XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: No_email_for_you@wahoo.com   
      
   "Dechucka"  wrote in   
   news:x76dnZXDCcw5S__OnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:   
      
   > So you feel that you have the right to take away someones life on your   
   > whim or def'n of a threat?   
      
   If you're ever attacked, just die, and we'll all sit around and talk about   
   the moral choice you made.   
      
   It is not a "whim". In American law there are firm definitions. In general   
   the condition is "immediate threat of death or greivous bodily injury". And   
   it will be judged after the fact in most cases by opeople who are not in   
   the situation. This creates a situation where you have a Hobson's choice -   
   death or grievous bodily injury OR persecution by the law afterward. Isn't   
   that civilized?   
      
   In many states the defintion is broader if you are in your own home   
   especially at night. If someone breaks into your home at night it can be   
   assumed that they ain't there to sell Girl Scout cookies.   
      
   So you're little fantasy of Americans walking around shooting people   
   randomly is, bluntly, ill informed, bigoted and frankly just plain stupid.   
      
   --   
   When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then   
   neither are the people.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)