|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 3, 2012 13:02:24 GMT -6
I am trying to establish a moral scale for my own research. I tried to do it through the " murder" Thread, but no one here seems too interested. This thread is an attempt to do so a little more honestly.
The question is " at what point does a government, or individual have the right to kill".
I understand this is a very small community , and no one here really gives a flying crap about my interests, but the demographic is so diverse , i had to try.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 3, 2012 14:58:05 GMT -6
When loss of life can be prevented in no other way.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 3, 2012 18:01:58 GMT -6
I am trying to establish a moral scale for my own research. I tried to do it through the " murder" Thread, but no one here seems too interested. This thread is an attempt to do so a little more honestly. The question is " at what point does a government, or individual have the right to kill". I understand this is a very small community , and no one here really gives a flying crap about my interests, but the demographic is so diverse , i had to try. I would prefer to leave the word morals out of it to begin with. Morals are right or wrong conduct, obviously in regards to taking life has a wide scope. We take life all the time for many different reasons. I feel for example abortion is taking a human life while an obvious majority do not. So who is right or wrong or more moral on that issue? By the millions (aborted) in this day and age .. Where is the outcry there? Same with the DP who is right or wrong or more moral? How many thousands of citizens murdered,and the "strong outcry" to be an "example" we are not murders? Save them because now you believe they are humans? . Even our children are being raped and murdered by "killers and we want to save them to show a good example of who we are ? There is a time to take life ( even in regards to abortion when, when it is a threat to a life/lives, society or a country. Same with war.
|
|
|
Post by reapwysow on Feb 3, 2012 23:51:17 GMT -6
I am trying to establish a moral scale for my own research. I tried to do it through the " murder" Thread, but no one here seems too interested. This thread is an attempt to do so a little more honestly. The question is " at what point does a government, or individual have the right to kill". I understand this is a very small community , and no one here really gives a flying crap about my interests, but the demographic is so diverse , i had to try. I would prefer to leave the word morals out of it to begin with. Morals are right or wrong conduct, obviously in regards to taking life has a wide scope. We take life all the time for many different reasons. I feel for example abortion is taking a human life while an obvious majority do not. So who is right or wrong or more moral on that issue? By the millions (aborted) in this day and age .. Where is the outcry there? Same with the DP who is right or wrong or more moral? How many thousands of citizens murdered,and the "strong outcry" to be an "example" we are not murders? Save them because now you believe they are humans? . Even our children are being raped and murdered by "killers and we want to save them to show a good example of who we are ? There is a time to take life ( even in regards to abortion when, when it is a threat to a life/lives, society or a country. Same with war. I understand what you are saying, but morality plays a huge part in our decisions when it comes to taking a life. You believe that morality should not play a part in our decisions to kill , either attributed to war , or the death penalty, I belive that morality is the driving force of each. I have killed because my country required it of me, if I believed it were immoral to do so , i would have refused. I would not be pro DP if i thought it was immoral. If i did not think that killing for the greater good was moral , then I would be a murderer, and not a soldier. If the lives I have taken , were not done so justifiaby, then i deserve to be on death row as surely as any murderer that you dispise so much. you are a good person , I see that by your posts, but you have no idea how strained the lines become when you are at war. I called in a strike on a hovel that we had recieved fire from. When the fast movers destroyed it , we went in with graves registration to do a body count. For some reason , the pentagon needs this information. As you could probably guess, when 500 lb bombs hit a target there is not much left. I did find part of a hand. It was very small. A baby How do you reconcile that? The same way you reconcile the death penalty. sometimes you have to make a choice between what you do , and what could be done if you refuse to act.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 4, 2012 8:54:55 GMT -6
I would prefer to leave the word morals out of it to begin with. Morals are right or wrong conduct, obviously in regards to taking life has a wide scope. We take life all the time for many different reasons. I feel for example abortion is taking a human life while an obvious majority do not. So who is right or wrong or more moral on that issue? By the millions (aborted) in this day and age .. Where is the outcry there? Same with the DP who is right or wrong or more moral? How many thousands of citizens murdered,and the "strong outcry" to be an "example" we are not murders? Save them because now you believe they are humans? . Even our children are being raped and murdered by "killers and we want to save them to show a good example of who we are ? There is a time to take life ( even in regards to abortion when, when it is a threat to a life/lives, society or a country. Same with war. I understand what you are saying, but morality plays a huge part in our decisions when it comes to taking a life. You believe that morality should not play a part in our decisions to kill , either attributed to war , or the death penalty, I belive that morality is the driving force of each. I have killed because my country required it of me, if I believed it were immoral to do so , i would have refused. I would not be pro DP if i thought it was immoral. If i did not think that killing for the greater good was moral , then I would be a murderer, and not a soldier. If the lives I have taken , were not done so justifiaby, then i deserve to be on death row as surely as any murderer that you dispise so much. you are a good person , I see that by your posts, but you have no idea how strained the lines become when you are at war. I called in a strike on a hovel that we had recieved fire from. When the fast movers destroyed it , we went in with graves registration to do a body count. For some reason , the pentagon needs this information. As you could probably guess, when 500 lb bombs hit a target there is not much left. I did find part of a hand. It was very small. A baby How do you reconcile that? The same way you reconcile the death penalty. sometimes you have to make a choice between what you do , and what could be done if you refuse to act. I hear you . You speak of the babies small hand, well I believe in the Vietnam war did'nt they use their own children to carry hand grenades? How do they reconcile that?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 5, 2012 20:20:49 GMT -6
The individual has the right to kill in self defense or in defense of others' lives. The government has no rights, only powers and duties. Governments have the power and duty to kill murderers. The government also has the power and duty to kill in defense of the government and in defense of its citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 21, 2012 18:11:23 GMT -6
We have the right to kill when our lives are in danger and we can't do anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 18:45:00 GMT -6
Ok if you break in to my house and become a threat while I am home, you will die where you stand.
When you are convicted of ANY charge of MURDER you should die, on a gurney, chair, or by hanging. There you have it. O I want to add in my view career criminals. For get life. Just give them death. The sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 26, 2012 19:39:08 GMT -6
If, in the heat of the moment, there is no other choice and lives are at stake, I'd say murder is defensible. If the offender is incapacitated, captured or in other ways unable to do further harm - it's not, and while the situation may serve as a mitigating factor the murderer should still be prosecuted for murder. Thus - if you catch the murderer with the obvious intent of murder and killing is the only way of stopping him or her, the killer should avoid prosecution. On the other hand, if a murder has been committed but the murderer is incapable(due do lack of weapon, injuries etc.) of committing further harm it should be prosecuted as murder, with the situation being a possible slightly mitigating factor. Point being: The lust for blood, revenge and general anger is no excuse for killing people - neither for ordinary people, nor for the government(the death penalty).
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Feb 27, 2012 13:25:50 GMT -6
The lust for blood
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 27, 2012 13:32:45 GMT -6
The question is " at what point does a government, or individual have the right to kill". The government has the right to kill anyone. That's obvious. Who individuals may or may not kill is decided by government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 14:27:05 GMT -6
If, in the heat of the moment, there is no other choice and lives are at stake, I'd say murder is defensible. If the offender is incapacitated, captured or in other ways unable to do further harm - it's not, and while the situation may serve as a mitigating factor the murderer should still be prosecuted for murder. Thus - if you catch the murderer with the obvious intent of murder and killing is the only way of stopping him or her, the killer should avoid prosecution. On the other hand, if a murder has been committed but the murderer is incapable(due do lack of weapon, injuries etc.) of committing further harm it should be prosecuted as murder, with the situation being a possible slightly mitigating factor. Point being: The lust for blood, revenge and general anger is no excuse for killing people - neither for ordinary people, nor for the government(the death penalty). YOU SO FUNNY If nothing else can be done to stop the murderer from murdering than murder in self defense is alright. You just can't fix stupid can you?? How you stopping him (the murderer)? You got a gun, a knife, a taser, how about pepper spray? You will sit back and hope someone else would do it for you. Like the completely inept person you are. The lust for blood. Really, I mean REALLY!!! I have to ask how many MVSs here had a lust for blood before they were forced into the role of evil MVSs(yes I know what your kind say about MVSs all over the internet). Then again why is that all you sick women really love and worship you some murderers, it appears that the lust for blood is really on the shoulders of people like you, that just can't wait to save these POS. You really like the murder aspect, you love the thought of being around someone that did what you only dream of doing. By the way revenge is just an emotion that is brought on by abuse and anger. I guess you are telling the family members of the victim to suppress their anger and forget about the abuse. Isn't this the exact excuses you use for your loving adoring murderers? They were abused and made to suppress anger. What a bunch of losers.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 27, 2012 20:34:10 GMT -6
No individual has the right to kill. Governments should never kill people, excepting where it is sanctioned by law. Wars, I consider different - a scene from a war movie, "If I kill someone at home they fry me, if I do it here, they give me a medal." Everyone has the inalienable right to life. No-one should take that right away from others - not even in war. I disagree with the comments about morality - wars are due to greed and greed alone - either the invading country wants something the other country has or the invaded country has something the invading country doesnt want them to have. There's no morality in greed. Ask George W? Where are Iraq's WMD's? He didnt go in there to NOT kill people as collateral damage. Wars dont start with, "Would you like to sit down and talk about this over a cuppa." Murder is different again, humans kill other humans not due to immorality as it is clear that muderers dont hold the same set of values as non-murderers. Suicide, I condone in certain circumstances (terminally ill) and only then does it become a moral issue. People shouldn't kill people and if they do, they apt to die by the sword. Euthanising murderers, I do not consider moral or immoral, and would defer to the fact that its not the government nor the people who execute murderers in the US, its the legal system - a course of pre-determined action created by historical precedent, religious tenets and moral norms - and carried out by those empowered with its administration and not an individual or government.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 28, 2012 9:12:33 GMT -6
At what point do we have the right to kill.
Whenever we feel like it or rationalize it, or in the name of assisting to die, to cease interrupt life, when feel threatened, when dangerous to our health or life or mental state. Or for society as a whole.
All of the above are premeditated.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 28, 2012 16:56:05 GMT -6
At what point do we have the right to kill. Whenever we feel like it or rationalize it, or in the name of assisting to die, to cease interrupt life, when feel threatened, when dangerous to our health or life or mental state. Or for society as a whole. All of the above are premeditated. "Whenever we feel like it."? If that were the case I would have killed that clown who cut me off this morning! [I'm not surprised your parents moved around a lot, diamond lady] ;D
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 29, 2012 7:54:16 GMT -6
At what point do we have the right to kill. Whenever we feel like it All of the above are premeditated. "Whenever we feel like it."? If that were the case I would have killed that clown who cut me off this morning! [I'm not surprised your parents moved around a lot, diamond lady] ;D I agree 8-)Some whenever they feel like it (murderers), some we rationalized when when life will end.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Feb 29, 2012 10:52:51 GMT -6
from one of Fugs chums on anthor board "I shall happily accept the label of "groupie" if those who employ such terms will accept my label for them. Which won't fit into one word, but narrow-minded, pathologically angry, and possessed by bloodlust will do for a start. The mentality of those who attack us is the mentality which hopes and wishes for the death of another human being, perhaps even delights in the idea. I am proud to be "sick" in the eyes of such people." Too funny
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 29, 2012 11:42:53 GMT -6
from one of Fugs chums on anthor board Which won't fit into one word, but narrow-minded, pathologically angry, and possessed by bloodlust will do for a start. The mentality of those who have hopes and wishes for the death of another human being, perhaps even delights in the idea. I am proud to be mindset quot; Too funny [/quote Question of thread answered !!!
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 9, 2012 23:49:20 GMT -6
I don't think it is so much a right as an imperative. When you force me to make a choice between my/my families health and well being and yours it becomes an imperative for me to take actions that will zero out your threat. Absent that circumstance I won't even give it a thought. After serving uncle sam and being honorably discharged I swore to myself that I would never own a pistol. You understand that pistols are for hunting two legged varmints. Back then I could keep that promise since the only person I had to take care of was myself. I very recently purchased my first pistol. The atmosphere in Lynchburg is changing rapidly and I have the responsibility for three children and my wife. Retreat is no longer an option. Malice is not involved. I will simply breathe, attain a flash sight picture, and squeeze. He who has nothing to protect can have the luxury of hesitating. I can't. Stretch this logic out to the bigger picture. Governments are faced with the same decisions. Only it has about 217 million of us to consider (USA). Only the politicians who don't give a rat's a** about us hesitate when bad things are about to happen to us. Only idiots or maniacs want to take rash actions when bad things AREN'T about to happen to us.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 10, 2012 4:01:36 GMT -6
"He who has nothing to protect can have the luxury of hesitating." So true. I visit a hunting forum now and then and the antis (anti hunting) there are soft vegan Brits who see guns as the devil and would rather 'catch a burglar' LOL I always tell them, when its just you living alone with some mongrel dog or flea bitten budgie and not a pot to pi$$ in you can think this way. Throw in a wife and children to the mix and to me the intruder is f***ing dropped.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 10, 2012 11:31:07 GMT -6
Being pro gun, I have always had a pistol for any two legged varmintes who come hunting, for the wrong reasons in the wrong places. Saves innocent lives and save's tax payers money at the same time, a win win deal.
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 10, 2012 16:23:41 GMT -6
I didn't say I was anti guns. I am actually rather pro on the subject. We will leave it as a soft point why I felt the way I felt. In 1993 uncle sam reached out to me via my company warning of an increased threat to us. I re armed then. They were all long arms (Remington 870, GM M1 carbine, model 94 30-30 etc). When my daughter was born I reduced my armory to just what I absolutely could guarantee I could secure (Remington 870). I probably will be adding a carbine back into the mix in the short term. I like what I see about Hi-Point carbines and am thinking about one in .40 SW to keep the ammunition types to a minimum. I am still debating the subject and am also debating using the stock ghost ring sights or going to a Red Dot sight. Hi Points already come with the rails installed and they are also used extensively by LEO's across the US.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 16:06:40 GMT -6
I dont believe in guns - if you cannot be safe in your home, then it is the system that is flawed rather than the issue that guns have given a sense of security. You shouldn't have to kill to protect your family. All guns should be licenced and NO-ONE should have autmoatic guns - an AK-47 to kill a rogue bear? This is not Daniel Boone, this is not Scarface, this is not Predator - this is just warfare in the burbs. Guns give power to those who shouln't have power. Look what you did to JFK - that's not a very democratic way to get rid of the head of state - if it were, Julia Gillard would be sh1tting bricks!
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 11, 2012 16:59:09 GMT -6
I dont believe in guns - if you cannot be safe in your home, then it is the system that is flawed rather than the issue that guns have given a sense of security. You shouldn't have to kill to protect your family. If you can be safe in your own home ( your system protects you), why would you ever have to stab someone in the eyeball? Your family is always safe. Your not Crocodile Dundee you know" no knife fights needed, your system will protect you remember?.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 11, 2012 17:04:35 GMT -6
I enjoy my right to our 2nd Amendment. It is the one of the cornerstones of this country.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Therefore, I, like 1/2 life, has several fire arms. They are all licensed and not are automatic, as in your reference of an AK-47.
I would use them in defense of my home and family.
Australia enjoys, for the moment, the luxury of distance. The US and UK did until air travel became common place and the bad guys started showing up on our doorsteps. I envy you in a way, because we felt the same comfort until 9/11. When the bad guys show up with guns, what do you have? A knife or nothing, sorry i believe in that old adage - never bring a knife to a gunfight.
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 11, 2012 18:10:56 GMT -6
I dont believe in guns - if you cannot be safe in your home, then it is the system that is flawed rather than the issue that guns have given a sense of security. You shouldn't have to kill to protect your family. All guns should be licenced and NO-ONE should have autmoatic guns - an AK-47 to kill a rogue bear? This is not Daniel Boone, this is not Scarface, this is not Predator - this is just warfare in the burbs. Guns give power to those who shouln't have power. Look what you did to JFK - that's not a very democratic way to get rid of the head of state - if it were, Julia Gillard would be sh1tting bricks! In spite of your beliefs, guns really do exist ;D I take from your statements that you are well educated in anti-gun "facts". Rather than go point for point with you, I will point you to "the rest of the story". vaguninfo.com/documents/GunFacts5-0-press.pdf. Here is an alternate view on the civility of gun ownership. patriotupdate.com/articles/the-gun-is-civilizationThe knife is not a bad tool in the confines of your home. Remember the mind is the weapon. Everything else is just a tool.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 20:13:30 GMT -6
Although I'm listening, I dont agree. Guns are only designed, created and produced for one purpose - to kill. When you buy a gun in reality you increase the chance that you will kill someone (based on your own word "tool", you cant dig a hole without a shovel). In reality, the actual purchase of a gun reflects the premeditated act of killing someone. Guns only kill - you buy a gun - you have the tool with which to kill, whether you use it or not. A knife, however, can make a pretty nifty sammich, yes? I have no qualms or reservations regarding the army or police having guns - as their playing field includes such things as death, loonies, fanatics, assassins, Lyndsay Lohan, etc. Can't see a rogue Taliban knocking on my door in downtown Port Stephens in the near future, at least not without prior warning. All I'm saying is you shouldn't need a gun to ward off Mr Burglar, a nice 2 iron or the threat of waking my missus up would scare any poor burglar. If Tommy Jefferson were alive today, he'd probably say, look, I was wrong, you dont need a gun no more, the Indians are all on their reservations (although I have my reservations on that issue) and all the grizzly bears are rugs on Mr Monty Burns lobby floor. If you guys came to Australia, you'd need a gun for the mossies, a gun for the spiders, a gun for the sharks, a gun for the box jellyfish, a gun for the blue-ringed octopod, a gun for Bob Katter, etc, ad nauseum. Please read the following out loud: You dont need a gun! If you're worried about an invasion, I think the threat of dropping a nuke on the offending party would suffice - despite it taking two to wake the Japanese into submission (remember that one - WWII?). The only reason you need guns is paranoia. Guns make you no safer in your own home than a size 12 pair of boots at your front door, especially when you have such nifty gadgets as tasers - eh? Don't taze me, bro! Zap! How's them apples, Mr lefty uni student? Bwahaha.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 11, 2012 21:03:22 GMT -6
I was wrong, you dont need a gun no more, the Indians are all on their reservations Please read the following out loud: You dont need a gun! If you're worried about an invasion, I think the threat of dropping a nuke on the offending party would suffice. Guns make you no safer in your own home than a size 12 pair of boots at your front door, especially when you have such nifty gadgets as tasers Wrong the Native Americans are not all on their reservations for one. I am worried about invasion, many home breakins (by more then one) kicking in the doors while armed. My taser would be useless against them to close for comfort for me. To add" a nuke would be a bit extreme no? Wrong again my boots, shoes sandals are a size six only, not to impressive against thugs....
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 11, 2012 21:14:47 GMT -6
As you pointed out a gun (pistol) is designed to kill people. You also pointed out that to own one implies the willingness to kill a human being. The bad guy is bringing his own gun to the party more and more often. Now take that information and go back and read my post about imperatives. Virginia doesn't have a "castle doctrine" law. Shoot someone and you will be charged with murder here. The existing case law provides for a affimative defense of "justifiable manslaughter" if it can be proven that the deceased, in the perception of the shooter, presented an immediate danger to life or limb of someone legally in the house. Believe you, me, I am not about to pull the trigger just because I find someone in my house. A gun is just another tool used to ensure the safety of my family just like pepper spray and ultra-bright flashlights (bright-light tactics) not to mention a very large and very sharp sword on the odd occasion it might be usefull. I do not want to provoke the fight. I am not waiting in anticipation of the fight. I am prepared to end the fight by what ever means necessary. Price of admission: break into my house and then threaten someone that matters to me. If you tell me that you would not use what ever means necessary I would posit that you have nothing to lose.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 11, 2012 21:26:18 GMT -6
As you pointed out a gun (pistol) is designed to kill people. You also pointed out that to own one implies the willingness to kill a human being. The bad guy is bringing his own gun to the party more and more often. Now take that information and go back and read my post about imperatives. Virginia doesn't have a "castle doctrine" law. Shoot someone and you will be charged with murder here. The existing case law provides for a affimative defense of "justifiable manslaughter" if it can be proven that the deceased, in the perception of the shooter, presented an immediate danger to life or limb of someone legally in the house. Believe you, me, I am not about to pull the trigger just because I find someone in my house. A gun is just another tool used to ensure the safety of my family just like pepper spray and ultra-bright flashlights (bright-light tactics) not to mention a very large and very sharp sword on the odd occasion it might be usefull. I do not want to provoke the fight. I am not waiting in anticipation of the fight. I am prepared to end the fight by what ever means necessary. Price of admission: break into my house and then threaten someone that matters to me. If you tell me that you would not use what ever means necessary I would posit that you have nothing to lose. We have the Castle Doctrine here, yet there are rules surrounding that too. Thugs have more rights no matter what nowdays, even breaking into someones home!!!
|
|