OT: Non-lethal violence in self defense

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by Microcephalic S. Bob, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. For a variety of reasons, I've been given to research laws with regarding
    violence today.

    First and foremost, we had the discussion here, with regards to killing a
    perpetrator.

    I'd concluded that non-lethal methods, like a 'stun gun', might be better
    than shooting someone. I was wrong, we're fscked.

    244.5. (a) As used in this section, "stun gun" means any item,
    except a taser, used or intended to be used as either an offensive or
    defensive weapon that is capable of temporarily immobilizing a
    person by the infliction of an electrical charge.
    (b) Every person who commits an assault upon the person of another
    with a stun gun or taser shall be punished by imprisonment in a
    county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in
    the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years.

    I thought that was interesting.

    I also had to look into assault & battery, largely to teach someone here at
    the house that attempting to solve problems through threats and violence.
    This one should be interesting to those who want to get into a fight to
    defend their wallet.

    ---
    CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
    SECTION 240-248

    Assault

    240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
    ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

    241. (a) An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
    thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not
    exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

    Battery

    242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
    upon the person of another.

    243. (a) A battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two
    thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not
    exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

    (B) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs
    of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are
    the direct result of the defendant's offense.

    (d) When a battery is committed against any person and serious
    bodily injury is inflicted on the person, the battery is punishable
    by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
    imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

    ---

    So, if JaR were to get into two-fisted, er... fisticuffs(!) over his
    fictional $25,000 harley*, he could face up to $3000 (cha-ching) in fines
    right off the bat, and 6 months to four years of prison, depending on how
    good of a fighter he is(!), and during the prison time, would not pass 'Go',
    and would lose salary and wife priveledges. Assuming JaR makes minimum wage
    [$10/hr (cha-ching)]* at 40 hours a week, that's $400 weekly (cha-ching), 6
    months is 26 weeks, 26 * $400 (cha-ching) = $10400 (cha-ching).

    So, with the minimum sentence for kicking the guy's butt who tried to steal
    his harley, he's halfway paid for the harley. If he did a year in the joint
    for pulsing the perps testicles with an electron beam, he could have bought
    another Harley. Now, keep in mind, that's only the criminal part of all of
    this. There's also the civil part, wherein the crook that JaR beat up gets
    to sue him for legal bills, pain, suffering, loss of 'work', hemmorhoid
    cream, pistachio nuts, and his newfound insecurity complex.

    Cha-ching! Grand total for JaR: $100,000 plus prison time. (cha-ching)
    (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive)
    (enough already) (enough already) (enough already) (cha-ching)

    Now, since I've heard tell that JaR is a big guy, like of the Hoss Cartright
    persuasion, only with a blue mohawk and a ghandi tattoo, and since rodeo
    clowns are cooler than ninjas, he probably knows egyption kung fu. So our
    astounding grand total is (suspense) (suspense) ONE MEELEEON DOLLERS!

    Conclusion: Compare the total value of all of your property to ONE MEELEEON
    DOLLERS and subtract it. That's how much you'll owe a criminal if you kick
    their butt.

    Moral: If you can, get away safely, let them get away, contact the
    AUTHORITIES, let the criminal get caught, and sue the hell out of THEM.
    Violence will only work against you.

    * = [not sure what the real one cost and it's not important for this
    example]

    Microcephalic S. Bob
    http://www.roblindman.com - ONE MEELEEON DOLLERS!
    Microcephalic S. Bob, Oct 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Microcephalic S. Bob

    Beoweolf Guest

    Re: Non-lethal violence in self defense

    What about Cosmic balance? The inconvenience of incarceration, the inequity
    of fines and legal retribution; all these things pale in comparison to our
    duty to enforce the rules of karma, whenever possible. As stated in most
    western thought, "My god is a vengeful god". Sex and violence, the two most
    remarkable traits of humanity are also the most regulated.

    No man should leave a woman's bed with her unsatisfied. Nor in this case,
    when presented with a plaintive cry for correction, no man should refuse a
    miscreant the butt-whooping they demand and deserve. To do any less is to
    deny them the chance to achieve nirvana. Life's lessons are presented at
    sometimes peculiar stages in ones life, if the lesson isn't learned when
    presented, it may take another or several lifetimes before the opportunity
    presents itself again. Is it fair to think only of yourself? To refuse to
    participate, is selfish. Even The Buddha, remained on earth, to pass on his
    knowledge...even after he had attained enlightenment. He understood his duty
    was to share his knowledge, even at the cost of delaying his ascension.

    'tongue planted firmly in cheek. And Oh how Cheeky.

    "Microcephalic S. Bob" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > For a variety of reasons, I've been given to research laws with regarding
    > violence today.
    >
    > First and foremost, we had the discussion here, with regards to killing a
    > perpetrator.
    >
    > I'd concluded that non-lethal methods, like a 'stun gun', might be better
    > than shooting someone. I was wrong, we're fscked.
    >
    > 244.5. (a) As used in this section, "stun gun" means any item,
    > except a taser, used or intended to be used as either an offensive or
    > defensive weapon that is capable of temporarily immobilizing a
    > person by the infliction of an electrical charge.
    > (b) Every person who commits an assault upon the person of another
    > with a stun gun or taser shall be punished by imprisonment in a
    > county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in
    > the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years.
    >
    > I thought that was interesting.
    >
    > I also had to look into assault & battery, largely to teach someone here
    > at the house that attempting to solve problems through threats and
    > violence. This one should be interesting to those who want to get into a
    > fight to defend their wallet.
    >
    > ---
    > CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
    > SECTION 240-248
    >
    > Assault
    >
    > 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
    > ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
    >
    > 241. (a) An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
    > thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not
    > exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
    >
    > Battery
    >
    > 242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
    > upon the person of another.
    >
    > 243. (a) A battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two
    > thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not
    > exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
    >
    > (B) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs
    > of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are
    > the direct result of the defendant's offense.
    >
    > (d) When a battery is committed against any person and serious
    > bodily injury is inflicted on the person, the battery is punishable
    > by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
    > imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > So, if JaR were to get into two-fisted, er... fisticuffs(!) over his
    > fictional $25,000 harley*, he could face up to $3000 (cha-ching) in fines
    > right off the bat, and 6 months to four years of prison, depending on how
    > good of a fighter he is(!), and during the prison time, would not pass
    > 'Go', and would lose salary and wife priveledges. Assuming JaR makes
    > minimum wage [$10/hr (cha-ching)]* at 40 hours a week, that's $400 weekly
    > (cha-ching), 6 months is 26 weeks, 26 * $400 (cha-ching) = $10400
    > (cha-ching).
    >
    > So, with the minimum sentence for kicking the guy's butt who tried to
    > steal his harley, he's halfway paid for the harley. If he did a year in
    > the joint for pulsing the perps testicles with an electron beam, he could
    > have bought another Harley. Now, keep in mind, that's only the criminal
    > part of all of this. There's also the civil part, wherein the crook that
    > JaR beat up gets to sue him for legal bills, pain, suffering, loss of
    > 'work', hemmorhoid cream, pistachio nuts, and his newfound insecurity
    > complex.
    >
    > Cha-ching! Grand total for JaR: $100,000 plus prison time. (cha-ching)
    > (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    > (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    > (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    > (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    > (overkill) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive)
    > (excessive) (enough already) (enough already) (enough already) (cha-ching)
    >
    > Now, since I've heard tell that JaR is a big guy, like of the Hoss
    > Cartright persuasion, only with a blue mohawk and a ghandi tattoo, and
    > since rodeo clowns are cooler than ninjas, he probably knows egyption kung
    > fu. So our astounding grand total is (suspense) (suspense) ONE MEELEEON
    > DOLLERS!
    >
    > Conclusion: Compare the total value of all of your property to ONE
    > MEELEEON DOLLERS and subtract it. That's how much you'll owe a criminal if
    > you kick their butt.
    >
    > Moral: If you can, get away safely, let them get away, contact the
    > AUTHORITIES, let the criminal get caught, and sue the hell out of THEM.
    > Violence will only work against you.
    >
    > * = [not sure what the real one cost and it's not important for this
    > example]
    >
    > Microcephalic S. Bob
    > http://www.roblindman.com - ONE MEELEEON DOLLERS!
    >
    >
    >
    Beoweolf, Oct 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: Non-lethal violence in self defense

    "Beoweolf" <> wrote in message
    news:6vt6f.5505$q%...
    > What about Cosmic balance? The inconvenience of incarceration, the
    > inequity of fines and legal retribution; all these things pale in
    > comparison to our duty to enforce the rules of karma, whenever possible.


    Karma is The Law. The Law will enforce itself.

    > As stated in most western thought, "My god is a vengeful god".


    My God is The Law. The Law requires completion of form I93-DCBA in
    triplicate prior to the pursuit of vengeance.

    > Sex and violence, the two most remarkable traits of humanity are also the
    > most regulated.


    I'd say regulations are the most regulated.

    > No man should leave a woman's bed with her unsatisfied.


    No woman is ever satisfied. No man should enter a woman's bed, but should
    encourage women to enter his.

    > Nor in this case, when presented with a plaintive cry for correction, no
    > man should refuse a miscreant the butt-whooping they demand and deserve.


    Leave correction to the department of correction.

    > To do any less is to deny them the chance to achieve nirvana.


    The only way to Nirvana is to want nothing. In order to get to Nirvana, you
    must follow the Way. If you follow the Way, you must want to get to Nirvana.

    > Life's lessons are presented at sometimes peculiar stages in ones life, if
    > the lesson isn't learned when presented, it may take another or several
    > lifetimes before the opportunity presents itself again.


    There is only one Lifetime. It's on channel 138. Considering the nature of
    the programming, I hope never to see several.

    > Is it fair to think only of yourself?


    Thinking of other people in the pursuit of selflessness is selfish.

    > To refuse to participate, is selfish.


    To participate in selfishness is ref-fuse.

    > Even The Buddha, remained on earth, to pass on his knowledge...even after
    > he had attained enlightenment. He understood his duty was to share his
    > knowledge, even at the cost of delaying his ascension.


    (cha-ching). My I-Ching is itching.
    Microcephalic S. Bob, Oct 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Re: Non-lethal violence in self defense

    Whoever has the most weapons,biggest army, best tactics and technology (plus
    a variety of other factors relating to a group or individual forcing their
    will upon another group or individual through physical violence or the threat
    there of) influences who makes the laws. I fully intend to use any and all
    means necessary to defend myself in a situation where my life or property is
    threatened. As its our constitutional right to do so.
    Amendment IV
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
    effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
    and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
    affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
    persons or things to be seized"

    What these laws are trying to do is to force people to be absolutely
    dependent upon the government in every aspect of their lives, through laws
    that violate the constitution being subtly introduced into citizens lives
    without their approval. The more dependent one becomes, the less independent
    he is. They think they are sneaky, but in actuallity they are plain and
    obvious and a decent lawyer should be able to shred them in court.
    Considering the amount that Bob came up with here, I'd recomend dishing out
    the money to get a competitent one, even though I believe with access to the
    laws and right information people are able to accurately represent themselves
    in court of law, but you'd probably just be treated like dirt(thats a whole
    other issue). Who are you going to call for help when 911 is the very number
    of the people you need help from ? We as still partway free citizens need to
    make sure that we don't lose this right to defend ourselves, cause once our
    guns and our ability to self defend is gone then we are just easy pickings to
    be rolled over by whoever has the bulldozer. The balls in our court, they got
    some guns, they got an army, and now they are presenting us with the
    question.
    "What ya going to do about it sucka ?"
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm1pZ25hbnQ=?=, Oct 23, 2005
    #4
  5. "Microcephalic S. Bob" wrote:

    > and since rodeo
    > clowns are cooler than ninjas,



    Ok... you have redeemed yourself.
    =?Utf-8?B?S2V5Ym9hcmQgQ293Ym95?=, Oct 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Microcephalic S. Bob

    JaR Guest

    In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, Microcephalic S. Bob spewed across
    the ether:

    >
    > For a variety of reasons, I've been given to research laws with
    > regarding violence today.
    >


    Primary among them; sheer boredom.

    > First and foremost, we had the discussion here, with regards to
    > killing a perpetrator.
    >
    > I'd concluded that non-lethal methods, like a 'stun gun', might be
    > better than shooting someone. I was wrong, we're fscked.
    >


    Indeed we are, as:

    a] The perp may be sufficiently wired on pharmaceuticals to preclude any
    effective disablement by the "Stun Gun"
    2] The perp will likely survive the incident and sue your ass off.

    > 244.5. (a) As used in this section, "stun gun" means any item,
    > except a taser, used or intended to be used as either an offensive or
    > defensive weapon that is capable of temporarily immobilizing a
    > person by the infliction of an electrical charge.
    > (b) Every person who commits an assault upon the person of another
    > with a stun gun or taser shall be punished by imprisonment in a
    > county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in
    > the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years.
    >
    > I thought that was interesting.


    Interesting because it's not true? Interesting, because "every person"
    would include cops, bounty hunters, military, your grandmother, etc?

    >
    > I also had to look into assault & battery, largely to teach someone
    > here at


    <Yeah, yeah, yeah>

    > ---
    >
    > So, if JaR were to get into two-fis


    <Jeez, but you do ramble on>

    excessive) (enough already)
    > (enough already) (enough already) (cha-ching)
    >
    > Now, since I've heard tell that JaR is a big guy, like of the Hoss
    > Cartright persuasion, only with a blue mohawk and a ghandi tattoo, and
    > since rodeo clowns are cooler than ninjas, he probably knows egyption
    > kung fu. So our astounding grand total is (suspense) (suspense) ONE
    > MEELEEON DOLLERS!
    >


    Good grief, by your calculations, I'm already $10^16 (give or take a
    billion or so) in the hole, and serving several hundred years in the
    slammer. If we don't count the time in Sunny Southeast Asia.


    > Conclusion: Compare the total value of all of your property to ONE
    > MEELEEON DOLLERS and subtract it. That's how much you'll owe a
    > criminal if you kick their butt.
    >


    No can do, Bob. By your calcs, I don't have any property, and likely
    never will.

    > Moral: If you can, get away safely, let them get away, contact the
    > AUTHORITIES, let the criminal get caught, and sue the hell out of
    > THEM. Violence will only work against you.
    >


    Moral: Just lie down and give em what they want, and hope that they read
    all the crap above and are unwilling to go in the hole ONE MEELEEON
    DOLLARS for blowing your silly ass away.

    Foo.

    --
    JaR
    Thug 10110
    MCNGP.com
    JaR, Oct 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Microcephalic S. Bob

    Neil Guest

    did you hear "Microcephalic S. Bob" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/>
    say in news::

    > and since rodeo
    > clowns are cooler than ninjas,


    are not.....

    maybe...


    fine, but ninjas are cooler than pirates..




    except for the booty...



    and the ale....



    BUT WE HAVE STEALTH!!!!



    --
    Neil MCNGP#30

    - Include this in your CONFIG.SYS file: BUGS=OFF
    Neil, Oct 24, 2005
    #7
  8. "JaR" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns96F95EA8E1A5FMisanthrope@207.46.248.16...

    > Moral: Just lie down and give em what they want, and hope that they read
    > all the crap above and are unwilling to go in the hole ONE MEELEEON
    > DOLLARS for blowing your silly ass away.


    Ok. I'm going on a killing spree.
    Microcephalic S. Bob, Oct 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Microcephalic S. Bob

    kpg Guest

    Microcephalic S. Bob <http://www.planetoftheheads.com/> said something like

    > # Name-Host Conflict: file://c:\temp\175820.htm (10/24/2005 4:26:22 PM) #
    >
    > "JaR" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96F95EA8E1A5FMisanthrope@207.46.248.16...
    >
    >> Moral: Just lie down and give em what they want, and hope that they read
    >> all the crap above and are unwilling to go in the hole ONE MEELEEON
    >> DOLLARS for blowing your silly ass away.

    >
    > Ok. I'm going on a killing spree.



    Well its about damn time!


    Need any extra clips? I got spares.
    kpg, Oct 24, 2005
    #9
  10. Microcephalic S. Bob

    JaR Guest

    In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, Microcephalic S. Bob spewed across the
    ether:

    >
    > Ok. I'm going on a killing spree.


    Attaboy!

    --
    JaR
    Thug 10110
    MCNGP.com
    JaR, Oct 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Microsilly bob you need to take into consideration that those laws are for
    the perp, not the victim.


    "Microcephalic S. Bob" wrote:

    >
    > For a variety of reasons, I've been given to research laws with regarding
    > violence today.
    >
    > First and foremost, we had the discussion here, with regards to killing a
    > perpetrator.
    >
    > I'd concluded that non-lethal methods, like a 'stun gun', might be better
    > than shooting someone. I was wrong, we're fscked.
    >
    > 244.5. (a) As used in this section, "stun gun" means any item,
    > except a taser, used or intended to be used as either an offensive or
    > defensive weapon that is capable of temporarily immobilizing a
    > person by the infliction of an electrical charge.
    > (b) Every person who commits an assault upon the person of another
    > with a stun gun or taser shall be punished by imprisonment in a
    > county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in
    > the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years.
    >
    > I thought that was interesting.
    >
    > I also had to look into assault & battery, largely to teach someone here at
    > the house that attempting to solve problems through threats and violence.
    > This one should be interesting to those who want to get into a fight to
    > defend their wallet.
    >
    > ---
    > CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
    > SECTION 240-248
    >
    > Assault
    >
    > 240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
    > ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
    >
    > 241. (a) An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
    > thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not
    > exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.
    >
    > Battery
    >
    > 242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
    > upon the person of another.
    >
    > 243. (a) A battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two
    > thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not
    > exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
    >
    > (B) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs
    > of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are
    > the direct result of the defendant's offense.
    >
    > (d) When a battery is committed against any person and serious
    > bodily injury is inflicted on the person, the battery is punishable
    > by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
    > imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > So, if JaR were to get into two-fisted, er... fisticuffs(!) over his
    > fictional $25,000 harley*, he could face up to $3000 (cha-ching) in fines
    > right off the bat, and 6 months to four years of prison, depending on how
    > good of a fighter he is(!), and during the prison time, would not pass 'Go',
    > and would lose salary and wife priveledges. Assuming JaR makes minimum wage
    > [$10/hr (cha-ching)]* at 40 hours a week, that's $400 weekly (cha-ching), 6
    > months is 26 weeks, 26 * $400 (cha-ching) = $10400 (cha-ching).
    >
    > So, with the minimum sentence for kicking the guy's butt who tried to steal
    > his harley, he's halfway paid for the harley. If he did a year in the joint
    > for pulsing the perps testicles with an electron beam, he could have bought
    > another Harley. Now, keep in mind, that's only the criminal part of all of
    > this. There's also the civil part, wherein the crook that JaR beat up gets
    > to sue him for legal bills, pain, suffering, loss of 'work', hemmorhoid
    > cream, pistachio nuts, and his newfound insecurity complex.
    >
    > Cha-ching! Grand total for JaR: $100,000 plus prison time. (cha-ching)
    > (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    > (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching) (cha-ching)
    > (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    > (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill) (overkill)
    > (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive) (excessive)
    > (enough already) (enough already) (enough already) (cha-ching)
    >
    > Now, since I've heard tell that JaR is a big guy, like of the Hoss Cartright
    > persuasion, only with a blue mohawk and a ghandi tattoo, and since rodeo
    > clowns are cooler than ninjas, he probably knows egyption kung fu. So our
    > astounding grand total is (suspense) (suspense) ONE MEELEEON DOLLERS!
    >
    > Conclusion: Compare the total value of all of your property to ONE MEELEEON
    > DOLLERS and subtract it. That's how much you'll owe a criminal if you kick
    > their butt.
    >
    > Moral: If you can, get away safely, let them get away, contact the
    > AUTHORITIES, let the criminal get caught, and sue the hell out of THEM.
    > Violence will only work against you.
    >
    > * = [not sure what the real one cost and it's not important for this
    > example]
    >
    > Microcephalic S. Bob
    > http://www.roblindman.com - ONE MEELEEON DOLLERS!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?aG9seSBkb2c=?=, Oct 31, 2005
    #11
  12. Re: Non-lethal violence in self defense

    AMEN.
    "Jmignant" wrote:

    >
    > Whoever has the most weapons,biggest army, best tactics and technology (plus
    > a variety of other factors relating to a group or individual forcing their
    > will upon another group or individual through physical violence or the threat
    > there of) influences who makes the laws. I fully intend to use any and all
    > means necessary to defend myself in a situation where my life or property is
    > threatened. As its our constitutional right to do so.
    > Amendment IV
    > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
    > effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
    > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
    > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
    > persons or things to be seized"
    >
    > What these laws are trying to do is to force people to be absolutely
    > dependent upon the government in every aspect of their lives, through laws
    > that violate the constitution being subtly introduced into citizens lives
    > without their approval. The more dependent one becomes, the less independent
    > he is. They think they are sneaky, but in actuallity they are plain and
    > obvious and a decent lawyer should be able to shred them in court.
    > Considering the amount that Bob came up with here, I'd recomend dishing out
    > the money to get a competitent one, even though I believe with access to the
    > laws and right information people are able to accurately represent themselves
    > in court of law, but you'd probably just be treated like dirt(thats a whole
    > other issue). Who are you going to call for help when 911 is the very number
    > of the people you need help from ? We as still partway free citizens need to
    > make sure that we don't lose this right to defend ourselves, cause once our
    > guns and our ability to self defend is gone then we are just easy pickings to
    > be rolled over by whoever has the bulldozer. The balls in our court, they got
    > some guns, they got an army, and now they are presenting us with the
    > question.
    > "What ya going to do about it sucka ?"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?aG9seSBkb2c=?=, Oct 31, 2005
    #12
  13. "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Microsilly bob you need to take into consideration that those laws are for
    > the perp, not the victim.


    I think the point to remember here, if you use violence, for any reason,
    you're the perp, too. Of course, it's insanity, you should be able to defend
    yourself if you need to, but, it's bad to defend yourself.

    Microcephalic S. "Two wrongs don't make a twinkie defense" Bob
    mcngp #46
    http://www.roblindman.com/
    http://www.planetoftheheads.com/
    http://www.mcngp.com/
    Microcephalic S. Bob, Nov 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Re: Non-lethal violence in self defense

    "holy dog" wrote
    > AMEN.


    I'd agree, but, of course, I'd be wrong. I'd disagree, but of course, I'd be
    wrong.

    > "Jmignant" wrote:
    > I fully intend to use any and all
    >> means necessary to defend myself in a situation where my life or property
    >> is
    >> threatened. As its our constitutional right to do so.


    Ok. Have fun with that.

    >> Amendment IV
    >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
    >> and
    >> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
    >> violated,
    >> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
    >> or
    >> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
    >> the
    >> persons or things to be seized"


    And who defines what is an unreasonable search or seizure?

    >> What these laws are trying to do is to force people to be absolutely
    >> dependent upon the government in every aspect of their lives, through
    >> laws
    >> that violate the constitution being subtly introduced into citizens lives
    >> without their approval.


    We already are dependent upon the government in every aspect of our lives.
    The government uses our tax money to maintain the substandard infrastructure
    that grants us a substandard standard of living.

    > The more dependent one becomes, the less independent
    >> he is. They think they are sneaky, but in actuallity they are plain and
    >> obvious and a decent lawyer should be able to shred them in court.


    The term he's used here, does anyone else grasp it: 'decent lawyer'. Where
    can I find one of THOSE?

    >> Considering the amount that Bob came up with here, I'd recomend dishing
    >> out
    >> the money to get a competitent one, even though I believe with access to
    >> the
    >> laws and right information people are able to accurately represent
    >> themselves
    >> in court of law, but you'd probably just be treated like dirt(thats a
    >> whole
    >> other issue).


    Well, better to let the criminal get away, and let the law catch up with
    him, than to face the lawsuit that his family will nail you with if you
    shoot him. Of course, some of them will just shoot you anyway, but then,
    maybe the law will catch up with him, and then, maybe your family will sue
    him.

    > Who are you going to call for help when 911 is the very number
    >> of the people you need help from ?


    Ghostbusters.

    > We as still partway free citizens need to
    >> make sure that we don't lose this right to defend ourselves, cause once
    >> our
    >> guns and our ability to self defend is gone then we are just easy
    >> pickings to
    >> be rolled over by whoever has the bulldozer. The balls in our court, they
    >> got
    >> some guns, they got an army, and now they are presenting us with the
    >> question.


    Yep, they've got everything, including a mind control satellite that is
    making me type this.

    >> "What ya going to do about it sucka ?"


    Well, do ya, punk?
    Microcephalic S. Bob, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Wrong. I am the victim who was forced to use violence to protect
    myself/family/property/humanrights, which the perp was trying to deny me.
    Those days of Kennedy's/califorinia's bleeding heart liberalism where
    everyone is the victim are turning into cold hard reality that this is
    becoming a violent world and decent people are forced to have to do what is
    needed to protect the truly innocent.

    "Microcephalic S. Bob" wrote:

    > "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Microsilly bob you need to take into consideration that those laws are for
    > > the perp, not the victim.

    >
    > I think the point to remember here, if you use violence, for any reason,
    > you're the perp, too. Of course, it's insanity, you should be able to defend
    > yourself if you need to, but, it's bad to defend yourself.
    >
    > Microcephalic S. "Two wrongs don't make a twinkie defense" Bob
    > mcngp #46
    > http://www.roblindman.com/
    > http://www.planetoftheheads.com/
    > http://www.mcngp.com/
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?aG9seSBkb2c=?=, Nov 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Microcephalic S. Bob

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >Of course, it's insanity, you should be able to defend
    >yourself if you need to, but, it's bad to defend yourself.


    yeah, but good news for the lawyers though! Won't someone please think
    of the lawyers.....

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Nov 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Microcephalic S. Bob

    Frisbee® Guest

    Frisbee®, Nov 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Fat Fingers. I meant bleeding

    "Frisbee®" wrote:

    > "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > bleeding heart liberalism

    >
    > <Pedant>
    > bleeting heart
    > </Pedant>
    >
    > --
    > Fris "Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a" bee®, MCNGP #13
    >
    > The MCNGP Team - We're here to help!
    >
    > http://www.mcngp.com
    >
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/certaholics
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?aG9seSBkb2c=?=, Nov 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Microcephalic S. Bob

    Frisbee® Guest

    Actually, you did type "bleeding" but my point is the correct word is
    "bleeting"

    It's bleeting heart liberal. Bleeting coming from the sound sheep make.
    Hence my internym in that post.

    "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Fat Fingers. I meant bleeding
    >
    > "Frisbee®" wrote:
    >
    >> "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > bleeding heart liberalism

    >>
    >> <Pedant>
    >> bleeting heart
    >> </Pedant>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Fris "Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a" bee®, MCNGP #13
    >>
    >> The MCNGP Team - We're here to help!
    >>
    >> http://www.mcngp.com
    >>
    >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/certaholics
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Frisbee®, Nov 1, 2005
    #19
  20. I stand Corrected. ;-)

    "Frisbee®" wrote:

    > Actually, you did type "bleeding" but my point is the correct word is
    > "bleeting"
    >
    > It's bleeting heart liberal. Bleeting coming from the sound sheep make.
    > Hence my internym in that post.
    >
    > "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Fat Fingers. I meant bleeding
    > >
    > > "Frisbee®" wrote:
    > >
    > >> "holy dog" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > bleeding heart liberalism
    > >>
    > >> <Pedant>
    > >> bleeting heart
    > >> </Pedant>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Fris "Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a" bee®, MCNGP #13
    > >>
    > >> The MCNGP Team - We're here to help!
    > >>
    > >> http://www.mcngp.com
    > >>
    > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/certaholics
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?aG9seSBkb2c=?=, Nov 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vigo Breadcrumbs

    OT: violence mars India vote

    Vigo Breadcrumbs, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    864
    zenner
    Apr 20, 2004
  2. Jason Ash

    Problem with Lethal Weapon 2 DVD

    Jason Ash, Feb 28, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    514
    Jason Ash
    Feb 28, 2004
  3. Aphelion

    Lethal Weapon Director's Cut DVDs

    Aphelion, Mar 20, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    zoltan47
    Mar 21, 2005
  4. Aphelion

    Lethal Weap 4: How Many DVDs?

    Aphelion, Jun 6, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
    FAQmeister
    Jun 7, 2005
  5. dogbreath

    Lethal video cards

    dogbreath, Feb 5, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    478
    Baron
    Feb 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page