quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

No it isn't difficult at all. I was going by what I read and nothing I read indicated that the noises he heard were sexual. You and the other poster seem to be not only assuming that they were, but that the dad also should have known that. Personally I would rather stick to the facts and leave it at that.

You wouldnt know a fact if it bit you on the arse, so here is one for you to consider.

"The father, who was not identified, was notified by one of his children that there was someone in his 16-year-old daughter's room, the report said. He reportedly found his daughter in bed with the teen."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/houston-dad-fatally-shoots-teen-inside-daughters-room-report-says/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
and challenged you to give me any cases where you or anyone on the anti self defense side

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
and challenged you to give me any cases where you or anyone on the anti self defense side

OK, I call foul here.

What exactly is the "anti self defense" side? Do you think I'm there? How do I fit in knowing that on one hand I'm perfectly cool with having defended my wife and myself and unconcerned about the consequences to the perpetrator yet I am strongly against SYG laws. I'm in favor of gun ownership but it isn't robbers or kids with skittles that I want protection against... it's the US Govt. In order to get that protection I'm willing to approve of gun ownership and the obvious blood bath that accompanies it.

So where on your scale am I? My "foul" relates to the idea that by defining someone "anti self defense" you are kind of self selecting for "isn't going to be cool with vigilante justice" which means they probably aren't going to approve of shootings except in the most egregious of cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
and challenged you to give me any cases where you or anyone on the anti self defense side

OK, I call foul here.

What exactly is the "anti self defense" side? Do you think I'm there? How do I fit in knowing that on one hand I'm perfectly cool with having defended my wife and myself and unconcerned about the consequences to the perpetrator yet I am strongly against SYG laws. I'm in favor of gun ownership but it isn't robbers or kids with skittles that I want protection against... it's the US Govt. In order to get that protection I'm willing to approve of gun ownership and the obvious blood bath that accompanies it.

So where on your scale am I? My "foul" relates to the idea that by defining someone "anti self defense" you are kind of self selecting for "isn't going to be cool with vigilante justice" which means they probably aren't going to approve of shootings except in the most egregious of cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Oh look there was a link after all, thanks for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


No I most emphatically do not consider you on the anti self defense side.
Remember in the other thread I mentioned, and so did you the kind of people who
if a guy pulled a knife on someone and demanded their lighter would claim he got shot because
his intended victim valued a lighter over a human life.
Those are the people I was referring too.
We both know you are NOT one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Oh look there was a link after all, thanks for that.

Apology accepted. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
The word regulated in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with regulating guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
The word regulated in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with regulating guns.

"A well regulated militia...." means...ALL THINGS...in that militia are under a specific set of rules and regulations. That would include arms as well. How they were used, maintained, stored, and taken away (due to penalty). Each arm was considered part of the militia and used as part of their civil duties for the militia. Since the United States did not have a standing army, each militia member could in effect, hold ownership of their firearm. How much of an understatement would it be to say that a 'few' things in America have changed from the 18th century into the first dozen or so years of the new millennium?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since we *do* in fact have some Supreme Court approved gun laws, seems law and history trump your wisdom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You really aren't good with language.

I can only respond to what you actually write. I've no idea what's in that swirling mind of yours. Or his.

Your statement, as posted, is obviously incorrect. That's the point.

If you want to quibble with *his* posting history, then do that. With words, not inside your head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I see you have trouble grasping the public forum concept as well.

And you posted directly in response to me. Imagine my confusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I think you mean my ESP, and true, I don't know what's in that head of yours, only what you actually post.

If you are used to corresponding with psychics, I see your confusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Here's a tip.

If you didn't address this to me, I wouldn't be responding directly to you.

See how that works?

If you don't want to be a part of the conversation, don't put yourself into it.

What I *keep* responding to is the discrepancy between what you actually post (per TOS) and what you later say you posted, despite the actual words in the post.

Instead of continuing this silliness, why don't you keep it about the post instead of playing persecuted victim? You'll note I don't play victim when you attack me (since you're so fond of following the TOS).

Keep it about the topic, and maybe you won't feel so defensive.

Unless you feel an attack on a position equals a personal attack. I'm beginning to think you do.