Too good to be true: Racist NYPD Cop Shoots Himself In the Face!!! (gated, live in)

[Airborneguy]

Originally Posted by Relaxx

Then the meth addicts and heroin addicts will turn violent and kill everyone in sight when they can't get high...watch the crime rates soar. Make america great again!!

Kill them too. The 2nd Amendment was written to handle problems like that, but for someone reason we neutered it and don't condone self-defense any more. Defending living perps is more lucrative for lawyers than dead perps are.

[Mr. Ryu]

Originally Posted by Relaxx

Then the meth addicts and heroin addicts will turn violent and kill everyone in sight when they can't get high...watch the crime rates soar. Make america great again!!

The meth and heroin addicts will turn into the walking dead; thus, starting the zombie apocalypse.

[ABQConvict]

Originally Posted by Airborneguy

Kill them too. The 2nd Amendment was written to handle problems like that, but for someone reason we neutered it and don't condone self-defense any more. Defending living perps is more lucrative for lawyers than dead perps are.

OK, but it would be hypocritical if we didn't kill all alcoholics and alcohol distributers and torch the wine shops and liquor stores.

Really, we should just kill all people. they make life a living hell.

[Airborneguy]

Well to be fair, I was referring more to those incidents where addicts lose it and force citizens to utilize their birth-right of armed self-defense.

[OyCrumbler]

I don't know, alcohol seems to be pretty destructive and in far higher numbers, so maybe it makes sense to get "rid" of the alcoholics and their suppliers along this same line of argument but with far stronger results. It's arguable that the only reason prohibition didn't work is because the penalties weren't stiff enough. Now if people were just killed for even low level dealing of booze, then it probably would have been very effective at wrangling things in.

[Airborneguy]

My concept applies across the board:

Allow citizens to legally defend themselves as the Constitution ensures, contrary to government infringements. Be it a drunk, a junk box, or a wannabe tough guy, every citizen is born with the right to shoot those who threaten their lives.

I'm not talking about more laws. I'm suggesting less.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Airborneguy

My concept applies across the board:

Allow citizens to legally defend themselves as the Constitution ensures, contrary to government infringements. Be it a drunk, a junk box, or a wannabe tough guy, every citizen is born with the right to shoot those who threaten their lives.

I'm not talking about more laws. I'm suggesting less.

So if someone thinks you are threat, they should be able to shoot you? You seem to resort to threats with ease, so wouldn't that work against you?

Also, I don't know if your logic stands so well. You were saying killing 2500 drug dealers every 7 months, but did you mean that they had to be seen as a threat even if they did not actually directly threaten someone? That seems different from what you just wrote. If you want to stand by your original statement though, then does it apply to the fact that the threat of alcohol is very real and falls under the same rubric? What about the threat of botulism? Do you think a quota of 2500 canned food dealers every 7 months is a good start or do you think you need to ramp that up proportionally to the sheer volume of canned foods produced?

[Airborneguy]

I was in my first post and am still now speaking to the threat of immediate serious physical injury or death to one's self or others, ie, the legal requirement that must be percieved and articulated with reasonable facts to justify deadly physical force in nearly every state of the union, regardless of whether the ingestion of any given substance caused such interaction.

See because I normally post quickly and without applying millenial internet etiquette to my language, it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that my "logic" (as you say) is flawed and that my statements are based on emotion rather than fact, definition and legal precedent (when and where applicable).

The use of deadly physical force is a well-defined concept within the law, which, contrary to common mouth-breathing liberalism, conservatives who talk guns near unanimously understand quite intricately. This is why liberal ghettoes are rife with firearm violence despite strict (unconstitutional) gun laws, while red-American counties lacking inner cities remain peaceful despite widespread legal firearms ownership.

So while your tainted view of a Second Amendment, right to self defense supporter is: "Yee haw! He insulted my cowboy hat, now I can shoot him!", reality is more, "I've been carrying a firearm in NYC for 15 years and have only once seen fit to exercise my right based on the legal standard of self defense."

While your typical SJW most definitely cannot be trusted to not begin firing immediately should they be armed when a Trump hat-wearing law-abiding American walks by, "triggering" them irrevocably, people like myself pass those same fools daily, hyper-aware of not only the steps I will take to neutralize them should it become necessary, but also the threats they must present before such neutralization becomes authorized under the law.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Airborneguy

I was in my first post and am still now speaking to the threat of immediate serious physical injury or death to one's self or others, ie, the legal requirement that must be percieved and articulated with reasonable facts to justify deadly physical force in nearly every state of the union, regardless of whether the ingestion of any given substance caused such interaction.

See because I normally post quickly and without applying millenial internet etiquette to my language, it is easy to fall into the trap of asuming that my "logic" (as you say) is flawed and that my statements are based on emotion rather than fact, definition and legal precedent (when and where applicable).

The use of deadly physical force is a well-defined concept within the law, which, contrary to common mouth-breathing liberalism, conservatives who talk guns near unanimously understand quite intricately.

So while your tainted view of a Second Amendment, right to self defense supporter is "yee haw! He insulted my cowboy hat, now I can shoot him!", the reality is more, "I've been carrying a firearm in NYC for 15 years and have only once seen fit to execise my right based on the legal standard of self defense."

While your typical SJW most definitely cannot be trusted to not begin firing if armed when a Trump hat-wearing law-abiding American walks by, people like me pass those same fools daily, hyper-aware of not only the steps I will take to neutralize them if necessary, but also the threats they must present before such neutralization becomes authorized under the law.

What is my tainted view of the second amendment? I actually like gun ownership.

I think the problem for you is that you seem pretty quick to resort to threats, so this world of armed people shooting off doesn't sound like it'd work for you so well either since there are a lot of yahoos out there.

Regardless, your comment of wishing that we killed 2500 drug dealers every month didn't seem to follow on anything here or fit what you're saying just now.

And no, conservatives who talk guns do not understand things the same way universally. There are some well thought-out arguments made by some gun owning conservatives and there are some really dumpster fire gun owning conservatives whose total idiocy are actually a greater threat to my gun ownership than any liberal.

[Airborneguy]

My long track record of firearms ownership and nationwide carry, along with overseas bearing of scary weapons millions of NY'ers would outright faint upon sight of, ensures that your statement enduces no more than a smile as I read it this second time.