No one is going to take your guns

[Jarlaxle]

Joe has been reformed as a populist (he was a republican). And that's a good thing. If you don't know what a "populist" is, look it up. For working men and women in the middle class, a populist politician is what we need.

Joe, you available?

if joe ever became president i'd wait for him on a grassy knoll

Wouldn't do you any good. Joe is definitely smart enough to have the bullet proof glass installed.

But he'd make sure a Chi-town union guy got that contract...so that guy would sell the armor glass out the back door and all Joey would get is a sheet of cheap Plexiglass.

 

[theliq]

Even in America

Last I checked, America is part of "everywhere."

Don't confuse him he thought he scored a point.

No I didn't.....I know I did NOT..Fool

 

[theliq]

JoeBlow was never a Republican any more than JakeFakey ever was.

Trouble with the right is..they dislike change......what's it like living in the 19th Centurysteve

 

[Spoonman]

Joe has been reformed as a populist (he was a republican). And that's a good thing. If you don't know what a "populist" is, look it up. For working men and women in the middle class, a populist politician is what we need.

Joe, you available?

Naw, I couldn't run for office.

I'd tell people what is what.

The one thing Democrats and Republicans have in common is they want their politicians to lie to them.

we have plenty of liberal posters here to lie to us.

 

[Unkotare]

JoeBlow was never a Republican any more than JakeFakey ever was.

Trouble with the right is..they dislike change......what's it like living in the 19th Centurysteve

The 19th century? That sounds bad. That would mean living with the democrat party's Jim Crow, KKK, Black Laws, disenfranchisement, and violent oppression to name just a few of the realities of that time (and this?).

 

[Politico]

Davie Man Shoots Armed Intruders With AK-47 | NBC 6 South Florida

Chalk another one up for the deadly assault style weapons

You make it sound like a bad thing. Looks righteous to me.

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe has been reformed as a populist (he was a republican). And that's a good thing. If you don't know what a "populist" is, look it up. For working men and women in the middle class, a populist politician is what we need.

Joe, you available?

Every populist screams "NO" while every Bolshevik welcomes Comrade JoeB Stalin with open gulags, er I mean, arms....

JoeB was once a far left democrat, now he is a full blown Communist. If you don't know what a Communist is, look it up. You'll see JoeB's picture.

So a guy griping about Communism uses someone else's photo without permission. Really?

 

[Mudflap]

Davie Man Shoots Armed Intruders With AK-47 | NBC 6 South Florida

Chalk another one up for the deadly assault style weapons

You make it sound like a bad thing. Looks righteous to me.

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

I stand corrected.

 

[Geaux4it]

You make it sound like a bad thing. Looks righteous to me.

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

I stand corrected.

I agree. If we, American citizens, start culling our own by putting bullets in the temples of thugs and criminals, I assure you, crime will be reduced.

The guy let (2) get away. Another missed 'Trayvon' moment.

-Geaux

 

[KevinWestern]

You make it sound like a bad thing. Looks righteous to me.

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

I stand corrected.

Hey, if intruders are coming into your home and you must fire on them (to stop them) I completely understand; however, why would you wish for them to die afterwards? That's a bit sick.

The Second Amendment is about self defense, not glorifying the killing of human beings.


.

 

[Geaux4it]

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

I stand corrected.

Hey, if intruders are coming into your home and you must fire on them (to stop them) I completely understand; however, why would you wish for them to die afterwards? That's a bit sick.

The Second Amendment is about self defense, not glorifying the killing of human beings.


.

The reason is the surviving (2) deserve the same fate as the others. It's a shame for those (2) that crime pays

-Geaux

 

[Mudflap]

I stand corrected.

Hey, if intruders are coming into your home and you must fire on them (to stop them) I completely understand; however, why would you wish for them to die afterwards? That's a bit sick.

The Second Amendment is about self defense, not glorifying the killing of human beings.


.

The reason is the surviving (2) deserve the same fate as the others. It's a shame for those (2) that crime pays

-Geaux

The guy in the house wasn't in the wrong; the guys who broke in and beat the occupants were. The guys who broke in took a gamble and one lost everything.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hey, if intruders are coming into your home and you must fire on them (to stop them) I completely understand; however, why would you wish for them to die afterwards? That's a bit sick.

The Second Amendment is about self defense, not glorifying the killing of human beings.


.

The reason is the surviving (2) deserve the same fate as the others. It's a shame for those (2) that crime pays

-Geaux

The guy in the house wasn't in the wrong; the guys who broke in and beat the occupants were. The guys who broke in took a gamble and one lost everything.

Totally agree that the guy shooting to defend his home wasn't in the wrong, my point was is that I don't think you should necessarily hope it results in death. If the guys run away an leave as a result, then you accomplished your task and should hope for nothing more in addition.

 

[Mudflap]

The reason is the surviving (2) deserve the same fate as the others. It's a shame for those (2) that crime pays

-Geaux

The guy in the house wasn't in the wrong; the guys who broke in and beat the occupants were. The guys who broke in took a gamble and one lost everything.

Totally agree that the guy shooting to defend his home wasn't in the wrong, my point was is that I don't think you should necessarily hope it results in death. If the guys run away an leave as a result, then you accomplished your task and should hope for nothing more in addition.

I agree I should be happy they ran off... but also know that if my family and I were just beaten I'd want more satisfaction than that. Not that I'd chase them through the woods and execute them, but in the heat of the moment I'd most certainly want revenge. Just sayin'.

 

[Spoonman]

The reason is the surviving (2) deserve the same fate as the others. It's a shame for those (2) that crime pays

-Geaux

The guy in the house wasn't in the wrong; the guys who broke in and beat the occupants were. The guys who broke in took a gamble and one lost everything.

Totally agree that the guy shooting to defend his home wasn't in the wrong, my point was is that I don't think you should necessarily hope it results in death. If the guys run away an leave as a result, then you accomplished your task and should hope for nothing more in addition.

the only problem is they will do it again. anyone dying is never the best option. but it is a risk these guys take when they initiate such a brazen attack

 

[KevinWestern]

The guy in the house wasn't in the wrong; the guys who broke in and beat the occupants were. The guys who broke in took a gamble and one lost everything.

Totally agree that the guy shooting to defend his home wasn't in the wrong, my point was is that I don't think you should necessarily hope it results in death. If the guys run away an leave as a result, then you accomplished your task and should hope for nothing more in addition.

the only problem is they will do it again. anyone dying is never the best option. but it is a risk these guys take when they initiate such a brazen attack

I suppose, but that's speculation. I don't think death should be penalty for breaking and entering, though. Again, I think the homeowner is completely in the clear to use force as necessary to defend his home and family, however the "best case" scenario would always be one where no bullets are needed to be fired (ie guys see gun and then run). That's just my point of view.

I mean, if these thugs raped his children or something like that, then that's a different story. But for a simple burglary? I dunno, don't think it's right to "wish for death" upon them.

Perhaps I misread something in the article...

 

[Spoonman]

Totally agree that the guy shooting to defend his home wasn't in the wrong, my point was is that I don't think you should necessarily hope it results in death. If the guys run away an leave as a result, then you accomplished your task and should hope for nothing more in addition.

the only problem is they will do it again. anyone dying is never the best option. but it is a risk these guys take when they initiate such a brazen attack

I suppose, but that's speculation. I don't think death should be penalty for breaking and entering, though. Again, I think the homeowner is completely in the clear to use force as necessary to defend his home and family, however the "best case" scenario would always be one where no bullets are needed to be fired (ie guys see gun and then run). That's just my point of view.

I mean, if these thugs raped his children or something like that, then that's a different story. But for a simple burglary? I dunno, don't think it's right to "wish for death" upon them.

Perhaps I misread something in the article...

the death penalty shouldn't shouldn't be the penalty for breaking and entering, but if you chose to break and enter you have to assume the risk you might be shot. The home owner has no idea what your intentions are. they have no idea how many of you there are, how well armed you are. They bring the risk on themselves by breaking the law, and they have to accept those risks. laws should never favor a criminal. obey the law, don't break in. problem solved.

 

[KevinWestern]

the only problem is they will do it again. anyone dying is never the best option. but it is a risk these guys take when they initiate such a brazen attack

I suppose, but that's speculation. I don't think death should be penalty for breaking and entering, though. Again, I think the homeowner is completely in the clear to use force as necessary to defend his home and family, however the "best case" scenario would always be one where no bullets are needed to be fired (ie guys see gun and then run). That's just my point of view.

I mean, if these thugs raped his children or something like that, then that's a different story. But for a simple burglary? I dunno, don't think it's right to "wish for death" upon them.

Perhaps I misread something in the article...

the death penalty shouldn't shouldn't be the penalty for breaking and entering, but if you chose to break and enter you have to assume the risk you might be shot. The home owner has no idea what your intentions are. they have no idea how many of you there are, how well armed you are. They bring the risk on themselves by breaking the law, and they have to accept those risks. laws should never favor a criminal. obey the law, don't break in. problem solved.

Agree completely.

But I'm saying that in terms of hoping for something:

Thieves see gun and run is a better outcome than thieves shot dead by gun.

Homeowner is not in the wrong if any of these outcomes happen, just saying I think it's reasonable to prefer the former vs. the latter.

 

[Spoonman]

I suppose, but that's speculation. I don't think death should be penalty for breaking and entering, though. Again, I think the homeowner is completely in the clear to use force as necessary to defend his home and family, however the "best case" scenario would always be one where no bullets are needed to be fired (ie guys see gun and then run). That's just my point of view.

I mean, if these thugs raped his children or something like that, then that's a different story. But for a simple burglary? I dunno, don't think it's right to "wish for death" upon them.

Perhaps I misread something in the article...

the death penalty shouldn't shouldn't be the penalty for breaking and entering, but if you chose to break and enter you have to assume the risk you might be shot. The home owner has no idea what your intentions are. they have no idea how many of you there are, how well armed you are. They bring the risk on themselves by breaking the law, and they have to accept those risks. laws should never favor a criminal. obey the law, don't break in. problem solved.

Agree completely.

But I'm saying that in terms of hoping for something:

Thieves see gun and run is a better outcome than thieves shot dead by gun.

Homeowner is not in the wrong if any of these outcomes happen, just saying I think it's reasonable to prefer the former vs. the latter.

as i said, you never want anyone to die. but you don't know what you are up against and given the lack of respect for life criminals have demonstrated, how can you afford to take a chance? i mean yea, if some guy is snooping around your house and you call out or he sees you gun and runs, that is one thing. but if he actually enters, its a different story . say you call out you are armed. well now your element of surprise is lost. now you have to potentially shoot someone who might shoot back, will probably be moving, may have partenrs alerted. i'll bet most people, especially with a pistol would have difficutly hitting someone in a rush and under fire.

 

[Politico]

Not righteous enough. Two of them are still breathing.

I stand corrected.

Hey, if intruders are coming into your home and you must fire on them (to stop them) I completely understand; however, why would you wish for them to die afterwards? That's a bit sick.

The Second Amendment is about self defense, not glorifying the killing of human beings.


.

Excuse me I never said any such thing. I expect them to die right there not afterwards. But that wasn't the point. Obviously the guy needs work on his shot placement.