You might not be from London, Kentucky, however. Maybe London, Ontario or London, England, which latter is where at least one of that type of scenario has happened--among countless other additional types.

In that case, let's go back to Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England: "The rights of self-defence is the first law of nature {sic}...when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

It's the mentality like one anti-gunner in NY that has led to England's and Australia's crime surges: To deal with armed assailants, she suggests telling them that you know they're upset, and being compassionate and relating to them. (No smiley face here.)

Interesting that England's police, who never carried guns when the populace was armed, now have armed themselves from the prevailing lawlessness resulting from disarming the people. Criminals know they have free rein.

No, you're not a sadist. The sadists are those who strip people of their means of defense. I understand even Ghandi wrote, "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

Take heed, folks. Like Patrick Henry said, "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 08, 2003).]

The Second Ammendment doesn't say anything about having a right to shoot burglars.

That said, we do have a right to defend ourselves against criminals, and all reasonable governments recognize that right (by definition, any government that deny the right of self defense is unreasonable).

Of course, even reasonable governments can set limits on how far the right of self defense extends. For instance, if a burglar has already been subdued and restrained (say you've used a frying pan and foot locker to good effect already) and you shoot him at that point, even a very liberal interpretation of the right of self defense would have to exclude your action. Shooting an unconscious man that you have locked in a box is beyond unsporting, unless you've given him a fair trial before his peers.

quote:

---

The Second Ammendment doesn't say anything about having a right to shoot burglars.

---

If we have a right to bear arms, it's only reasonable there's a reason for us to do so, and hunting is not at the top of the list. If we claim the 2nd Amendment gives us no right to shoot burlars, then we end up parsing the amendment to say we have a right to bear arms, but not use them.

quote:

---

we do have a right to defend ourselves against criminals, and all reasonable governments recognize that right

---

Trouble is, there's too much unreasonableness in governments today, eg, our Supreme Court ruled that criminals can't be required to register their guns or be charged with possession of unregistered guns. Only the law-abiding must comply. (I am not making this up.)
By the very act of disarming its people, a government unreasonably denies their right to defend themselves against criminals.
And keep in mind that, at least in the US, police have no legal duty to prevent crime or protect victims -- courts have upheld that fact, too.

There's also the fact that guns are considered a great equalizer for women who generally have less strength and body mass, so even having a knife for a woman could be disastrous. Ditto the elderly.

Bottom line, what you subsidize, you get more of. Disarming people is, in effect, subsidizing crime because it removes deterrence. Common sense and surveys of criminals say so. People have a right to self defense.

I want guard dogs. Guard dogs so mean, their trainers would be affraid to come down here.

At least, I think that's it...

Or get a baseball bat. Then beat the burglar bloody. That's always fun.

Not only that, but the topic of this discussion was brought up without any documentation.

If this actually happened, and was actually reported in the media, it would be nice to know where and when.

Also, I can guarantee to everyone here that there is more to the story than we were given at the beginning of this discussion, and I'd be willing to bet that even if we did know all that was reported in the media, we still wouldn't know the whole story.

This is a rather wild discussion regarding something on which we have been told very little.

On the other hand, I have to disagree that there is necessarily "more to the story than we were given at the beginning of this discussion," ever since I actually read some of the material that passes for judicial reasoning in this country (the best I can say is that we don't win the prize for stupidest judges ever...but that's really not saying much).

Actually, I'm curious about

quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that even if we did know all that was reported in the media, we still wouldn't know the whole story.

---

No, this has nothing to do with writing directly, but a question was asked. Still, there is the concern about loss of rights today, and freedom of speech and of the press, which includes publishing, is on the block as well. Just check out some of the so-called "hate speech" arguments.