• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

...Shall Not Be Infringed

Hercules56 said:
Yes, I agree deadly force should not be legal to stop fleeing intruder. But what if he has a weapon and is fleeing with it?
That is clearly a deadly danger to anyone who may be outside. Cops can shoot an armed fleeing suspect, there is an argument to be made that the public should be able to as well.

Shoot a fleeing unarmed suspect? Not even police are allowed to shoot them.
Click to expand...
I would have thought a person trying to shoot someone fleeing is much more of a threat to the community than an armed fleeing person, especially given USA home construction.
 
Darat said:
I would have thought a person trying to shoot someone fleeing is much more of a threat to the community than an armed fleeing person, especially given USA home construction.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in the right of self defense with deadly force against an armed attacker or intruder?

I thought not.
 
you ought to seperate the 2nd amendment from the right to defend yourself. one of them is allowed reasonable limits, one shall not be infringed. two different topics imo
 
dirtywick said:
you ought to seperate the 2nd amendment from the right to defend yourself. one of them is allowed reasonable limits, one shall not be infringed. two different topics imo
Click to expand...

Infringement clearly does not mean what you think it means, as today's SCOTUS is allowing all sorts of state-imposed limits on gun rights.
 
Hercules56 said:
Do you believe in the right of self defense with deadly force against an armed attacker or intruder?
Click to expand...
I do not believe in the right to kill someone just in case.

We do not have a right to bear arms in Australia, and somehow we get by in self-defence situations. How is clearly a mystery that can never be solved.
 
Hercules56 said:
Or a knife? Handgun?
Click to expand...
A knife, you have a fighting chance against, If you have something longer like a baseball bat, or even a frying pan. Just something to strike the hand with without engaging it with flesh.

A handgun, I loosely consider kind of a military weapon, just reappropriated for civilian murdering.
 
Thermal said:
A knife, you have a fighting chance against, If you have something longer like a baseball bat, or even a frying pan. Just something to strike the hand with without engaging it with flesh.

A handgun, I loosely consider kind of a military weapon, just reappropriated for civilian murdering.
Click to expand...
If you break into someone's home to cause violence you shouldn't complain when you're outgunned.
 
arthwollipot said:
I do not believe in the right to kill someone just in case.

We do not have a right to bear arms in Australia, and somehow we get by in self-defence situations.
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes y'all do. And sometimes y'all don't. I've seen too many based-on-a-true-story Australian murder films. Those cliff murders, for one example: how many victims did they estimate? Eighty-plus over the forty years of killings there? And that was the work of multiple gangs of spree murderers? Maybe if a few of the victims had been armed things would have turned out different.
 
I recall a couple Australian cops recently who might beg to differ with how easily they are getting by.

Were. I mean were getting by.
 
Trausti said:
If you break into someone's home to cause violence you shouldn't complain when you're outgunned.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Eta: I have no objection to using guns for self defense. But I find most gun owners, if not virtually all, are totally ignorant of realistic self defense and use it as an excuse to own guns as a fetish.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Oh, and no one here is in a favor of restricting the gun rights of trans-identified people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom