Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:52:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
787 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Trobaugh writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > >
> > > > > That argument won't stand up in court. Well, maybe it will in Texas...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here’s where I got this: http://64.78.178.125/stat00/index.htm
> > > > Need I say more?
> > >
> > > (clipping lengthy legal text - see previous message if you need to)
> > >
> > > No, you needn't say more: it's reassuring that I got it right. You can't
> > > shoot someone for stealing a crust of bread. There has to be the reasonable
> > > belief that the person is going to do something extremely dangerous
> > > (physical assault, arson, kidnap, murder. etc.). Someone being in your
> > > house uninvited is NOT open season to shoot first and ask questions later.
> > > It's pretty darn clear about it.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> >
> >
> > Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm.
> > If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be
> > there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their
> > intentions, when it comes to my family shooting first will be my response.
>
>
> *Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case
> for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law
> than the various responses I'm getting. :-)
>
> Bruce
Well Bruce, I'll let you in on the fact that I worked for the Fulton County
Sheriff's department for 4 years, and was well trained on how to use my
firearm. Also I was very aware of what intruders can do when they break into
a person's home, I've seen the results in person. So believe me when I say
any one who breaks into someone's home is considered a dangerous threat, and
should be treated as such.
jt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Yes, and you get to shoot those kind of people. I wasn't arguing that. Just blasting away is on dangerous legal grounds is what I was talking about. Odds are you can get away with it. Odds are you were right. But there are enough dead innocent (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) *Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law than the various responses I'm getting. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
