Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun

Vikorr, what is an automatic "assualt rifle"?

Define automatic.

Define "assualt rifle".

I have a small arsenal of "semi autos" that require at least a trigger pull to fire the next round. A revolver falls into this category as well. You're grasping at straws in order to disarm citizens to just want to shoot, hunt, and protect themselves, while harming no one.

0 Replies

Yeah, I noticed - my apologies, see my edit

Quote:

You're grasping at straws in order to disarm citizens to just want to shoot, hunt, and protect themselves, while harming no one.

Err, how did you get that out of the phrase 'automatic assault rifle', which was a mistake, but still doesn't lead to your conclusion.

0 Replies

Just a bad assumption on my part. Retracted then.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Rockhead wrote:
Dave, dave, dave.....

Yer out there a bit again, dude...

Well, WE ARE, right ?

How many crimes will thay NOT be able to commit,
as a result of our Houston friend 's ministrations ?

How many DVD recorders will thay NOT be able to steal ?

At least have the decency to send him a thank u note, with a few $$.
( What wud Emily Post or Dorothy Manners say ? )

David

Do I understand you correctly? You deem the crime of stealing a DVD recorder to be punishable by being shot?

I, like Dys, wonder if you have ever had a mental health evaluation.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Rockhead wrote:
Dave, dave, dave.....

Yer out there a bit again, dude...

Well, WE ARE, right ?

How many crimes will thay NOT be able to commit,
as a result of our Houston friend 's ministrations ?

How many DVD recorders will thay NOT be able to steal ?

At least have the decency to send him a thank u note, with a few $$.
( What wud Emily Post or Dorothy Manners say ? )

David

Do I understand you correctly?
You deem the crime of stealing a DVD recorder to be punishable by being shot?

I, like Dys, wonder if you have ever had a mental health evaluation.

Not " punishable " under the current state of affairs; not like the Moslems cut their hands off.
( If the law were amended such that larceny were punishable by death,
and the criminal community had fair notice thereof, that 'd be different. )

However, I most certainly believe that rightly,
if the defense of possession of a citizen 's property results in the death
of a criminal who tried to steal it, that is a good development
for ALL of us, except the deceased criminal.

He brought it on himself.

From the time of the criminal 's demise, forward,
we will ALL be safer,
and thus we all have cause to CELEBRATE
and offer our thanks to the defender;
( in effect, he defended all of us ).
David

0 Replies

Yup, now I KNOW you are nuts!

0 Replies

SUPPLEMENT:

just so that I be clear:
we owe it to ourselves, as voting taxpayers,
to have the law protect us in the possession of our property,
such that if we chase down and kill a fleeing criminal,
who is getting away with our property,
so that we can recover possession thereof,
we will still have a cause of action against his estate,
to sue it for the labor and inconvenience of chasing him down and killing him
to get it back, and compensation for any injury or property damage
that is incurred by the property owner, during the pursuit.

That 's only fair.
( Of course, I know that he was probably insolvent. )

David

0 Replies

0 Replies

I've a got gum. Anybody want some?

Gets me thinking of the song. Anybody want some...........I want some too.........

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Yup, now I KNOW you are nuts!

Explain your thoughts ?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The toddler pulled the gun out of his mother's purse
and blew out the guts of his sister.

That proves that he shud have received
gun safety training SOONER.

0 Replies

Quote:

...such that if we chase down and kill a fleeing criminal,
who is getting away with our property,
so that we can recover possession thereof,
we will still have a cause of action against his estate,
to sue it for the labor and inconvenience of chasing him down and killing him
to get it back, and compensation for any injury or property damage
that is incurred by the property owner, during the pursuit.

That 's only fair.

Problem with this - If there were no witnesses, I could kill someone, put some of my property in his hand, then say my killing of him/her was justified, and then sue his estate and get some of that as well...

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
...such that if we chase down and kill a fleeing criminal,
who is getting away with our property,
so that we can recover possession thereof,
we will still have a cause of action against his estate,
to sue it for the labor and inconvenience of chasing him down and killing him
to get it back, and compensation for any injury or property damage
that is incurred by the property owner, during the pursuit.

That 's only fair.

Problem with this - If there were no witnesses, I could kill someone,
put some of my property in his hand, then say my killing of him/her was justified,
and then sue his estate and get some of that as well...

Possibly, the legislature cud make corroborated testimony
a necessary element of plaintiff's prima facie case.

( Until around 1967 in NY, no credibility was attributed to the testimony
of a lady of the evening, or a private investigator, without corroboration. )

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Quote:
...such that if we chase down and kill a fleeing criminal,
who is getting away with our property,
so that we can recover possession thereof,
we will still have a cause of action against his estate,
to sue it for the labor and inconvenience of chasing him down and killing him
to get it back, and compensation for any injury or property damage
that is incurred by the property owner, during the pursuit.

That 's only fair.

Problem with this - If there were no witnesses, I could kill someone,
put some of my property in his hand, then say my killing of him/her was justified,
and then sue his estate and get some of that as well...

Possibly, the legislature cud make corroborated testimony
a necessary element of plaintiff's prima facie case.

( Until around 1967 in NY, no credibility was attributed to the testimony
of a lady of the evening, or a private investigator, without corroboration. )

Right. My friend will do that for me. Razz

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
...such that if we chase down and kill a fleeing criminal,
who is getting away with our property,
so that we can recover possession thereof,
we will still have a cause of action against his estate,
to sue it for the labor and inconvenience of chasing him down and killing him
to get it back, and compensation for any injury or property damage
that is incurred by the property owner, during the pursuit.

That 's only fair.

Problem with this - If there were no witnesses, I could kill someone,
put some of my property in his hand, then say my killing of him/her was justified,
and then sue his estate and get some of that as well...

Possibly, the legislature cud make corroborated testimony
a necessary element of plaintiff's prima facie case.

( Until around 1967 in NY, no credibility was attributed to the testimony
of a lady of the evening, or a private investigator, without corroboration. )

Right. My friend will do that for me.

After cross-examination, the finder of fact
( the court or jury ) will decide who and what to believe.

Let me back up.
This point is moot,
in that predatory street criminals are almost always insolvent.

I was endeavoring to provoke liberals on this forum.
I was trying to goad u, but neither of u fell for it;
u both took it seriously.

My point, more genuinely, was that the lives of criminals
shud be subordinated to the rights of personal property owners
to recover possession of their property, at the scene of the crime.

During a crime, and during flight from the scene thereof,
any rights of criminals ( including the right to live )
shud be in a state of suspension,
in deference to the rights of the victims of the crime to get the stolen property back

David

0 Replies

Again. The crime does not befit the punishment. If your intention is to goad....you do a good job of it.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Again. The crime does not befit the punishment. If your intention is to goad....you do a good job of it.

Well, he's already admitted to as much.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Again. The crime does not befit the punishment. If your intention is to goad....you do a good job of it.

Sure it does. I don't see how you can say it doesn't. If there were no consequences people would just walk in and steal everything you own while you sat and watched them. The police could never keep up. Anyone in my house who wasn't invited in and won't leave when I tell them to is subject to my justice of choice.

0 Replies

The days of the old west are in the past, cjhsa. Vigilante justice is just a stupid way of trying to be macho.

0 Replies

Maybe where you live. I've asked you before to cross the border and learn more, but you won't.

We have castle doctrine here. It only makes sense - it is your basic god given right and duty to protect the lives of you and your family. Anything less is just stupid.

0 Replies

Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know