"Justifiable" shootings up 100%

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
[h=2]The number of killings treated as 'justifiable homicide' has doubled in a decade following the introduction of controversial self-defense laws ...[/h]

Rates trebled in Florida, where black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot dead by a neighborhood watch captain who police did not arrest after he claimed he acted in self-defense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9179162/Trayvon-Martin-Justifiable-homicide-cases-double-across-US-in-last-decade.html



 
"Justifiable Homicide" will be the downfall of the 2nd amendment. It was the reason for the anti gun movement at the turn of the century.
Trigger happy punks do not deserve support....unless you want to get rid of guns.
 
augustino5150 said:
"Justifiable Homicide" will be the downfall of the 2nd amendment. It was the reason for the anti gun movement at the turn of the century.
Trigger happy punks do not deserve support....unless you want to get rid of guns.
Click to expand...


Trigger happy punks do not deserve support.....I know we can all agree with that.....

Self survival and self defense are the 2 basic unalienable rights given to us by our creator and ........to guard your own life and those of your family to the death.....
and the lefties want to take that basic human right away......recognized in particular by the countrys founders......written into founding document of the United States....

so why am I not really surprised.


[h=2]"Justifiable" shootings up 100%.....and growing[/h]
 
bravo said:
Trigger happy punks do not deserve support.....I know we can all agree with that.....

Self survival and self defense are the 2 basic unalienable rights given to us by our creator and ........to guard your own life and those of your family to the death.....
and the lefties want to take that basic human right away......recognized in particular by the countrys founders......written into founding document of the United States....

so why am I not really surprised.


[h=2]"Justifiable" shootings up 100%.....and growing[/h]
Click to expand...

Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President. There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms. It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
 
this is a positive thing. I am very happy to know that we are able to kill proles much more easily than in the past. I hope these numbers keep going up.
 
augustino5150 said:
Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President. There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms. It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
Click to expand...


In 1791, 'militia' meant the citizens.....well organized and armed as was their rights stated in the Bill of Rights.....

no private right to bear arms ?.....What part of "the right of THE PEOPLE" don't you understand.....and what has been understood for over 200 years......

You don't need 'federal permission' to purchase a firearm.....and I own several.....
 
augustino5150 said:
Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President. There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms. It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
Click to expand...

Every part of the Bill of Rights is about the people. Not one single amendment in those first 10 is meant to provide rights for any part of the federal gov't.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The US Supreme Court has continually agreed that the 2nd Amendment speaks of a right of the people.
 
bravo said:
In 1791, 'militia' meant the citizens.....well organized and armed as was their rights stated in the Bill of Rights.....

no private right to bear arms ?.....What part of "the right of THE PEOPLE" don't you understand.....and what has been understood for over 200 years......

You don't need 'federal permission' to purchase a firearm.....and I own several.....
Click to expand...


It's not about what I understand. It's about the law of the land as decided by the supreme court.
This was debated and decided before the first federal firearms law was enacted.
All of the second amendment nonsense since then is just political theater to boost sales and campaign donations.
 
what is the purpose of this thread? the poster claims not to be liberal or anti-gun....so just wondering why he has created yet another gun thread.

gun thread # 250? easily.
 
augustino5150 said:
Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President.
Click to expand...
Yes, as we all know when you distrust a standing army loyal to one person, the first thing you put in a founding document is the creation of said army loyal to one person. Brilliant.

There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
There are 3 USSC court cases and near 100 years of precedent that disagree with you.
It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
Click to expand...
Could you cite what federal law that would be exactly?
 
augustino5150 said:
It's not about what I understand. It's about the law of the land as decided by the supreme court.
This was debated and decided before the first federal firearms law was enacted.
All of the second amendment nonsense since then is just political theater to boost sales and campaign donations.
Click to expand...


And the law of the land is "the right of the people to own and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".....
 
augustino5150 said:
Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President. There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms. It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
Click to expand...

oh for gods sake why do people still cling to this bullshit interpretation. go study gun laws before spouting your crap. then read the framers documents and all the commentaries before ratification. once you've done that, you MIGHT be in shape to actually debate the 2nd Amendment.
 
augustino5150 said:
Uh, not all of the founders agreed on the right to bear arms. That's why they added the "militia" part and the "militia" is loyal to and commanded by the President. There is no private right to bear arms and that's why you can find no founding document that supports your right to bear arms. It just does not exist.....and that's why it is still debated today. If you had the "right" to bear arms there would be no federal law requiring you to get permission to purchase a firearm. This was all debated and found constitutional before the first federal firearms laws were enacted.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. In order to believe this you have to pretend that "THE PEOPLE" in this one Amendment means differently than "THE PEOPLE" in every other use in the Constitution and Amendments.

The Militia is the reason, not a limitation, THE PEOPLE have a right to own and bear arms.
 
\\(())// said:
Click to expand...

So now, not only do you not post your own opinions or beliefs on guns and the 2nd Amendment, you post cartoons instead of comments. And it is not even a cartoon that is original to these forums.

Nice.
 
WinterBorn said:
So now, not only do you not post your own opinions or beliefs on guns and the 2nd Amendment, you post cartoons instead of comments. And it is not even a cartoon that is original to these forums. Nice.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree. The Second Amendment is under attack, and all Constitution-loving patriots must come to it's defense.
 
\\(())// said:
Glad you agree. The Second Amendment is under attack, and all Constitution-loving patriots must come to it's defense.
Click to expand...

YOu have a knack for imagining what someone says, and then posting as if they actually said that.
 
\\(())// said:
I assumed you are a patriot defending the Constitution. Was I wrong?
Click to expand...

"So now, not only do you not post your own opinions or beliefs on guns and the 2nd Amendment, you post cartoons instead of comments. And it is not even a cartoon that is original to these forums. Nice."

How could you see that post as me being a patriot and defending the constitution? Thanks, you just proved my point from post #18.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top