CA Homeowner Shoots and Kills Armed Home Invader, Wounds 2 Others as Children Have Sleepover

[threepeckeredbillygoat]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

You and threepeckerbillygoat should ponder this reality. There is no way to institutionalize every person who (a) who has a mental problem that may lead to danger to others and (b) is or has been a criminal. What you are talking about is a life sentence for everyone who fits these definitions. That is cruel and unusual punishment under any definition. And the public doesn't want to pay the billions that such mass confinements will cost.

Don't say "we can't do it" or just refuse to do it. If you don't pay now with money you pay with inocent lives later. And then try to wash the blood off of your hands with blame.

Cruel and unusual punishment is limiting or removing a way of self defence for law abiding people WHEN YOU KNOW you don't keep killers and whackos put away and they are going to do these things. And the people you are punishing have done nothing wrong.

That's the reality you need to ponder.

[Guest040313-1]

LOL ... I must have pushed your "Very Personal Issues" button Yessup.
You failed to answer a single question that I asked, but you did manage to show me that you are quick to resort to verbal bashing much like most other gun control advocates do, rather than giving direct answers. But I must say that I salute you for your saying that "A home invasion is ALWAYS a justified use of force." Exactly what use of force would you use if your home were to be invaded by armed gunmen?
In reference to who I am ... well ... This is actually a hooker board, and I'd really rather not say
As far as my reference to "people like you" goes ... I was refering to Gun Control Advovates you dipstick... Exactly what did you think I meant?

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Welcome to the Sandbox, you ignorant bucket of shit

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh yeah! This means GUNS ARE GOOD!

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I never said anything of the sort. A home invasion is ALWAYS a justified use of force. I don't know who the hell you are, but please show me where I said any of those things you seem to want me to have said.

What I've been saying all long, and is borne out by the wingnut blogs and FOP News, etc., is that gun-nuts will cite every story they can to support unregulated gun ownership. Every time a homeowner shoots a burglar, then it becomes part of the NRA spin machine. Oddly, they stay quiet for a week after a tragedy like Sandy Hook, waiting for their polling info to come back.

Who are people "like" me, asshole!

Actually you're being incredibly rude.

Welcome to the Sandbox, you ignorant bucket of shit.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

Never thought that there wouldn't be a black market for guns; it just wouldn't be flooded with 300 million guns.

No, you can't leave it to the states because some of them don't give a damn about the rest of the country and will sell to anyone. Nope, it's the FEDS who have the power to regulate commerce who have to do it.

It is true that a gun is an inanimate killing machine. So is a hydrogen bomb. Both require a person with homicidal intentions to activate them. The fact that they need activation doesn't make them any less dangerous. As Marvin Gaye and Tammy Wynette sang so sweetly, "It takes two...."

So the phrase is a trickster's and sophist's attempt to deflect attention from the inanimate object's deadly purpose: to kill and maim human beings.

Here's my new slogan; "Atomic bombs don't kill; people do."

The more you guys try to justify your positions, the sillier, and sicker, they become.

Sorry Sir, but the fact that is this tragedy happened in Connecticut because this particular crazyfuck was not in prison. The fucknut willfully killed his own grandmother with a hammer afterall. Someone somewhere decided that he should be released from prison, and he was. Now he does this....

Place the blame where its warranted, on the fucknut that committed the crime and parole board that put him in a position to do it. He wouldn't have had opportunity to kill those kids if he were still in prison.....for killing someone else.

He didn't buy a gun, he stole it (committing another crime). So how would ANY gun law from the feds or from the state have prevented this tragedy from happening. If he hadn't stolen it, he most certainly could have got one on the street.

Originally Posted by awl4knot

You don't know what will work unless you try something. You're just frightened to death that someone will take away your pretty little killing machines in an attempt to stop the mayhem and murder. It's a selfish and emotionally empty motivation. "I want my guns and don't care about the children in Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia or anywhere." If you did, you would try something, anything to protect them.

What a load of steaming bullshit, yeah I couldn't give a fuck about kids (or adults) anywhere. All of the things you are suggesting simply won't be effective. You are never going to get illegal weapons off the street and imposing more regulations on us legal and law-abiding gun owners is not going to keep a gun out of a determined criminals hands. Its just reality whether you choose to believe it or not. All of the guns I ever owned, combined, have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy in his car, that's also reality.

[Gentleman10]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

There you go again, LexusLover. You are assuming that the homeowner was an innocent guy. We don't know anything about the incident other than four guys with guns were shooting. That isn't the normal home burglary situation. For all we know, it could have been a drug deal that went bad, and if so maybe the homeowners' facing a felony murder charge? I'm not denying him the right to self-defense: I'm just not placing him on the mantel as a patron saint of the Second Amendment, yet.

Can you describe a 'normal home burglary situation' to us ignorant folk? Simple words are best. . .if you don't mind. Also, regardless if a 'drug deal went bad' or not, the intruders were attempting to intrude.


And do you just realize that your "questioning" of LE for not being at fire scene is really telling. You seem to be admitting that the gun situation in this country is so out of control that it's police malpractice not to respond to a fire scene to protect the firemen from armed crazies. I'm sure that the FOP is just loving your criticism.

It may be a daunting task to winnow down the 300 million guns in this country so they are only available to law-abiding citizens, but it can be done over time, with lots of money and a coordinated effort. If you leave it to the states, there will be some that will become the source of weapons that get into the hands of the "crazy motherfuckers and criminals."

You and threepeckerbillygoat should ponder this reality. There is no way to institutionalize every person who (a) who has a mental problem that may lead to danger to others and (b) is or has been a criminal. What you are talking about is a life sentence for everyone who fits these definitions. That is cruel and unusual punishment under any definition. And the public doesn't want to pay the billions that such mass confinements will cost.

So the only alternative is to limit access to weapons to only those citizens who meet stringent eligibility requirements. Maybe we should tax guns like other killers such as cigarettes and alcohol? Love your guns? Well pay up! Cook County, Ill just passed a $25 gun tax to cover the costs of health care to the victims of gun violence. Over 600 people were treated for gun shot wounds in Cook County in 2011, at an average cost of $52,000. I suspect much of that was government money. Thank you very much, gun guys and girls, you're using our tax dollars to support your habit.

Please include in your list of 'killers': Vehicles of all types, sports, high fat, cholesterol, preservative(s), sugar(s), etc. and while you're at it, alcohol. I mean, if you're truly trying to protect the public from harm, then don't be a hypocrite; your Cook County (2011) example fails to address the fact that the overwhelming majority of those shootings/hospitalizations were committed by illegally owned weapons. In addition, the $52K was absorbed because the victims didn't have insurance (go figure). Dare to pull the records for vehicular homicide a/o vehicular negligence resulting in injury? Perhaps, and in addition to the already established taxes/registration fees, we should pay an equal percentage (as compared to that of a gun purchase) tax on vehicles in order to offset the associated costs of deaths/injuries.

Your logic, not to mention your grammar, is simply horrific. It's easy to regurgitate statistics and/or statements made by others. Try something different, like utilizing your brain to analyze information and THEN formulate your own opinion. . .especially before attempting to look down on others.

Gent

[Gentleman10]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

Never thought that there wouldn't be a black market for guns; it just wouldn't be flooded with 300 million guns.

No, you can't leave it to the states because some of them don't give a damn about the rest of the country and will sell to anyone. Nope, it's the FEDS who have the power to regulate commerce who have to do it.

I'd like to correct you several times over by using published articles and documents, as well as statistics, to prove your above paragraphs grossly incorrect. However, the more I read your comments/logic, the more I've come to realize the magnitude of your narrow-mindedness. Thus, trying to educate you would be a non-productive use of my time.

You don't know what will work unless you try something. You're just frightened to death that someone will take away your pretty little killing machines in an attempt to stop the mayhem and murder. It's a selfish and emotionally empty motivation. "I want my guns and don't care about the children in Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia or anywhere." If you did, you would try something, anything to protect them.

Do you own/operate a motor vehicle? If so, please place a "I'm a big fucking hypocrite" sticker on your rear bumper.

It is true that a gun is an inanimate killing machine. So is a hydrogen bomb. Both require a person with homicidal intentions to activate them. The fact that they need activation doesn't make them any less dangerous. As Marvin Gaye and Tammy Wynette sang so sweetly, "It takes two...."

So the phrase is a trickster's and sophist's attempt to deflect attention from the inanimate object's deadly purpose: to kill and maim human beings.

Here's my new slogan; "Atomic bombs don't kill; people do."

The more you guys try to justify your positions, the sillier, and sicker, they become.

[QUOTE=awl4knot;1052103382]I agree and that's exactly the point. Our current guns laws are an abysmal failure; so we need to revamp them so only law-abiding citizens will need to have a limited number of guns for legitimate purposes: (1) home defense; (2) hunting and (3) joining the militia.

These are the legitimate purposes protected by the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia who wrote the opinion in the Heller case said that the federal government has the right to impose reasonable controls on the possession of weapons so long as the fundamental rights are maintained. So how would limits on the number and types of guns violate the Second Amendment? The answer is simple, they won't.

So all this paranoid double talk tells me that it's selfishness and a lack of caring for others that is impelling this opposition.

If you make our schools safe, you make our streets safe, and if you make our streets safe, you make our homes safe, It's that simple. And you do that with an effective gun limiting policy. You don't it by making our nation into an armed camp.

At this point, I'll simply ask: What are you smoking and/or were you deprived of oxygen during delivery?