The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
No are you?
Click to expand...

Well, not as familiar as some... but... a few things are possible:

They are probably planning on blowing themselves up anyways... preferably in front of a large group.

Secondly, no one actually knows for sure that he is, indeed a suicide bomber.

I am familiar with my AR.

Having said that... I wouldn't have a problem shooting the bastard.


Regardless... this is all speculation. I'll leave my self-defense to myself thank you very much and you can invite the guy in for tea and biscuits and talk about the effectiveness of gun control
 
scooter2525 said:
Ar would be a good choice if the one of the suspects decides to break into someone's house. It's not vigilante justice, it's self defense against dangerous people.
Click to expand...


That would probably not be legal in Massachusetts. You have a duty to retreat there. Should the terrorist attempt to break into your house, you could be convicted of murder for shooting him. Though, I don't think you would find a prosecutor in Boston willing to pursue that.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I am pretty sure an intruder has to make it physically inside your home in Massachusetts - seeing them approach/attempt to break in is probably not sufficient there.
Click to expand...

The post you responded to:

scooter2525 said:
Ar would be a good choice if the one of the suspects decides to break into someone's house. It's not vigilante justice, it's self defense against dangerous people.
Click to expand...

Reads like the person is in the home to me. I must have missed the approach/attempt post- my bad.
 
Ian J said:
Reads like the person is in the home to me. I must have missed the approach/attempt post- my bad.
Click to expand...
My post was in regard to someone breaking in the home. Watching someone walk around outside that looks suspicious wouldn't call for running outside guns blazing.
 
Ian J said:
Reads like the person is in the home to me. I must have missed the approach/attempt post- my bad.
Click to expand...


Even if the person is in your home in Massachusetts, that only means the Castle Doctrine would apply. You would still need to be threatened with a deadly weapon first, before you could shoot him. The mere presence of someone breaking into your house there is not sufficient grounds to harm them.

Very different here in Florida - if I have a reasonable cause to feel threatened, I can shoot.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Even if the person is in your home in Massachusetts, that only means the Castle Doctrine would apply. You would still need to be threatened with a deadly weapon first, before you could shoot him. The mere presence of someone breaking into your house there is not sufficient grounds to harm them.

Very different here in Florida - if I have a reasonable cause to feel threatened, I can shoot.
Click to expand...

So you won't admit you were originally wrong and are instead doubling down with more wrong information

You would still need to be threatened with a deadly weapon first
Click to expand...

and are diverting to laws in Florida. Nicely done.
 
Ian J said:
So you won't admit you were originally wrong and are instead doubling down with more wrong information

and are diverting to laws in Florida. Nicely done.
Click to expand...


Was just trying to point out that there are huge differences between states. If someone is threatening you with a weapon in your house, I think my answer was incorrect though.
 
Seggy said:
Riiiiight, enjoy pulling that trigger as the terrorist blows up his suicide vest in your face.
Click to expand...

I just do not understand the worldview where it is morally superior to have the police come fill out a report after-the-fact and notify the family of your death rather than having a firearm which to defend yourself and kill the one trying to do harm.
 
Hacker15e said:
I just do not understand the worldview where it is morally superior to have the police come fill out a report after-the-fact and notify the family of your death rather than having a firearm which to defend yourself and kill the one trying to do harm.
Click to expand...
It's not. But for him, only LEO/military should have fire arms and not civilians.
 
I'm not saying a gun can't be used to defend oneself, but it's a tool that one needs proper training for. It's doubtful someone posting on a pilot internet board has that extensive training. There are a few LEOs on here or military that do, but a vast majority don't.
 
Seggy said:
I'm not saying a gun can't be used to defend oneself, but it's a tool that one needs proper training for. It's doubtful someone posting on a pilot internet board has that extensive training. There are a few LEOs on here or military that do, but a vast majority don't.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
scooter2525 said:
start with NYPDs training program...
Click to expand...

Actually something similar intensity wise to the FFDO training program. They take amateurs and make them extremely sharp and competent.

If that type of program was required for gun owners, I'd be singing a much different tune in my gun views.
 
Seggy said:
Actually something similar intensity wise to the FFDO training program. They take amateurs qand make them extremely sharp and competent.
Click to expand...
I agree that training would benefit civilians with gun ownership, but at what point does it cross into 2nd amendment rights of saying, in order to own a gun, you must qualify each year etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top