Guns save lives

[Burroughs]

No surprise the hug-a-thug faggot media didn't make this national news

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

 

[The Gambler]

Great find, Burroughs. I love me a good .38 revolver.

 

[Atom Smasher]

True that... Funny how things are selectively buried when they don't fit the mainstream agenda.

 

[BMX]

Very effective tool indeed.

 

[backseatjuan]

In a gun free society you do not have a right to shoot a gun. Defending your family in this situation would put that woman behind bars. Only police could save her.

America is truly becoming a nanny state, full of faggots and feminists, and full of morons.

Morons are all around, it is those who watched twin towers fall at free fall speed and believe it was just because of a fire.

Morons ignore that NORAD conducted similar drills during September 11 2001, where planes were hijacked.


If you live in America look around you, the land of morons, faggots, and feminists.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Some handy facts to keep in your back pocket in case you run into a gun hating zealot:

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

For more fun facts, Senator Feinstein (D Cali), who is leading the anti-gun charge, has a conceal carry permit. Do as your overlords say, not as they do, kids.

 

[LiveFreeX]

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)

from gunowners.org

This is disturbing. Sorry man, not pro-guns here... I like guns in the hands of police or military or people qualified by our elected officials but I think this case could have been worse if the robber in question had broken in with an UZI, assault rifle or other over the counter weapon. Since your society is so heavily armed already, then yes I agree its better to carry a weapon (in america), however, I'd rather live in a gun free world and thus will do my best to never travel to america or any other heavily weaponized country if I can help it. Especially a weaponized country where violence against men and any sort of masculinity is promoted and accepted by the majority.

BTW, leave your guns at home (america). If you really need to feel protected whilst abroad, invest in some self defense lessons such as kung fu.

I am not a gun hater mind you, I prefer guns that are used primarily against aliens, my favorite being the M141A Pulse Rifle w/ pump action grenade launcher. (ALIENS)

 

[Who Dares Win]

This is disturbing. Sorry man, not pro-guns here... I like guns in the hands of police or military or people qualified by our elected officials but I think this case could have been worse if the robber in question had broken in with an UZI, assault rifle or other over the counter weapon. Since your society is so heavily armed already, then yes I agree its better to carry a weapon (in america), however, I'd rather live in a gun free world and thus will do my best to never travel to america or any other heavily weaponized country if I can help it. Especially a weaponized country where violence against men and any sort of masculinity is promoted and accepted by the majority.

BTW, leave your guns at home (america). If you really need to feel protected whilst abroad, invest in some self defense lessons such as kung fu.

I am not a gun hater mind you, I prefer guns that are used primarily against aliens, my favorite being the M141A Pulse Rifle w/ pump action grenade launcher. (ALIENS)

Dont know how to tell without harm your sensitivity but what you see in jackie chans movie or do in halo does not necessarily match reality.

I dislike guns myself but I know pretty well that the government is unable to protect his citizens, police arrives LATER after the fact happened and most of time cant even punish the offender therefore I have no other choice than being able to defend myself and my family and possibly even innocent third parts.

Regarding your hypotesis of offenders armed with heavy firepower just know that someone who doesnt give a fvck about killing and raping, hardly will mind gun control laws.

Also criminals are a$$holes not idiots (those are the liberals who protect them), if they know a third part is able and willing to strike back, they would rather change target than outpower it.
Again the problem are not to have guns or not but to let law abiding citizens have them, criminals are well armed anyway no matter the law...plus whoever trust the government to protect himself and his family
shows either ignorance at best or cowardy.

 

[BMX]

This is disturbing. Sorry man, not pro-guns here... I like guns in the hands of police or military or people qualified by our elected officials but I think this case could have been worse if the robber in question had broken in with an UZI, assault rifle or other over the counter weapon. Since your society is so heavily armed already, then yes I agree its better to carry a weapon (in america), however, I'd rather live in a gun free world and thus will do my best to never travel to america or any other heavily weaponized country if I can help it. Especially a weaponized country where violence against men and any sort of masculinity is promoted and accepted by the majority.

BTW, leave your guns at home (america). If you really need to feel protected whilst abroad, invest in some self defense lessons such as kung fu.

I am not a gun hater mind you, I prefer guns that are used primarily against aliens, my favorite being the M141A Pulse Rifle w/ pump action grenade launcher. (ALIENS)

All of you beta faggots in China better start perfecting your flying sidekicks :crackup:

 

[Bible_Belt]

The article said that the guy she shot is on the verge of death. I hope he doesn't die, even if it is only for the sake of her conscious. His crime is burglary, and there is no legal justification for killing someone to defend property. The idea might be popular, but that doesn't make it legal.

No one has the legal right to shoot somebody just because that person is in their house. The "castle doctrine" is part of self-defense law, and it always requires a reasonable belief of impending harm. An intruder simply being there is not enough. He would have had to threaten her with the crowbar, too, before she shot him. I don't know if that happened, but despite what everybody seems to think, even if he's in your house you can't sneak up on a burglar and blow him away before he knows what is going on. That's murder.

 

[Poonani Maker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHCRHwpc0a0&list=FLB4RNkHoMV32nnJD6kTcF4w&index=2

 

[Burroughs]

The world would be a much better place if it was generally accepted that breaking into someone's house would likely get you killed.

yes indeed but then how would the state create slaves of its citizens

this is what so few grasp about the 2A...it was put in place to keep governments from having tyranny over citizens....the founding fathers saw what was happening in europe, the banks, rothschild meddling...they wanted to make sure it never happened in the US..alas with the federal reserve system the disease took hold and we are suffering from it today...

 

[Bible_Belt]

No UZI's or fully automatic weapons are allowed in the US, despite what Hollywood or the news might tell you.

That's not exactly true. From what I read, you need $200, a clean criminal background, and a signature from your local sheriff, and the Feds are OK with it. Some states will not give the required local approval. It just depends upon where you live. I also read about a lawyering loophole of creating a trust to own the gun as a way to bypass the need for local approval, but that might be shaky legal ground.

I also think another requirement is that the full-auto must have been manufactured prior to 1986, so that would exclude some of the more modern swat-style tactical weapons.

What Hollywood does do quite well is exaggerate the value of full auto. The Army was switching the M16 to three round bursts around the time that I got to play with them, so I was able to fire both, and could quickly see the benefit of the change. On full auto, the magazine empties in I think 1.7 seconds. But by the third bullet, you're not hitting anything any more. Crawling around an outdoor woodland environment, burst fire works much better, especially for a soldier getting shot at when they are changing magazines. Full-auto small arms fire can be useful in a very small enclosed space, especially with the newer urban combat weapons, but otherwise it's just a gimmick. Fully automatic fire is not useful until you mount the weapon and belt-feed it like an M60.

 

[goundra]

the media never get the story correct. It's legal to kill over property in SOME US states, pal, like Texas.

 

[goundra]

/where you been, dude? full auto has been HIGHLY controled, requiring a $200 tax, background check, fingerprints, 6 month wait, etc, since NINETEEN THIRTY FOUR. the 1986 act just stopped manufacture for anyone but cops, military,, or class III full auto dealers (as samples) they were controled HEAVILY for 50 years prior to 1986.

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's legal to kill over property in SOME US states, pal, like Texas.

There's a good answer to that question here:
http://www.law-forums.org/what-s-the-trespassing-law-in-texas-t9798.html

The links cited there state that force is allowed to protect property, but deadly force is not. I am guessing that your attorney would advise killing the trespasser with your bare hands, rather than a gun, so that you could argue that you didn't realize you were using deadly force. But either way, you are still subject to Federal laws like civil rights, which are independent of a state's decision to not bring charges.

There's a thousand years of legal history regarding self-defense law, going back to the English common law that the US adopted, and all of it says that force is not acceptable to protect property. But the new laws that we are seeing in states like Texas and Florida are starting to lean in the opposite direction. They're trying to codify the prosecutor's discretion that has always existed.

In this case if the guy dies, I would expect his relatives to sue the homeowner's insurance company for about a million bucks. They'll offer $100k immediately to settle, but would probably pay a quarter mil to not have to litigate. If you didn't have insurance, they would just take whatever assets you have, possibly the house itself if there is equity.

Killing people tends to be a bad idea in a lot of ways. And thinking that you have the right to do so is a very dangerous attitude if you make the wrong decision.

 

[The Gambler]

There's a good answer to that question here:
http://www.law-forums.org/what-s-the-trespassing-law-in-texas-t9798.html

The links cited there state that force is allowed to protect property, but deadly force is not. I am guessing that your attorney would advise killing the trespasser with your bare hands, rather than a gun, so that you could argue that you didn't realize you were using deadly force. But either way, you are still subject to Federal laws like civil rights, which are independent of a state's decision to not bring charges.

There's a thousand years of legal history regarding self-defense law, going back to the English common law that the US adopted, and all of it says that force is not acceptable to protect property. But the new laws that we are seeing in states like Texas and Florida are starting to lean in the opposite direction. They're trying to codify the prosecutor's discretion that has always existed.

In this case if the guy dies, I would expect his relatives to sue the homeowner's insurance company for about a million bucks. They'll offer $100k immediately to settle, but would probably pay a quarter mil to not have to litigate. If you didn't have insurance, they would just take whatever assets you have, possibly the house itself if there is equity.

Killing people tends to be a bad idea in a lot of ways. And thinking that you have the right to do so is a very dangerous attitude if you make the wrong decision.

I can guarantee you that this case would never make it past the grand jury stage.

 

[Burroughs]

Letter by a patriot:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

 

[penkitten]

i wish they could do some sort of crazy test before they issued a gun license. you know, so the mentally disturbed didn't end up with the guns and the normal people would be able to get them.
it is the crazies that i am scared of. not men that protect our country, or men that hunt or protect their land... just the crazies.

 

[alphamailman]

i wish they could do some sort of crazy test before they issued a gun license. you know, so the mentally disturbed didn't end up with the guns and the normal people would be able to get them.
it is the crazies that i am scared of. not men that protect our country, or men that hunt or protect their land... just the crazies.

Yep, sorry Goundra, hate to break it to you...but you are OUT! :moon: