IF OBAMA HAD HIS WAY; THIS WOMAN (AND POSSIBLY HER CHILDREN) MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED, RAPED OR BOTH...

Don't worry about the old fart he can talk them to death. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Just build that old bastard a fence to sit on and he can bad mouth everyone!

Learn to read and comprehend AssUpForHisGayLover....

I never said Obama "wanted her to be killed"....but that would be a likely outcome of Obama's (and the anti-gun left) polcies of gun ownership restriction............

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would confiscate all guns if he could get away with it !

But of course with the exception of his own personal security force. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

ITS IN THE HEADLINE OF YOUR POST, YOU FOOL!

That would indicate that you believe the President wanted this woman to be killed and raped... And your backpedal is even stupider. Quit while you're only this far behind.

Again; you don't understand english,,,perhaps I need to re-write it in Ebonics ?

I have never seen where you cannot defend your home.have you got a thread? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I guess you weren't paying attention, then.

Washington, DC would not allow residents to own a gun IN THEIR OWN HOME, until the Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

Chicago would not permit residents to own a gun without a license, but refused to give out licenses after 1982 as a result of a citywide handgun ban - at least until the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Give government a chance and they will grab all guns.

In many states the Castle Doctrine does not apply; if you can retreat from the threat you must !

In many states you have no "right" to defend yourself in your home, or defend your home, property or loved ones.

I guess you weren't paying attention, then.

Washington, DC would not allow residents to own a gun IN THEIR OWN HOME, until the Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

Chicago would not permit residents to own a gun without a license, but refused to give out licenses after 1982 as a result of a citywide handgun ban - at least until the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Give government a chance and they will grab all guns. Originally Posted by ExNYer

you think they give a shit about laws?

In many states the Castle Doctrine does not apply; if you can retreat from the threat you must !

In many states you have no "right" to defend yourself in your home, or defend your home, property or loved ones. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

\
According to your philosophy fuck 'em I'll shoot anyway.Don't give a shit who it is...

In many states the Castle Doctrine does not apply; if you can retreat from the threat you must !

In many states you have no "right" to defend yourself in your home, or defend your home, property or loved ones. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The right to use deadly force, once someone has broken into you home, is just common sense. Are you supposed to wait until they attack you or point a gun at you? That's nuts. It's sort of like issuing rules of engagement that say you can't fire first; you can only return fire.

Liberals are pussies.

The right to use deadly force, once someone has broken into you home, is just common sense. Are you supposed to wait until they attack you or point a gun at you? That's nuts. It's sort of like issuing rules of engagement that say you can't fire first; you can only return fire.

Liberals are pussies. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The way I learned it in school, years ago, Whirly is correct.

Some jurisdictions require the armed homeowner to retreat until he CAN'T retreat any farther, and ONLY THEN may he open fire.

There have been murder convictions in some of those jurisdictions where it was proven that the homeowner retreated, but he chose the wrong retreat route, retreating (say) only three rooms instead of five, before finding his back to a wall.

Don't worry about the old fart he can talk them to death. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

The intruder will die laughing at how Stupid, StupidOldLyingFart really is! And Whirly and Joe the Bloehard both have dim lights, as well.

Did I remember to say, FOUR MORE YEARS?

Again; you don't understand english,,,perhaps I need to re-write it in Ebonics ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Please do so, asshole.

and while you're at it, please explain how the headline of your post doesn't imply the President wants women and children to be "killed and raped."

CuteOldGuy I hope no one breaks into your home and you just want to talk to them as to WHY????????? You will be screwed!!! I will shoot anyone who breaks in my home with my children and uses a crowbar!!!!!! and I will not pause to ask what is your intention???????????????? Originally Posted by b2pop

I was being sarcastic. That's the argument that some here have used on other threads dealing with this topic. I was trying to show them how stupid that argument is. You already know. I'm afraid there are others on here who would have agreed with me.

But I was being sarcastic. Of course what she did was justified, and necessary.

I am glad she was able to defend herself and chiildren. What is sad is that he lived.

I was being sarcastic. That's the argument that some here have used on other threads dealing with this topic. I was trying to show them how stupid that argument is. You already know. I'm afraid there are others on here who would have agreed with me.

But I was being sarcastic. Of course what she did was justified, and necessary. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now it's sarcastic? Not another lie? You've got to be getting tired of explaining yourself after the fact.

Now it's sarcastic? Not another lie? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh the Poetic Justice!