Copying Hobby VHS tapes to DVD legalities

Proud that I can stand our ground on my own property? I have never considered being proud of that really. It's always been a given.

I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the *right* to drive you from your home. What do you do, just slunk off and wait until the criminal leaves? Or do you call the police, who then come and remove the criminal by force? I'm guessing the latter. So it all still comes down to force in the end. You just lack the nerve to do the job yourself.

"Spender" > I am dumbfounded by your being proud that criminals have the

Where, exactly, did I write or say that?

No, nerve has nothing to do with it. I believe in the rule of the law, not the Wild West rule of the gun.

As for nerve, I'm a volunteer fire-fighter. You?

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

You clearly stated that if criminals come in, you leave. They're right to be safe to raid your home apparently outweighs your right to be secure in your property.

Rule of law? The right to defend yourself is one of the oldest tenets of common law. So that *is* the law.

I'll fight my own fires also, unless they get too big.

You are attempting to twist me words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard.

You are attempting to twist my words. You have the right to defend your person if you or someone else is in mortal peril. Lethal force, to protect property, is going overboard.

Depends on where you live. Where I live, you have the right to use "reasonable force", even when it comes to defending your person. Using deadly force to stop someone stealing your TV is not "reasonable force". Even when defending yourself, you have the right to only use "reasonable force". Shooting someone who is about to beat you with their fists may be deemed by the courts, even with a trial, as "unreasonable force". The same goes if you beat your assailent to death. That is usually classed as "unreasonable force".

It depends on where you live. If you live in a gun happy culture, then you grow up with a gun happy view point. If you grow up in a culture where guns are either a hobby or used only for hunting, then you look at guns as a dangerous weapon. And please, don't trot out the NRA's red herring about personal protection. That red herring has been theor backbone for years. The vast majority of people, even in the U.S. of A., are killed by people they know, not by felons in the commision of a crime.

Right. Then you call on me. :-)

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

You should be able to defend yourself against any attack.

No, allowing criminals free rein is what is "going overboard".

Once again, I never said that.

You even quoted me but you still managed to twist or interpret what I wrote. :-)

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

That, clearly, is your opinion. But is not supported in fact of law in many countries and fortunately in more and more states of the United States.

"unreasonable force"?????

There have been hundreds of people beaten to death by fists alone. And to use "deadly force" in defense against an attack that may cost you your life is "unreasonable force"

That is absolute horse pucky.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours. :-)

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

Not in the countries I've lived in where people have gone to jail for use of "unreasonable force" as they have in many other western countries. Except yours, and of course.

Anyway, this discussion has run its course and is getting no where.

Take care.

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

And we're also proud that we decided to make our *own* mistakes, thank you -rather than have you make them *for* us- and threw you guys out of here 232 years ago. (Shortly to be followed by the *rest* of your overseas possessions.)

Not much has changed in the interum: you *still* think you should be entitled to decide who's civilized and who's not by the simple, arrogant, method of declaring yourselves to be civilized and anyone who disagrees with your judgements *un*civilized.

Didn't work 232 years ago, and won't work today, either.

~Pete

Sorry for the typo - I of course meant "crowd', not "crown". They seem to really like feeling threatened and under siege. Their slogan is as stupid and demeaning to your cause as the "Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em Out" t-shirts seen on so many pimply faced skinhead wannabe's and junior Rambo wankers. If you can find more than one of them in a thousand who knows the origin of the phrase, I'll be very surprised.

Given his dogmatic one-way mentality, La Pierre certainly acts like an ayatollah.

There certainly are corrupt dealers; what percentage, and it may well be small, we cannot tell since the Tiahrt Amendment makes it legally impossible to find out. There may as well be corrupt manufacturers. Untie the hands of the cops and let them find out.

What are you afraid of?

Oh? I presume that the "we" you mention does not include those who suported Bush and Cheney and their cohort of imperial presidency - oh, pardon me, "unitary executive" - theorists, or the so-called "PATRIOT" act that would have our founding fathers rising up in revolt. It seems a large part of the US was perfectly happy to let the privileged few - the REAL elitists - run the country; and run it they did, right into the ground.

Hey - when and where did you do military service?

People like you being put in charge of anything more complex than a tricycle.

As someone once quoth: "For every difficult and convoluted question there is a simple one-size-fits-all answer.

It's completely *wrong*, of course, but it *is* simple."

~Pete

Give it a rest, Steve.

All you're doing with your spin is convincing your readers that the far left has just as many mindless idealogues as the far right ever had. And that those two extremes have more in common with each other than they have with centrists such as myself.

Both wings are firmly convinced that *they* have all the answers, and that they are justified in enforcing their beliefs on the unwilling middle "for the good of all".

But the fact is, the rabid left wing anti-gun nuts are no more attractive to centrists than the Bush team's attempts to enforce it's own version of Sharia Law on the world in general.

~Pete

Why so evasive? What is NRA hiding with this Tiahrt crap?

But the fact is, I'm not a rabd left-wig anti-gun nut. Hell, I voted for Goldwater in '64, and to my everlasting shame, for Tricky Dick in '68 (my excuse: I was in the Tonkin Gulf as a hoist operator-gunner flying SAR missions in H-3s, and while I saw some news footage of the Dems in Chicago, I saw none of Tricky's fake "town hall" meetings. And I just couldn't stand that smarmy bastard Hubert. Since then, I will admit, the only Republican I've voted for was Pete McCloskey. Eight years ago I had good feleings about John McCain, and was sad to see him sell out to the Christian Taliban and Ayn Ranty economic royalists that currently run the GOP.

I have a bit of acquaintance with firearms, from black powder rifles to shotguns to a Walther P-38, a model 1911 .45, a S&W .38, on to M-60s, M-16s and M-79 blooper guns. I despise the hairspray substrates on the local news who describe police marking "bullet shells" [sic] at a crime scene, or who can't tell the difference between an automatic pistol and an automatic weapon. I don't want to restrict ownership of long arms, even semi-auto with small (5 round - like a Ruger .44) magazine size, I just want law enforcement to be able to track down those selling guns to gang bangers. I have no quibble with cities having strict requirement on pistol ownership and carry permits. If that makes me a rabid left-wing anti-gun nut, I suggest you reconsider your apparent classification of yourself as a centrist. If you feel any eejit should be free to buy a 12 gauge with a huge rotary drum magazine or an AK knock-off with a 30 round banana magazine that can be made full auto with little effort, or any one of varius TEC and UZI knockoffs, YOU are the nut.

Anytime you want to try making a coherent justification for the Tiahrt Amendment, have atcha - be interesting to hear it. Try to explain it to your nearest urban chief of police.

PS - next time you see Saxby Chambliss, tell him he's a man without honor and I'll meet him anytime, M-60s at 300 yards.