BF2S Forums Rapist surprised to find victim is ardent Second Amendment supporter

Where are the anti-gun nutters ?

Isn't it SOP to impound a weapon used in a homicide?  Granted it was justifible, so She/her friend will get the shotgun back? Right?  Seems a pity to lose a shotgun over such a piece of shit excuse for a human.

mcjagdflieger wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Since when do we give the death penalty for breaking into someone's house??????

hahahhahaha what a maroon.

Thanks for the laugh

HollisHurlbut wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

I hope to god you are fucking joking, or you are just fucking stupid.

Of course I was joking.  But I seem to remember a thread not too long ago where people equated the use of lethal self-defense in a fast-paced situation with many unknown factors such as a home invasion scenario with the calculated application of measured justice of the death penalty.

Better yet, try breaking into my house and see what happens.(I don't own guns, but I do like knives and know how to use them)

Agreed.  And I do own guns.  Just picked up my third the other day.  Beautiful Glock 27.  Go ahead, ask me what I paid for it...

I am asking, I am looking at that very model

Does anyone else find the fact that this raper was named "Preyer" morbidly amusing?...

.Sup wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Does anyone else find the fact that this raper was named "Preyer" morbidly amusing?...

Does my sentence make any sense?

.Sup wrote:

Prey owned the "Preyer"

AH...  didn't see that one... 

lowing wrote:

I am asking, I am looking at that very model

.45 is so much more satisfying. get a 30.

lowing wrote:

I am asking, I am looking at that very model

$385 at Cabela's, but good luck getting that price anymore!

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Ajax the great wrote:

Interesting enough I don't see anti-gun people having a problem with this situation.

Personally i believe in a level of gun control. She had an appropriate gun for home defense and used it. She did the right thing, and the guy got what he deserved. I still dont believe that people need assault rifles for home defense or hunting. People should be allowed to own guns, but there should be limits.

wouldn't use any of my "assault" rifles for home defense,  overpenetration makes me a sad panda.  that lady made a good choice with the shotgun.  I wonder if she used buckshot or birdshot?

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Ajax the great wrote:

Interesting enough I don't see anti-gun people having a problem with this situation.

Personally i believe in a level of gun control. She had an appropriate gun for home defense and used it. She did the right thing, and the guy got what he deserved. I still dont believe that people need assault rifles for home defense or hunting. People should be allowed to own guns, but there should be limits.

wiki wrote:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.

source (wiki)Nice to see wiki actually has an accurate definition of the assault rifle.  Now, while it is legal to own selectable fire or fully automatic firearms with appropriate permits and tax stamps, they are most definately not in common usage.  Your very use of the description of the civilian legal semi automatic firearms as "assault rifles" simply underscores your ignorance on the topic.  Sadly, I will admit that it is an ignorance that the media and the politicians who do not like guns in the hands of the citizenry (who nearly all of are left-leaning democrats) like to spread with the innapropriate use of the proper terms.

Besides, I do not have an issue with someone using a bazooka for home defense, provided it was legally used.

EDITED to fix link

Last edited by imortal (2008-12-21 10:49:18)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

Of course I was joking.  But I seem to remember a thread not too long ago where people equated the use of lethal self-defense in a fast-paced situation with many unknown factors such as a home invasion scenario with the calculated application of measured justice of the death penalty.

There's a big difference between shooting someone breaking through your window in the middle of the night when you're alone and your phone is out, than shooting someone on the back on your neighbours property.

Self defence has its place.

A: That was not the incident in question.
B. I am not lowing.

imortal wrote:

Besides, I do not have an issue with someone using a bazooka for home defense, provided it was legally used.

Agreed, but think about it for a second.  If you're going to be using a weapon like that for home defense it'll cause too much collateral damage.  I mean what if you shoot your target and you happen to damage your neighbor's home or God forbid hurt or kill an innocent?

I'm not an expert in gun-tech, but I would think you'll want something like a shotgun with shot that won't penetrate walls, but will give you a wide killing radius for your target.

Harmor wrote:

No judge or jury would be able to prosecute her for the rapist's death.

Judges and juries don't prosecute anyone.