Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

lankist thread exploder 2012

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733621]Because you can't argue that restricting self defense is unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise wrong while simultaneously arguing that criminals don't have that right. Fundamental rights apply to everyone equally and relatively unrestricted. Non-fundamental rights can be restricted and regulated as much as the facts and history determine they should be. e.g. driving straddles the line between a non-fundamental right and a privilege. You can restrict who gets to drive and you can strip people of that right for a shitload of reasons because it isn't fundamental. [B]Contrarywise, voting is a fundamental right, and you can't impose broad restrictions upon the process.[/B] Self defense is treated as a non-fundamental right, because there are broad restrictions upon what does and does not constitute self defense. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional or infringing about telling people what they need to do before they employ violence as a means of defense.[/QUOTE] Tell that to felons. Also half the shit you spew in this thread goes against Rulings the Supreme Court have made. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] And yes Lankist I will fucking cite the cases that go against your posts, but unlike you I don't have all fucking day to waste on this thread since I only have 8 hours to get some sleep before i have to go back into work for a 12 hour shift.

I love how society all looks up to figures like Gandhi and MLK yet as soon as an individual supports pacifism you all jump on him calling him cowardly and naive and even implying pacifists were responsible for the holocaust.

[QUOTE=Squeaken;36736027]I love how society all looks up to figures like Gandhi and MLK yet as soon as an individual supports pacifism you all jump on him calling him cowardly and naive and even implying pacifists were responsible for the holocaust.[/QUOTE] generalizing is the last thing we need in this thread and I'm pretty sure saying that "anyone who kills people is bad" isn't exactly the same as pacifism.

[QUOTE=Squeaken;36735886]Am I the only one disturbed by the whole 'I'd kill anyone breaking into my house' idea?[/QUOTE] I'm not much of a fighter dude, but if someone breaks into your house you should be worried I don't know if killing them is neccesarrily right, but if I was armed and there was an intruder in my house, I'd light that motherfucker up Better him than me

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36735318]To the best of my understanding, they can defend themselves all they want but they don't have a legal right to do so as, through both trespassing and burglary, they are currently breaking the law. Additionally, in regards to an earlier topic, the only party that is legally required to flee in a case like this would be the invaders, not the homeowner. Stand Your Ground does not apply to the party that is breaking the law.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's spent the first half of this thread telling everyone they don't have the right to defend themselves or stand their ground unless you're basically backed into a corner with a gun to your temple(which is false). Now he's saying it's only fair that criminals can shoot back if fired upon. Every time someone said "Better safe than sorry," or "It's going to be him, not me," he says the law doesn't care what you think. Now he's trying to make the argument [i]for[/i] criminals when this time the law is actually against them.

[QUOTE=Dori;36716711]um posting a link to her facebook memorial so people can ridicule her is stooping pretty low why would you even do that [editline]1[/editline] I'm assuming you haven't had to suffer the pain of somebody close to you dying, otherwise you wouldn't be doing this[/QUOTE] Where did he say "Hey everyone! Here's her memorial page on facebook! Let's all ridicule her! LOL"?

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36735856]Haha really wtf why?[/QUOTE] It doesn't have a stock :v: It's considered a pistol. If it were to have a stock, it would be a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which costs a doozy and is illegal in California and Illinois.

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36736250]I'm not much of a fighter dude, but if someone breaks into your house you should be worried I don't know if killing them is neccesarrily right, but if I was armed and there was an intruder in my house, I'd light that motherfucker up Better him than me[/QUOTE] enjoy prison

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36736880]It doesn't have a stock :v: It's considered a pistol. If it were to have a stock, it would be a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which costs a doozy and is illegal in California and Illinois.[/QUOTE] I was almost sure you were mistaken, then I looked it up :v: [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;36736889]enjoy prison[/QUOTE] Because I break into peoples houses with the express purpose of selling them real estate in locations where people are less likely to break into your house with the express purpose of selling them real estate in locations where people are less likely to break into your house with the express purpose of selling them real estate in locations where people are less likely to break into your house with the express purpose of selling them real estate in locations where people are less likely to break into your house with the express purpose of selling them real estate in locations where people are less likely to break into your house with the express purpose of selling them real estate.

[QUOTE=James*;36736889]enjoy prison[/QUOTE] o ye well enjoy bein DEAD lol Seriously, this "Ur in Prison" vs "Ur dead" thing is getting really old.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36736928]o ye well enjoy bein DEAD lol Seriously, this "Ur in Prison" vs "Ur dead" thing is getting really old.[/QUOTE] How about don't try and be a hero and end up neither

[QUOTE=ZF911;36736702]Yeah, he's spent the first half of this thread telling everyone they don't have the right to defend themselves or stand their ground unless you're basically backed into a corner with a gun to your temple(which is false). Now he's saying it's only fair that criminals can shoot back if fired upon. Every time someone said "Better safe than sorry," or "It's going to be him, not me," he says the law doesn't care what you think. Now he's trying to make the argument [i]for[/i] criminals when this time the law is actually against them.[/QUOTE] your paranoid delusions that every burglar is a closet murderer does not give you the right to light him up on sight, he has to make a clear threat to your life (and no, simply being in your house is not a clear threat to your life as much as you would like to say it is)

[QUOTE=James*;36736939]How about don't try and be a hero and end up neither[/QUOTE] I'll raise you this I'll have my funeral... [I]IN PRISON![/I]

Stand Your Ground is not the same as the Castle law. Castle law means you can protect your property with lethal force, Stand Your Ground means you can use lethal force to protect yourself, you know, in defense, whether you're on your property or not. Even then the Castle Law has restrictions. They have to have a weapon really, or show intent to commit a felony (B&E is a felony) Personally I think the laws should just be one and merged throughout the entire country Either way, she was in the wrong, and the owners shouldn't be held accountable for what happened to her since she was committing a felony against them, not only on their property, but inside the house

[QUOTE=James*;36736939]How about don't try and be a hero and end up neither[/QUOTE] he's going to hide in the shadows with his $5000 DSLR camera and give the criminals a full photoshoot and then give that to the police. Also take pictures of their car and accomplices ~best strategy ever~

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36736880]It doesn't have a stock :v: It's considered a pistol. If it were to have a stock, it would be a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which costs a doozy and is illegal in California and Illinois.[/QUOTE] lol that's fucking retarded [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] dat murrica

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36737192]lol that's fucking retarded [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] dat murrica[/QUOTE] canada has some weirder ones afaik like 10 round magazine maximum.

NFA, GCA 68, and FOPA 1986... Small snippets from each of them should exist for safety reasons, but most of them are just pure bullshit. Especially FOPA's Hughes Amendment.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36736946]your paranoid delusions that every burglar is a closet murderer does not give you the right to light him up on sight, he has to make a clear threat to your life (and no, simply being in your house is not a clear threat to your life as much as you would like to say it is)[/QUOTE] It sounds like you have never been in a dwelling when it was being burglarized. You have no clue who those people kicking down your door are, you have no idea what their intentions are, all you know is that they pose a threat to you and your family's well being, if they didn't, they would have kindly knocked. You forfeit your personal safety when you burglarize an occupied dwelling. You can only assume a group of people kicking down your door in the middle of the night are a threat to your life.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;36737215]canada has some weirder ones afaik like 10 round magazine maximum.[/QUOTE] Well I live in Aus, so it's impossible to get a licence, and even then you can only have bolt actions and handguns I don't have a problem with that though, the less people with automatic firearms the better

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36737247]Well I live in Aus, so it's impossible to get a licence, and even then you can only have bolt actions and handguns [B]I don't have a problem with that though, the less people with automatic firearms the better[/B][/QUOTE] Explain this snippet.

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36737247]Well I live in Aus, so it's impossible to get a licence, and even then you can only have bolt actions and handguns I don't have a problem with that though, the less people with automatic firearms the better[/QUOTE] no pump shotties? guess skeet is non-existent in your country then.

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36737247]Well I live in Aus, so it's impossible to get a licence, and even then you can only have bolt actions and handguns I don't have a problem with that though, [B]the less people with automatic firearms the better[/B] [/QUOTE] Simo Häyhä killed over 500 soviet soldiers using a bolt action rifle.

deal with it It's an opinion

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36737302]Simo Häyhä killed over 500 soviet soldiers using a bolt action rifle.[/QUOTE] well the line between a "sniper rifle" and a "hunting rifle" can be very blurry

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;36737273]Explain this snippet.[/QUOTE] I don't have to justify my reasons for an opinion [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] ninja'd motherfucker

You're free to have your opinion, but please provide a reason to why you think automatic firearms should banned or severely restricted from civilian usage.

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36737324]deal with it It's an opinion[/QUOTE] Okay, well deal with my opinion. I think that any form of firearm that cannot cause severe explosive damage (I.E, no Raufoss or HE type amunition) should be available to the public, be it semi-automatic, single shot, bolt action or fully automatic, regardless of barrel-size or country of origin.

Okay I'll deal with it