Jump to content

meanwhile, in a gun-toting utopia...


ashw_justin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sounds like someone should have been obeying the leash law.

 

Whoa, that's one of the more calloused remarks I've seen in a while. Any way, from the few facts presented in that article the "over-reaction" of the shooter seems insanely, crazily, maliciously of line. Who carries a freaking pistol on a hiking trail any way?!? One more reason for me to not go to Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem almost as sure of that scenario as is the Sheriff. Great investigate work, I must say. No witnesses, and he didn't shoot the dogs, nor did the dogs harm him in any way. Three shots, all perfectly on target. Makes you wonder, eh?

 

Boy, that sure is one vicious looking dog.

 

0522hikershot22.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My neighbors black lab didn't look vicious either. It blinded a 3 year old boy in one eye, though. Dragged him down the street by the face.

 

If someone points a gun at me, fires a warning shot, I turn around.

 

You don't, you die. Keep your dogs on a leash so my right to walk isn't infringed upon and we'll get along fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still assuming that the shooter is accurately recounting what happened. You can't get any further from being an objective witness... unless you're the other guy. Really the only facts in that article are: four shots were fired, three of them hit the guy in the chest, and his three dogs were on scene. But if you're an Arizona sheriff, it's open-and-shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fat Teddy, you are a fucking idiot. How the hell do you know what happened? Last time I checked violation of a leash law doesn't get the self-administered death penalty.

 

Excellent factual argument. How old are you, 6? Don't worry, you get smarter with age.......usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neighbors had a Brittney spaniel for five years. Nicest dog you would ever meet. Until it turned on their three-year-old and tore the right side of her face off. My wife got to drive her and her hysterical mother to the hospital. Nice doggy.

Two years ago, I was giving my daughter a piggy-back ride in Marymoor park when a big wolfy looking dog came running at us snarling and baring it's teeth and dragging a leash. If I would have had a gun, that dog would definately be dead right now. As it was, I had to kick him off once with my daughter screaming before the asshole owner managed to grab the leash. He apologized profusely but couldn't understand why I was still upset. Death by dog or death by gun, especially when it is my daughter's death, looks pretty much the same. If you can't support carrying guns, how do you support having big dogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take his guns away. It's probably too late to re-investigate, and it's innocent until proven guilty, so he goes free. But his guns don't.

 

Then ban the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens into any government-managed wilderness. Get some balls and some pepper spray, otherwise stay in the city with your bitch ass. Of course there is already a law against unleashed dogs, but unfortunately the owner won't be able to stand for those charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If someone points a gun at me, fires a warning shot, I turn around.

 

You don't, you die. Keep your dogs on a leash so my right to walk isn't infringed upon and we'll get along fine.

 

Edited by jordop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take his guns away

 

Take his guns away for what? He didn't break any laws. Or are you just in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights.

 

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Or at least not that we know of (doesn't stop me from crossing my fingers). But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future.

 

That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death.

 

Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence.

 

But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future.

 

So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights.

 

That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this.

 

There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death.

 

Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence.

 

You'll remember that there is no concrete proof that it was self-defense. That's just what the shooter says. And to what degree it was justifiable, we'll never know.

 

But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future.

 

So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights.

 

1) There is nothing indescriminate about my proposal. 2) Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can carry a semi-automatic 10-milimeter whenever, where-ever you want.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

I don't see any mention of semi-automatic pistols. They didn't even exist. Point being, The 2nd amendment is all about interpretation. "Arms"? So does that mean I can carry around a nuclear warhead and chemical weapons, just in case?

 

 

That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this.

 

There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't.

 

yellaf.gifOh I am willing to bet that quite a few people agree with me! Hopefully this case will increase that number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...