boy gets shocked after touching McCain-Palin yard sign (carry, weapon, countries)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, you are making a lot of assumptions from an article that is shorter than your post.
There is not a lot to go on and if you read back through my posts, I ask the question concerning the father and the discussion we were having was contingent on those "assumptions". I suggest you read the entire discussion between us before you butt in and start your snide remarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
As I quoted a while back, when we were kids, it was considered acceptable to walk through people's yards, and it is considered acceptable today in my neighborhood, especailly if you have given someone permission.
If permission yes, but that isn't what we are talking about. Walking through peoples yards without permission is rude, thoughtless and disrespectful. I guess we were raised differently, but in all of my family and friends in all of the locations I have lived (admittedly conservative farm towns), walking through peoples property was a big no no without permission. I did have some friends that came from the city that thought nothing of it, but then... I guess they were a bit more "evolved" than us backward folk were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
How do you know the father physically endangered the child? I know I didn't see the video, is that what was on it? The article is very short. I would suggest you bone up on the self-denfese laws in your state. I believe in most states, you have to be under the impression that your life or property is in imminent danger. Stealing a sign would not be imminent danger.
Well, let's see. If you go back, my posts were contingent on IF the father knew and condoned it. IF the father knew and allowed the child to go onto someone else property as such, then the father purposefully endangered the child. We don't have much to go on, I admit that and I also admit I am speculating which is why the discussion you stepped into happened to have the issue with the father. Again, if you had been keeping up with the discussion, you might have known the context to which I was discussing.
You can believe all that you like, I know the laws in my state. We can use lethal force in the defense of life AND property and I also contain a POST (Police Officers Standards of Training) certification from my old state, so I understand how to read a law and how it pertains to my rights.
Not too long ago, a man had broken into a car dealership and was attempting to steal money from a cash register. A security guard caught him, pulled out his weapon and told the man to stop. The man refused, he shot and killed him, no charges filed. In some states we protect the victim while other states protect the criminal. Its a simple concept, stay off peoples properties that you are not invited on and you don't have this problem.
Your experience is not relevant because it assumes all people will make rash and uninformed decisions on the issue. That is a generalization and not acceptable to govern other people on. Just because some make poor decisions, doesn't mean all should suffer. Especially when it concerns forcing people to give up the ability to protect their property.
Oh but your experience is? And I disagree, I've been on this ball of rock a long time, sir. My reactions to non-violent crime are non-violent precisely because I do not make rash decisions. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? You should look it up if not, because telling me my non-violent reaction is " rash" is pure, unadulterated dissonance.
And you insinuated in that post that I was disrespecting his property rights.
But hey, play the Eddie Haskell routine, I am quite used to it by now.
While I do not condone stealing pumpkins, it is a time honored prank. There is even a rock group named Smashing Pumpkins. The Obama signs cost money, the McCain signs are free b/c he took public financing money.
Thats a rather lame duck argument. That's like a thief claiming it was ok to steal something because the person didn't pay any money for it. Seriously, a very very poor argument and nothing short of an attempt to justify theft. tsk tsk.
Oh but your experience is? And I disagree, I've been on this ball of rock a long time, sir. My reactions to non-violent crime are non-violent precisely because I do not make rash decisions. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? You should look it up if not, because telling me my non-violent reaction is " rash" is pure, unadulterated dissonance.
And you insinuated in that post that I was disrespecting his property rights.
But hey, play the Eddie Haskell routine, I am quite used to it by now.
Stop building straw mans. I explained it was contingent on the answers to the questions and if they were answered that way, then yes, it would have been disrespecting his property rights. You answered them as no, so it is not.
The reason your "experience" is not relevant is because this is merely a case of a crazed loony. You were justified on the land, the guy was an idiot. We were talking about real theft and people who were actually guilty so your story is a little out of place now that we have all the context to it.
And please cut out the insults, you don't see me being snide, yet if you want me to, I will unload? Something tells me you would probably run off and whine to a mod if I did. So lets just cut the BS and deal with the content. Ok with you?
Stop building straw mans. I explained it was contingent on the answers to the questions and if they were answered that way, then yes, it would have been disrespecting his property rights. You answered them as no, so it is not.
The reason your "experience" is not relevant is because this is merely a case of a crazed loony. You were justified on the land, the guy was an idiot. We were talking about real theft and people who were actually guilty so your story is a little out of place now that we have all the context to it.
And please cut out the insults, you don't see me being snide, yet if you want me to, I will unload? Something tells me you would probably run off and whine to a mod if I did. So lets just cut the BS and deal with the content. Ok with you?
This (and your other posts to me which iI can't be bothered to quote because the double-standard is just so darned obvious), isn't snide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You are a perfect example of this. This whole board is a perfect example of people who will not listen to reason. They are right, everyone else is wrong and Nah nah nah nah to the rest. The only way to deal with people like this is not through social discourse, but rather you wait to they overstep their boundaries and you smack them right between the eyes.
The only thing these types of people will listen to is the fear that if they attempt to oppress with their view, they will lose their life. Its simple, it is how grandpa did it, its how dad did it, its how I do it. *chuckle*
Somewhere, Eddie Haskell's ears are ringing.
So, you're one who can dish it but then whines when it's lobbed back, hey?
And I will post as I wish, where I wish, when I wish. If you don't like it, contact a mod.
You don't intimidate me with threats of "opening it up".
Good luck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
