yup, the ACLU has an honored past of being the instrument of test for laws that needed a test of Constitutionality. The SCOTUS seemed to give the ACLU standing that any of we individuals lacked and they brought, right or wrong, arguments to the court that demanded a Constitutionality ruling. That was a good thing, because it caused the striking down of many premises embodied in statute and law that were sponsored by agenda, political in nature.

Then the courts changed and Congress, as usual, was more interested in buying votes with legislation than it was in fulfilling it's Constitutional duty. Because the Congress could have reigned in the Court a long time ago.

As far as the contempt displayed by Bush and Company goes, I don't completely agree, since I don't see the outright, and rampant, political greed and willingness to create a new reality in politics that I have observed in the other side of the aisle over the past three decades. That said, I wonder how much of a Republic we will have remaining, after this latest War on a Noun. The only thing I feel sure of is that the alternatives were worse. The dark side ( ;) ) has nearly convinced most of us that we live in a democracy, not a republic. At least so far, the ballot box still works. The fiction of the stolen election has been put to bed for all except those that don't care about facts.

I am not assured that the Republic will survive this last 14 years. I may be guilty of a lack of faith, but I need to see some sign that tomorrow I won't wake up in a country that has lost its identity to the North American Union.
 
But you do not assault in self defense, because the two are an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

But isn't the "affirmative defense" language you cite a defense to some kind of charge or potential charge? What would that charge be? Assualt in some degree. So if it went to trial, and you were found not guilty, it would be because you acted in self defense.

To reach that conclusion, the jury would have to make a finding of fact that an assault did occur and then make an additional finding of fact that you acted in self defense, and are therefore excused from any conviction or punishment for the assault.
 
If I have to assault someone to defend myself, I have still assaulted them. The question is, do I have a defense? If I do, then I have avoided being charged or convicted of assault by virtue of the fact that it was legal for me to commit the assault. If the assault is legal, then it is not a criminal act. If the homocide is legal, then it is not a criminal act.
Click to expand...


There is simply a problem with applying the word "assault" to describe the act of using force to defend against attack.

- If my girlfriend takes $20 out of my wallet after I tell her she may, she is not committing "legal theft." She is simply taking $20 that she was authorized to take.

- If I mount a third wheel onto my bicycle, I have not created a "three-wheeled bicycle." I have created a tricycle.

- If someone attacks me, and I use force to put down the attack, I have not "assaulted him, but legally." I may have hit him, I may even have killed him, but "assault's" definition has to include an element of illegality or else it is not assault.


-azurefly
 
wow, that was nonsensical (coming from an obviously unbiased site </insert sarcasm>)

sounds as bad as those creationist sites trying to pass off their theory (by trying to discredit science) as something credible.
 
Gee. Polymer, it's sure a good thing you didn't post a comment that was inflammatory and/or off-topic!

C'mon, knock it off. The topic to which you made analogy is something about which good people often hold hugely divergent opinions; and while those differing opinions may indeed affect work done in the sciences or religious scholarship, for most of us it doesn't make a bit of practical difference either way.

...On the other hand, if the UN disarms us, we'll all be agreeing with whoever it is that does have the guns, even those of us who think it is fun to whack a hornet's nest.
 
On the other hand, if the UN disarms us, we'll all be agreeing with whoever it is that does have the guns, even those of us who think it is fun to whack a hornet's nest.
Click to expand...
Whereas this is probably a true statement regarding some of the people born and raised in the US, I doubt, given our historical propensity for distrust of all things "King's Men", the majority, or even a fair sized minority, would go peacefully into that good night. I'm quite certain that said few who choose to disembark from the UN World Peace Good Ship Lollypop will be labeled criminals, as were a few good men (depending on your POV) back in 1775-82... or so our history has taught us. Once our (future) revised history books show ALL of our forefathers as criminals, once those who were taught otherwise have all passed on and a new generation of "newthink" kids have grown up embracing that type of thought process, all bets are off.

So, keep teaching the kids about "whacking hornet's nests". Dangerous... sure. Exhilerating, when successful. Takes a little forethought, but can prove fruitfull in eliminating the little buggars... for awhile.

As usual... Interesting times, in which we live, neh?
 
you're right, roberta. I was merely being cynical, because it's on an obviously one-sided site; I'm wary of far-left sites as well.

of course I don't want anyone barging in my house, confiscating my gun, or my chemicals (i'm a polymer research chemist). I suppose I'm more of a libertarian than a liberal.
 
Baba Louie: you're sure about that? I sure wish I was. I sure do. I figure if major gun-grabbing happens, I'm gonna die alone, standing in a big pile of spent brass. It's embarrasin'.

Polymer: take it from a veteran of banning (elsewhere), there really are topics we're best off avoiding.
 
RobertaX,
Sorry it took me awhile to get back on track.
No, I'm not really sure. I figure a few would be willing to resist. Maybe 1 in 25,000. Maybe.

I do remember when California banned "Assault Weapons" and had a "pre-registration" period, the number who actually did register was... well, really low. So I assume that many kept things hush hush or maybe they drove across the borders to AZ and NV and (ahem) sold things off.

Will they, or any like them ever come out of the wood work? Here's to hoping we never have to find out. It has happened in the past. For some reason our government doesn't really believe in or remember the Santayana adage about "Those who forget history..." For that matter, a lot of citizens don't seem to remember that one either.

I wonder why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top