autosurgeon
Regular Member
He cannot see it BC he is narrow minded :cuss:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why you need a gun/CPL
- Thread starter TheQ
- Start date
He cannot see it BC he is narrow minded :cuss:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
My thought is that although it may sound like stainless is too quick to use his firearm to solve that which could be solved much more easily using other means, I don't really think he would do anything as drastic as shooting someone until he felt that his life was in danger. I've met him and we've talked... and his handling of the whole carry issue at his daughter's school is perhaps more indicative of how I think he generally deals with things... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
But, seeing this discussion, I just had to post this... is this a good video meant to be a comedy or something that portrays gun owners as whackjobs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f7ENRikUqE&feature=digest
stainless1911
Banned
Thanks.
If I were that careless, reckless, impetuous, stupid, and dangerous as some people assume that I am, I doubt I would have made it this far.
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
I don't think to portray us as whackjobs was the idea. Steve Lee is a very pro gun Australian musician. If you watch Hickok45's videos, Steve Lee has been to his compound many times and even wrote a song about Hickok. Steve Lee likes guns, he likes the way they look. If you don't believe me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU&NR=1
TheQ
Regular Member
I'll say it again -- certain people should give careful thought as to how their words on a public forum might be used in a potential future criminal case.
stainless1911
Banned
So where do we draw the line that determines which laws ought to be challenged, and which ones we will let stand? Laws that empower the criminals ought to be challenged, and discussed, even the ones that enable the criminals to be criminals without fear.
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Ladies in gentlemen of the jury. Please see the Peope's exhibits A-H. In these you can see the defendant has a predisposition to shooting people to solves thing -- even if his life is no way in danger.....
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
In this case, guy with a bat swinging with bad intent, no provocation, and would be afraid, belted in the car, to even use OC spray, then it would be justified to use deadly force to cause the attack to stop, imo.
It probably depends on who was in the car though. Small female, better chance of acquittal/non-filing of charges.
$.02
It probably depends on who was in the car though. Small female, better chance of acquittal/non-filing of charges.
$.02
TheQ
Regular Member
Some folks are talking about shooting the guy if they wakled out of their house and saw a guy going to town on their car with a bat (even if no one was in it..:")
Last edited:
Bronson
Regular Member
I didn't say that you were any of those things. I said that your writings make you appear to be overly anxious to take a life.
Not everything you think needs to end up on an open forum that is available for all to see. You've got to learn to temper what you write.
Bronson
ManInBlack
Regular Member
I, for one, respect a man who has the courage of his convictions to speak freely without being cowed into submission by the threat of government force.
Besides, as has been pointed out, current Texas law permits the use of lethal for to defend property without one's life being in danger. So, such a topic is not beyond the pale, nor is it inappropriate for discussion. Stainless is a big boy; he can make his own decisions, and once your advice was rejected, you probably should have just let it be.
stainless1911
Banned
FWIW, If I were on a jury in Michigan, in a case where a homeowner shot someone in a parking lot that he caught keying his car, I would begrudgingly vote to convict. However, if I were in Texas, (assuming the law allows), I would happily acquit.
Then I'd buy the homeowner a beer, and I don't even drink.
Then I'd buy the homeowner a beer, and I don't even drink.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Jury nullification for the win.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
stainless1911
Banned
I wasnt talking about jury nullification, just following state laws, whether I agree with them or not. In this case I don't.
If jury nullification were an option, I would do my best to uphold the constitution by not barring the defendant from using his rights for the rest of his life.
If jury nullification were an option, I would do my best to uphold the constitution by not barring the defendant from using his rights for the rest of his life.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
I understand, but I was making the point that jury nullification is a valid option in this scenario. There is no reason to follow a state law when it violates one's natural rights to protect life, liberty and property, unless not following the law exposes one or one's family to severe personal risk. Luckily, juries are substantially protected to make whatever decision they want.
Jury nullification is already happening, and sometimes not in positive ways; note the OJ trial and the inability of DAs in certain areas to win death sentences (I am thinking particularly of Orleans Parish, LA) because certain groups protect their own. If other groups use this valuable tool to protect their own interests to the detriment of society, I don't see why patriots can't use it to protect their interests to the benefit of society.
Just my $0.02.
stainless1911
Banned
All true, but Im still not going to shoot at someone unless Im within the written law.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Correct. You can never know who will be on your jury, or if they will understand such concepts as natural rights, etc.
dragongtr
Regular Member
"I'm still working on getting back into shape, My gun, fully loaded, extra mag (fully loaded), knife, flashlight, pepper spray, and voice recorder are like ankle wieghts and help me get fit faster. The benifit being that if someone ever attacks me and my out of shape @$$ can't out run them, I can defend myself, unlike with ankle weights that would just slow me down and make it easier for the attacker to get me."
you should be able to frusterate the hell out of any anti-gun woman who is over the age of 21 (meaning from past experience she is almost gauranteed to be a perpetual dieter) with an answer like that.
you should be able to frusterate the hell out of any anti-gun woman who is over the age of 21 (meaning from past experience she is almost gauranteed to be a perpetual dieter) with an answer like that.