Is the use of Deadly Force to protect property the solution to riots?

[beautress]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

I think I just read the best post of 2020.

 

[JoeB131]

The life of a thief doesn't have much value. Why pretend it's any kind of a loss if they get killed?

No Human being is defined by the "Worst thing they've ever done". I'm sure we could look at your life, point out the worst thing you ever did and say, "No great loss".

 

[JoeB131]

hey have health problems?

What about their second hand smoke giving their kids health problems in later life? *

What about it? Not even sure we are talking about the same thing... Racist From Cleveland was whining about how they make smokers stand outside and then complain about their lack of productivity.

 

[freyasman]

The life of a thief doesn't have much value. Why pretend it's any kind of a loss if they get killed?

No Human being is defined by the "Worst thing they've ever done". I'm sure we could look at your life, point out the worst thing you ever did and say, "No great loss".

Guy, at one point in my life, I actually liked killing people, lol.




So no, I don't expect anyone outside of my tribe to care what happens to me. Why does anyone else expect some strangers to give a shit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The life of a thief doesn't have much value. Why pretend it's any kind of a loss if they get killed?

No Human being is defined by the "Worst thing they've ever done". I'm sure we could look at your life, point out the worst thing you ever did and say, "No great loss".

I'm sure that happens to many people. It depends on your standards, and we all know what liberal standards are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

I think I just read the best post of 2020.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The solution to fixing the problem is putting the thug rioters in a federal facility, make them see face masks to sell and pay for the businesses they burned down.

That makes them stay off the streets, gives them a job, and sends the message that if you do a crime, you do the time it takes you to pay for the million dollars of losses you inflicted on somebody else's investment and the jobs of their employees. That way you can stop being a parasite and a blight on the face of humanity. Ain't reality sweet when criminals have to make right on the wrongs they caused.

That may work if prisons were prisons like what's portrayed in the classic movie Cool Hand Luke. However prisons today are a humane place where you're fed three squares a day, plus snacks if outsiders donate money to your account, with a workout room, a pool room, a field outside to play sports, cable television, and even a little room in the corner in case you and your wife decide you want to start a family from prison.

These people don't seem to worry about incarceration. But the possibility of getting killed for destroying a persons business? That's something anybody would be very concerned about. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. So our problem is we don't have the legal authority to use deadly force to protect what we worked for all of our lives. They take it all away because it's a fun thing to do. It's one of the main reasons the US has such a high recidivism rate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

Frankly, have you ever seen the smoking area of a workplace? It's usually four or five malingerers getting together for far too long to bitch about the people who are doing the work.

I could see a good argument for not hiring smokers to start with. They are less productive, they smell bad and they are more likely to have health problems.

And there are places that don't hire smokers today. It's all part of a growing controlled society that the Nazi's always dreamed of. Today it's smokers. Tomorrow maybe overweight people. A lot of places won't hire people if they use recreational narcotics on their own personal time. Maybe in ten years employers won't hire you if you have medical conditions. Who knows as we move in this direction with the approval from people like you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

Wow, Ray, your wank fantasies are amusing to watch.

Businesses have insurance. Stuff can be replaced. Lives cannot.

So that's a reason to permit people to destroy the property of another? Do you pay for insurance Joe? I do. How do you suppose insurance companies recoup that money they have to pay out in claims, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars they collectively have to shell out?

Insurance or no insurance, some of these businesses are closed down for good. They not only robbed them of their property, they robbed them of their life.

I will agree with your last statement though: Stuff can be replaced, lives cannot. If you were a person who was thinking about destroying the property of others, and your life would be in jeopardy by doing so, you probably wouldn't think risking your life was worth it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't really need a new law, you know....

What we need to do is quit ducking jury duty and "not guilty" every case where someone got charged for shooting some asshole who really needed shooting.
Doesn't matter what the law says if everyone demands a jury trial and none of the juries are willing to convict. Jury nullification is a tried and true method.

Jurors are just like the people in USMB or any society. They are not all going to agree with you. You will get people that think just the opposite; you shot somebody over destroying property, and you belong in jail for the rest of your life.

That's why we need a change of laws.

 

[freyasman]

We don't really need a new law, you know....

What we need to do is quit ducking jury duty and "not guilty" every case where someone got charged for shooting some asshole who really needed shooting.
Doesn't matter what the law says if everyone demands a jury trial and none of the juries are willing to convict. Jury nullification is a tried and true method.

Jurors are just like the people in USMB or any society. They are not all going to agree with you. You will get people that think just the opposite; you shot somebody over destroying property, and you belong in jail for the rest of your life.

That's why we need a change of laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true a jury can't convict on a majority vote? Doesn't it have to be unanimous?
All it would take is one holdout on every jury.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We don't really need a new law, you know....

What we need to do is quit ducking jury duty and "not guilty" every case where someone got charged for shooting some asshole who really needed shooting.
Doesn't matter what the law says if everyone demands a jury trial and none of the juries are willing to convict. Jury nullification is a tried and true method.

Jurors are just like the people in USMB or any society. They are not all going to agree with you. You will get people that think just the opposite; you shot somebody over destroying property, and you belong in jail for the rest of your life.

That's why we need a change of laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true a jury can't convict on a majority vote? Doesn't it have to be unanimous?
All it would take is one holdout on every jury.

I'm not sure how that works, and perhaps it's different in different states, but nobody should have to go through all that.

About 15 years ago in our state, if somebody broke into your home, and you shot them, the criminal could sue you for damages once he was out of the hospital. If he died, the family could sue you for wrongful death. Outside of that, our law was if you had a reasonable and safe way to escape your home, you must use it before using deadly force, otherwise you'd be charged with murder.

Now that the law changed dramatically, you can kill anybody that invades your home. The police cannot arrest you because you no longer have the duty to retreat. They can't even write you a ticket. The family can't sue you either.

I'm not crazy about shooting other people. The theme to my post is to create a strong enough deterrent to stop these riots. DumBama didn't do anything about them, and people got more and more encouraged to participate in them because there was no deterrent in the past, and still no real deterrent today. We need such a deterrent, and making it legal to use deadly force to protect property would stop the next riots from taking place.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

Second hand smoke has proven to be bullshit as far as a health concern.

No. It hasn’t. A lot of people with king issues can’t tolerate it, You have no right to force it on others.

kinda like opinions on peoples life choices, huh?

Actually...no. At least I don’t think so. OPINIONS on people’s life choices, and I am guessing you mean homosexuality (if I am wrong, you should have been explicit)...don’t affect youR health.

I mean in general. most fights seem to start when you start trying to force other peoples behavior.

So...do you mean, for example - the balance between public health and individual rights?

 

[iceberg]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

Second hand smoke has proven to be bullshit as far as a health concern.

No. It hasn’t. A lot of people with king issues can’t tolerate it, You have no right to force it on others.

kinda like opinions on peoples life choices, huh?

Actually...no. At least I don’t think so. OPINIONS on people’s life choices, and I am guessing you mean homosexuality (if I am wrong, you should have been explicit)...don’t affect youR health.

I mean in general. most fights seem to start when you start trying to force other peoples behavior.

So...do you mean, for example - the balance between public health and individual rights?

So you are advocating the creation of an event to make your control OK.

covid is real. the bullshit politics around it is also real. the cover up and hiding of into is real. at this point it would seem you are saying it is ok to suspend our rights if the gov felt it OK to do so.

IF AND ONLY IF our gov acted as one, I would be more inclined to believe the crisis. but when I see THE LEFT allow protests but comden about anything else?

the problem ain't that real.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

But that is private employers right? If you were going to create a public space law...how would you define "cheap perfume"?

 

[iceberg]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

Time to change the constitution---it is a right to shoot and kill rioters/looters/thugs attacking people. I can support that-------Texas used to have this as their castle doctrine.

Still do.
Remember Joe Horn!!!!!!

Joe Horn is my hero. I listened to that 911 call I don't know how many times. It was hilarious.

I'd love to have him for a neighbor!!

I think a lot of people would have loved to do what he did. Unfortunately, it's not legal. Even if it was, there would be some people who wouldn't have the guts to kill a person.

When I have people that I teach who express reservations about killing someone, or admit that they are unsure if they could, I tell them to go hunting. Book a deer or hog hunt and go kill something; see what it feels like. If you can't get past that, you probably shouldn't bother carrying a pistol.
As far as carrying knives, I tell them they can book a hog hunt with dogs where the dogs will run the hog down, hold it, and then you kill it with a knife.
If either of these things is too much for you, you should really re-consider carrying lethal defense tools.
But honestly, most people can handle it, they just aren't comfortable with how easy it really is.

Never understood how someone couldnt shoot another human when that human was going to kill you.
To be honest I'd feel worse shooting the deer....

Because humans are hard-wired to be uncomfortable with hurting other humans. Soldiers and police officers have to be trained specifically to bypass that reflexive reaction.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it may be a cultural taboo rather than hard-wired into us, because frankly, it has never bothered me a bit.
And all our ancestors seemed pretty damn comfortable with stabbing each other in the face, and beating each brains in, and then chopping the heads off and taking them home as trophies.

So I'm pretty fucking sure none of us are hard-wired against this sort of thing, because if we were, none of that shit would have happened. But it did, everywhere in the world, all throughout history.

Yeah, but that was then and this is now. We humans (particularly Americans) have become more civilized with every generation. What people did to others 100 years ago, few would dream of doing now.

Look at the US today. According to the left, the most vile thing one can do to another is offend them. If a guy puts on a dress and high heels, we refer to him as a her. Today, you can get more time in jail for beating your dog than beating your wife. In many parts of the country, you can't smoke inside public places, and even outside in other places. You don't want to offend any non-smoker. If two guys or two gals want to get married, people don't beat them up, the marriage is conducted and sanctioned by the government.

That is just dumb. It isn’t about offending. You have every right to poison yourself, but you don’t have the right to poison others.

If second hand smoke were poisoning others, people who inhaled cigaret smoke directly would be dead before the cigarette was finished. I don't mind if people take a position on something, just as long as they are honest about it. I get it. Some people can't stand the smell of smoke. But their push to stop it is because they're uncomfortable with it, not health concerns.

My sister used to be the same way. She'd start coughing if you started to pull a cigarette out and didn't even light it yet. We grew up in a smoking household as my mother was a smoker since she became an adult. She probably smoked while she carried all of us in pregnancy.

That isnt they it works. The affect is cumulative. If a person has asthma or COPD, the amount they can tolerate is very low. I think it is incredibly selfish to force people to breath it in public spaces. It’s no different than urinating in public spaces.

Perhaps, but I quote a comedian who once said "Santa Monic beaches are now no smoking. I hate to inform them, but beaches are located outside."

Yes, there are places that ban smoking even outdoors. When the commies got their way here, businesses would allow their smoking employees to have a cigarette outside of the building. After they got their way, then they started to complain that smokers were getting out of work to have cigarettes. Well......you bitched because those employees were smoking and working at the same time. You stopped it. So now you're complaining that they are smoking outside like you wanted, and not working to catch their cigarettes.

In any case, this argument started to show another poster what snowflakes our US society has become.

True....but I just hate walking through a doorway and a cloud of smoke

I hate walking into an elevator - or pretty much any space - and into a cloud of cheap, choking perfume, but I don't think that means I get to outlaw wearing it in public places.

And before you try the, "Oh, well, THAT isn't bad for you", I consider anything that makes me cough until I gag to be bad for me. But I don't consider myself to have the right to live around other humans without ever being inconvenienced by them.

Hey - I'm not going to disagree with you on that. I have to deal with Middle Eastern students (male) who believe cologne should be poured on every possible area of the body. You can follow the trail down the hall and it takes hours to dissipate.

But you can't really regulate it. You can't even really define "cheap perfume". But you CAN with cigarette smoke and there are identifiable, well researched health issues.

You can to some extent.
The Wife hired a black women who laid the perfume on heavily and all Her employees complained.
The Wife went to human resources and they told her to stop as it was bothering the other employees.

Worked with a guy who stunk to high heaven...as in terrible body odor.
The boss told him needed to shower more often.

But that is private employers right? If you were going to create a public space law...how would you define "cheap perfume"?

anything you can get at big lots, walmart, or at a mall kiosk to start.

 

[Doc7505]

I watched the Laura show tonight. She was discussing the continuing riots and attacks on businesses in Minneapolis this weekend that no other MSM outlet covered. Interviewing business owners, they told their story how they ran to their business only to helplessly watch it be looted, destroyed, and in some cases, burnt to the ground.

Some had businesses handed down for generations. Others were foreigners who came here to realize the American dream. Their city and state leaders allowed their dreams to go up in smoke.

Lowlifes who do these things have no fear, because there is no real deterrent to stopping them. We've seen these so-called leaders tell their police to stand down; to not enforce laws; to not protect these businesses; to allow them "room" to vent.

IMO, a real deterrent works every time it's tried. What if we had a federal law that allowed property owners to use deadly force to protect their property with no ability for city or local governments to prosecute?

A group of thugs start busting into a business. The business owner and family or other employees open fire killing dozens or hundreds of lowlifes. Other businesses do the same. Who in their right mind (after witnessing this) would think of trying to break into, or destroying another business down the street weary if they are armed and willing to kill to protect their investment?

True, hundreds of funerals, but also hundreds of businesses saved, millions of dollars not lost, and thousands of jobs saved in just one city. We need a national law of using deadly force to protect our property.

~~~~~~
When violence, rioting, looting and arson come to your front door you have two options.. Either you run or stand and fight for your right to live peaceably and earn a living.... Protecting your family, lively-hood and property is lawful.. Woe to those that would attempt to take that away from the average American.