So what is your explanation for the preponderance of black on white crime and the all too frequent sensless viciousness manifested in it? And dont tell me it's because they werent raised in Montanas loving atmosphere.
Why do you think Antelope Sniper was raised in Montana?
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
It's not so much that you are rude, but disappointing. I'm disappointed that a man of your intelligence, has allowed himself to abandon his skepticism in pursuit of half baked conspiracy theories, especially those founded in racial bigotry . You know The Constitution and founding principles better than most, but for you the proposition that all men are created equal seem to only encompass non-Jewish white males.
No one here is denying there's problems within the black community. I've suggested that if it's what some here really want to discuss, lets not conflate the two issues and start a separate thread on that separate subject, because conflating the two, doesn't help.
You are way to serious a person, especially as a concealed carrier to not take seriously the facts as laid out in the video I presented, regardless of the race of the pro-2A attorney presenting them. You watch the Active Self Defense video's. I expect you are aware the aggressors violated about every principle there is pertaining to armed self defense. So yes, I'm disappointed you went straight to "oh of course he black", as opposed to actually addressing the content of his speech.
You share with the left a tendency to impute evil on those with whom you disagree. I don't consider you to be evil because you disagree with me on many subjects. I just assume that it's due to many years of programming, starting in early childhood, that you are unable to overcome or rise above.
Again you disappoint me with your failure to pay attention. I'm actually on the opposite end of that spectrum. "Evil" generally required intent. Most liberals are not evil, they are just wrong, and unable to see the consequences of the policies they propose.
Likewise I think many of the conspiracy theories to which you ascribe are best dismissed with Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity",
So what is your explanation for the preponderance of black on white crime and the all too frequent sensless viciousness manifested in it? And dont tell me it's because they werent raised in Montanas loving atmosphere.
The numbers show that violent crime crosses racial boundaries infrequently. You aren't interested in the answer to your question. If you were, you'd look at the crime rate of black Americans who grow up in two parent homes outside of the ghetto and have an opportunity for a good education and learn a little from it.
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.
Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.
Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.
They got their guns for the purpose of confronting this person without legal justification. The guns were not slung on their backs or in their holsters, they were at the ready when they initiated the confrontation, so yea, they were the aggressors. If anyone had the right to stand his ground in self defense, it was the dead man.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
This.
Would you also like to take place in the self-policing challenge?
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
We'll put your theories to the test. 45 minutes in a self-policed community.
You can't run, and you can't fight.
LMAO
We had a heroin addict breaking into cars at night recently. I heard some commotion on the blind side of my house where some cars are parked, so I went out to see what was going on. Should I have been killed for that?
LOL! The neighbor's guest never knew I had a .38 in my hand.
It's not so much that you are rude, but disappointing. I'm disappointed that a man of your intelligence, has allowed himself to abandon his skepticism in pursuit of half baked conspiracy theories, especially those founded in racial bigotry . You know The Constitution and founding principles better than most, but for you the proposition that all men are created equal seem to only encompass non-Jewish white males.
No one here is denying there's problems within the black community. I've suggested that if it's what some here really want to discuss, lets not conflate the two issues and start a separate thread on that separate subject, because conflating the two, doesn't help.
You are way to serious a person, especially as a concealed carrier to not take seriously the facts as laid out in the video I presented, regardless of the race of the pro-2A attorney presenting them. You watch the Active Self Defense video's. I expect you are aware the aggressors violated about every principle there is pertaining to armed self defense. So yes, I'm disappointed you went straight to "oh of course he black", as opposed to actually addressing the content of his speech.
You share with the left a tendency to impute evil on those with whom you disagree. I don't consider you to be evil because you disagree with me on many subjects. I just assume that it's due to many years of programming, starting in early childhood, that you are unable to overcome or rise above.
Again you disappoint me with your failure to pay attention. I'm actually on the opposite end of that spectrum. "Evil" generally required intent. Most liberals are not evil, they are just wrong, and unable to see the consequences of the policies they propose.
Likewise I think many of the conspiracy theories to which you ascribe are best dismissed with Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity",
So what is your explanation for the preponderance of black on white crime and the all too frequent sensless viciousness manifested in it? And dont tell me it's because they werent raised in Montanas loving atmosphere.
It's a multi-factored problem best not discussed in polite company.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
We had a heroin addict breaking into cars at night recently. I heard some commotion on the blind side of my house where some cars are parked, so I went out to see what was going on. Should I have been killed for that?
LOL! The neighbor's guest never knew I had a .38 in my hand.
That's my self-policing community.
GREAT analogy.
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
This.
Would you also like to take place in the self-policing challenge?
Hawkeye still mad that dummy who got pushed down in a parking lot got sent up.
Feller finally got to FINALLY kill a black guy and look what they did to him.
We'll put your theories to the test. 45 minutes in a self-policed community.
You can't run, and you can't fight.
LMAO
We had a heroin addict breaking into cars at night recently. I heard some commotion on the blind side of my house where some cars are parked, so I went out to see what was going on. Should I have been killed for that?
LOL! The neighbor's guest never knew I had a .38 in my hand.
That's my self-policing community.
You are asking the wrong question. Should you have entered into an armed confrontation with the neighbor's guest?
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.
Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.
Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.
They got their guns for the purpose of PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM A POSSIBLE DANGEROUS OR INSANE person. The guns were not slung on their backs or in their holsters, they were at the ready when they initiated the confrontation, so yea, they were the aggressors. If anyone had the right to stand his ground in self defense, it was the dead man.
But it's ok when the popo are the aggressors when trying to stop, investigate, or arrest someone.
Here's a novel idea.
"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."
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.
Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.
Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.
They got their guns for the purpose of confronting this person without legal justification. The guns were not slung on their backs or in their holsters, they were at the ready when they initiated the confrontation, so yea, they were the aggressors. If anyone had the right to stand his ground in self defense, it was the dead man.
Yes. This is my take and better said than my post by far
So what is your explanation for the preponderance of black on white crime and the all too frequent sensless viciousness manifested in it? And dont tell me it's because they werent raised in Montanas loving atmosphere.
Why do you think Antelope Sniper was raised in Montana?
Because hes so PC.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
So what is your explanation for the preponderance of black on white crime and the all too frequent sensless viciousness manifested in it? And dont tell me it's because they werent raised in Montanas loving atmosphere.
What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.
Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.
Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.
They got their guns for the purpose of PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM A POSSIBLE DANGEROUS OR INSANE person. The guns were not slung on their backs or in their holsters, they were at the ready when they initiated the confrontation, so yea, they were the aggressors. If anyone had the right to stand his ground in self defense, it was the dead man.
But it's ok when the popo are the aggressors when trying to stop, investigate, or arrest someone.
Um, yes. They have the statutory authority and the it's their paid duty to stop, investigate and arrest. For good reason, civilians aren't granted as broad authority, and it's not their paid duty to do that.
