Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Hogwash.
I know of no western country that limits ones right to defend themselves beyond the very reasonable limitation of "reasonable force".
Quote:
What in bloody blue blazes d'ya think gun ownership-restriction laws are, mate?
Any gun-restriction law should be properly labeled 'victim disarmament' so as to fully inform the voters just what the politicians are trying to sneak past.
|
I don't know about the states but here in Australia one does have this right(the bold section) but with it comes certain responsibilities. For example, you will still be held responsible for any damage or injuries that may occur if you cause an accident. Even if you injure someone who was found to be on your property illegally.
On a side note, I always find it interesting that when "rights" are discussed there is very little discussion regarding the responsibilites that generally come along with the rights. I wonder why that is?
Cheers,
PKFFW |
Probably because 1)Politicians routinely - and deliberately - confuse 'rights' with 'privileges' and 2)Rights are what GOVERNMENTS cannot - legally - deny the people (although they tend to do a bang-up job of taking them away by force), responsibility is also 'inherent' to the individual - although far too many are not taught to understand this. But then if the govvies can get the people confused enough, the sheeple will fall far more easily for polly-wog lies and promises of 'bread-and-circuses' for the 'small fee of a few minor laws'.
Derek