Terrorists and Assault Weapons

[lasersailor184]

So if I see you trying to fire your firearm at a person stealing your car, barring if this thief is a threat to your life, I will try and stop you with any means necessary. Including killing you.

And this is how GScholz will get shot himself.  If a person just shot someone attacking him and trying to steal his car, what do you think that person will do if you come after him immediately following the initial attempt by the bad guy.

You might as well just kiss your bellybutton good bye.



Plus I was half awake / drunk when I wrote that thing earlier, so it didn't quite come out as I wanted it to.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by GScholz
I am talking hypothetically of course with the benefit of framing the premises of the incident myself. In real life things are not that simple. I would however open fire on a person who is trying to kill someone without being in danger himself or trying to protect others. That is a decision I would have to take there and then with the information I have. The courts would later have to decide if I was justified in my actions or not.

You left out something here, The victim and family of your self appointed vigilante action would also be paying for your choice. Sad you don't see the irony of what you have proposed.

[Chairboy]

Maverick, there will never be a perfect answer that makes everyone happy.  Think of the Nazi guards that were executed after the Nuremberg trials, they had family too.  

Don't redirect blame to the victim, it should lay squarely on the head of the criminal.  

As an adult, I know that I alone am responsible for my actions, including any consequences to my family.  The choice is made well before an armed citizen protects himself.

At what point does force become justified?  If not when they're taking your car, is it justified when someone burns down your house?

[Samiam]

(About to really step in it here...)

You said it GScholtz.

These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.

This line of thought is definitely a detriment to gun advocates. Do me a favor and don't try to save my guns for me - I can do it without that kind of help.

[AKIron]

You have now entered....... The Off-Topic Zone

do do do do

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by GScholz
How can anyone who believes in Christian values have such a repugnant lack of respect for life? I am quite frankly stunned.

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL!

Karaya

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Samiam
(About to really step in it here...)

You said it GScholtz.

These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.

This line of thought is definitely a detriment to gun advocates. Do me a favor and don't try to save my guns for me - I can do it without that kind of help.

"Sanctity of Human Life"?!  For crying out loud.  A criminal is just that a Criminal.  If he is a Felon - he GAVE up his "rights" when he did the deed.  Holier than thou rhetoric, makes me wanna puke.

Funny thing is Liberals want Law Enforcement, but due to Democrat budget cutting in Michigan, they are the first ones to b^&( when their homes are broken into.  Makes you wonder who the morons in society are, eh?   You only care when it happens TO YOU, but "It happened to someone else so why should we care?".   If you choose not to own a firearm, fine. Leave me alone.  Don't "infringe" on my right to bear arms, you made your choice, now sit down, you have nothing to say.  

I'd rather have a Gun and NOT NEED it, than NEED IT, and NOT HAVE IT.  

Karaya

[Maverick]

Scholtz,

Your position is that you would shoot the car theft victim to protect the car thief. Now tell me how is killing a victim to save a thief justified, after all you are taking a life as well here. Who is going to shoot you to protect the guy you were going to shoot? You STILL don't see the irony in your position do you?

You decry the "injustice" of the theft victim killing another person and you intend to stop a killing by killing another yourself.

Just a reminder, in none of my posts in this thread have I advocated shooting the car thief.

[flakbait]

Talk about getting ahead of yourself, Scholtz. First and foremost, that crack was intended as a bad example to convey my feelings about the 10-round magazine limit. As usual, someone read far too much into things and blew the entire subject out of proportion. Next time I'll use a more plausable example to convey a point. That being said, if I see someone stealing my jeep, I will most definitely retrieve my weapon and confront the goober. 9 times out of 10 that perp won't keep trying to swipe a car, he'll run. Should I be in my jeep at the time, that escalates the crime from GTA (grand theft: auto) to carjacking, and I will use lethal force against the person if necessary. If Necessary, read carefully now. Yes, I do value a nickel more than the life of a thief. Thieves are felons, who gave up their rights to vote, defend the country, own firearms legally, and a multitude of other ones. No, I don't have any "good Christian values" for two reasons: I'm an Agnostic, and I was raised Roman Catholic.

Yes, in Cali it is a felony to defend your's or any other person's property with lethal force, unless another person's life is at risk.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

[tce2506]

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.

I don't recall ever giving my opinion on this subject.
While I do feel that I should have the right to Shoot anyone stealing my property, the truth is, I'm probably not going to shoot anyone unless they are inside my house(and then only if the dogs don't get them first). I didn't realize everything was taken literally here!

GScholz, you are simply amazing.

[lazs2]

hmm.. two subjects here... first..

horse theives were hung for a very good reason since.. if you lost your horse you would probly be more vulnerable to the elements and could die.   If I were out in the dessert with no means but my car to get out and someone was trying to steal it...  I would do anything up to putting a bullet into him to get him to sesist... otherwise...  no.  I have pointed a gun at someone stealing from me but they dessited.   if they had decided to attack me instead... I would have shot em.

assault weapons... again...shlots is on the right track... all gun control in the U.S. is a concerted and consious effort towards an ultimate goal of total gun bans.   While I have little interest in the so called assault weapons or cheap plastic 30 round pistols...  It is a matter of drawing a line in the sand.   If they can't take away the so called assault weapons then they can't go after me or my guns.  

Once they get an assault weapon ban they go after.... magazines... then semi autos then pump and lever guns...  then ...  whatever... it is a matter of drawing a line in the sand.  

lazs

[AKIron]

There will always be compromise lazs, it's unavoidable. Where to "draw the line" is the tough question. The biggest threat I see concerning our 2nd Amendment right is this:

Kerry has called himself a hunter from age 12 and a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment. But he has voted in favor of gun control. Kerry supports extending the soon-to-expire ban on assault-style weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131856,00.html

[flakbait]

My local paper this morning has an interesting blurb about this whole subject (the AW ban, not Scholtz's rants). Seems there was a last-minute campaign by Brady and a bunch of other cooks to get Congress to re-inact this bill. It was shot down in flames. One said that the bill was enacted more for "good looks" than for function, and the American people just wanted it dead. DeLay had an interesting quote, saying "even if the president asked me to, I'd still say no." Most people in Congress apparently feel the same way, and are going to let it croak.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131813,00.html

For Scholtz,
Don't take everything so literally. I said it above, and I'll say it again: that single line was typed to make a point about the 10-round limit on magazine capacity in the Assault Weapons Ban. Not to imply I'd rush out of my front door at 4am, sky-clad, with an M-60, to mow down the hapless hordes of car thieves rampaging through the neighborhood. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not shoot anybody.



-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

[Maverick]

Schultz,

Last time to try and explain this to you. Please read slowly.

Your situation is a vigilante action and is in fact making you an accessory to a crime. You are killing to facilitate a car theft. You are now dropping the value of your victims life to the level of protecting a thief's interest in stealing. In short you have devalued the lifre of the theft victim to below that of the value of the car.

You'd be acting with insufficient information to even determine the facts of the situation yet would use deadly force as your first response. Nice job there, and you call others reactionary.

I have had the misfortune to have to determine use of lethal force in a situation in a very short time, you lack that perspective. Quite frankly in my experiance and IMO you are flat out wrong here in what you propose.

[tce2506]

Scholz,
   Yes, if it was legal I would not hesitate to shoot someone who was stealing my property. Not only would it decrease the amount of theft in this country, but would also lower insurance premiums. Obviously, we're not going to agree on this subject, but what fun would that be?!