What's new
By:

Mother Mistakes Daughter for Intruder, Shoots and Kills Her.

Bronco70 said:
I have no problem with this premise, if the intent is to more easily identify persons who are not allowed to possess firearms. I might have a problem with who decides how, when and why to "expand" it. If there is a firm set of reasonable criteria, fine. If it's any more subjective or arbitrary than that, not fine.


Sent from the JazzFanz app
Click to expand...

Kind of where I am at. The theory is good but the practice might be wanting.
 
Stoked said:
Kind of where I am at. The theory is good but the practice might be wanting.
Click to expand...

whoa. . . . .

An armed militia with its own legislative perogatives, it's own administrative courts, and plenary power to compile lists of citizens who can't be trusted, that nobody can investigate, question, or talk about without being labeled suspicious or dangerous?

you gonna give them badges, and big toys along with all the guns money can buy?

So how's that OK? They can arbitrarily come swat down your down and haul you off to their own prison, hold you as long as they want without telling anyone where you are, or charging you with any crime, or allowing you to get a lawyer, and interrogate you with torture applied because they're there to make sure we're all safe?

The "no fly list" and the "no guns list" are actually denying people the right to travel, and the right to protect themselves, according to bureaucrats who can't be questioned about their reasons or legal basis for doing so.

If you imagine that "the theory is good" here, and imagine it won't be abused, rest assured that the jackboot thugs will be getting all the "practice" they want. Well. sure, they might not start out practicing on you, but after every other identifiable or classifiable "risk group" they can imagine has been "practiced on", who's gonna tell them not to practice on you, too.
 
babe said:
whoa. . . . .

An armed militia with its own legislative perogatives, it's own administrative courts, and plenary power to compile lists of citizens who can't be trusted, that nobody can investigate, question, or talk about without being labeled suspicious or dangerous?

you gonna give them badges, and big toys along with all the guns money can buy?

So how's that OK? They can arbitrarily come swat down your down and haul you off to their own prison, hold you as long as they want without telling anyone where you are, or charging you with any crime, or allowing you to get a lawyer, and interrogate you with torture applied because they're there to make sure we're all safe?

The "no fly list" and the "no guns list" are actually denying people the right to travel, and the right to protect themselves, according to bureaucrats who can't be questioned about their reasons or legal basis for doing so.

If you imagine that "the theory is good" here, and imagine it won't be abused, rest assured that the jackboot thugs will be getting all the "practice" they want. Well. sure, they might not start out practicing on you, but after every other identifiable or classifiable "risk group" they can imagine has been "practiced on", who's gonna tell them not to practice on you, too.
Click to expand...

That's where the whole "practice might be wanting" comes in Babe.

Calm yourself. But clearly there are some people that shouldn't have guns.
 
Stoked said:
That's where the whole "practice might be wanting" comes in Babe.

Calm yourself. But clearly there are some people that shouldn't have guns.
Click to expand...

yah, I know.

IRS administrators who flagrantly abuse their office to deter certain classes of political activists. FBI directors who have done as much since the fifties. Lawless Presidents with pens and phones who assume legislative powers. Presidentially-appointed Justice Dept. officials who won't prosecute Executive abuses, federal agency illegal "laws" and "courts" all of which benefit from a solid front "news" monopoly that gives it all a blank slate.

If you want a government at all, you need to take responsibility for it. Take some classes on how to handle a government safely so it doesn't get outta hand. Giving guns to lawless people with government authority is worse than giving a full automatic military machine gun to your six-year old and saying "Have fun kids. You can do no wrong."

Federal or State or even local law enforcement officers need to held to a higher standard of defined rules/laws about the use of guns, or their powers of any kind. People need to supervise their government or they are irresponsible with deadly weapons. Period.

No one can be allowed or tolerated to stand above the law.
 
babe said:
yah, I know.

IRS administrators who flagrantly abuse their office to deter certain classes of political activists. FBI directors who have done as much since the fifties. Lawless Presidents with pens and phones who assume legislative powers. Presidentially-appointed Justice Dept. officials who won't prosecute Executive abuses, federal agency illegal "laws" and "courts" all of which benefit from a solid front "news" monopoly that gives it all a blank slate.

If you want a government at all, you need to take responsibility for it. Take some classes on how to handle a government safely so it doesn't get outta hand. Giving guns to lawless people with government authority is worse than giving a full automatic military machine gun to your six-year old and saying "Have fun kids. You can do no wrong."

Federal or State or even local law enforcement officers need to held to a higher standard of defined rules/laws about the use of guns, or their powers of any kind. People need to supervise their government or they are irresponsible with deadly weapons. Period.

No one can be allowed or tolerated to stand above the law.
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BERd61bDY7k
 
Too bad I'm not able to be so cool with only my iPad mini at hand. technically, I could go all pic crazy and report this as sexual innuendo, but I know I'd be laughed at, I'm just a fossil.
 
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Say what?
Click to expand...

Sonny and Cher didn't know the trees from the forest.

Bush league.

Poster Ckildren for the new age of reason.

My point is we shouldn't allow politicians to play with dangerous weapons like governments without responsible supervision and legal liability for ignoring laws, courts, voters, and citizen's rights.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
If she's not suicidal at a moment like this she is a sad excuse for a mother. GF is correct that her actions should be considered criminal. Saying that you didn't know what you were shooting at should never be a legitimate defense. If you make the decision to use deadly force you must take full responsibility for whatever/whoever you happen to kill. If they weren't presenting a mortal threat then it's murder.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you're a law enforcement officer, then feel free to blaze away without worry, unless of course you're captured on video doing it, but even then there's a very good chance you'll escape any responsibility for it.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
There is no requirement to defend your home with a gun, no matter what your age. If you are too frail to handle one, it is probably not a good choice to have one. GFs rules seemed reasonable to me. The same is true with 80 year old ladies driving cars. At some point most of them have their licenses revoked because they cannot safely operate a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Taking away my mother's car keys was gut wrenching. She protested and cried--to her, it represented the loss of her independence. But, she was a public risk and we could not live with ourselves if, as was likely, she ended up hurting herself or someone else because she could not longer operate a car safely.
 
The Thriller said:
We have courses and tests to pass before driving.

Why shouldn't guns be any different?

the second part of the second amendment talks about REGULATION. The NRA and idiotic conservative Supreme Court doesn't want you to know this inconvenient detail.
Click to expand...

Well, one reason they are different is that driving a car is not a widely-recognized Constitutional Right, whereas gun ownership is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top