The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: DUmpDiver on November 13, 2021, 08:08:38 AM
-
Girard442 (5,280 posts)
To recap: I can go somewhere openly carrying my assault rifle...
If anyone confronts me, I can kill them, claiming self-defense, and since they're dead, they can't testify against me. Doesn't matter whether they're armed or not, because nail clippers and key chains can be lethal weapons too, dontcha know. If anyone else tries to stop me, I can kill them too.
What's next? Shoot people carrying in the back because you claim to have seen "signs" they're about to be an active shooter?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216047425
Not if someone merely confronts you, but if they lunge at you and attempt to take your firearm (even if it's not an "assault rifle") then you have a right to self-defense.
A skateboard can be used as a deadly weapon. Want proof?
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030208&slug=skateboard08m
-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216047425
Not if someone merely confronts you, but if they lunge at you and attempt to take your firearm (even if it's not an "assault rifle") then you have a right to self-defense.
A skateboard can be used as a deadly weapon. Want proof?
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030208&slug=skateboard08m
I triple dog dare the dummie to do this. Highly encouraged. Let us know how it works out for you.
-
To recap: I can go somewhere openly carrying my assault rifle...
If anyone confronts me, I can kill them, claiming self-defense, and since they're dead, they can't testify against me. Doesn't matter whether they're armed or not, because nail clippers and key chains can be lethal weapons too, dontcha know. If anyone else tries to stop me, I can kill them too.
What's next? Shoot people carrying in the back because you claim to have seen "signs" they're about to be an active shooter?
That's.. a really dishonest portrayal of what happened.
To recap: I can travel hundreds of miles to burn things and beat people. If anyone tries to defend what I'm trying to destroy, I can run them down, with clear intent to kill them. And if I kill them, they're not there to testify. And if they kill me instead, that's a crime.
Is this moral framework to your liking, DU? Oh what am I saying? Of course it is!
-
Girard442 (5,280 posts)
To recap: I can go somewhere openly carrying my assault rifle 1. ...
If anyone confronts me 2., I can kill them, claiming self-defense, and since they're dead, they can't testify against me 3.. Doesn't matter whether they're armed or not 4.
1. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". The US military defines an assault rifle as selectable semi-automatic or automatic fire. A stock AR-15 is not capable of automatic fire. Prog narrative fail.
2. Deceased Prog Thug #1 threatened to kill people, including Rittenhouse specifically, stalked Rittenhouse from hiding, and was lunging to seize Rittenhouse's rifle, the obvious start of an attempt to carry out the threat to kill Rittenhouse. Deceased Prog Thug #2 was beating Rittenhouse on the head with a skate board, which is deadly force. Permanently injured Prog Thug #3 was shot when aiming a 9 mm pistol at Rittenhouse's head, a threat of imminent deadly force. The 3 Prog Thugs did not innocently "confront" Rittenhouse. Prog narrative fail.
3. Repeating from the above, because DU-grade Progs resist hearing facts they don't want to hear or understand, Deceased Prog Thug #1 threatened to kill people, including Rittenhouse specifically, stalked Rittenhouse from hiding, and was lunging to seize Rittenhouse's rifle, the obvious start of an attempt to carry out the threat to kill Rittenhouse. Deceased Prog Thug #2 was beating Rittenhouse on the head with a skate board, which is deadly force. Threats and use of deadly forces have consequences. In the case of Permanently injured Prog Thug #3, not fatal consequences. Prog narrative fail.
4. Deceased Prog Thug #1 was shot in the act of trying to seize Rittenhouse's rifle, after having multiple times threatened to kill people guarding property, Rittenhouse specifically in one threat instance. Deceased Prog Thug #2 was using deadly force against Rittenhouse. AFAIK, laws regarding deadly force do not distinguish between less effective improvised weapons and high effectiveness fire arms. Permanently injured Prog Thug #3 was shot while aiming a 9 mm pistol at Rittenhouse's head from a few feet away, thus was as armed as was Rittenhouse. Prog narrative fail.
False premises, false conclusions ... par for the DU-Moron course.