bruce wrote:it seems the "reactive" ideas of tai chi chuan work well with the self defense laws.
i would think there are times to take the proactive/preemptive attack to ensure your safety but it appears that it would be illegal to do so.
TaoBoxer wrote:I massachusetts you don't have the "right" to claim self defense. The COURT decides whether or not to give you the option....
Lewitt
bruce wrote:it seems the "reactive" ideas of tai chi chuan work well with the self defense laws.i would think there are times to take the proactive/preemptive attack to ensure your safety but it appears that it would be illegal to do so.
strawdog wrote:Tim's student hit the guy once on the jaw and broke it. The guy fell on his knees as he got knocked out, broke his knee from the impact. Then hit his head on the concrete causing a concussion.
It was a complete self-defense scenario, but Tim's student was still taken to jail and released later. Later on the guy who tried to assault him tried to sue for damages.
Walter Joyce wrote:Lewitt,
No offense, but if you're not trained to do legal analysis, don't, even lawyers make mistakes.
Just like your self-defense analysis was off the mark so to is your second amendment argument and Massachusetts laws regarding gun permits. Guns, like alcohol or drugs, are subject to regulation. You can carry a gun in Massachusetts if you are issued a permit, and any state can choose how it regulates any controlled substance or item so long as their regulations comport with Federal standards, like the Constitution. Given the long tenure of Massachusetts, and other states for that matter, conditioning the carrying of a lethal weapon on having a permit to do so it is safe to say such regulation is consistent with constitutional standards.
As for second amendment proponents, their reading of the amendment fails to account for the full language of the amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is a very strong argument to be made that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is based in the need to defend their state in times of armed invasion. The second level of that argument is that given the existence of the national guard, multiple layers of armed law enforcement agencies as well as the national army that stand ready to defend the various states should they be attacked, current circumstances remove the basis for the right for the people to bear arms.
As for your propensity for having weapons nearby, its a world view I don't share with you. Despite the alarmists and conspiracy theorists out there I've managed to survive 52 years without ever carrying a knife or a gun for protection. And its not like I've lead a sheltered existence by any definition. My brother was fond of guns and carried one without a permit. It didn't keep him from being murdered while in his 30s.
Personally I believe in the rule of law, I recognize as well as anyone the flaws of our system, but as it is a system developed by people it is bound to be flawed. Despite that I am an optimist, as I find that viewpoint improves both my mood and my health.
I started into this thread because I try to correct misinformation when I can. I'm not interested in carrying on a long debate on the topic as it had been covered ad nauseum on the board before. I am also aware that I hold the minority position here and that emotions tend to run high on such topics.
To each their own, but just like I'd expect you to correct me if I misstated something within your area of expertise that is all I was trying to do here.
Walter
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests