Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

  1. #81
    Rights of the Individual's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    29 Palms, Hell
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Dude, no one believes you, just stop. There is several things wrong with what you are saying. First, resisting arrest isn't a petty crime. Second, you can ONLY be shot if you are putting people in life threatening situations (like fleeing police in your car on a freeway).
    You're clearly missing the point; All laws are enforceable via lethal means. If you resist arrest after forgetting to pay a parking fine, the police may shoot you, which qualifies as being shot over a petty crime.


    I've kind've lost the context of this argument in particular.


    So, just so we are clear for everyone here; you are in favor of chasing people fleeing from your premises and killing them AS LONG as you kill them before they get off your property? Good to know.

    Edit: Also, not chasing someone is not the same as retreating, since you brought up english.
    I'm in favor of using lethal means to defend your home and property from people who wish to do harm. That doesn't cover holding the bad guy captive for a few days before executing him, torture, chasing them down the street, ect.

    Legally, if you wanted to shoot the crook who tried to rob your house/rape your daughter/whatever as he was running across the lawn, you should be in the clear as the bad guy is still on your property and isn't necessarily "fleeing the scene".

    You shouldn't be forced to hide or "retreat" into a corner of your home, you should be able to defend it from the front porch. If you wish to make the decision to retreat into a corner of your bedroom, do so, however don't make a law that forces people to trapped in a corner before using lethal force.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  2. #82
    Lazarus's Avatar Equites
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,798

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Clearly, I'm the biased one. They're obviously identical copies of one another, created in a scandalous back-door deal with the Kremlin and Fabrique Nationale for the expressed purpose of undermining all pro-rights people in the "some guns are deadlier than others" argument.

    Making up rubbish works better when you don't quote me, especially when my quote doesn't claim the weapons are identical, or that there's any kind of conspiracy, or... Anything of this garbage, really.
    Last edited by Lazarus; February 21, 2013 at 03:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  3. #83
    Rights of the Individual's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    29 Palms, Hell
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    Making up rubbish works better when you don't quote me, especially when my quote doesn't claim the weapons are identical, or that there's any kind of conspiracy, or... Anything of this garbage, really.
    Oh please. What, exactly, is the point of bringing up the fact that I chose which weapons to compare if not to imply that I rigged the scenario?


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  4. #84
    The spartan's Avatar From silence
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,602

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    You're clearly missing the point; All laws are enforceable via lethal means. If you resist arrest after forgetting to pay a parking fine, the police may shoot you, which qualifies as being shot over a petty crime.


    I've kind've lost the context of this argument in particular.
    I believe it is you who is clearly missing the point, not to mention just being flat out wrong. Lets use another example as a parking fine isn't actually a crime; lets say you steal a baseball. A police officer can not shoot you for stealing the baseball. Now, if you resist arrest, THAT is a separate crime and legally has nothing to do with the baseball. Still, a police officer can't shoot you for resisting arrest, at worst you will get tased, pepper sprayed, or your ass knocked to the ground. Now, if you resist arrest and put a knife to some granny's throat as a hostage, then you could be shot because you are a clear and present danger to people. See how that is not the same as being able to shoot anybody for any crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    I'm in favor of using lethal means to defend your home and property from people who wish to do harm. That doesn't cover holding the bad guy captive for a few days before executing him, torture, chasing them down the street, ect.

    Legally, if you wanted to shoot the crook who tried to rob your house/rape your daughter/whatever as he was running across the lawn, you should be in the clear as the bad guy is still on your property and isn't necessarily "fleeing the scene".

    You shouldn't be forced to hide or "retreat" into a corner of your home, you should be able to defend it from the front porch. If you wish to make the decision to retreat into a corner of your bedroom, do so, however don't make a law that forces people to trapped in a corner before using lethal force.
    Well, in the article you linked, the intruder was clearly fleeing the premises and was chased and shot while fleeing. That is what you were defending. And no, you can't just shoot someone and justify it as "don't worry, they were on my property".

    And again, since when is not chasing someone down comparable to hiding or retreating?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #85
    Auxiliarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    in my mother's basement, on disability.
    Posts
    6,243

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Still, a police officer can't shoot you for resisting arrest, at worst you will get tased, pepper sprayed, or your ass knocked to the ground.
    In most cases that is right although, however, lethal force can be used to effect an arrest where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others: Tennesee v Garner (1985). That would not of course include stealing a baseball however.
    My bookshelf is a hate blog.

  6. #86
    Lazarus's Avatar Equites
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,798

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Oh please. What, exactly, is the point of bringing up the fact that I chose which weapons to compare if not to imply that I rigged the scenario?
    Your rigging of the scenario =/= secret back room conspiracys to make identical weapons to further your argument. It just means that maybe let your opponent pick some rifles that don't have a common ancestor before declaring victory.

    Why, are you suggesting that scenario was perfectly unbiased and was only about fact and not furthering your argument?
    Last edited by Lazarus; February 22, 2013 at 09:26 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  7. #87
    Rights of the Individual's Avatar Cornicularius
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    29 Palms, Hell
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I believe it is you who is clearly missing the point, not to mention just being flat out wrong. Lets use another example as a parking fine isn't actually a crime; lets say you steal a baseball. A police officer can not shoot you for stealing the baseball. Now, if you resist arrest, THAT is a separate crime and legally has nothing to do with the baseball. Still, a police officer can't shoot you for resisting arrest, at worst you will get tased, pepper sprayed, or your ass knocked to the ground. Now, if you resist arrest and put a knife to some granny's throat as a hostage, then you could be shot because you are a clear and present danger to people. See how that is not the same as being able to shoot anybody for any crime?
    So if someone resists arrest for possessing marijuana or forgetting a parking fee, it is justified that they get shot? If it were legal, would they have died?

    Well, in the article you linked, the intruder was clearly fleeing the premises and was chased and shot while fleeing. That is what you were defending. And no, you can't just shoot someone and justify it as "don't worry, they were on my property".

    And again, since when is not chasing someone down comparable to hiding or retreating?
    Can you definitively prove that he wasn't running to his car to arm himself? Unless the man is off the property, the homeowner should have the right to use lethal force. The man wasn't chasing him down, he was defending his property. Following the intruder beyond the property line would be considered "following them down".

    To say you cannot defend your lawn is to say you must retreat inside your house before defending your property.

    Your rigging of the scenario =/= secret back room conspiracys to make identical weapons to further your argument. It just means that maybe let your opponent pick some rifles that don't have a common ancestor before declaring victory.

    Why, are you suggesting that scenario was perfectly unbiased and was only about fact and not furthering your argument?
    I'm sorry, I've tried very hard to take this seriously, but I cannot. You have no argument whatsoever; the two named firearms are completely different, almost polar opposites if we're viewing them from the gun-control perspective. One uses stripper clips, the other detachable mags. One uses a pistol grip, the other a walnut classical rifle stock. They use completely different sights, calibers, and are of completely different design, yet the subject clearly identified how similar they were to shoot.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  8. #88
    The spartan's Avatar From silence
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,602

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    So if someone resists arrest for possessing marijuana or forgetting a parking fee, it is justified that they get shot? If it were legal, would they have died?
    What are you talking about? No, it isn't justified for them to get shot, as you put it they weren't a threat to anyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Can you definitively prove that he wasn't running to his car to arm himself? Unless the man is off the property, the homeowner should have the right to use lethal force. The man wasn't chasing him down, he was defending his property. Following the intruder beyond the property line would be considered "following them down".

    To say you cannot defend your lawn is to say you must retreat inside your house before defending your property.
    Oh boy, "what if scenarios". Can you prove definitively that a sky shark isn't flying in to eat you right now? And no, people on someones property isn't grounds to shoot someone. The guy wasn't "defending his lawn" either, the intruder WAS FLEEING. The fact he had to flee over the lawn doesn't mean he was "attacking the lawn". Do you know how ridiculous this all sounds? And again, no one agrees with you.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  9. #89
    Surgeon's Avatar Equites Cohortales
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,288

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Well I hear NY's latest gun ban has backfired completely. The NYS supreme court issued an injunction against it until it can be proven to be Constitutional, meaning enforcement of it is prohibited until the case is resolved. The clencher is that in order to get the SAFE act through, they had to repeal the previous ban, meaning that once this injunction takes effect NY no longer has an assault weapons ban.

    In Soviet Russia you want Uncle Sam.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •