Would You Shoot?

[Muzzy]

thought this would fit into the discussion:

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Amen...I agree 100%

 

[Black1]

.....

Perhaps there should be a more stringent criteria for gun ownership.... Such as a psychological examination and a crticial scenario test to determine whether or not an applicant is sufficiently mature and properly skilled (or schooled) in the mechanics of warfare..... Afterall, that's exactly what this is...

........

D

Like political polls... these "tests" can be skewed to the exact wants and needs of the examiner.

Nice post, Sanchoba.

 

[Muzzy]

First of all, anyone trying to steal from me will have a few more holes in them than God gave'em.

Texas is one of the states that has a defense of property law, which lets you use deadly force to defend your property. If the thieves weren't stealing, they wouldn't be dead.

The problem on a grander scale is people are being taught to be victims instead of fighting back. How many news specials have you seen where they tell you to just hand over your wallet or give the car jacker your vehicle? The criminals love it. The law protects the criminals more than the victims. States with relaxed Conceal Carry Laws (CCL) have seen significant reductions in violent crime. That's because the criminals know citizens are packing. They try to rob or rape the wrong person and they are dead (as it ought to be). If more states allowed defense of property laws, you would see less robberies.

Criminals aren't scared of unarmed citizens, it's the armed ones they don't want to mess with.

-Muzzy

 

[Muzzy]

Then again you are in Iowa right

Unfortunately, Iowa is full of liberals. There is no defense of property or relaxed CCL law here. You have to be more creative...Shoot-em and dump the body in the nearest hog pen :evil:

It would be interesting to know if a criminal would call 911 for getting shot while robbing someone :dontknow:

-Muzzy

 

[Prof]

Now Muzzy, if that person stealing some apples off of one of your fruit trees was seven years old I gather by your post that you would fill them with holes too? That is what your post says...no modifiers that I can see in your words. But I know better. You and I would be pissed and yell and chase them off or grab their butt and take them to their parents (and probably get sued).

Now what if that kid was 10 or maybe 12, or possible even 14 or 16...where do you draw the line? And by the way, how do you tell? Do you card them first?

What if it is a little girl of 4 or 6 or maybe 8...or a 16 or 18 year old girl...maybe a 40 year old mother that is trying to give her 6 year old little girl an apple because the child is hungry, and too proud to come and ask for a meal for her child.

The point is that you just don't know, in a few instances. Now I am using the extreme and possibly ridiculous to make a point: You never know who that person is, what the reason is, or what the extenuating and mitigating circumstances are.

The bottom line is that the use of deadly force has a unique finality associated with it. If that 14 year old girl that was shot for stealing fruit from a tree, a flower from a garden or a pair of pliers from your garage, was your daughter who was just being a teenager like we were when we were 14, I think you would prefer that the shooter had taken a different course of action.

I would like to add to the list above one more "enemy for guns": non-thinking gun owners. The possession of a fire arm brings with it very special obligations, a penchant for rational thought, and a love of the intent of our constitution's second amendment that was written and ratified for the intent to keep us free not specifically to keep us from being robbed.

It's your right to bear arms. Its your obligation to think about how to use them responsibly. Killing someone for stealing from you maybe legal, but so is abortion...

 

[Muzzy]

Now Muzzy, if that person stealing some apples off of one of your fruit trees was seven years old I gather by your post that you would fill them with holes too? That is what your post says...no modifiers that I can see in your words. But I know better. You and I would be pissed and yell and chase them off or grab their butt and take them to their parents (and probably get sued).

Now what if that kid was 10 or maybe 12, or possible even 14 or 16...where do you draw the line? And by the way, how do you tell? Do you card them first?

What if it is a little girl of 4 or 6 or maybe 8...or a 16 or 18 year old girl...maybe a 40 year old mother that is trying to give her 6 year old little girl an apple because the child is hungry, and too proud to come and ask for a meal for her child.

The point is that you just don't know, in a few instances. Now I am using the extreme and possibly ridiculous to make a point: You never know who that person is, what the reason is, or what the extenuating and mitigating circumstances are.

The bottom line is that the use of deadly force has a unique finality associated with it. If that 14 year old girl that was shot for stealing fruit from a tree, a flower from a garden or a pair of pliers from your garage, was your daughter who was just being a teenager like we were when we were 14, I think you would prefer that the shooter had taken a different course of action.

I would like to add to the list above one more "enemy for guns": non-thinking gun owners. The possession of a fire arm brings with it very special obligations, a penchant for rational thought, and a love of the intent of our constitution's second amendment that was written and ratified for the intent to keep us free not specifically to keep us from being robbed.

It's your right to bear arms. Its your obligation to think about how to use them responsibly. Killing someone for stealing from you maybe legal, but so is abortion...

You have valid points. I was responding more to the news article. I get very angry when someone steals from anyone. I had been a victim of theft a couple times when I lived in Detroit. Cops took a nice report and basically said I was SOL. Never got anything back. So forgive me if I have NO sympathy for those dumb fuggers that we killed stealing.

Of course I am not going to shoot some kid (I can't get my apple tree to even produce one apple). I might let my dogs chew on them for a while to teach them a lesson (just kidding).

Some kid throwing an egg at the house or something like that, I am going drag them by their neck back to their house and let their parents know about it. I will draw the line at the severity of the crime. Apples, I could care less. Tools, now that's a deadly force offense :laugh:. Touch my family, break into my home/garage, then you will never find the body. That's where I draw the line.

-Muzzy

 

[azpyroguy]

You have valid points. I was responding more to the news article. I get very angry when someone steals from anyone. I had been a victim of theft a couple times when I lived in Detroit. Cops took a nice report and basically said I was SOL. Never got anything back. So forgive me if I have NO sympathy for those dumb fuggers that we killed stealing.

Of course I am not going to shoot some kid (I can't get my apple tree to even produce one apple). I might let my dogs chew on them for a while to teach them a lesson (just kidding).

Some kid throwing an egg at the house or something like that, I am going drag them by their neck back to their house and let their parents know about it. I will draw the line at the severity of the crime. Apples, I could care less. Tools, now that's a deadly force offense :laugh:. Touch my family, break into my home/garage, then you will never find the body. That's where I draw the line.

-Muzzy

Nicely put....

 

[OCBob]

OK, I have a question that I think fits right in here.

I'm sure that most of you remember the incident in Laughlin when the HA attacked the Mongols inside the casino. Just this week a number of Mongols took plea deals in order to avoid trial on murder charges. They will be doing 5 years on manslaughter pleas instead.

Do you think this is fair? Before you make up your mind consider the facts.

The Mongols were in the casino at the hotel that they were staying at, in fact the hotel where they always stayed. (During the Laughlin run MC's all have their own hotels that they stay at.) The Mongols were drinking and gambling, just having a good time and minding their own business at the time.

The HA rolled in on the hotel en masse, as law enforcement knew they would and watched it happen. When they got into the casino one of their members kicked a Mongol, igniting the whole melee. Both clubs were armed with knives and guns, and all hell broke loose. When it was over there were dead and injured from each club.

Why weren't the Mongols given a free ride, as they were clearly defending themselves? This is supported by the hours and hours of video. How can it be ok for a guy to shoot someone stealing his neighbors shit, yet it isn't to do so to save your own life?

I'm sure there are some folks with some opinions on this, we never fall short here hehehe.

 

[The Itch]

http://www.sizor.com/flash/binladen.htm

44k. Love that game!!!:rock: :rock: :rock:

 

[Prof]

Nicely put....

I concur, and agree.

Bob...don't know about the incident??? HA's? Mongols?

 

[OCBob]

Roy, it was a fight between the Mongols MC and the Hells Angels at the Laughlin River Run in 2002.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/hells-angels/background_ctv.html

 

[Black1]

I concur, and agree.

Bob...don't know about the incident??? HA's? Mongols?

Hell's Angels and Mongols.... the motorcycle clubs, Roy.

Bob, the police probably considered the whole thing "gang warfare" and that's why self-defense didn't apply. Just as if a Blood gets shot by a Crip, the Blood can't call self-defense because he was wearing the "colors"... knowing an attack was imminent, if he did so.

Sorry, Bob... But these guys know, all to well, the life they choose.

 

[OCBob]

Hell's Angels and Mongols.... the motorcycle clubs, Roy.

Bob, the police probably considered the whole thing "gang warfare" and that's why self-defense didn't apply. Just as if a Blood gets shot by a Crip, the Blood can't call self-defense because he was wearing the "colors"... knowing an attack was imminent, if he did so.

Sorry, Bob... But these guys know, all to well, the life they choose.

So then the whole thing about equal protection under the law doesn't pertain to someone that is in a MC? How about rival high schools that fight? Or feuding neighbors? If you wear a patch you no longer have the right to protect yourself against attack, is that right? These guys were in the casino minding their own business when they were attacked. I don't see how that justifies a murder charge. Justice is supposed to be blind, not just to color or race or gender, but everything.

I know all too well about the life that is chosen, but does that mean that rights have to be forfeited? I must have missed that part of the Constitution.

Think about this for a minute. The cops knew that the HA were planning this, watched them leave where they were at, ride to the casino, enter the casino and start the shit. They could have stopped it at any time, but instead let it happen, and then charged those that defending themselves with murder. Something stinks about all that.

 

[DOUGfir]

Young Thief

Years ago at my old house almost weekly, I would lose stuff out of my garage, or get my car rifled through.
Then one day on the news there was a report of a teenager that had been shot and killed for stealing a car radio from this elderly gentlemen’s car.
This gentlemen had his car broken into several times within a 3 month period, so one evening he was whacting TV late and herd noise outside, went outside burglar attempting to steal his radio, he yells at him to stop and stay where he is at, the burglar starts running, there is a large grassy field across the street from the gentlemen. He goes into the house gets his hunting rifle, sites up on the burglar and in one shot takes him down DOA in the flied.
This went to the grand jury and he did not get charged, I did not get all the facts as to why he did not get charged or charged with murder.
Long story short this teenager was my neibor, after this, all the car break-ins and the garage thefts, and house burglaries went to 0.

 

[Black1]

Apparently, this is still on-going.... with a botched protest outside the shooter's home, and investigations by DPS, ICE, and Pasadena Police.... Very interesting.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou071204_tnt_pasadenaburglars.69d89aae.html

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/p...n=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

I have one question..... Why were the Black Panthers and other Black Civil rights activists at a protest involving 2 Columbians? :dontknow: Is it because they LOOKED black?