Discussion:
2nd Amendment question.
(too old to reply)
David Hartung
2008-11-30 00:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Do you think the writers of the Second Amendment thought of this?http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toysrus30-2008nov30,0,71300.s...
How'd you like to have been shopping in that store, with your kids?
Actually yes the founders of this country did envision this scenario.
What you refuse to see here, is that one of these men pulled a gun on
the other. One of these men threatened the other's life with deadly
force and did so before the other. The 2nd man responded in an act of
self-defense, drew his own weapon and fired at the threat. I would
have done exactly the same thing.
How did I refuse to see anything? What you refuse to see is that two
unstable people played shoo'em up in a Toy Store, filled with kids.
Based upon the article, it is likely that only one man was unstable. The
other was very probably defending himself.
If you would have done the same thing, you're as dumb as both of them!
Why?

Is it "dumb" to defend oneself and family agaisnt an attacker?
The investigation should reveal who assaulted who. Unfortunately the
original "victim" is dead as is the original perpetrator. Even more
fortunately no one else was injured. But the bottom line is the same
nonetheless. When the 2nd man found himself in danger he had no option
but to defend himself. It's not like the police were there to
"protect" him. Your blinders are wrapped very tightly across your
eyes. Wake up and get a clue.
TFF, this from a clueless moron! He was obligated, by law, to flee if
possible, which he chose not to do!!
Obligated by law to flee?

Would you mind supporting this asinine claim?
Instead he chose to engage in
reckless activity, putting numerous innocents, in harms way! Mach,
with a gun!
He attempted to defend himself, which was the right thing to do.
David Hartung
2008-11-30 00:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Do you think the writers of the Second Amendment thought of this?http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toysrus30-2008nov30,0,71300.s...
How'd you like to have been shopping in that store, with your kids?
Actually yes the founders of this country did envision this scenario.
What you refuse to see here, is that one of these men pulled a gun on
the other. One of these men threatened the other's life with deadly
force and did so before the other. The 2nd man responded in an act of
self-defense, drew his own weapon and fired at the threat. I would
have done exactly the same thing.
How did I refuse to see anything? What you refuse to see is that two
unstable people played shoo'em up in a Toy Store, filled with kids.
Based upon the article, it is likely that only one man was unstable. The
other was very probably defending himself.
If you would have done the same thing, you're as dumb as both of them!
Why?
That question says you're as dull as Billary!
Post by David Hartung
Is it "dumb" to defend oneself and family agaisnt an attacker?
The wise thing to do is to keep them safe. not put them in the line of
fire, numb nuts!
Post by David Hartung
The investigation should reveal who assaulted who. Unfortunately the
original "victim" is dead as is the original perpetrator. Even more
fortunately no one else was injured. But the bottom line is the same
nonetheless. When the 2nd man found himself in danger he had no option
but to defend himself. It's not like the police were there to
"protect" him. Your blinders are wrapped very tightly across your
eyes. Wake up and get a clue.
TFF, this from a clueless moron! He was obligated, by law, to flee if
possible, which he chose not to do!!
Obligated by law to flee?
Would you mind supporting this asinine claim?
California Law! Read it when you learn how to comprehend!
As I don't live in California, I have no need to learn California law.

You made the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.
Post by David Hartung
Instead he chose to engage in
reckless activity, putting numerous innocents, in harms way! Macho,
with a gun!
He attempted to defend himself, which was the right thing to do.
No, he chose to engage someone as stupid as himself, Billary and you,
putting countless innocents in harms way!!!!!!!!
When someone has a gin on you, and has indicated a willignness to use
it, innocents are in harms way no matter what you do. if you flee, you
risk the chance that he will shoot anyway, possibly harming said innocents.

if you have a weapon, and the skill to take the bad guy out, then you
will have prevented harm to innocents.
David Hartung
2008-11-30 01:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Do you think the writers of the Second Amendment thought of this?http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toysrus30-2008nov30,0,71300.s...
How'd you like to have been shopping in that store, with your kids?
Actually yes the founders of this country did envision this scenario.
What you refuse to see here, is that one of these men pulled a gun on
the other. One of these men threatened the other's life with deadly
force and did so before the other. The 2nd man responded in an act of
self-defense, drew his own weapon and fired at the threat. I would
have done exactly the same thing.
How did I refuse to see anything? What you refuse to see is that two
unstable people played shoo'em up in a Toy Store, filled with kids.
Based upon the article, it is likely that only one man was unstable. The
other was very probably defending himself.
If you would have done the same thing, you're as dumb as both of them!
Why?
That question says you're as dull as Billary!
Post by David Hartung
Is it "dumb" to defend oneself and family agaisnt an attacker?
The wise thing to do is to keep them safe. not put them in the line of
fire, numb nuts!
Post by David Hartung
The investigation should reveal who assaulted who. Unfortunately the
original "victim" is dead as is the original perpetrator. Even more
fortunately no one else was injured. But the bottom line is the same
nonetheless. When the 2nd man found himself in danger he had no option
but to defend himself. It's not like the police were there to
"protect" him. Your blinders are wrapped very tightly across your
eyes. Wake up and get a clue.
TFF, this from a clueless moron! He was obligated, by law, to flee if
possible, which he chose not to do!!
Obligated by law to flee?
Would you mind supporting this asinine claim?
California Law! Read it when you learn how to comprehend!
As I don't live in California, I have no need to learn California law.
You made the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.
Hey Moron, I offered you the facts. Your not living in Cali is as
irrelevant as you!!
You made a claim, which you then could not support.
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
Instead he chose to engage in
reckless activity, putting numerous innocents, in harms way! Macho,
with a gun!
He attempted to defend himself, which was the right thing to do.
No, he chose to engage someone as stupid as himself, Billary and you,
putting countless innocents in harms way!!!!!!!!
When someone has a gin on you, and has indicated a willignness to use
it, innocents are in harms way no matter what you do. if you flee, you
risk the chance that he will shoot anyway, possibly harming said innocents.
The moron, like you, could have vacated the area, instead of drawing
dowm. as only a moron as he, or you would have!!!!!
As neither one of us was present, all we can do is conjecture.
Post by David Hartung
if you have a weapon, and the skill to take the bad guy out, then you
will have prevented harm to innocents.
Obviously, the moron, like you didn't have the latter!!!!
You have no idea what my skills with a weapon are.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-11-30 16:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Do you think the writers  of the Second Amendment thought of this?http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toysrus30-2008nov30,0,71300.s...
How'd you like to have been shopping in that store, with your kids?
Actually yes the founders of this country did envision this scenario.
What you refuse to see here, is that one of these men pulled a gun on
the other.  One of these men threatened the other's life with deadly
force and did so before the other. The 2nd man responded in an act of
self-defense, drew his own weapon and fired at the threat.  I would
have done exactly the same thing.
How did I refuse to see anything?  What you refuse to see is that two
unstable people played shoo'em up in a Toy Store, filled with kids.
If you would have done the same thing, you're as dumb as both of them!
The investigation should reveal who assaulted who. Unfortunately the
original "victim" is dead as is the original perpetrator.  Even more
fortunately no one else was injured. But the bottom line is the same
nonetheless. When the 2nd man found himself in danger he had no option
but to defend himself. It's not like the police were there to
"protect" him.  Your blinders are wrapped very tightly across your
eyes.  Wake up and get a clue.
TFF, this from a clueless moron!  He was obligated, by law, to flee if
possible, which he chose not to do!!  Instead he chose to engage in
reckless activity, putting numerous innocents, in harms way!  Mach,
with a gun!
The requirement to retreat is only in a few states, New York is the
most prominent and CA is not one of them.

Loading...