If the teacher strongly suspects that the pupil is breaking the law with that MP3 player, then they have the right to confiscate it.
Really? Are teachers part of the police force? If the pupil is doing something to another pupil the teacher has charge of like hitting them with the mp3 player then I could see your point. I can see the case for a teacher having authority to forbid something in the classroom regardless of the legality, such as talking during class, throwing spitballs or handing out CDs. I cannot see the case for allowing arbitrary property confiscation.
Then you're either not trying or you need to brush up on your logic.
she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband.
As I said, I can't always be there. Try to bring up points I haven't answered in my post already. My wife has the right to self defence at all times, not just when I am present. Also, unfortunately, some women need to defend themselves from their husbands, have no husbands or have husbands that are physically incapacitated. Your proposed solution allows for the right to defence of their life only to married women who chose their husbands well. It is a grossly sexist position to take.
In the days before guns, that seems to have been the popular option.
We are not in the days before guns. However in those days lots of things were popular that aren't now, like slavery, absolute authority of kings, religious political states, trial by combat and societies that relegated a compulsory subservient role to women.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1050445&cid=26001429
I already answered the same point you brought up at the linked post. Your son has the right to self defence but (currently) inherently lacks the ability. That need is provided by you and your wife or whoever you delegate that responsibility to. Having that responsibility requires that you have the right to the ability to fulfil it.
Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.
It's a good thing that exclusion exists too. I think we'd all agree that way too many people have been shooting intruders when they weren't home. It's about time the law did something about it.
Why would anyone other than a complete idiot choose "buy" when "take free" is offered?
Christmas presents for family or friends that won't be as impressed by freely downloaded content as they will by purchased content on physical media. To reward creators as an incentive for them to do it again. As a way of thanking creators.
It is wise to look for long term benefits as well as immediate ones. "More money in my pocket right now" is not the only thing that governs some of our decisions. That doesn't make us idiots.
Yeah, those against copyright are unamerican communists. Like Thomas Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house
So you didn't even read the first sentence then. "A Castle Doctrine... is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)...
I repeat myself: For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misinformed.
not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing.
That might have been what you were talking about, I agreed to no such thing, nor did anyone propose that limitation on the discussion. I was talking about the use of firearms in self defence.
Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege.
No, the requirement of circumstances is simply the procedure by which we establish that a given killing was actually self defence and not an act of aggression. If you were saying that killing is a privilege you have under certain circumstances but not a right, you would be correct. The circumstances under which you gain the privilege of killing are the ones you mentioned, ie that you were acting in self defence (which you have a right to) instead of aggression. The right to self defence is a constant. You do not lose that right by being in circumstances that don't require it. If I walk down the street, I may defend myself against aggression from any person there. If they don't attack me, the fact that I am not allowed to assault them or kill them does not diminish my right to self defence, since that isn't self defence.
As for the Hohfeldian analysis, A has the right to self defence, B has the duty to refrain from attacking. Don't you even read the articles you link to? "an individual would be considered to have perfect liberty if it is shown that no-one has a right to prevent the given act" No-one had the right to prevent you from defending yourself. If they did, they would be classed as one of the attackers you were defending from.
Can your wife defend herself with defensive arts like Karate, or with pepper spray or a taser?
Karate: No. She learns karate but realistically it will take years to become proficient. Also it doesn't address the size/strength imbalance. An attacker can also learn to fight and if he is larger and stronger will retain the same advantage. With guns there is equalisation.
Taser: Not legal for her to have it where we live. Less effective as a threat (I'd prefer if she never actually had to use it but just the threat was enough to deter the attack). Ineffective against multiple attackers.
Why shouldn't she protect herself with lethal means?
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. They do not "appear out of nowhere" despite what you may have heard. They have to approach you. This gives you an opportunity to respond. Perhaps your response of choice would be screaming, I don't know. I would prefer for my wife to be capable of effectively fighting back and winning.
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who desire to be subjugated and does indeed merit the label of mental illness.
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
You have the right to self defence at all times. You are only in a position to defend yourself if you are being attacked but you don't lose the right. Just like free speech is a right, even though we sleep regularly and most of us don't talk in our sleep. Free speech doesn't become a privilege rather than a right because you sleep.
The need for self defence is (thankfully) quite rare. The right to self defence is constant.
If you don't see the difference between your 2 year old and my wife possessing firearms there is no hope of rational discourse with you. Nevertheless, my 2 year old has the right to self defence but not the capacity. That's why we care for her, including protecting her. She is at all times in the care of my wife, myself or another trusted individual. It remains my position that anyone protecting her ought to have the legal right to be capable of doing so and by that I mean the right to keep and bear arms.
Quite correct, it is not an ethics issue, or a human right. It is a constitutional right granted to all citizens of the US.
Don't let him fool you, it is an ethics and human rights issue. The constitution acknowledges pre-existing rights of the people. The human rights issue is that you have the right to life, including the right to self defence. This right can only be upheld in a non-discriminatory fashion by the right to keep and bear arms. The ethics issue is that you as an individual or in cooperation with others (eg: a government) do not have the ethical right to deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves.
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Gun ownership is absolutely a human right. Freedom of speech doesn't require that you respect anyone's opinion, it guarantees you the right to express disrespect of others opinions, including the governments, without being opposed with government force.
The right to life is the fundamental human right. Without it, all others are meaningless. A gun is what you use in the case of someone disregarding your right to life. Courts ensure your right to free speech, guns ensure your right to life.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's right to self defence. I think it is a form of mental illness you're suffering.
In contrast, Australia and especially the UK have always had pretty strict controls and there are fewer guns available to the criminal element as a result. Gun control seems to work reasonably well when applied from a clean slate, but it's very unlikely to work if the criminals already have guns.
And yet it hasn't stopped murder. Knives are the most common murder weapon, followed equally by physical force (hands/feet) and blunt instruments IIRC (working early, don't have the time to look it up. Sexual assault is up, kidnapping is up. Look up the 2007 criminology report if you're interested. Murder rates were on the way down for a couple of decades prior to the gun laws and have generally continued downwards. There is no reason to attribute that to gun control. Also we did not always have strict gun control, when I left school you could buy guns and ammo over the counter no questions asked, including semi-automatic military style rifles.
What we have done is given the strong the overwhelming advantage in violent situations, discriminating against the weak, women, the elderly and infirm. Australian gun control laws should be struck down as discriminatory.
So even if you consider abortion to be murder, by your own arguments it should be allowed because pregnancy always presents a risk to the life and health of the mother.
That doesn't flow from my arguments at all. Read the post again and you'll see I differentiated based not only on risk to life, but innocence. In general you must be able to reasonably show you had reason to believe both risk to life and malice to justify killing someone. In addition to that, risks you deliberately expose yourself to ought not, in my opinion which I expect would be backed up in most cases in court, justify you in killing someone. You cannot kill people for being unskilled at driving, for example, even though they may present a real risk to you. As for deliberately taking on risk, if in bear hunting season you wore a realistic bear suit in the woods I doubt you could use self defence as a justification for killing someone who shot at you.
No foetuses could be rationally said to be attempting the murder of the mother, many pregnancies are a result of a deliberate decision by the mother. As a result, abortion on demand does not meet the same criteria as situations that justify killing in self defence. I've heard some reasoned arguments in favour of abortion. Nothing you have said qualifies.
I'm guessing you don't really need to read the post again though, you probably already understood everything I've pointed out. I'd say you know full well that I wasn't making an argument in favour of abortion at all, but pointing out the dishonesty (or possibly stupidity) of your original post, traits that have been repeated in your reply.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
There is a logically consistent view, long acknowledged in law, that killing in self defence is not the same as murder and is not wrong. Equating the killing of an innocent human for no other reason than a desire to do so to the killing of a person threatening ones own life requires either dishonesty or sub-moron intelligence. Nobody is advocating the right to murder on demand (unless a foetus is human, then there is a large number of people advocating the right to murder on demand), you would obviously know that, so I have to conclude dishonesty on your part.
https://abr.gov.au/abrweb/default.aspx?pid=90&sid=1&outcome=2
This is the Australian Business Register. It is the page used to register a business in Australia, a necessary step to legally running a business. This page is linked to from this one http://www.abr.gov.au/ABR_BC/ (top link under "Registrations"). I'm using firefox 3.0.4 on linux, the site works, but gives this message first.
Your Browser version is not currently supported.
Currently your Browser does not have scripting enabled. To access the ABR, please enable client side scripting.
If you are confident that your system meets these requirements, please continue.
Supported configurations include:
Operating Systems
* Windows 98 , ME
* Windows NT, 2000, XP
* Macintosh
Browsers
* Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 5.0 or later
* Netscape Navigator/Communicator Version 6.0 or later
Browser Settings
* Cookies Enabled
* Scripting Enabled
For information on how to configure your browser to meet ABR requirements or to download the latest Browser version, view ABR Technical Support.
if you type it by hand, will you really want to read it again on an ebook?
Probably not. I find the formatting of the project gutenberg books to be not very good for reading in hard copy. I do some changes with sed, then remaining changes as I read the electronic copy. I end up with a file that can be taken to a printer and made into a readable book, but I've already read it by then. Perhaps someone else will benefit, I haven't redistributed so far though.
Slashdot Mirror
If the teacher strongly suspects that the pupil is breaking the law with that MP3 player, then they have the right to confiscate it.
Really? Are teachers part of the police force? If the pupil is doing something to another pupil the teacher has charge of like hitting them with the mp3 player then I could see your point. I can see the case for a teacher having authority to forbid something in the classroom regardless of the legality, such as talking during class, throwing spitballs or handing out CDs. I cannot see the case for allowing arbitrary property confiscation.
I see two logical conclusions to this:
Then you're either not trying or you need to brush up on your logic.
she could just rely on her brave, beefy husband.
As I said, I can't always be there. Try to bring up points I haven't answered in my post already. My wife has the right to self defence at all times, not just when I am present. Also, unfortunately, some women need to defend themselves from their husbands, have no husbands or have husbands that are physically incapacitated. Your proposed solution allows for the right to defence of their life only to married women who chose their husbands well. It is a grossly sexist position to take.
In the days before guns, that seems to have been the popular option.
We are not in the days before guns. However in those days lots of things were popular that aren't now, like slavery, absolute authority of kings, religious political states, trial by combat and societies that relegated a compulsory subservient role to women.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1050445&cid=26001429
I already answered the same point you brought up at the linked post. Your son has the right to self defence but (currently) inherently lacks the ability. That need is provided by you and your wife or whoever you delegate that responsibility to. Having that responsibility requires that you have the right to the ability to fulfil it.
Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.
It's a good thing that exclusion exists too. I think we'd all agree that way too many people have been shooting intruders when they weren't home. It's about time the law did something about it.
Firearm homicide rate is somewhere in the region of 25 times higher.
And that is significant because it is so much more satisfactory to be killed with a knife than a gun.
Why would anyone other than a complete idiot choose "buy" when "take free" is offered?
Christmas presents for family or friends that won't be as impressed by freely downloaded content as they will by purchased content on physical media. To reward creators as an incentive for them to do it again. As a way of thanking creators.
It is wise to look for long term benefits as well as immediate ones. "More money in my pocket right now" is not the only thing that governs some of our decisions. That doesn't make us idiots.
Yeah, those against copyright are unamerican communists. Like Thomas Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house
So you didn't even read the first sentence then. "A Castle Doctrine ... is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work)...
I repeat myself: For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misinformed.
not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing.
That might have been what you were talking about, I agreed to no such thing, nor did anyone propose that limitation on the discussion. I was talking about the use of firearms in self defence.
Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege.
No, the requirement of circumstances is simply the procedure by which we establish that a given killing was actually self defence and not an act of aggression. If you were saying that killing is a privilege you have under certain circumstances but not a right, you would be correct. The circumstances under which you gain the privilege of killing are the ones you mentioned, ie that you were acting in self defence (which you have a right to) instead of aggression. The right to self defence is a constant. You do not lose that right by being in circumstances that don't require it. If I walk down the street, I may defend myself against aggression from any person there. If they don't attack me, the fact that I am not allowed to assault them or kill them does not diminish my right to self defence, since that isn't self defence.
As for the Hohfeldian analysis, A has the right to self defence, B has the duty to refrain from attacking. Don't you even read the articles you link to? "an individual would be considered to have perfect liberty if it is shown that no-one has a right to prevent the given act" No-one had the right to prevent you from defending yourself. If they did, they would be classed as one of the attackers you were defending from.
Can your wife defend herself with defensive arts like Karate, or with pepper spray or a taser?
Karate: No. She learns karate but realistically it will take years to become proficient. Also it doesn't address the size/strength imbalance. An attacker can also learn to fight and if he is larger and stronger will retain the same advantage. With guns there is equalisation.
Pepper spray: Not legal for her to have it where we live. Also known to not always work http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-tell-of-nightmare-with-zombie/2008/10/08/1223145421609.html
Taser: Not legal for her to have it where we live. Less effective as a threat (I'd prefer if she never actually had to use it but just the threat was enough to deter the attack). Ineffective against multiple attackers.
Why shouldn't she protect herself with lethal means?
Try to be coherent next time. You think your insult will be attacked with a firearm do you? Gone off your meds?
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. They do not "appear out of nowhere" despite what you may have heard. They have to approach you. This gives you an opportunity to respond. Perhaps your response of choice would be screaming, I don't know. I would prefer for my wife to be capable of effectively fighting back and winning.
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who desire to be subjugated and does indeed merit the label of mental illness.
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
You have the right to self defence at all times. You are only in a position to defend yourself if you are being attacked but you don't lose the right. Just like free speech is a right, even though we sleep regularly and most of us don't talk in our sleep. Free speech doesn't become a privilege rather than a right because you sleep.
The need for self defence is (thankfully) quite rare. The right to self defence is constant.
For someone who presumes to correct others on points of law you are woefully misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
If you don't see the difference between your 2 year old and my wife possessing firearms there is no hope of rational discourse with you. Nevertheless, my 2 year old has the right to self defence but not the capacity. That's why we care for her, including protecting her. She is at all times in the care of my wife, myself or another trusted individual. It remains my position that anyone protecting her ought to have the legal right to be capable of doing so and by that I mean the right to keep and bear arms.
Quite correct, it is not an ethics issue, or a human right. It is a constitutional right granted to all citizens of the US.
Don't let him fool you, it is an ethics and human rights issue. The constitution acknowledges pre-existing rights of the people. The human rights issue is that you have the right to life, including the right to self defence. This right can only be upheld in a non-discriminatory fashion by the right to keep and bear arms. The ethics issue is that you as an individual or in cooperation with others (eg: a government) do not have the ethical right to deprive someone of the ability to defend themselves.
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Gun ownership is absolutely a human right. Freedom of speech doesn't require that you respect anyone's opinion, it guarantees you the right to express disrespect of others opinions, including the governments, without being opposed with government force.
The right to life is the fundamental human right. Without it, all others are meaningless. A gun is what you use in the case of someone disregarding your right to life. Courts ensure your right to free speech, guns ensure your right to life.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's right to self defence. I think it is a form of mental illness you're suffering.
In contrast, Australia and especially the UK have always had pretty strict controls and there are fewer guns available to the criminal element as a result. Gun control seems to work reasonably well when applied from a clean slate, but it's very unlikely to work if the criminals already have guns.
And yet it hasn't stopped murder. Knives are the most common murder weapon, followed equally by physical force (hands/feet) and blunt instruments IIRC (working early, don't have the time to look it up. Sexual assault is up, kidnapping is up. Look up the 2007 criminology report if you're interested. Murder rates were on the way down for a couple of decades prior to the gun laws and have generally continued downwards. There is no reason to attribute that to gun control. Also we did not always have strict gun control, when I left school you could buy guns and ammo over the counter no questions asked, including semi-automatic military style rifles.
What we have done is given the strong the overwhelming advantage in violent situations, discriminating against the weak, women, the elderly and infirm. Australian gun control laws should be struck down as discriminatory.
So even if you consider abortion to be murder, by your own arguments it should be allowed because pregnancy always presents a risk to the life and health of the mother.
That doesn't flow from my arguments at all. Read the post again and you'll see I differentiated based not only on risk to life, but innocence. In general you must be able to reasonably show you had reason to believe both risk to life and malice to justify killing someone. In addition to that, risks you deliberately expose yourself to ought not, in my opinion which I expect would be backed up in most cases in court, justify you in killing someone. You cannot kill people for being unskilled at driving, for example, even though they may present a real risk to you. As for deliberately taking on risk, if in bear hunting season you wore a realistic bear suit in the woods I doubt you could use self defence as a justification for killing someone who shot at you.
No foetuses could be rationally said to be attempting the murder of the mother, many pregnancies are a result of a deliberate decision by the mother. As a result, abortion on demand does not meet the same criteria as situations that justify killing in self defence. I've heard some reasoned arguments in favour of abortion. Nothing you have said qualifies.
I'm guessing you don't really need to read the post again though, you probably already understood everything I've pointed out. I'd say you know full well that I wasn't making an argument in favour of abortion at all, but pointing out the dishonesty (or possibly stupidity) of your original post, traits that have been repeated in your reply.
In the US specifically, there is no federal authority for any such thing, so it would be completely illegal.
Like the Federal reserve, the Federal department of education, the BATF etc, etc. Those things could never happen because of your constitution right?
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
There is a logically consistent view, long acknowledged in law, that killing in self defence is not the same as murder and is not wrong. Equating the killing of an innocent human for no other reason than a desire to do so to the killing of a person threatening ones own life requires either dishonesty or sub-moron intelligence. Nobody is advocating the right to murder on demand (unless a foetus is human, then there is a large number of people advocating the right to murder on demand), you would obviously know that, so I have to conclude dishonesty on your part.
My word yes, "Liberty", how quaint!
Has it occurred to you that the USA was formed because they didn't like the way the rest of the world was run?
https://abr.gov.au/abrweb/default.aspx?pid=90&sid=1&outcome=2
This is the Australian Business Register. It is the page used to register a business in Australia, a necessary step to legally running a business. This page is linked to from this one http://www.abr.gov.au/ABR_BC/ (top link under "Registrations"). I'm using firefox 3.0.4 on linux, the site works, but gives this message first.
Your Browser version is not currently supported.
Currently your Browser does not have scripting enabled. To access the ABR, please enable client side scripting.
If you are confident that your system meets these requirements, please continue.
Supported configurations include:
Operating Systems
* Windows 98 , ME
* Windows NT, 2000, XP
* Macintosh
Browsers
* Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 5.0 or later
* Netscape Navigator/Communicator Version 6.0 or later
Browser Settings
* Cookies Enabled
* Scripting Enabled
For information on how to configure your browser to meet ABR requirements or to download the latest Browser version, view ABR Technical Support.
if you type it by hand, will you really want to read it again on an ebook?
Probably not. I find the formatting of the project gutenberg books to be not very good for reading in hard copy. I do some changes with sed, then remaining changes as I read the electronic copy. I end up with a file that can be taken to a printer and made into a readable book, but I've already read it by then. Perhaps someone else will benefit, I haven't redistributed so far though.
He didn't imply that they should be, he implied (correctly) that they are (more) immune to the law. It shouldn't take you that much to work it out.