Brandishing on your own property

[chariot13]

Ignore every law that you feel or know is unconstitutional. Its as simple as that. Don't worry about the lies and threats that fd15k and his fellow socialists like to point out, because the fact is you can break just about every law out there and never be arrested as long as you know what you do is right. Cops are human too and are usually not as excited about screwing over a fellow American all because a law says they can, as much as fd15k would like you to believe. If you walk out to someone that is on your property without your permission, with a gun in your hand, then even a cop in hippyville Eugene will laugh at the other person if they didn't like your response. Keeping the gun pointed at the ground but ready (even less aggressive than you're taught on guard duty of a base) and telling them to turn around & leave now is a proper way to handle trespasser's. Your home is your base, doesn't matter what fd15k thinks or copy and pastes.

 

[Stomper]

Many are written in plain English and are simple to understand. Many can be taken based on the preferences of the reader, and additional sources of information might be required. This
thread is a good example of such situation.



"Snarky" comment was in response to your crickets. And yes, I accept your moral superiority.

Who said anything about moral superiority? The crickets comment (BTW- directed at all the progressives that lurk here) merits the Alinskyite stratagem of personal ridicule, despite my having listed the citations you requested, then proceeded to poo-poo?

Sometimes I agree with the points you bring up, and actually appreciate thinking about what I believe. I have yet to make any personally disparaging remarks towards you, yet in the face of pertinent questions to the statements/comments you have made you only respond with sophistry. BTW- you've still yet to respond to my earlier legitimate questions.



Having "adversaries" that know how to read/comprehend the "rules for radicals" book is a beatch, huh?

Who said anything about moral superiority? The crickets comment (BTW- directed at all the progressives that lurk here) merits the Alinskyite stratagem of personal ridicule, despite my having listed the citations you requested, then proceeded to poo-poo?

Sometimes I agree with the points you bring up, and actually appreciate thinking about what I believe. I have yet to make any personally disparaging remarks towards you, yet in the face of pertinent questions to the statements/comments you have made you only respond with sophistry. BTW- you've still yet to respond to my earlier legitimate questions.



Having "adversaries" that know how to read/comprehend the "rules for radicals" book is a beatch, huh?

 

[fd15k]

Who said anything about moral superiority? The crickets comment (BTW- directed at all the progressives that lurk here) merits the Alinskyite stratagem of personal ridicule, despite my having listed the citations you requested, then proceeded to poo-poo?

Sometimes I agree with the points you bring up, and actually appreciate thinking about what I believe. I have yet to make any personally disparaging remarks towards you, yet in the face of pertinent questions to the statements/comments you have made you only respond with sophistry. BTW- you've still yet to respond to my earlier legitimate questions.



Having "adversaries" that know how to read/comprehend the "rules for radicals" book is a beatch, huh?

I will have to disengage at this point, as I get a feeling I'm walking circles with you. I will look at the Executive Branch later as I promised though.

 

[Stomper]

We're not walking circles, we're doing the two-step forward, one step back, wango-tango.

 

[Father of four]

Carry on...

 

[Stomper]

Carry on...

That's how I roll, FOF.

 

[U201491]

Progressives.
That is doublespeak for socialist/marxist/communist
Webster would roll in his grave the way the left messes with his stuff.

 

[solv3nt]

161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, "premises" includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]



161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]


This should clear some things up, someone left out some pertinent information when citing 161.225. As far as not being inside of your dwelling, you are limited to using physical force if the individual is not threatening your life or the life of a third party, and isn't about to commit a felony or arson.

 

[fd15k]

Also, what say you about how those in the Executive branches of the Federal, State, and Local governments selectively (aka outright refusing) enforcing the laws that are on the books, ranging from the (un)Affordable Health Care Act deadlines, to immigration laws, to "hate crimes" assignment?

I think it's a two part situation. First, majority of the agencies in the Executive are supervised by elected officials. Which means that people have control over those agencies
through representation. Most well known and obvious example of that is Sheriff's Office. Then, there is the legislative branch that created those agencies in the first place.
Legislative intent is what those agencies should and should not do. Legislatures have ability to revoke funding and dissolve agencies. And since legislatures are elected,
people also have control over the behaviour of the Executive through the Legislature. This one is kind of similar to how I and the citizens of my city can control whether
Tigard PD will simply "enforce the law", or it will also "protect and serve"

As for the selective enforcement, it is a tricky thing. Have you ever got out of a ticket with a warning ? Our selfish nature dictates that we support things that benefit
us, and condemn the others. While not having a strong position on selective enforcement as a concept (or in other words "it depends"), I think the best way to describe
my position at this time is to say that I would prefer strong enforcement of the laws, but having fewer laws and more freedoms.

For specific things you asked. I don't like Health Care Act, I want it repealed, and want something else done about the medical care altogether. So a particular aspect
of that act doesn't bother me, since I am against the whole thing. I am against proposed immigration reforms, and in favour of strong border security and zero tolerance
for illegal immigration. So you can decide whether I am with the Administration on the immigration stuff or not. As for the "hate crimes", I don't even know what
the context is, so I can't comment.

 

[Stomper]

Let me start by rehashing what happened in this thread. You made a potentially inaccurate and dangerous statement for which I have requested a citation. That implied that
you are either potentially wrong, OR I am uninformed and this could be an opportunity for me to learn something new. You only cited ORS, which resulted in the interpretation
pissing match with multiple members including yourself, with me being the "wrong" minority. I then found a citation (interpretation) from nothing less but a court of appeals
for the state of Oregon, supporting my position. The rest was just from my academic interest on the subject. I didn't avoid it, I skipped it, as it's not very interesting to me. I will re-read what you inquired about it, and will try to answer a bit later.



That was indeed in another thread, and I ended the conversation there for a reason.



Apparently you are actually interested in the act of Civil Disobedience (or rather my position on it). I will not go into debating on topic of Nazis and other stuff you brought up - it will take me all day
breaking it all apart and I have to work for living (yes, I am not a welfare recipient).

Civil disobedience is simply a PR act. It does not invalidate any laws by itself, but rather aims at public outcry and impact on legislature (and courts to a lesser extent). For CD to be effective, the
issues raised must be supported by significant amount of population. CD comes with a risk of not having the support to strike down the laws and being prosecuted for their violations.
Since it is a PR method, there is no point in disobeying the law while in the closet. It only turns one into a criminal and does not achieve anything.

Citizens of the United States (with a few exceptions) have ability to participate in the democratic process through variety of methods, and they should utilize those methods
whenever they feel they are misrepresented, whenever they feel certain laws are not in their interest. Civil Disobedience is the method of last resort, and due to its risks it should
be avoided as much as possible.

There was indeed a "pissing match" (i.e. FD this, and FD that, FD is on my ignore list, etc) but I didn't participate in that. I simply asked legitimate questions in order to triangulate where you're coming from.

I for one appreciate what you bring to the table of discussions here (gasp, BLASPHEMY! LOL) for a variety of reasons, regardless if we agree on something or not.

 

[41Slinger]

What this whole conversation comes down to is I and my family LIVE, Burglar DIES. We'll work out the issues later. You have to understand that if you are willing to use a weapon to protect your self, it will be costly in a lot of ways, some you cannot even predict, but you are alive and the threat is not. Most Important.