How is this anti-gun?

imported post

I realize you were just being humorous without doing a legal analysis, but your caption plays right into the anti's hands. It shows the homeowner would back-shoot the crook after the threat has passed. Press, police, and anti-gunners read this forum.

If you decide to delete yours, let me know via PM so I can delete this post.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I realize you were just being humorous without doing a legal analysis, but your caption plays right into the anti's hands. It shows the homeowner would back-shoot the crook after the threat has passed. Press, police, and anti-gunners read this forum.

If you decide to delete yours, let me know via PM so I can delete this post.

Click to expand...

He's still on their property and knows where they live. He's a threat. If this took place in California... let him live and he can sue you.... and win.

So no, I won't change it.Amasked man comesinto my house with a weapon at night and I'll make sure he's dead. And yes, a crowbar is a weapon.

No matter what you do, the antigunners will almost always be antigun. They will not apologize for their views and neither will I. Just say you don't agree and be done with it.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I realize you were just being humorous without doing a legal analysis, but your caption plays right into the anti's hands. It shows the homeowner would back-shoot the crook after the threat has passed. Press, police, and anti-gunners read this forum.

If you decide to delete yours, let me know via PM so I can delete this post.

Click to expand...

He's still on their property and knows where they live. He's a threat. If this took place in California... let him live and he can sue you.... and win.

So no, I won't change it.Amasked man comesinto my house with a weapon at night and I'll make sure he's dead. And yes, a crowbar is a weapon.

No matter what you do, the antigunners will almost always be antigun. They will not apologize for their views and neither will I. Just say you don't agree and be done with it.

Click to expand...

OK. So, you don't wantto deny ammo to the anti's. Fine.

Would you mind notmaking us look like law-breakers.The common law on justified lethal force includes that the justification for lethal force stops when the immediate threat stops. See In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob,perhaps the foremost self-defense expert witness in the country. Also, google AOJ (ability, opportunity, jeopardy)

Nevermind the extensive discussions both on OCDO and in the armed self-defense world aboutshooting to stop instead of shooting to kill."Making sure he is dead", in your context, means to ensure that he dies. Doing soafter theimmediate threat stops may very well get you amanslaughter charge.

For any guests reading this forum, we repudiate the above views of Washingtonian_For_Liberty on lethal force.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

OK. So, you don't wantto deny ammo to the anti's. Fine.

Would you mind notmaking us look like law-breakers.The common law on justified lethal force includes that the justification for lethal force stops when the immediate threat stops. See In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob,perhaps the foremost self-defense expert witness in the country. Also, google AOJ (ability, opportunity, jeopardy)

Nevermind the extensive discussions both on OCDO and in the armed self-defense world aboutshooting to stop instead of shooting to kill."Making sure he is dead", in your context, means to ensure that he dies. Doing soafter theimmediate threat stops may very well get you amanslaughter charge.

For any guests reading this forum, we repudiate the above views of Washingtonian_For_Liberty on lethal force.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of the First Amendment? The Antis want us to become self conscious about what we say and what we write. I refuse to give them the power to regulate what I say or write.

First, the cartoon is not an exact representation of reality. As is with most comedy (and it's funny to me), it has elements of the truth in it. Are we going to be cowed into silence by the Stalinists who don't want us to have any views? I refuse to buckle to the threat of "oooo you might give the antis ammo" (could have made another joke out of that one as well). They take even our most well thought out arguments completely out of context and plaster their propaganda and lies everywhere they can. Political cartoons like the one we've been posting are a way of illustrating truths through exaggeration.

As for my comments on making sure they're dead. If a masked man comes into my home at night with a weapon... I'm not going to try and wing him. Trying to wing him means I might miss. I'm going to put two shots to center mass and one to the head. I'm not going to play nice with robbers who break into my home when I have a wife and little daughter that could be hurt or killed if I don't neutralize the threat. If I shot the guy and he was running from my home, I would never shoot him unless he was running for his car.. I might shoot him as I would be afraid he might have a gun in his car. I will not wait to see if he does, only to get shot and leave my wife and daughter totally unprotected. I'm not without understanding of killing in self defense, and if they're masked, with a crowbar and in my house... I think I'm within my rights to kill them... or are we saying that guns are really just cool looking noisemakers that we're not supposed to ACTUALLY use?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

<snip>For any guests reading this forum, we repudiate the above views of Washingtonian_For_Liberty on lethal force.<snip>

Click to expand...

Please do not speak for me. I may or may not agree with a posters view or choice of words. That is for me to comment on. Speak for yourself. The poster of the comment you refer to did not say that we would make sure he is..... He posted I would make sure he is.....

I support the 1st as well as the 2nd and all of the other parts of the COTUS. I speak for myself on issues.

imported post

sccrref wrote:

Citizen wrote:

<snip>For any guests reading this forum, we repudiate the above views of Washingtonian_For_Liberty on lethal force.<snip>

Click to expand...

Please do not speak for me. I may or may not agree with a posters view or choice of words. That is for me to comment on. Speak for yourself. The poster of the comment you refer to did not say that we would make sure he is..... He posted I would make sure he is.....

I support the 1st as well as the 2nd and all of the other parts of the COTUS. I speak for myself on issues.

Click to expand...

When the poster is that far out of line, and continues to argue that he is right despite diplomatic attempts to get him onto the side of the angels, I'm going to repudiate it on behalf of myself and the numerous others on this forum who I personally know would also reject it.

That is the key point. I know with a high degree of certainty that many, many of the forum members would also reject his irresponsible gun handling.

However. I do understand your objection. From now on I will phrase it something like, "I am absolutely certain the vast majority of responsible gun owners on this forum would find [the comments] unacceptable."

imported post

What, no complaints about the message my comic has?

imported post

Citizen wrote:

When the poster is that far out of line, and continues to argue that he is right despite diplomatic attempts to get him onto the side of the angels, I'm going to repudiate it on behalf of myself and the numerous others on this forum who I personally know would also reject it.

That is the key point. I know with a high degree of certainty that many, many of the forum members would also reject his irresponsible gun handling.

However. I do understand your objection. From now on I will phrase it something like, "I am absolutely certain the vast majority of responsible gun owners on this forum would find [the comments] unacceptable."

Click to expand...

Let them reject it then. You seem to have an oblique understanding of the First Amendment. Somehow you think that it only applies to those who toe the line. Are you now the arbiter of speech on this site? Do we now need to run our posts by the Czar of Speech Codes Citizen?

A diplomatic thug is just a thug. One who tells others to stop practicing their rights because he's afraid that the exercising of the right might play into the hands of the opposition is just as bad as the opposition, or maybe even worse as he claims to be standing up for Constitutional rights.... maybe it's just his rights he cares about.

When speech codes begin to control our lives out of fear.... we have already lost.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

"He asked if the lady of the house was in. I told him you were getting the shotgun."

Click to expand...

+1 :celebrate

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I know with a high degree of certainty that many, many of the forum members would also reject his irresponsible gun handling

Click to expand...

We should make it a poll. I for one am with Citizen on this one.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

sccrref wrote:

Citizen wrote:

<snip>For any guests reading this forum, we repudiate the above views of Washingtonian_For_Liberty on lethal force.<snip>

Click to expand...

Please do not speak for me. I may or may not agree with a posters view or choice of words. That is for me to comment on. Speak for yourself. The poster of the comment you refer to did not say that we would make sure he is..... He posted I would make sure he is.....

I support the 1st as well as the 2nd and all of the other parts of the COTUS. I speak for myself on issues.

Click to expand...

When the poster is that far out of line, and continues to argue that he is right despite diplomatic attempts to get him onto the side of the angels, I'm going to repudiate it on behalf of myself and the numerous others on this forum who I personally know would also reject it.

That is the key point. I know with a high degree of certainty that many, many of the forum members would also reject his irresponsible gun handling.

However. I do understand your objection. From now on I will phrase it something like, "I am absolutely certain the vast majority of responsible gun owners on this forum would find [the comments] unacceptable."

Click to expand...

Thank you Sir!!!!