Skip to main content

View Diary: GunPhail XII.I or "it's ok... I'm with MAIG" (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ... (0+ / 0-)
    No, it was an answer you didn't like.
    No it was a story about your youth , it did not address my questions of if you were for stripping peoples right of gun ownership or not . The pomposity of you stating "No, it was an answer you didn't like." when you don't know it for a fact is very telling .
    and add all crimes against persons as a means to disqualification for gun possession.
    Discharge of a weapon without justification ?
    Would you remove the persons rights to own a gun ?
    The bullet was let go and it could have struck anyone in its path .    
    regarding the prohibition of possession has been consistent.
    That's nice , but am I supposta go and read your opinions somewhere before I ask questions ?  
    There are persons with misdemeanor convictions for assault - as "mutual combat" was the opinion of the court - who should never have avoided a Felony.  
    Money, lawyers and family connections often aid this evasion.
    So in your opinion , they should have their rights to own a gun removed ?
    What they are is predatory persons.  The guy who can't keep his hands off girls, fists off guys - and has some juice to avoid the Felony again and again.
    So in your opinion , they should have their rights to own a gun removed ?
    And before you ask:  Burglary, the taking by stealth of a person's possessions.  Which is not Robbery.  
    Robbery is taking by force of a person's possessions.  
    Only the latter should warrant a potential lethal force response.
    So breaking and entry into a home to take a TV , no gun right removal and telling a person to stand aside or else to take a TV gets the persons gun rights removed ?
    Only the latter should warrant a potential lethal force response.
    So if a person does any crime that might justify a "lethal force response" should have their gun rights removed ? And any person who does crimes not justifying a "lethal force response" is ok to keep their gun rights ?

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:47:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Evidently you're dense, or this is your diary... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and I have to play by your rules.

      Other option:  Kos, is that really you posting as "indycam"?
      You scoundrel, why didn't you say so.

      A crime against a person, should result in your disqualification for having a firearm.

      That position is of course, inconsistent with our English Law heritage, where your home is your castle, and yourself forfeit if outside of your home, or claim of sanctuary.
      After all, it's the King's county, forest, highway, streets, roads and town.  You can google placenames for each, proving my point.

      Now, as you're trolling:  
      IF I take arms up against a person forcibly assaulting or robbing me?  As codified permissible under Article 35 of the NYS Penal Law? (qv: Defenses of Justification)

      THE CRIME is being assaulted or robbed.

      CAPITALS used as someone's being DENSE.

      Before you get all "Trayvon Martin" citing SYG on me, realize in saying so - you're validating Zimmerman's position as a person being attacked.  A point I'm not willing to concede.
      Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, awaited police and provided a good witness statement.
      Option B is go-the-fuck-home and play "the Quicksdraw" in front of the mirror.  Preferably with an unloaded gun.

      Not being his girlfriend, I can't say how quick on the trigger he was - despite my suspicions.

      The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

      by 43north on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site