Intruder shot, killed after kicking in door, charging occupant with a knife

#104
#104
hndog609 said:
Are you even trying at this point? Look, you want to have the the "Anybody can own/carry anything" conversation take it somewhere else, like it's own thread. THIS is a conversation pertaining (or at least trying) to carry of, as Heller describes, those weapons "in common use for lawful purpose". Anything else you submit regarding nukes, chemical, biological or area weapons is just you dropping a turd in the punch bowl of what could be a useful discussion.
Click to expand...
THIS is a conversation that came directly from my initial post that I was happy the woman was armed and able to defend herself.
If anything, you're butting in on my conversation.
 
#105
#105
LouderVol said:
except there is no way to define any of the objects, besides a sword in personal defense. kinda defeats the purpose of defending oneself if you are getting blown up/gas/radiated too. you lump these other weapons into the defense category because you don't have a real argument and try to shift the argument away from what is actually going on to some red herring you make up.
Click to expand...
I though mutually assured destruction was the ultimate defense.
 
#106
#106
luthervol said:
THIS is a conversation that came directly from my initial post that I was happy the woman was armed and able to defend herself.
If anything, you're butting in on my conversation.
Click to expand...

No, it then became an issue of carry outside the home, correct? Not nukes/chemical/bio/area weapons, just regular firearms, correct? If you have actual arguments regarding the carry of completely regular weaponry for the purpose of self-defense then by all means carry on. All else is twaddle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#107
#107
luthervol said:
I though mutually assured destruction was the ultimate defense.
Click to expand...
not in cases of PERSONAL defense. this is little "d" defense, not big government Defense.

and I am 100% for getting rid of all nukes, so you won't see me arguing for people actually carrying around a Davy Crockett.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#109
#109
hndog609 said:
No, it then became an issue of carry outside the home, correct? Not nukes/chemical/bio/area weapons, just regular firearms, correct? If you have actual arguments regarding the carry of completely regular weaponry for the purpose of self-defense then by all means carry on. All else is twaddle.
Click to expand...
No. It became an issue of people trying to pin down exactly where my happiness that the woman was armed begins and ends.
That extended to the Kroger parking lot and me saying I had no problem with her having a permit to carry and thereby being able to defend herself. Which led to the permit part of the debate.
 
#110
#110
NorthDallas40 said:
Have the talking points come out yet on how to spin this into a gun control/white supremacy issue sister?
Click to expand...

Soon. Waiting for Papa George S. to provide them to me and Luther. Must be too busy with the election fraud work right now.
 
#111
#111
LouderVol said:
not in cases of PERSONAL defense. this is little "d" defense, not big government Defense.

and I am 100% for getting rid of all nukes, so you won't see me arguing for people actually carrying around a Davy Crockett.
Click to expand...
We probably really aren't that far apart. I just view some guns kind of like nukes........intended for nothing more than intimidation and mass destruction cloaked under the guise of self defense.
 
#114
#114
luthervol said:
No. It became an issue of people trying to pin down exactly where my happiness that the woman was armed begins and ends.
That extended to the Kroger parking lot and me saying I had no problem with her having a permit to carry and thereby being able to defend herself. Which led to the permit part of the debate.
Click to expand...

Outstanding! Nukes, bio, chem & area weapons have jackall to do with any part of that discussion. (for anyone even trying to feign intellectual integrity anyway)

So to help you keep your ball out of the gutters on the topic let's use exactly the same weapon this cited woman used to defend herself.

Should she be allowed to carry that weapon for the purpose of lawful self-defense outside her home? If not why? (You've commented but I'm being thorough)
If yes should she be required to have government permission (a permit) to do so? If not, why? (If you need to invoke references to weapons other than what your cited woman had in her home then it's entirely due to the weakness of your argument)
 
#115
#115
hndog609 said:
Outstanding! Nukes, bio, chem & area weapons have jackall to do with any part of that discussion. (for anyone even trying to feign intellectual integrity anyway)

So to help you keep your ball out of the gutters on the topic let's use exactly the same weapon this cited woman used to defend herself.

Should she be allowed to carry that weapon for the purpose of lawful self-defense outside her home? If not why? (You've commented but I'm being thorough)
If yes should she be required to have government permission (a permit) to do so? If not, why? (If you need to invoke references to weapons other than what your cited woman had in her home then it's entirely due to the weakness of your argument)
Click to expand...
I've already answered those questions. (I have no idea what type of weapon she used)
I'm okay with a person having a permit to carry a hand gun outside of their home.
 
#119
#119
luthervol said:
We probably really aren't that far apart. I just view some guns kind of like nukes........intended for nothing more than intimidation and mass destruction cloaked under the guise of self defense.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's fine and all except for the literal mile between what a gun will do and what even the smallest nuclear device will do. How they are used is a huge difference as well in determining their validity in defense. And i will always side with personal rights over any government gray area.
 
#120
#120
Tastylicks said:
seems like 1 would get the job done.

We dont own 20 hammers. Just 1 when we need to do some pounding.

Or 20 broom & dust pans. We dont own 20 of them either, just 2, 1 for sweeping the kitchen and the other I use for flying around at night ;)
Click to expand...

I have a claw hammer (a couple), sledge hammer, ball peen, brass, rubber mallet, and probably a few more. I have a couple regular brooms and a couple push brooms. Luckily I don’t need permission from the government or morons to decide on what I should own or how many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, OL SMOKEY, 82_VOL_83 and 1 other person
#121
#121
luthervol said:
No. It became an issue of people trying to pin down exactly where my happiness that the woman was armed begins and ends.
That extended to the Kroger parking lot and me saying I had no problem with her having a permit to carry and thereby being able to defend herself. Which led to the permit part of the debate.
Click to expand...

Why should she need a permit to exercise a constitutional right and be able to defend herself ANYWHERE?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#123
#123
luthervol said:
THIS is a conversation that came directly from my initial post that I was happy the woman was armed and able to defend herself.
If anything, you're butting in on my conversation.
Click to expand...
Did you just accuse a poster on a message board of butting in on your conversation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#124
#124
luthervol said:
We probably really aren't that far apart. I just view some guns kind of like nukes........intended for nothing more than intimidation and mass destruction cloaked under the guise of self defense.
Click to expand...

which of these is more like a nuke? 1) sw 15-22 (first pic) or 2) glock 21

10208-mp-OnWhite-Right.png

1620320459110.jpeg
 
#125
#125
LouderVol said:
Yeah that's fine and all except for the literal mile between what a gun will do and what even the smallest nuclear device will do. How they are used is a huge difference as well in determining their validity in defense. And i will always side with personal rights over any government gray area.
Click to expand...
But it's the same concept. You say you are against nukes and would like to see them eliminated. Are you against the existence of all bombs? If not, what is the destructive power you find acceptable? If so, then what is the most destructive weapon of war that should exists?

The point is clear (at least to me) Even though there is no clear cut line that can be drawn that appeals to all, I line must be drawn nonetheless.
At some point, the potential harm to society so grossly outweighs any perceived benefit, that a rational and reasonable society will draw that line.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top