#BoycottNRA

#3,877
#3,877
Septic said:
The only reason not to shoot a robber in the chest 13 times is because the magazine only held 12 rounds.... and the police were across the street.
Click to expand...

You may wish to hold onto a couple of rounds just in case of an attempted carjacking on your way home from church.
 
#3,879
#3,879
luthervol said:
I responded to show that a line has to be drawn.
Click to expand...

What exactly would that line look like their Luthlo? Would we make a societal law that says no more than X intruders can break in at once therefore limiting BY LAW the number of intruders you would HAVE TO DEFEND against or would we put a law in place that says you CAN ONLY DEFEND against X intruders and if there are anymore you are SOL?

Asking for a friend as I already told him you wouldn't/couldn't answer but they insisted that I ask anyway.
 
#3,880
#3,880
Septic said:
The only reason not to shoot a robber in the chest 13 times is because the magazine only held 12 rounds.... and the police were across the street.
Click to expand...

Amen. God forbid I ever have to, but if I ever have to fend off an assailant, I will use as many rounds as it takes to end the conflict.
 
#3,882
#3,882
82_VOL_83 said:
What exactly would that line look like their Luthlo? Would we make a societal law that says no more than X intruders can break in at once therefore limiting BY LAW the number of intruders you would HAVE TO DEFEND against or would we put a law in place that says you CAN ONLY DEFEND against X intruders and if there are anymore you are SOL?

Asking for a friend as I already told him you wouldn't/couldn't answer but they insisted that I ask anyway.
Click to expand...

Tell your friend to check out a copy of "Logical Reasoning for Dummies" and then to get back to you with a better question.
 
#3,885
#3,885
luthervol said:
Tell your friend to check out a copy of "Logical Reasoning for Dummies" and then to get back to you with a better question.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I told him you couldn't answer as there is no logical answer to your drawing lines idea. I tried but as I predicted, you failed.
 
#3,886
#3,886
midnight orange said:
So if the mob and money side with the anti abortion lobby, you will no doubt support their position, since might makes right.
Click to expand...

"Accept" not "support".

Why do you think so many have said Trump's appointment of Gorsuch makes his whole presidency successful? How many people wish to stack the supreme court in a way to overturn Roe V. Wade? How much money goes into the campaigns of pro life candidates for that sole reason?

That's the way the game is played.
 
#3,888
#3,888
luthervol said:
Fairly certain he would not be in x / y violation.

He was able to protect himself and others by shooting the robber in the chest just 5 times (? - it just said multiple). There was no need to shoot the robber in the chest 13 times.
Click to expand...
There's that 'N' word again.
 
#3,889
#3,889
82_VOL_83 said:
Yeah, I told him you couldn't answer as there is no logical answer to your drawing lines idea. I tried but as I predicted, you failed.
Click to expand...

That's why your friend needs to read the book. Tell him to look in the index under "logical answers to illogical questions".
 
#3,891
#3,891
luthervol said:
"Accept" not "support".

Why do you think so many have said Trump's appointment of Gorsuch makes his whole presidency successful? How many people wish to stack the supreme court in a way to overturn Roe V. Wade? How much money goes into the campaigns of pro life candidates for that sole reason?

That's the way the game is played.
Click to expand...

So any policy that is legislated is just because of democracy.
 
#3,899
#3,899
luthervol said:
That's why your friend needs to read the book. Tell him to look in the index under "logical answers to illogical questions".
Click to expand...

We did but there was absolutely nothing to do with you there. We're still waiting on your definition of the line for allowable break-ins. Probably will be forever as there is no real answer.
 
#3,900
#3,900
82_VOL_83 said:
We did but there was absolutely nothing to do with you there. We're still waiting on your definition of the line for allowable break-ins. Probably will be forever as there is no real answer.
Click to expand...

Whoever claimed that there was a line for allowable break-ins? Certainly not me. I think you may be confused (not surprisingly) by the line of what is rationally and reasonably needed for home protection.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top