Castle Doctrine vs. Brandishing Laws

Should you be able to answer the door with a shotgun?

only if it's religious (mormons/Jehovahs witnesses/etc)	6.1%	[ 2 ]
only if its a young man trying to screw your daughter	3.0%	[ 1 ]
only if it's an insurrance/vacuum cleaner/etc salesman	0.0%	[ 0 ]
some of the above	24.2%	[ 8 ]
all of the above	51.5%	[ 17 ]
No firearms are scary!	15.2%	[ 5 ]
Total Votes:			[ 33 ]

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

Hence my point. You DO have definite belief in what is true. Not only is it required to declare it would be lunacy to just consider any viewpoint which you came across, but in the very act of rejecting the opposing viewpoints, you are holding that it definitely true they are inaccurate.

[AsuraSyn]

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

Riviera de la Mancha

AsuraSyn

It's pretentious to try to remove prejudice from one's mindset?
Wow.
If I had an award for jackassery that would win it for the day. Maybe the week.

No- its pretentious because you think you are the only one trying to be objective.

And don't kid yourself- if there was an award for Jackassery, it would obviously be mine.

Very well, bowing to statistics I change my earlier statement to "unlike most everyone else".
Fair enough?

Not even most everyone. Most people like objectivity and often know its not possible.

You are not special in simply seeking this.

Ha!
Most people wouldn't know objectivity if it shat upon them. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, myself included, can only look at things from their own perspective, a subjective one, and thus objectivity is an almost alien concept. Everyone, by and large, views the world contextually, how one thing affects another within themselves.
"If I do x, y will happen."
They rarely, if ever, look at things systematically.
"Is it beneficial to the whole to do x?"
Objectivity, in this vernacular, would simply be putting aside any form of preconception and starting from a blank state to decide what would be beneficial and what would not.

Oh, so its apparently that 'most people' wouldn't know objectivity, but you clearly are not in this group and belong with the anointed ones who presumably do? Interesting- didn't you just say that you can't know what objective is because people are all limited to their subjective view? Seems like you then fall into those who wouldn't know objectivity if it 'shat on them'.

Ha indeed.

It may be cliche` to say but, I'm not most people.
Most people never consider this s**t because it's outside their hamster wheel. I reject the wheel. From all experience you do as well. I'd wager you're a bit outside the norms irl as well.
I'm not saying I'm some divine "anointed one" or a superior being, that's lunacy. To once again borrow from another, "God doesn't limp."
Yes, I am an egomaniac. Yes, I do have megalomaniacal tendencies, so do most politicians and CEOs. Yes, I do have my bigotries.
None of that means I am wrong, and nothing else that has been presented to me disproves my beliefs either.

[AsuraSyn]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Very well.
To clarify, I strive for objectivity that benefits my species and planet of origin.
As I said, true objectivity would be totally alien to individuals.

There is no striving if you are suggesting there is a truth of what should be done. If you are claiming there is truth of what should be done, you actually hold that you have the knowledge of what is objectively moral. You are not agonising over what is right and studying the nature of the world, people and ethics. You are holding that you know the truth of what is right. You are not striving to know to know moral truth. You already think you know it. You are striving to put the world in this perfectly moral state you know(well, supposedly. I really do think it is likely that your convictions on this matter will be less than solid).

It isn't actually. Individualism actually functions on an objective basis: that it is true that any given individual is justified in seeking what they care about.

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

Hence my point. You DO have definite belief in what is true. Not only is it required to declare it would be lunacy to just consider any viewpoint which you came across, but in the very act of rejecting the opposing viewpoints, you are holding that it definitely true they are inaccurate.

I can only say they are inaccurate to my way of thinking.
Despite all efforts tot he contrary, I remain a subjective being.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

Hence my point. You DO have definite belief in what is true. Not only is it required to declare it would be lunacy to just consider any viewpoint which you came across, but in the very act of rejecting the opposing viewpoints, you are holding that it definitely true they are inaccurate.

I can only say they are inaccurate to my way of thinking.
Despite all efforts tot he contrary, I remain a subjective being.

Again, you are denying both your responsibly and the nature of your beliefs. They might only be your way of thinking, but they apply that your way of thinking is accurate to what produces moral benefit. Your beliefs exist in a state of holding they are an awareness of the truth of what is objectively best. You may be a subjective being, but your beliefs entail having an awareness of what is of objective benefit.

The entire subjective/objective split you are working under is nonsensical. All knowledge, whether it be about ethics, experience, the empirical world or math, is only known thorough a subjective lens.

[AsuraSyn]

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

I reject the concept of morality and absolute truth, you know that.
As for my convictions, you're right, they're not absolute. If I believed what I believe with no room for new information, I would be a lunatic.

I know you think and claim you so, but that is not true. You are lying. To both yourself and anyone reading this thread. You are running from the responsibility for what you are claiming. In this very thread you have outline particular actions which you hold should be done for the benefit of humanity.

I wouldn't say so: one is not necessary lunatic for holding something is true. Indeed, the very definition of lunatic, requires a definite notion, about what behaviour is "crazy," to exist. Finally, you say you are open to new information, but what did you do when challenged by Major Lima Charlie and Old Blue Collar Joe? You rejected anything they said as inaccurate.

You do believe what you believe with on room for new information. You are just, for some reason, are intensely afraid of realising this.

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

Hence my point. You DO have definite belief in what is true. Not only is it required to declare it would be lunacy to just consider any viewpoint which you came across, but in the very act of rejecting the opposing viewpoints, you are holding that it definitely true they are inaccurate.

I can only say they are inaccurate to my way of thinking.
Despite all efforts tot he contrary, I remain a subjective being.

Again, you are denying both your responsibly and the nature of your beliefs. They might only be your way of thinking, but they apply that your way of thinking is accurate to what produces moral benefit. Your beliefs exist in a state of holding they are an awareness of the truth of what is objectively best. You may be a subjective being, but your beliefs entail having an awareness of what is of objective benefit.

The entire subjective/objective split you are working under is nonsensical. All knowledge, whether it be about ethics, experience, the empirical world or math, is only known thorough a subjective lens.

That is true, however, it does not mean we should only focus on that viewpoint and not strive to achieve a greater one, even though it may be impossible.

[Wolf Nightshade]

I carry a 9mm and I have answered the door with my AK47. I don't care what anyone says it's my @#$?ing property. Pointing a loaded gun at anyone is a bad idea unless your going to shoot them. Most of the time when I answer my door no one sees the weapon in my hand.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

The Willow Of Darkness

AsuraSyn

Accepting any new information that happens to wander by as truth is lunacy. I gave ear to their viewpoints, debated and ultimately was not swayed. They can say the same of me and my information. Doesn't mean any of us rejected it out of hand, though on that I can speak only for meself, it just means we did not find cause to incorporate it into our personal belief systems.

Hence my point. You DO have definite belief in what is true. Not only is it required to declare it would be lunacy to just consider any viewpoint which you came across, but in the very act of rejecting the opposing viewpoints, you are holding that it definitely true they are inaccurate.

I can only say they are inaccurate to my way of thinking.
Despite all efforts tot he contrary, I remain a subjective being.

Again, you are denying both your responsibly and the nature of your beliefs. They might only be your way of thinking, but they apply that your way of thinking is accurate to what produces moral benefit. Your beliefs exist in a state of holding they are an awareness of the truth of what is objectively best. You may be a subjective being, but your beliefs entail having an awareness of what is of objective benefit.

The entire subjective/objective split you are working under is nonsensical. All knowledge, whether it be about ethics, experience, the empirical world or math, is only known thorough a subjective lens.

That is true, however, it does not mean we should only focus on that viewpoint and not strive to achieve a greater one, even though it may be impossible.

You are lying. Any "greater" position will be just as much known through subjective being. What you profess to want to achieve cannot be done and you then masquerade another position known through a subjective being as achieving the greatness of being known without the subjective being. It is perfectly fine to hold a position that one's knowledge is an unfinished project and there may be more to learn; however, any more knowledge that one gathers is just as much present to a subjective being as any of their former knowledge. Your falsehood and delusion here is not we cannot learn anything more. Your falsehood and delusion here that is one can have knowledge outside of the experience of a subjective being. Such "greatness" does not exist. Any "greater" knowledge is one form of awareness to a subjective being getting replaced by another.

Furthermore, you are still lying about your own position as well. You, when challenged by other in this thread, made the pronouncement they were definitely wrong in what they were arguing. You still hold definite beliefs about what is objectively the best state of existence and course of action.

[Thorz]

from blue to

I hate government.

Unless what you're doing will hurt someone else, you should be able to do whatever you damn well please in your home. Answering the door with a weapon ready should be fine. Sure it's threatening, but it's your property. Oughtta be able to chase off people you don't want there. If you actually pull the trigger... well, you have to expect consequences if you shoot someone.

You can't expect to person who is being threatened by a weapon to be sure. If someone points a weapon to me, I'll feel endangered and will do what I can to protect me. In such case, calling the cops to deal with the lunatic is enough.
To deal with the people I'd like to shoot when opening the door, a hose and some cold streams of water st them face is enough. And my daughter, when and if responsible enough to date someone, would use protection or deal with the crying-and-poo-making consequence later. If not at age or so, then again, I'd call the police. and if is a trespasser, well It's my house and anyone inside or trying to get in without my permission is to be dealt with as any intruder should.

[Avgvsto]

I fear the implications of drugs and alcohol.

[agrab0ekim]

Michael Noire

if the bullet cannot bust through the bones it hits, then it is no good. A shotgun has many tiny bullets that hit the target, some hit bone, some do not, but you have many wound channels, and much concussion and tissue damage. So shotguns are good for home defense. You can place one near your bedside for easy grabbing. Some people carry small lightweight pistols wherever they go throughout their house. It depends on how your home is set up.

the sound ALONE of a home shotgun should get people running
same with a slide, for that matter

[agrab0ekim]

Keltoi Samurai

Jacque De Martyr

Lets ban guns, free love man!

Let's ban love, free guns man!

let's ban all non-me Males, lovin' time