WTF is it With TEXANS and Their GUNS?

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

And opinions. (Please take no offense. )

At A2K?

You are delusional.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

edgarblythe wrote:

As long as so many people believe shooting is the answer to any fight, it will continue.

izzythepush wrote:

One shot....I think there was an intent to kill. I said the same about the Zimmerman/Martin affair, there should be a higher standard of threat to legally kill someone than there is to shoot and wound someone. This gun culture message "if you are going to take the shot then shoot to kill" is barbaric and bizarre.

"if you are going to touch your wife in anger then really clock her"

Nope, does not work. Max force is rarely justified.

Min force needed to get the job done is the civil approach.

There is NO REASON to think about being civil.

What the defender needs to DO, is to end the threat ASAP,
and if he is a GOOD AMERICAN, then do it permanently so that
your nabors will no longer be threatened and the evil will not be able to lie against u in court.

Zimmy was a good guy for simply killing the evil.
It woud be irrational to continue absorbing impacts
to the head while trying to keep him alive to satisfy Hawkeye.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I believe in civil justice, with laws and courts and judges, not frontier justice. We can not adjudicate a dead man.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I believe in civil justice,

I believe in CIVIL IMMUNITY for the defender.
It is mostly nationally prevalent.

hawkeye10 wrote:

with laws and courts and judges, not frontier justice.
We can not adjudicate a dead man.

If he is dead enuf,
then we dont need to.

0 Replies

People shud not be subjected to
what Zimmy went thru.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

People shud not be subjected to
what Zimmy went thru.

if you are right then the penalty should have been jail, not death.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Jail for whom ???

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

At A2K?

You are delusional.

You could be right. Smile

(I can't think of a better response! Drunk

)

0 Replies

I am VERY, VERY PLEASED, if not thrilled, when I read of my fellow Americans
killing the evil, as Zimmy did.

0 Replies

@wmwcjr,

I didn't think your sentence was bad at all, WM, in fact it was good. You were speaking to us and that's just how we speak. The rules of writing don't govern speech!

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

WM: Well, actually, for your information, one of them passed away decades ago. I don't remember her name, and I don't know the cause of her death. Needless to say, it wasn't Diana.

Oh where oh where did 'youthness' go?

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

wmwcjr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
. . . except for the odd occasion when I take a moment to address posts like this, about the only thing I do in any thread is provide pertinent and timely facts.

And opinions. (Please take no offense. )

Occasionally I will post an opinion. But mostly I post facts.

No offense taken.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I believe in civil justice, with laws and courts and judges, not frontier justice. We can not adjudicate a dead man.

The fundamental right to self defense underpins all legal systems on the planet. There is nothing even remotely "frontier" about it.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thank you! Smile

0 Replies

@JTT,

It got up and left way too quickly. (And we done gone way off course from this thread. Mr. Green

)

I was in junior high when this song came out.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
As long as so many people believe shooting is the answer to any fight, it will continue.

izzythepush wrote:
One shot....I think there was an intent to kill. I said the same about the Zimmerman/Martin affair, there should be a higher standard of threat to legally kill someone than there is to shoot and wound someone. This gun culture message "if you are going to take the shot then shoot to kill" is barbaric and bizarre.

"if you are going to touch your wife in anger then really clock her"

Nope, does not work. Max force is rarely justified.

Min force needed to get the job done is the civil approach.

I wrote no such thing. This is the first time I've commented on this thread, and only because you're putting Hawkeye's words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The fundamental right to self defense underpins all legal systems on the planet.

Within international law self defense is defined as that which is in response to an ARMED ATTACK. So it does not give a pass to someone who , unopposed, merely opens fire on someone else. Youre losing touch in your eagerness to promote a wild west environment.

Unfortunately Texas,and Florida, don't pattern their laws from any concept of international law. Pa's oen version of "stand yer ground" clearly defines the cases under which deadly force may be taken and all include challenging or brandishing of a gun (and I assume a bow or sword or crossbow) by an assailant. Its a direct measured response, not a license to murder.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

This gun culture message
"if you are going to take the shot then shoot to kill" is barbaric and bizarre.

Your filosofy on this point is exceptionally stupid.

He is bound to perjure himself against u in court and if he is good at it,
or if the jury favors his race (e.g. the O.J. jury) then u r screwn.
Can u predict those factors while u r lying on your back
having your head beaten on the cement?????
Shud u execute that analysis during those circumstances???
Your assertion is irrational. Shame on u!

hawkeye10 wrote:

"if you are going to touch your wife in anger then really clock her"

FOR THE RECORD:
I deem that dictum to be ineffably egregious, beyond anathema.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The fundamental right to self defense underpins all legal systems on the planet.

Within international law self defense is defined as that which is in response to an ARMED ATTACK.

The essence of self defense is not so much the presence of arms, but the need to protect against attack. However, it would be pretty hard to attack a nation without the use of arms.

farmerman wrote:

So it does not give a pass to someone who, unopposed, merely opens fire on someone else.

No one ever said that it did. It is pretty much a given that self defense can only occur in the presence of an attack to be defended against.

farmerman wrote:

Youre losing touch in your eagerness to promote a wild west environment.

The mythology of the Old West has nothing to do with fundamental human rights.

farmerman wrote:

Unfortunately Texas, and Florida, don't pattern their laws from any concept of international law.

It is unlikely that anyone does. International law is not the source of fundamental rights like self defense.

farmerman wrote:

Pa's oen version of "stand yer ground" clearly defines the cases under which deadly force may be taken and all include challenging or brandishing of a gun (and I assume a bow or sword or crossbow) by an assailant. Its a direct measured response, not a license to murder.

It is incorrect to refer to self defense as murder. Self defense is nothing of the sort.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The fundamental right to self defense underpins all legal systems on the planet.

Within international law self defense is defined as that which is in response to an ARMED ATTACK.

The essence of self defense is not so much the presence of arms, but the need to protect against attack. However, it would be pretty hard to attack a nation without the use of arms.

farmerman wrote:
So it does not give a pass to someone who, unopposed, merely opens fire on someone else.

No one ever said that it did. It is pretty much a given that self defense can only occur in the presence of an attack to be defended against.

farmerman wrote:
Youre losing touch in your eagerness to promote a wild west environment.

The mythology of the Old West has nothing to do with fundamental human rights.

farmerman wrote:
Unfortunately Texas, and Florida, don't pattern their laws from any concept of international law.

It is unlikely that anyone does. International law is not the source of fundamental rights like self defense.

farmerman wrote:
Pa's oen version of "stand yer ground" clearly defines the cases under which deadly force may be taken and all include challenging or brandishing of a gun (and I assume a bow or sword or crossbow) by an assailant. Its a direct measured response, not a license to murder.

It is incorrect to refer to self defense as murder. Self defense is nothing of the sort.

"International law" is a myth.
If it actually existed,
it woud be a lot more dangerous
than any rattlesnake.

David

3 Replies

WTF is it With TEXANS and Their GUNS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know