Why We Need Gun Restrictions

GuilleX said:
The argument for self-defense in this case flew out the window when the shooter grabbed the shoplifter and prevented him from leaving.
Click to expand...

Are you saying he had no right to try and detain the shop lifter??

So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it; because which do you think happens first:

1 - action
or
2 - reaction
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you saying he had no right to try and detain the shop lifter??

So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it; because which do you think happens first:

1 - action
or
2 - reaction
Click to expand...

I'm saying he had no right to shoot him once he grabbed his shirt as he was leaving.
 
GuilleX said:
I'm saying he had no right to shoot him once he grabbed his shirt as he was leaving.
Click to expand...

I really would like to see a response to my questions, in order to better understand your stance; other then a repetitive:
"He had no right."

Are you saying he had no right to try and detain the shop lifter??

So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it; because which do you think happens first:

1 - action
or
2 - reaction
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I really would like to see a response to my questions, in order to better understand your stance; other then a repetitive:
"He had no right."
Click to expand...

There's been a little more to my position than that, I've also explained why he had no right to do what he did but I guess we're overlooking that?

USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you saying he had no right to try and detain the shop lifter??
Click to expand...

Not at all, he had a right to try it didn't work though.

USFREEDOM911 said:
So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it; because which do you think happens first:

1 - action
or
2 - reaction
Click to expand...

Action happens first however the shooter was not in fear of losing his life. If he was worried about being hit with a hatchet he wouldn't have reached out and grabbed the man with the hatchet by the shirt.

Be honest about what you're arguing for here, you seem to be saying shoplifters should die. If that's not what you're saying and you really think this was a case of self-defense then we disagree and your question has been asked and answered.
 
GuilleX said:
There's been a little more to my position than that, I've also explained why he had no right to do what he did but I guess we're overlooking that?



Not at all, he had a right to try it didn't work though.



Action happens first however the shooter was not in fear of losing his life. If he was worried about being hit with a hatchet he wouldn't have reached out and grabbed the man with the hatchet by the shirt.

Be honest about what you're arguing for here, you seem to be saying shoplifters should die. If that's not what you're saying and you really think this was a case of self-defense then we disagree and your question has been asked and answered.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all; but I understand that there are people who choose to think that way, about others, when they are challenged. :goof4u:

Since neither of us are totally aware of what occurred, other then what's been shown; there is a possibility that words were exchanged between the two.

Plus I haven't seen you suggest that once the shop lifter was caught, that maybe he should have stopped struggling and give up.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm not saying that at all; but I understand that there are people who choose to think that way, about others, when they are challenged. :goof4u:

Since neither of us are totally aware of what occurred, other then what's been shown; there is a possibility that words were exchanged between the two.

Plus I haven't seen you suggest that once the shop lifter was caught, that maybe he should have stopped struggling and give up.
Click to expand...

What's been shown was enough. It would have been nice if the thief gave up but he didn't.
 
Old Trapper said:
Well, the fucking idiot certainly told me. Now if the fool could only explain just what an "unenrolled" Militia is, and where it can be found in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter.

Just how you can have a "well regulated" Militia when your have no fucking idea who is going to be there, what "rank" they might have, or what their abilities are, is quite well beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well regulated, as used in the second means well equipped or well supplied. A flintlock musket or rifle, a knapsack, a powder horn, a quarter pound of powder, a well fitting bayonet, 20 lead rounds of correct caliber.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That wasn't the entirety of the question and you know it; but it does beg the question of why you keep dancing around the questions.
Click to expand...

I'm not dancing around anything. The shop owner prevented the thief from leaving and then shot him. That's not legal anywhere in this country.
 
Rune said:
Well regulated, as used in the second means well equipped or well supplied. A flintlock musket or rifle, a knapsack, a powder horn, a quarter pound of powder, a well fitting bayonet, 20 lead rounds of correct caliber.
Click to expand...

Now you did it, he's going to focus on technology level.
 
GuilleX said:
No, it's not. That's a felony in all 50 states.

Now, speaking of dancing around I couldn't help but notice that you haven't actually taken a stance on this yet. You've hinted at one but haven't taken one.
Click to expand...

And yet:

"Dunn, 47, has not been charged in the shooting."

With all the "stuff" that gets posted on JPP, I've learned to wait until there's more info; instead of just relying on my "feels".
 
Rune said:
Well regulated, as used in the second means well equipped or well supplied. A flintlock musket or rifle, a knapsack, a powder horn, a quarter pound of powder, a well fitting bayonet, 20 lead rounds of correct caliber.
Click to expand...

Then sell your computer and start relaying your posts, by writing them out with a quill pen and then having them delivered by Pony Express.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet:

"Dunn, 47, has not been charged in the shooting."

With all the "stuff" that gets posted on JPP, I've learned to wait until there's more info; instead of just relying on my "feels".
Click to expand...

Stop pretending you don't know what the Internet is. He has been charged with murder.
 
GuilleX said:
Not at all. You getting turned out doesn't bother me.

No comment on the murder charge?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the idea of being "turned out"; but I've stopped trying to figure out what triggers other posters.

What kind of comment are you trying to get??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top