PDA

View Full Version : A good argument for 2A?


Palindari
02-23-2009, 4:14 PM
Don't know the where but the when was just a couple of weeks ago. :thumbsup:

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2009/02/23/the-right-prescription/

Not promoting the site - just where I found this vid ;)

Cypren
02-23-2009, 4:21 PM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!

...just pointing out that this can be used two ways.

Palindari
02-23-2009, 4:46 PM
True - but intent is clear.

So it would be a tougher nut to roll for that argument I would guess ;)

deleted by PC police
02-23-2009, 4:57 PM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!

...just pointing out that this can be used two ways.

Doesn't matter to the letter of the law that was a justifiable self defense. Lunatics can thing what they want but you don't have to be hurt to be able to defend yourself or someone else.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 5:04 PM
Doesn't matter to the letter of the law that was a justifiable self defense. Lunatics can thing what they want but you don't have to be hurt to be able to defend yourself or someone else.

Wasn't arguing that it wasn't a fully justifiable shooting -- I would have done the same had it been me standing there. Just saying that showing a shooting like this -- where the perp didn't actually shoot anyone, just threaten them -- can be spun against us as well as for us. Perverse as it sounds, the civilian self-defense shootings that we need to publicize are the ones where the perp did cause significant damage before being shot, since those can't be argued with the perpetual "he was just a kid, it was a toy gun, it wasn't loaded, you shot first" spew and so on and so forth.

Kid Stanislaus
02-23-2009, 5:11 PM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!


So how is anybody except the perp supposed to KNOW whether or not the gun is real or loaded? When faced with what appears to be a firearm only a complete fool would say, "Well gee, it probably is not real or is not loaded"!! That's a good way to get your ticket cancelled.

Kid Stanislaus
02-23-2009, 5:13 PM
Perverse as it sounds, the civilian self-defense shootings that we need to publicize are the ones where the perp did cause significant damage before being shot, since those can't be argued with the perpetual "he was just a kid, it was a toy gun, it wasn't loaded, you shot first" spew and so on and so forth.


I think you're grasping at straws.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 5:21 PM
So how is anybody except the perp supposed to KNOW whether or not the gun is real or loaded? When faced with what appears to be a firearm only a complete fool would say, "Well gee, it probably is not real or is not loaded"!! That's a good way to get your ticket cancelled.

Note that you have just succinctly described the average Brady activist. :D

tortoisethunder
02-23-2009, 5:34 PM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!

...just pointing out that this can be used two ways.

What? You have to be kidding me to make sort of comment. This sort of view is what has California totally screwed up. He is a armed robber and got what HE ASKED FOR. I don't care if he had a squirt gun painted black.

deleted by PC police
02-23-2009, 5:57 PM
Wasn't arguing that it wasn't a fully justifiable shooting -- I would have done the same had it been me standing there. Just saying that showing a shooting like this -- where the perp didn't actually shoot anyone, just threaten them -- can be spun against us as well as for us. Perverse as it sounds, the civilian self-defense shootings that we need to publicize are the ones where the perp did cause significant damage before being shot, since those can't be argued with the perpetual "he was just a kid, it was a toy gun, it wasn't loaded, you shot first" spew and so on and so forth.

Sorry if I seemed to suggest you were defending him. Lunatics can argue what they want but as the law stands now that was a justifiable defense. You can't reasonbaly be expected to know it was a toy gun (it wasn't pink and it was not being used in a fashion that would indicate it's a toy), or a loaded gun and anyone that thinks that is an idiot.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 6:11 PM
Sorry if I seemed to suggest you were defending him. Lunatics can argue what they want but as the law stands now that was a justifiable defense. You can't reasonbaly be expected to know it was a toy gun (it wasn't pink and it was not being used in a fashion that would indicate it's a toy), or a loaded gun and anyone that thinks that is an idiot.

Oh, I completely agree. As would virtually anybody else who reads this forum. (Well, except for op-research people from Brady and VPC, presumably -- HI GUYS!) :seeya:

But my point is that we, as a community, have to carefully examine things like this when using them as "arguments" (as the OP said in his thread title) to non-gun-enthusiasts in the general community. Factual and rational arguments are not enough when confronting the average soccer mom who votes for nanny state policies and candidates like Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer. You have to consider emotional, irrational arguments as well -- and how they can be spun by your emotional, irrational and completely unprincipled opposition. We know that gun banners are delighted to use the public's own ignorance and fear as a weapon if they think it'll help them.

There are a substantial portion of people in the populace who simply do not believe in violence as an option until they see the consequences of failing to act. This particular case doesn't show those consequences -- the perp was dropped in his tracks (thankfully) before he could kill anyone. That's great news for the world at large, but doesn't make nearly as effective of a case for us to take forward into the emotional, irrational, illogical world of political argument.

Does this make more sense, or do people still think I'm some kind of crazy disarmament nutjob? :rolleyes:

Meplat
02-23-2009, 6:49 PM
I see your point. But, screw the emotional, irrational, illogical world of political argument.


Oh, I completely agree. As would virtually anybody else who reads this forum. (Well, except for op-research people from Brady and VPC, presumably -- HI GUYS!) :seeya:

But my point is that we, as a community, have to carefully examine things like this when using them as "arguments" (as the OP said in his thread title) to non-gun-enthusiasts in the general community. Factual and rational arguments are not enough when confronting the average soccer mom who votes for nanny state policies and candidates like Dianne Feinstein or Barbara Boxer. You have to consider emotional, irrational arguments as well -- and how they can be spun by your emotional, irrational and completely unprincipled opposition. We know that gun banners are delighted to use the public's own ignorance and fear as a weapon if they think it'll help them.

There are a substantial portion of people in the populace who simply do not believe in violence as an option until they see the consequences of failing to act. This particular case doesn't show those consequences -- the perp was dropped in his tracks (thankfully) before he could kill anyone. That's great news for the world at large, but doesn't make nearly as effective of a case for us to take forward into the emotional, irrational, illogical world of political argument.

Does this make more sense, or do people still think I'm some kind of crazy disarmament nutjob? :rolleyes:

Palindari
02-24-2009, 9:36 AM
Honestly, having videos like that, imho, might be a greater defense of 2A.

This is a classic, almost textbook example to the why of the right to bear arms. For most of what you hear through the media is about those idiot gun owners that leave loaded guns around with children in the home. Then the whole emotional argument gains traction and suddenly all gun owners are idiots and thus needs the Gov to protect its citizens from them, then we fall into the "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" lawmakers rule.

But, maybe, just maybe - if more instances like this video gain traction instead, perhaps the age of the patriot gun owner might endure...

Just my thoughts ;)

MP301
02-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Yes, this video shows how 2A is suppoosed to work. I also think that this video and ones like it show this and that when some enept person argues the point that Cypren did, it is rather easy to expose the stupidty. Just ask at what point a person should delay acting just in case the bad guy was only kidding? After he kills you or someone else is the only way to be sure, right?

With that line of thinking I have a great idea. Im now proposing a new bill. Call it AB 5150-2A.
This bill says that if someone denounces gun ownership or thinks along those lines, that they should be considered voluntarily giving up this right and should be barred from owning, possessing, etc. any firearms with criminal penalties. They would also be barred from hiring armed protection (security, body guards, etc) and make it a criminal offense for any Gov. agency to provide extra protection to these people. Thy would be a** out and on their own.

This would do a few of things. One, it would shut the Fienstien type hypocrits the hell up and make these people with such a lack of common sense think twice. Plus, if your going to have unarmed victims, you may as well have ones that ask to be victims...ones that act like spoiled children and think the Gov is supposed to or even capable of taking care of them and cant seem to find the stones to take personal responsibility for themselves and family.

Hmmmm yeah, sorta clean out the gene pool a bit....yeah, some people pi** me off!

Ok, end rant....

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 11:06 AM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!

...just pointing out that this can be used two ways.

No Cypren!

You are wrong and you need to look deep within yourself and find the courage to admit your error.

The perp entered the establishment, threw an object over the counter for distraction and attention, pointed a gun in an aggressive manner and ordering commands.

Do you see the man who ended the threat, do you see him at the bottom of the video... do you see him focus 100% attention on the perp, look at the video and watch his head. Then fight, or flight decision takes over and fight is decided, then in one fell swoop; pull/point/fire!

The perp involved in a felonious act of robbery with a deadly weapon. Real gun, or toy... when used in the commission of a robbery, the toy gun is deemed real as perceived by the victims.

Therefore, mortal imminent danger is in effect and use of deadly force is authorized.

Please tell us you are a sensible person and say you erred.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 11:10 AM
Please tell us you are a sensible person and say you erred.

Please read the rest of my comments before deciding that I was criticizing the shooter. ;)

CA_Libertarian
02-24-2009, 3:27 PM
Of course, depending on your point of view, either the clerk removed a dangerous armed robber from the streets, or he killed a man who hadn't actually hurt anyone yet, just threatened him. For all he knew that gun wasn't loaded, or even real!

...just pointing out that this can be used two ways.

Used by who and for what purpose? That's the weakest and most stupid argument I've heard in a long time, and I know a lot of really stupid people!

Do you have to be lying on the ground bleeding before choosing to defend yourself? Until your hit, for all you know he's firing blanks just to scare you!

In the end, what matters more than the opinion of idiots is whether or not the shooting is unlawful. Any time an armed robber is pointing a gun at you or another innocent bystander, regardless of if that gun is real or loaded, you will be justified in using deadly force.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-25-2009, 7:31 AM
Does this make more sense, or do people still think I'm some kind of crazy disarmament nutjob? :rolleyes:


I get what you're going for.

The Raisuli

DDT
02-25-2009, 8:11 AM
Please read the rest of my comments before deciding that I was criticizing the shooter. ;)

I'm sort of shocked that there was anyone who DIDN'T get your point. It's a bit disappointing. I guess you need a disclaimer. "If what I say sounds EXACTLY like what anti-gun people claim it is likely intended to point out something other than my personal beliefs."