The OK case

[*bfine32*]

Well i took a little bit of a break because apparently I did something worthy of suspension while I wasn't on the forum. While I was gone I did notice how boring you all really all. Luckily I am back to bring the forum back to life.

No one brought up one of the most controversial cases in the Nation:

http://6abc.com/news/stand-your-ground-law-may-be-tested-in-teens-killings/1824693/

It involves

white v. minority

"Assault type" weapons

Stand your ground law

and someone charged with murder without even being there.









Also NC reversed its "bathroom law"

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Probably wasn't brought up because it is not controversial. Don't break into someone's house wearing masks and carrying weapons. You might get shot. This was a pretty clear-cut example of it.

As for the person not there getting arrested, know your state laws before you drop armed people off to commit a felony.

[SunsetBengal]

In the OK case, I'm perfectly fine with the homeowner's son blowing away the perpetrators.

As far as the NC thing.. I don't get where the NCAA, a non tax paying "non-profit" organization is allowed to get involved with a State's politics, and issue a State an ultimatum, in order to leverage them to change a law. Now, to be clear, the law was already in the process of being repealed, before the NCAA issued their "deadline ultimatum". It's also sad that a truly great Governor lost his office over this law, a law that he was not fully behind, but was "forced" to sign, due to overwhelming support from both State House and Senate.

As many of you realize, I live in NC. I can attest that this entire HB2 has been the topic of talk on not only regular news, but also on Sports Radio for a year. Previous to the NCAA ultimatum, there were a few versions of the repeal that failed. Personally, I see the politicians in NC as a bunch of silly ninnies for caving to the demands of the NCAA. I fully realize that many on here will disagree with me on that, but oh well, that is my position on the matter.

[GMDino]

(03-31-2017, 09:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well i took a little bit of a break because apparently I did something worthy of suspension while I wasn't on the forum. While I was gone I did notice how boring you all really all. Luckily I am back to bring the forum back to life.

No one brought up one of the most controversial cases in the Nation:

http://6abc.com/news/stand-your-ground-law-may-be-tested-in-teens-killings/1824693/

It involves

white v. minority

"Assault type" weapons

Stand your ground law

and someone charged with murder without even being there.









Also NC reversed its "bathroom law"

Who thought this one was controversial?

Three guys break in with knives and get shot.  The ring leader (who the news here called a "mastermind" despite all the horrible decisions she made) ran, got caught and admitted the whole thing.

Pretty cut and dry there.

And NC showed that the GOP has strong ethics and morals....until the old pocketbook takes a hit.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-31-2017, 10:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Who thought this one was controversial?

I'd guess people who think "assault weapons" have no legitimate self defense purpose.

Quote:Three guys break in with knives and get shot.  The ring leader (who the news here called a "mastermind" despite all the horrible decisions she made) ran, got caught and admitted the whole thing.

Pretty cut and dry there.

And NC showed that the GOP has strong ethics and morals....until the old pocketbook takes a hit.  

Check, The Trace, Everytown and Moms Demand Action.  All of them make arguments that "assault weapons" serve no legitimate civilian purpose.  They are weapons of war!  Now that i think about it, there have been several posters on this board who've made similar arguments.  

[GMDino]

(03-31-2017, 10:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd guess people who think "assault weapons" have no legitimate self defense purpose.

I guess. I suppose the choice of weapon in this case didn't raise many eyebrows given it actually WAS used for self defense.

(03-31-2017, 10:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Check, The Trace, Everytown and Moms Demand Action.  All of them make arguments that "assault weapons" serve no legitimate civilian purpose.  They are weapons of war!  Now that i think about it, there have been several posters on this board who've made similar arguments.  

I have zero idea what those are. I guess there can be a discussion about what you "need" versus what will "work" versus what you "want", but, again, in this case it was actually used for self defense so I don't see the problem.

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2017, 10:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd guess people who think "assault weapons" have no legitimate self defense purpose.


Check, The Trace, Everytown and Moms Demand Action.  All of them make arguments that "assault weapons" serve no legitimate civilian purpose.  They are weapons of war!  Now that i think about it, there have been several posters on this board who've made similar arguments.  

Most likely fortunate for the occupant that he had a weapon capable of taking down multiple armed intruders quickly as opposed to the type of weapon many think he should be allowed to have. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2017, 10:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Probably wasn't brought up because it is not controversial.

Everything is controversial. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-31-2017, 10:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess.  I suppose the choice of weapon in this case didn't raise many eyebrows given it actually WAS used for self defense.


I have zero idea what those are.  I guess there can be a discussion about what you "need" versus what will "work" versus what you "want", but, again, in this case it was actually used for self defense so I don't see the problem.

You, not surprisingly, miss the point.  The anti-2A crowd would prohibit this young man from owning the weapon he used to defend himself in this scenario.  The claim that such fire arms serve no legitimate civilian purpose is a common trope among these types.  The fact that you, personally, don't see a problem with this incident is irrelevant.  The fact that many are actively attempting to ban such firearms is.

(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely fortunate for the occupant that he had a weapon capable of taking down multiple armed intruders quickly as opposed to the type of weapon many think he should be allowed to have. 

I'm going to guess he didn't have a ten round magazine either.  Yes, it's supposition but I think it's a logical one.

[GMDino]

(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely fortunate for the occupant that he had a weapon capable of taking down multiple armed intruders quickly as opposed to the type of weapon many think he should be allowed to have. 

(03-31-2017, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everything is controversial. 

(03-31-2017, 10:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You, not surprisingly, miss the point.  The anti-2A crowd would prohibit this young man from owning the weapon he used to defend himself in this scenario.  The claim that such fire arms serve no legitimate civilian purpose is a common trope among these types.  The fact that you, personally, don't see a problem with this incident is irrelevant.  The fact that many are actively attempting to ban such firearms is.



I'm going to guess he didn't have a ten round magazine either.  Yes, it's supposition but I think it's a logical one.

Welp.  Seems like you two have a lot to talk about then.  The rest of us didn't have a problem with it.  Carry on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-31-2017, 11:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Welp.  Seems like you two have a lot to talk about then.  The rest of us didn't have a problem with it.  Carry on.

Glad you agree that gun control laws are both pointless and stupid.  Glad to have you aboard!

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2017, 11:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Welp.  Seems like you two have a lot to talk about then.  The rest of us didn't have a problem with it.  Carry on.

This is great. One former board point of contention settled. We all have no problem with civilians owning AR 15 and other "assault type" weapons for personal defense. 

What will we resolve next. 

[GMDino]

(03-31-2017, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Glad you agree that gun control laws are both pointless and stupid.  Glad to have you aboard!

Who said that?

I said in this case the weapon used was used for a good purpose.  I personally have said the same if he used anything he had.  

(03-31-2017, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is great. One former board point of contention settled. We all have no problem with civilians owning AK 15 and other "assault type" weapons for personal defense. 

What will we resolve next. 

I guess if you think one case will settle every discussion on it you guys can continue talking among yourselves.

[*bfine32*]

(03-31-2017, 11:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess if you think one case will settle every discussion on it you guys can continue talking among yourselves.

Sure I do, it's known as precedent 

If parties have argued in the past over a matter and then those that have argued against find a case that supports the for; then the matter is solved.

We will achieve harmony one case at a time. 

[Rotobeast]

(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely fortunate for the occupant that he had a weapon capable of taking down multiple armed intruders quickly as opposed to the type of weapon many think he should be allowed to have. 

C'mon...
An air-horn and a flintlock pistol would've been more than enough.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2017, 10:57 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: C'mon...
An air-horn and a flintlock pistol would've been more than enough.

Given how poorly this robbery was planned you might be right about that. 

[fredtoast]

So if a homeowner used sarin gass to defend his home you all would be in favor of letting everyone buy serin gas at WalMart?

The logic used by some people around here is comical.


"The fact that a homeowner used Sarin gas to defend his home proves that there is no reasn that everfyone should be allowed to buy it. Derp."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if a homeowner used sarin gass to defend his home you all would be in favor of letting everyone buy serin gas at WalMart?

Don't try and take the false equivalency crown from your side kick.

Quote:The logic used by some people around here is comical.

Indeed.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if a homeowner used sarin gass to defend his home you all would be in favor of letting everyone buy serin gas at WalMart?

The logic used by some people around here is comical.


"The fact that a homeowner used Sarin gas to defend his home proves that there is no reasn that everfyone should be allowed to buy it. Derp."

I don't recall any sarin gas debate occurring on these boards; however, I do recall "assault type' weapon debate(s).

So instead of trying to introduce a red herring and question the logic of others, why don't you give your thoughts on the actual event?



Never mind I know why...

[CKwi88]

With the Intruders dead, there is no reason not to believe it was in self defense, barring some very wacky forensic evidence.

Feel bad for the people who lost their lives/had to take lives/have to live with knowing they are partly responsible for this even happening in the first place.