Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 16

 

2008-07-01 15:59:15
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6696|The Gem Saloon

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That man shot two unarmed criminals in the act of a crime.
*in the back*

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lol, you still refuse to respond to the second point.
specify.
i will be more than happy to shut down that point as well.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cruel and unusual punishment, a phrase thrown around a lot that refers specifically to sentences dealt by the judicial system after a trial. There can be no such thing as unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment before a trial has taken place.
so cruel and unusual punishment, cant be from a gunshot unless a court says its ok to shoot that person?
you lost me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There are things much, much worse than dying. Suffering unnecessarily before death is much worse than death itself.
like bleeding out from a gunshot wound fired from someone that was inexperienced and couldnt aim?
there goes the awesome "If" again.....

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I realize who I am talking to, and I understand the extensive responsibility shouldered by someone who owns a firearm.
i dont think you do.
it is NOT the responsibility of the firearm owner to shoot who they feel like. whether they feel like hes a threat to the moral fiber of society, or if they are just fucking retarded.
in fact, when you purchase a gun, you are trusted to NOT do that.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I do not own a gun, my immediate family does not own a gun, and if I ever do own a gun I doubt that it will be kept loaded, or unlocked away from the ammunition. Chances are I would never shoot the people in this situation, but I will staunchly defend someone else's right to do so.
so, all of this for a right you will never use?
all this for someone else to be able to do it?


well, thank you, but i dont need your help.
i carry a gun almost every day of my life. i analyze and reanalyze situations i walk into on a daily basis.
IF I EVER FEEL LIKE I WOULD NEED TO USE MY GUN, I LEAVE.
im not a hero enough like captain cuntface to shoot two people in the back....i have to leave that up to the true bad asses.


THAT is what the responsible gun owner does....they AVOID situations where they would have to use it.
not sit on the phone and then decide, after some thinking, to go shoot someone.


sadly, if he could have let them die of dehydration in a cage, i think he would have.

Last edited by Parker (2008-07-01 16:00:55)

2008-07-01 16:07:39
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX
Okay, time for my two cents, I suppose; more so since I am here in Texas, and we are being bombarded by this.

First, yes, it was perfectly legal.  The criminals were on his property at the time he shot them.  Yes, even in the back.  There, that is done.

If you listen to the 911 call, this guy was WAY too eager to go out and shoot those guys.  Guys like him give us responsible gun owners a bad name.

However, just to give him the benifit of a doubt, he did promise his neighbor to look after his property for him- maybe he took that a bit too far.

The man did claim he was in fear of his life- and no one there can argue whether or not that was true.  All we know is from his 911 call that they came out.  We do not know what happened from the time he walked out, gave warning (and at least he DID give warning), and when he shot them.  Yes, in the back.
2008-07-01 16:10:30
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6973|UK

imortal wrote:

Okay, time for my two cents, I suppose; more so since I am here in Texas, and we are being bombarded by this.

First, yes, it was perfectly legal.  The criminals were on his property at the time he shot them.  Yes, even in the back.  There, that is done.

If you listen to the 911 call, this guy was WAY too eager to go out and shoot those guys.  Guys like him give us responsible gun owners a bad name.

However, just to give him the benifit of a doubt, he did promise his neighbor to look after his property for him- maybe he took that a bit too far.

The man did claim he was in fear of his life- and no one there can argue whether or not that was true.  All we know is from his 911 call that they came out.  We do not know what happened from the time he walked out, gave warning (and at least he DID give warning), and when he shot them.  Yes, in the back.
Can we undead them? Cos they we're in the neighbours property.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-07-01 16:12:10
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

m3thod wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, time for my two cents, I suppose; more so since I am here in Texas, and we are being bombarded by this.

First, yes, it was perfectly legal.  The criminals were on his property at the time he shot them.  Yes, even in the back.  There, that is done.

If you listen to the 911 call, this guy was WAY too eager to go out and shoot those guys.  Guys like him give us responsible gun owners a bad name.

However, just to give him the benifit of a doubt, he did promise his neighbor to look after his property for him- maybe he took that a bit too far.

The man did claim he was in fear of his life- and no one there can argue whether or not that was true.  All we know is from his 911 call that they came out.  We do not know what happened from the time he walked out, gave warning (and at least he DID give warning), and when he shot them.  Yes, in the back.
Can we undead them? Cos they we're in the neighbours property.
From what I have heard and read, they had parked on the man's property and went to the neighbors house.
2008-07-01 16:15:38
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

imortal wrote:

m3thod wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, time for my two cents, I suppose; more so since I am here in Texas, and we are being bombarded by this.

First, yes, it was perfectly legal.  The criminals were on his property at the time he shot them.  Yes, even in the back.  There, that is done.

If you listen to the 911 call, this guy was WAY too eager to go out and shoot those guys.  Guys like him give us responsible gun owners a bad name.

However, just to give him the benifit of a doubt, he did promise his neighbor to look after his property for him- maybe he took that a bit too far.

The man did claim he was in fear of his life- and no one there can argue whether or not that was true.  All we know is from his 911 call that they came out.  We do not know what happened from the time he walked out, gave warning (and at least he DID give warning), and when he shot them.  Yes, in the back.
Can we undead them? Cos they we're in the neighbours property.
From what I have heard and read, they had parked on the man's property and went to the neighbors house.
If that's true it's even more of a no-brainer.
2008-07-01 16:26:56
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6793|Northern California
So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.

Also, it's not hard to see the fear he had was fabricated..since it was in fact stated from inside his home on the phone with the dispatcher. (yes, I listened to the 911 call weeks ago when this case came up initially)
2008-07-01 16:40:16
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

*in the back*
Act like a dog, you will die in the street like one.

Parker wrote:

specify.
i will be more than happy to shut down that point as well.

Parker wrote:

so cruel and unusual punishment, cant be from a gunshot unless a court says its ok to shoot that person?
you lost me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Do you guys not understand the difference between acts by citizens during the act of a crime and absurd judicial punishment dealt after the fact, or do you choose to ignore the difference?
Cruel and unusual punishment applies to judicial sentencing. It has nothing to do with citizen actions, or the treatment of other people in every day life. It is built in to protect the rights of people from unfair sentencing from crimes they are already convicted of, like hanging them in a basket 20 feet in the air. That is the difference between this case and these bullshit comparisons to Sharia law, those are punishments passed after a crime has been committed, and this was an action that happened during the crime. Falling and drowning in a muddy, wet grave when you're trying to mug someone is much different than being ordered by the court to be thrown in the same muddy pit as punishment for the mugging.

Responding to your second quote there, it sucks to get shot in the gut while fleeing a crime, but the court ordering being shot in the gut for punishment of the same crime is cruel and unusual.

Parker wrote:

like bleeding out from a gunshot wound fired from someone that was inexperienced and couldnt aim?
there goes the awesome "If" again.....
Again, you make poor choices, you live with the consequences, even if they are unforeseen or excessive when compared to what the law would have ordered. That does not give the courts free reign to dish out whatever punishment they want.

Parker wrote:

i dont think you do.
it is NOT the responsibility of the firearm owner to shoot who they feel like. whether they feel like hes a threat to the moral fiber of society, or if they are just fucking retarded.
in fact, when you purchase a gun, you are trusted to NOT do that.
Guns are made to efficiently kill people, that is their job as a tool. A kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a pen can all be used for the same task, they just aren't as efficient at it. People in general have to be trusted to use their best judgment to benefit society. Usually that means respecting and preserving life, but not as a rule.

I would like to direct this argument away from guns. It's not central to the problem here, he could have done it with throwing knives or a couple of big rocks or kittens for all I care. Guns made it easier yes, but the intent was there with or without guns.

Parker wrote:

so, all of this for a right you will never use?
all this for someone else to be able to do it?


well, thank you, but i dont need your help.
i carry a gun almost every day of my life. i analyze and reanalyze situations i walk into on a daily basis.
IF I EVER FEEL LIKE I WOULD NEED TO USE MY GUN, I LEAVE.
im not a hero enough like captain cuntface to shoot two people in the back....i have to leave that up to the true bad asses.


THAT is what the responsible gun owner does....they AVOID situations where they would have to use it.
not sit on the phone and then decide, after some thinking, to go shoot someone.


sadly, if he could have let them die of dehydration in a cage, i think he would have.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," -Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire

and I'm certainly not defending you, seems to me like you are attacking the situation. This isn't about gun ownership rights, I'm pretty sure the second amendment has that pretty well covered. This is about how much leeway citizens are given to responsibly enforce the law when the police aren't there.

If people were arrested for things they wish they could do, every man on the planet would be convicted of statutory rape.

IRONCHEF wrote:

So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.
Oh, I didn't realize it was take-a-serious-situation-and-blow-it-to-extreme-proportions-violating-all-common-sense day! Awesome example!
2008-07-01 16:55:23
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

IRONCHEF wrote:

So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.

Also, it's not hard to see the fear he had was fabricated..since it was in fact stated from inside his home on the phone with the dispatcher. (yes, I listened to the 911 call weeks ago when this case came up initially)
I believe I said he was over-eager, did I not?  I also said that he gives responsible gun owners a bad name.  Did this make it sound like I was defending him?

However, he was technically within the letter of the law.

There are insances where I would be justified in shooting and killing a person on my property.  The law here in Tecas allows for that.   Was he justified?  Most likely not; but he was in a grey area, just on the legal side.  Was it the right thing?  No, not really.

And no, I do not want the law changed.
2008-07-01 17:00:32
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6793|Northern California

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.
Oh, I didn't realize it was take-a-serious-situation-and-blow-it-to-extreme-proportions-violating-all-common-sense day! Awesome example!
Thanks for thread crapping.  Are you 15 or something?

Can you not see the parallel I illustrated..the hypothetical?  The precedent of this decision now let's gun wielding Texans (who already have insanely liberal gun laws) shoot and kill someone simply on their property..even if such an "intruder" is not threatening you or your property..crossing the lawn.  I'm sure there's plenty of Texans already yappin' it up saying "Hell Wilbur, I always threatened folks that if they didn't get off my sidewalk, I'd shoot 'em...*huk yuk yuk*...now I CAN shoot 'em like that Horn feller done did!"


imortal wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.

Also, it's not hard to see the fear he had was fabricated..since it was in fact stated from inside his home on the phone with the dispatcher. (yes, I listened to the 911 call weeks ago when this case came up initially)
I believe I said he was over-eager, did I not?  I also said that he gives responsible gun owners a bad name.  Did this make it sound like I was defending him?

However, he was technically within the letter of the law.

There are insances where I would be justified in shooting and killing a person on my property.  The law here in Tecas allows for that.   Was he justified?  Most likely not; but he was in a grey area, just on the legal side.  Was it the right thing?  No, not really.

And no, I do not want the law changed.
Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of anything.  Was just asking an honest scenario type question which looks pretty obvious given this new judgment.

Do you think it'll devolve into more shootings over suspected tresspassings?  Or is this already a thing that occurs?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-07-01 17:03:24)

2008-07-01 17:01:11
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6645|tropical regions of london
texas....

edit:not in a good way.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-01 17:01:33)

2008-07-01 17:02:38
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

IRONCHEF wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So the laws permit you to freely murder people fleeing your own property?  Nice.  If I stepped on the corner of his lawn as I went from the neighbors lawn to the sidewalk (not his property)...I could be killed now.  Nice.  Shooter just has to say...while on the phone in the safety of his house viewing me in my neighbor's yard..that he fears for his life.
Oh, I didn't realize it was take-a-serious-situation-and-blow-it-to-extreme-proportions-violating-all-common-sense day! Awesome example!
Thanks for thread crapping.  Are you 15 or something?

Can you not see the parallel I illustrated..the hypothetical?  The precedent of this decision now let's gun wielding Texans (who already have insanely liberal gun laws) shoot and kill someone simply on their property..even if such an "intruder" is not threatening you or your property..crossing the lawn.  I'm sure there's plenty of Texans already yappin' it up saying "Hell Wilbur, I always threatened folks that if they didn't get off my sidewalk, I'd shoot 'em...*huk yuk yuk*...now I CAN shoot 'em like that Horn feller done did!"
Your example and your apparent view of Texas is a joke. No one is going to get shot stepping on the corner of a lawn, and if it does happen the person doing the shooting is going to get in a lot of trouble. Common sense is a wonderful thing.
2008-07-01 17:06:26
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6645|tropical regions of london
the thing I dislike the most about texas is that "we're texans, which makes us automatically better than you" attitude most of the people that live there have. Ive been through a lot of states in my days and ive never been in a place where the people were so full of themselves.  ive never been in a living room in california with the bear republic flag hangingor look at a clock in the shape of the golden state in somebodies kitchen.  it was comedic.


I think the biggest purchasers of souvenirs from the texas tourist industry are texans themselves.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-01 17:07:52)

2008-07-01 17:09:08
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6793|Northern California
Ok, looks like you can't read very well. 

Horn, on phone for a while with PD saying bad guys robbing neighbor.  THreatens to kill them..gives up on dispatcher, leaves his home, enters his yard as baddies are leaving the neighbors house with goods...the baddies cross the fenceless yard of the neighbor on their way to their getaway car..in doing so, the are confronted by HOrn..probably on his property stilil moving towards them ready to shoot...they probably fled away from his gun with their goods, entered Horn's yard to do so (it's on the way to their getaway car).  He shoots them in the back.

Ok, given that scenario, which is found to be lawful, is it not safe to assume the potential of other texans defending their neighbor's property by shooting people fleeing...who may inadvertently cross into their own yard...ie., the corner of the lawn?  It was mentioned that the baddies did go on Horn's property..and it is established that their car was in front of his house...so it's not hard to imagine them crossing the corner of his unfenced yard.  In Texas..you can shoot to protect your property..and now apparently that of your neighbors...if you suspect them.

Sorry my example doesn't fit in your reality...if it is so far fetched, you can keep to yourself and not attack me like a mod enjoying his power too much.
2008-07-01 17:10:37
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

God Save the Queen wrote:

the thing I dislike the most about texas is that "we're texans, which makes us automatically better than you" attitude most of the people that live there have. Ive been through a lot of states in my days and ive never been in a place where the people were so full of themselves.  ive never been in a living room in california with the bear republic flag hangingor look at a clock in the shape of the golden state in somebodies kitchen.  it was comedic.
It is comedic. I think that people do it more as a fun thing to do because everyone else takes it so seriously that it's a fun thing to do. I do it on the forums all the time. I don't particularly give a shit about Texas, or any other entity besides the U.S., but I do like the shape of the state, the flag of the state, and our gun laws/capital punishment system.

I really don't think people take it seriously.

edit: oh you're just jealous that our state isn't shaped like a stupid box. It has curves.
2008-07-01 17:19:18
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ok, looks like you can't read very well. 

Horn, on phone for a while with PD saying bad guys robbing neighbor.  THreatens to kill them..gives up on dispatcher, leaves his home, enters his yard as baddies are leaving the neighbors house with goods...the baddies cross the fenceless yard of the neighbor on their way to their getaway car..in doing so, the are confronted by HOrn..probably on his property stilil moving towards them ready to shoot...they probably fled away from his gun with their goods, entered Horn's yard to do so (it's on the way to their getaway car).  He shoots them in the back.

Ok, given that scenario, which is found to be lawful, is it not safe to assume the potential of other texans defending their neighbor's property by shooting people fleeing...who may inadvertently cross into their own yard...ie., the corner of the lawn?  It was mentioned that the baddies did go on Horn's property..and it is established that their car was in front of his house...so it's not hard to imagine them crossing the corner of his unfenced yard.  In Texas..you can shoot to protect your property..and now apparently that of your neighbors...if you suspect them.
"Freely murder people stepping on the corner of my property." Yeah, that's far fetched. Like, mental asylum far fetched. This is about someone shooting people in the act of committing a crime, not stepping on a suburban lawn.

This is some fucking epic stereotyping. Do you think I'm sitting here in blue jeans shirtless after a hard day working the fields with a cowboy hat and a shotgun across my lap?

Sorry my example doesn't fit in your reality...if it is so far fetched, you can keep to yourself and not attack me like a mod enjoying his power too much.
Words cannot express my pity. I have not mentioned my role on this site once in this entire thread. Grow up and defend your points instead of calling bullshit power abuse.
2008-07-01 17:29:07
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6696|The Gem Saloon

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cruel and unusual punishment applies to judicial sentencing. It has nothing to do with citizen actions, or the treatment of other people in every day life. It is built in to protect the rights of people from unfair sentencing from crimes they are already convicted of, like hanging them in a basket 20 feet in the air. That is the difference between this case and these bullshit comparisons to Sharia law, those are punishments passed after a crime has been committed, and this was an action that happened during the crime. Falling and drowning in a muddy, wet grave when you're trying to mug someone is much different than being ordered by the court to be thrown in the same muddy pit as punishment for the mugging.
getting shot is still cruel....i dont need a definition to tell me that.


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Guns are made to efficiently kill people, that is their job as a tool. A kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a pen can all be used for the same task, they just aren't as efficient at it. People in general have to be trusted to use their best judgment to benefit society. Usually that means respecting and preserving life, but not as a rule.
guns are made to efficiently kill people?
holy shit!
are you serious? i own quite a few, and i have NEVER shot anyone.


in fact, they arent that efficient....something like mustard gas is pretty damn efficient.
sight alignment and trigger squeeze is much more difficult than dropping some gas.......


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I would like to direct this argument away from guns.
i bet you would.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not central to the problem here, he could have done it with throwing knives or a couple of big rocks or kittens for all I care. Guns made it easier yes, but the intent was there with or without guns.
not central?
i put money on the fact he wouldnt have gone out there and closed ANY distance with the BIG SCARY burglars!

hes a cunt. he shot people in the back....he would just as soon as told the police they could deal with it, than go out there and get in a knife fight.

GUNS HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
captain cuntface makes people like me look bad.


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," -Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire

and I'm certainly not defending you, seems to me like you are attacking the situation. This isn't about gun ownership rights, I'm pretty sure the second amendment has that pretty well covered. This is about how much leeway citizens are given to responsibly enforce the law when the police aren't there.
i am attacking the situation.
i constantly defend myself about my RIGHT to own firearms (notice i didnt say right to shoot people), and its cause of jackasses like this. it is a gun ownership rights....I WILL HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF CAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS.
promise.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If people were arrested for things they wish they could do, every man on the planet would be convicted of statutory rape.
and if we were all as lucky as captain cuntface, we could all shoot whoever we feel like!







you know, i just had an epiphany.

why the fuck did i bother with a divorce?
i should have just gotten my in laws to trespass...then i could have been scared!!!



FM, we usually agree on most things....but this is just too far out there man.
we, as civilians do NOT possess the right to shoot people cause they are thieves.

its just not the way the world works....maybe in texas, but not in the rest of the world.
2008-07-01 17:48:15
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

IRONCHEF wrote:

Do you think it'll devolve into more shootings over suspected tresspassings?  Or is this already a thing that occurs?
As far as I know, the Texas Cattle Russling law was revoked quitely back in the 1980's.  That law gave a landowner the right to shoot anyone who was trespassing on their property after dark; the logic being that, after dark, they were up to no good.

However, Texas DOES have the Castle Law, which states that a homeowner is within his rights to shoot anyone that breaks into his home with no obligation to retreat.  This also covers protecting oneself against carjackers.

Texas has a Concealed Weapon Law, where citizens can be liscenced to carry a concealed weapon.
Where can he carry?  In the state senate, for one.  Also, laws have been enacted to allow concealed carry at state universities.

There is a provision for consideration in the Senate to allow for NONconcealed carry; I am not so sure about this one.

We actually have a very low incidence of gun violence in Texas.  Why does everyone assume it is like the Old West days?

I think a lot of gun owners agree that the guy was an idiot, but are afraid that, if they admit someone can be a fool, the gun control freaks will come out the woodwork to use it to justify taking ALL guns away.
2008-07-01 17:54:05
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Parker wrote:

getting shot is still cruel....i dont need a definition to tell me that.
Oh it is definitely cruel, I am referring strictly to the legal definition of cruel and unusual punishment. I wouldn't want to be shot, and I wouldn't want to place anyone else in a situation where they would be shot...but in my opinion those two idiots voluntarily placed themselves in a position with a much higher likelihood of being shot, and they just hit the jackpot.

Parker wrote:

guns are made to efficiently kill people?
holy shit!
are you serious? i own quite a few, and i have NEVER shot anyone.


in fact, they arent that efficient....something like mustard gas is pretty damn efficient.
sight alignment and trigger squeeze is much more difficult than dropping some gas.......
Guns are made to kill. That was there original purpose, and that is still what they are used for today. Other things considered lethal objects, like knives and pipes, were originally conceived for some other purpose than killing, but guns? Not so much. You never have to use a tool for what it was originally intended for, but it must always be kept in mind what its real purpose is. It's not just a toy to be shot at the range. I think you know that as a responsible gun owner.

More efficient than a knife or other personal weapons. I suppose more importantly in this situation they are less personal, making it easier emotionally to kill someone.

Parker wrote:

i bet you would.
lol, I knew that would be taken the wrong way. My point is arguing this from a gun ownership point of view is detrimental to the pro-gun argument.
I think you or someone else stated that this guy gives gun owners a bad name, which he does, but this isn't really about guns. If he ran these guys down and stabbed them, it would still be in question whether or not he was within his rights to kill people not absolutely directly endangering his life.

Parker wrote:

not central?
i put money on the fact he wouldnt have gone out there and closed ANY distance with the BIG SCARY burglars!

hes a cunt. he shot people in the back....he would just as soon as told the police they could deal with it, than go out there and get in a knife fight.

GUNS HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
captain cuntface makes people like me look bad.
I just wrote the above and then read this, practically could be a response to the above haha.

Look, this guy isn't young, he knew exactly what he was doing, and he had ten minutes to mull it over. The intent was there, perhaps to some degree a gun enabled him, but isn't the intent just as bad as the action itself? He's the exact same person with the same feelings, whether there was a gun in his hand or not right? If he didn't no one might ever know what a horrible person you guys think he is, but he would still be that same person. The tool just allowed him to put his intent to practice, as every good tool does.

Honestly, if he had a tranq gun I think he would have used that. Because he called 911, because he waited, it seems to me he didn't particularly want to get involved, but he wasn't going to let them get away. It seems to me the best outcome in his opinion was if the police just showed up and took care of it, I don't think he was itching to use lethal force. He could have done that as soon as they broke in, without ever calling the police.

Parker wrote:

i am attacking the situation.
i constantly defend myself about my RIGHT to own firearms (notice i didnt say right to shoot people), and its cause of jackasses like this. it is a gun ownership rights....I WILL HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF CAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS.
promise.
Well first of all you shouldn't have to defend your right to own firearms at all with the second amendment. Some people might whine and bitch, but they aren't in any real danger of being taken away. People can be ignored.

Why would you own a firearm if you in no case intended to shoot someone? The question is where the line is drawn about shooting someone. You would shoot to defend yourself right? What about shooting to defend your family? A good friend? An okay friend? A stranger on the street? A neighbor? What if the attacker didn't have a gun? What if he didn't have any weapons at all? What if someone was stealing your most valuable possessions? We can go through these what ifs all night, but the fact is everyone draws a line somewhere. His is drawn further than most, but not that far. People were committing a crime right in front of him, possibly right in front of his house.

Parker wrote:

and if we were all as lucky as captain cuntface, we could all shoot whoever we feel like!







you know, i just had an epiphany.

why the fuck did i bother with a divorce?
i should have just gotten my in laws to trespass...then i could have been scared!!!



FM, we usually agree on most things....but this is just too far out there man.
we, as civilians do NOT possess the right to shoot people cause they are thieves.

its just not the way the world works....maybe in texas, but not in the rest of the world.
So what situations do you have the right to shoot someone in?
2008-07-01 17:56:12
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6645|tropical regions of london
I like guns
2008-07-01 17:57:17
i g
Banned
+876|6166|GA

God Save the Queen wrote:

I like guns
2008-07-01 17:57:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

God Save the Queen wrote:

I like guns
why?

you too ig
2008-07-01 17:58:29
i g
Banned
+876|6166|GA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I like guns
why?

you too ig
they are pretty
2008-07-01 17:58:52
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Eye-GiZzLe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I like guns
why?

you too ig
they are pretty
buy some art
2008-07-01 18:00:56
i g
Banned
+876|6166|GA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Eye-GiZzLe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


why?

you too ig
they are pretty
buy some art
https://images.odeo.com/2/5/8/pink_gun_bikini_gun.jpg
2008-07-01 18:01:11
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6645|tropical regions of london

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

I like guns
why?

you too ig
I dont know.  Brainwashed?  one of the few memories I have of my father was me being at a shooting range firing a 9MM, I dont remember what kind. I was 5 years old.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-01 18:04:01)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 16

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard