Replies

Would you, being a father or husband, cower behind protection and require the police to save your family? That, I think, would be a better way of phrasing it. And along with it, would you seek prevent a father or husband whose family is being held from taking it upon himself to enter into combat for their sakes?

You aren't Rambo. You alone do not have the training, firepower, or ability to take on a barricaded individual or group of people holding your family hostage in a house. It's pretty obvious that you aren't grounded in reality here. You know that you are caught hiding behind absurdity, and now you are trying to shift the question.

BTW: Why did you ignore the other scenario? Should the police have to knock and announce their presence when doing so will cause the terrorist to set off the nuclear device?

I simply do not believe that it is either reasonable or moral to allow the police to break into ones house. Period.

So you would allow terrorists to hold hostages, create explosive devices and do other such things?

So were the framers of the Constitution also wrong, considering that a warrant explicitly gives the one holding the warrant the authority to break and enter into a home if entry is refused?

You aren't Rambo.

I never claimed I was.

You alone do not have the training,

And do you know what training I have had?

firepower,

Do you know what weapons I have, or have access to?

or ability to take on a barricaded individual or group of people holding your family hostage in a house.

And you would deny that to anyone even-if it was a singular individual, in your own home [which you would likely know better than he].

It's pretty obvious that you aren't grounded in reality here. You know that you are caught hiding behind absurdity, and now you are trying to shift the question.

Actually, I am making a point that is very much grounded in reality; do you, AS A PERSON, have the right to defend your family and/or property? Is that right independent of the government? If not, then in what ways is it mutated?

I am not asking "is it smart?" or "do the odds favor you?"... I am asking about the right itself.

So were the framers of the Constitution also wrong, considering that a warrant explicitly gives the one holding the warrant the authority to break and enter into a home if entry is refused?

Like I said, there are siege-tactics available if ONLY compliance & apprehension were the exclusive issue. Regarding the Constitution's framers, I do not have to agree that everything therein is moral to accept it as law; as I said when making my statement I believe that the breaking into another's house is immoral, period.

So you would allow terrorists to hold hostages, create explosive devices and do other such things?

Have you ever heard of something called a militia? I believe that the whole community, armed for combat, is the appropriate response for those 'such things.'

From your postings I discern that you would deny that right to the people, "because the courts have ruled..." it to be illegal, even though the Declaration of Independence states that the people have such a right -- even to the point of throwing off the government -- and the Constitution via the Second Amendment supports this with the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state."

You, sir, propose a very un-free state wherein the authorities, such as Law Enforcement Officers*, have immunity from all law and are therefore neither accountable nor punishable.

*and Legislators; John Murtha was granted immunity by the court from his slanderous condemnation of the Haditha Marines.