On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:54:20 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:10 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

Now you're getting it.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

Exactly, until the fed kills the states.

This morning I woke up understanding your point about the use of "we".

;-)

Had I instead said, "It is my understanding that there are laws in
place....instead of "we have laws..." you would NOT have commented.

No, really, I didn't know if you were including me in your "we" or if
you were talking about your family. I might have, even if stated that
way. If you'd stated the location (or "here"), I wouldn't have,
except perhaps to say that it sucks to be you. ;-)

My sloppy speech pattern sounded as though I embrace those laws,
endorse laws that I do NOT endorse.

Thanks for the clarification. It did seem that way. ... jus' trying
to keep the scoreboard straight. ;-)

Thanks for the slap. Communication is a skill and sadly I am wanting
in that ability.Got to pay attention to nuances.