Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
The dead guy was stupid. No need to be a hero if the scumbags are leaving. I had a coworker who did the very same thing with couple teenagers over a case of beer. He pulled his piece and chased them out of the store, they came back as he was leaving and shot him dead on the sidewalk. His life was over because of a case of beer. Be a good and ALIVE witness unless your or someone else's life is in imminent danger.
The dead guy was stupid. No need to be a hero if the scumbags are leaving. I had a coworker who did the very same thing with couple teenagers over a case of beer. He pulled his piece and chased them out of the store, they came back as he was leaving and shot him dead on the sidewalk. His life was over because of a case of beer. Be a good and ALIVE witness unless your or someone else's life is in imminent danger.
He chased them out of the store and they returned a time later to assassinate him as he left work?
What your post said is complete hogwash, it's not based on any facts. You throwing out the destruction of the Constitution as some kind of barometer is classic moving the goal post. The destruction Constitution is NEVER part of the consideration for a tyrannical government.
I have included the Supreme Court's decision on Heller vs DC below, if you can find me where the SC said tyrannical means the destruction of the Constitution, you get a prize.
In fact, Justice Scalia wrote that the right to bear arm predates the Constitution. So it is not at all possible that the Constitution's destruction would be part of the consideration.
Since Scalia's opinions is too long, I'll quote the Federalist's explanation of the SC decision.
When you say "it was never envisioned that political/ideological differences (within the framework of our constitutional republic), would constitute armed citizens need to overthrow a political opponent"....
You can see how wrong you were right?
The overthrowing of a government due to politics/ideological differences IS EXACTLY the basis for the rights to bear arms. As explained by Scalia.
.
I disagree with the way you characterized my comments and the way you framed the issue. While old English law does have some relevance in the way our FF's viewed our future republic (both the good and the bad), the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in our constitution had little to do with anything but protesting our republic. The fact the notion existed prior is irrelevant as other things such as a monarchy predated our founding, but the FF's certainly didn't include that form of government for obvious reasons.
As has been correctly pointed out hunting, collection, personal self defense and other aspects of firearm ownership was part of everyday life. Thus the 2nd Amendment was not looking to preserve that as much as making sure the individual states and the nation as a whole could protect itself from a federal government run amok.
They did not like the idea of the federal government having a standing army expect for in times of war. So to preserve the constitutional republic it was essential that the citizens be armed.
As noted earlier, a man died on his feet instead of living on his knees. This irks the hell out of both teams but especially Blue in these situations.
Call the cops? Why? So he could get himself or his dog shot?
Your post is classic moving the goal post.
I was responding to this;
Quote:
Most people who own guns avoid using them if at all possible.
Now, you're bringing in his right, on his knees, his dog, and probably his whole manhood in your next post.
That guy did NOT avoid using gun if at all possible. He could have just walked away and he choose to shoot. His right. Also a dumb decision. He got one gun and the opposite side has two. Gun nuts think a shoot out is like the movies - the bad guys always miss and he can just fire two shots and kill both of them. Reality bites.
Also, he did not die on his feet. He died on the ground bleeding from his chest.
Now, you're bringing in his right, on his knees, his dog, and probably his whole manhood in your next post.
That guy did NOT avoid using gun if at all possible. He could have just walked away and he choose to shoot. His right. Also a dumb decision. He got one gun and the opposite side has two. Gun nuts think a shoot out is like the movies - the bad guys always miss and he can just fire two shots and kill both of them. Reality bites.
Also, he did not die on his feet. He died on the ground bleeding from his chest.
.
It's metaphoric, comrade.
You can choose how you want to live and die as long as you don't violate the rights of anyone else.
I wouldn't have done it but the man broke no natural laws and made his own choice. That's all you have in this world despite what the authoritarians claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
