Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Castle Doctrine

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Castle Doctrine
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 14 of 453 (573129)
08-10-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
08-09-2010 11:38 PM


Very informative. What if any are the license requirements for a "regular" firearm, and what weapons would fall under that classification?
Any type of long arm that is not automatic and will not hold more than 3 shells if they are center fire. You also have to pass a proficiency test and background checks. It takes months.
It looks like there are somewhere between 7.2 and 11 million guns in Canada. (Just a moment...) As Dr Jones points out, they are pretty much all long guns. We spent something like $2 Billion just trying to count them all and finally gave up. With governments this astute at protecting its citizens who needs a gun.
The law allows me sufficient latitude to protect my home. I also feel that it reduces the likely hood that any intruder would be armed with anything more than a knife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2010 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 08-10-2010 12:09 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 16 of 453 (573133)
08-10-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by DrJones*
08-10-2010 12:09 AM


Its too late in the day for me to wade through the interwebs but I'm pretty sure the magazine limit is 5 rounds not 3
Yeah could be. Hey... maybe I only have to reload after every other invasion!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 08-10-2010 12:09 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 41 of 453 (573288)
08-10-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
08-10-2010 5:58 PM


This in effect makes it open season for killing intruders, whther or not this is "necessary force".
Even if true, is there a problem with that?
Well I can think of a couple but I would say the main one is that it goes against the principle that any real justice requires that the details of the case be considered. Does a hungry man deserve to die because he tried to steal some of your food?
On the other hand I find myself in agreement with Ted Nugent when he said something like "I dont need the state to tell me that I have the right to defend myself."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 5:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 7:12 PM Dogmafood has not replied
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 7:26 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 48 of 453 (573307)
08-10-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 7:26 PM


Well, to a degree you are right. But you also need to think about it in an actual context. Think of it from the homeowners perspective. The homeowner is going to have no clue as to the intentions of the intruder, particularly if they are armed, nor is he going to be provided time to figure it out.
If the intruder is armed their intention is obvious although it could be a police officer. I would also think that it would be important to determine what the actual intentions are before dispatching someone.
citizens have every conceivable right to protect themselves, their family, and their property.
Absolutely. That protection should not employ more than the minimum necessary force.
Edited by Dogmafood, : I used the wrong words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 7:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 9:37 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 72 of 453 (573497)
08-11-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2010 1:16 PM


The fundamental question is still the same that I asked as the OP -- do you have a fundamental right to protect your home with force, if necessary?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 82 of 453 (573605)
08-12-2010 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Jack
08-12-2010 6:10 AM


Re: My plan
It is reasonable to use lethal force to defend your own person, or that of your family, but not your property.
At what point does property equal security of person. They used to hang people for stealing horses. I had asked previously if a hungry man deserves to die for stealing your food. Perhaps he does if it is the only food that you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2010 6:10 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 08-12-2010 7:12 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 273 of 453 (574456)
08-16-2010 12:30 AM


What is really uncalled for is even trying to explain gun rights and gun laws to people from Canada or the UK, or any Subjects to the House of Windsor. They can’t understand, and refuse to understand, just like I cannot understand why one would ever tolerate to have a Queen.
Hey ease up on the Queen man she has her own castle doctrine.
I am a Canadian. I am authorized by law to protect my home and family by whatever means necessary. I own guns. I shoot them. They reside in a locked cabinet each with individual trigger locks. There are 350,000 people within 25 miles. Some of them look suspicious. A gun is quite literally the last thing I would reach for.
Put the gun down...step out into the light.

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-16-2010 12:48 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 276 of 453 (574460)
08-16-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
08-16-2010 12:48 AM


What law? (out of curiosity)
I dont know, you will have to look it up. I was reading it the other day when you guys were talking about microwave stealing retards who posed a threat to your life. Even it didnt exist. I would still have the right to protect my home and family by whatever means necessary.
A gun is quite literally the last thing I would reach for.
Of course. But when you do... its nice for it to be there. And its nice to be protected by a Castle Doctrine so that a criminal in your home doesn't have the error of the law on their side.
What I said is a little misleading. Guns dont really play a part of my home defence plans as I dont really have any home defence plans. Please do not infer from this that I rely on the police for ANY measure of protection. This is more likely a result of not living in fear of those around me. If I were to use a gun to subdue an intruder it would most likely be theirs.
I claim the right to defend myself regardless of the law but yeah, its nice to live in a society of reasonable people.
As if anyone is promoting just shooting crazily?
Hmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-16-2010 12:48 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 295 of 453 (574764)
08-17-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ringo
08-17-2010 2:02 PM


Re: look in the mirror
Under what circumstances would you "have to" fire 20 rounds?
If you were a blind and deaf retard?
FUCK the queen
Well if queens are your thing, by all means, carry on. The Queen, on the other hand, is not to be fucked with.
(abe)Sorry, I realize I am not adding much to the topic.
Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 08-17-2010 2:02 PM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024