Why We Need Gun Restrictions

GuilleX said:
It's not in the Constitution, it's in the US Code.
Click to expand...

Bull shit. Even the Militia Act of 1792 does not mention an "unenrolled" militia.

It did? You have some sort of law to point to of course that says it's no longer a "thing"?
Click to expand...

Where is it asshat? Aside from some informal groups that call themselves militias, and some SDF groups that States us for emergencies, where is there a Militia? Do you even remember your definition of hat the Militias is? When died you attend your last meeting, or training, event?

So what? As you have pointed out we do have a standing army. Using the reasoning Jefferson and Madison employed in rejecting a standing army that makes militias even more vital than they thought.
Click to expand...

Are you really that stupid. We do have a "standing army", and contrary to the wishes of the Founders we do not have a militia.

You left out some stuff from Article 1 section 8...about the militia. As far as I know that has not been amended so your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

Nothing relevant to this discussion has been left out. Your childish desperation is noted.
 
Old Trapper said:
Bull shit. Even the Militia Act of 1792 does not mention an "unenrolled" militia.



Where is it asshat? Aside from some informal groups that call themselves militias, and some SDF groups that States us for emergencies, where is there a Militia? Do you even remember your definition of hat the Militias is? When died you attend your last meeting, or training, event?



Are you really that stupid. We do have a "standing army", and contrary to the wishes of the Founders we do not have a militia.



Nothing relevant to this discussion has been left out. Your childish desperation is noted.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault you don't know jack shit old man.
 
countryboy said:
So are you advising shop keepers to shoot shoplifters on sight? Very bad advice. Your hypothetical is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

How did you read that into his reply you dishonest fuck? If they steal, you try to stop them, if they threaten you or do not stop, shoot them if so disposed.
 
countryboy said:
Oh, so now you want to play silly word games like a lib.

From a legal, and moral standpoint (if you care about such things), your attacker would need to be brandishing the deadly weapon in a threatening manner. So no, you wouldn't need to wait until they swung, or hit you with the deadly weapon. But in this case, that is irrelevant, and does not apply. The shoplifter was trying to escape.

Do you think it's a smart move to incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and civil liability, and risk imprisonment, over a hatchet worth a few bucks?
Click to expand...

By the time the robber brandishes, it's too late for you to do anything about it. DUH!
 
So what I am reading into today's narratives is this; Police cannot use deadly force even if the perps run away or threaten them. If the perp brandishes what APPEARS to be a real firearm, but in fact is a toy, police should wait until they are shot before responding with deadly force.

Shop owners do not have a right to protect their property unless they are shot by the perps.

Perps can steal all they want as long as they are unarmed. After all, you have to meet force with similar force. Deadly force is not permitted therefore giving the perp an opportunity to get away with your stuff.

Perps cannot help their situation. It is not their fault they are thieves; it is the fault of Trump and those wealthy bastards who got tax deductions.
 
Truth Detector said:
So what I am reading into today's narratives is this; Police cannot use deadly force even if the perps run away or threaten them. If the perp brandishes what APPEARS to be a real firearm, but in fact is a toy, police should wait until they are shot before responding with deadly force.

Shop owners do not have a right to protect their property unless they are shot by the perps.

Perps can steal all they want as long as they are unarmed. After all, you have to meet force with similar force. Deadly force is not permitted therefore giving the perp an opportunity to get away with your stuff.

Perps cannot help their situation. It is not their fault they are thieves; it is the fault of Trump and those wealthy bastards who got tax deductions.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, you might be wrong.
 
Old Trapper said:
That doesn't constitute a Militia in spite of your fantasies to the contrary. You really are desperate. Tell me, when do they train?
Click to expand...

Desperate? How so? Most gun clubs have shooting leagues, handgun shotgun and rifle. Many also have sanctioned matches. You'd be surprised at how proficient we rural folks are with a firearm.
That said, not only is there a U.S. Constitution, but most states also have a constitution and firearm ownership is included in them. PA. has one (I'm from PA.), look it up. Nothing about a militia in it.
 
countryboy said:
Oh, so now you want to play silly word games like a lib.

From a legal, and moral standpoint (if you care about such things), your attacker would need to be brandishing the deadly weapon in a threatening manner. So no, you wouldn't need to wait until they swung, or hit you with the deadly weapon. But in this case, that is irrelevant, and does not apply. The shoplifter was trying to escape.

Do you think it's a smart move to incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and civil liability, and risk imprisonment, over a hatchet worth a few bucks?
Click to expand...

Then which do you think occurs first:

1 - action
or
2 - reaction
 
170qij35f1u11.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top