- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,177
- Reaction score
- 1,458
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
yep thats it you just proved that you issue is with law
no its not MURDER because thats a legal term, there no murder without being found guilty of it
in your other example it depends on how you are using the words, if you steal something and are found not guilty, no you are not guilty of theft, you could be a thief (non legal) but you are not guilty of theft (legal)
i think the word you are looking for is killer
I would indeed be a killer but not a murderer
you back peddled because you tried to say im untrustworthy and what I said was against the law, that was wrong
then you back peddled again when you said my statement hurts my strict laws argument, it doe not
then you back peddled again when you tried to ADD things like imminent danger and unarmed then instead of me going to jail you said it wouldnt be easy, then you tried to say its a fact it be second degree murder which was also wrong because you tried to force the wrong argument on me.
Its a back pedal when you say something false, its proved wrong and you just move on to other things with new made up scenerios instead of addressing why you were already wrong.
now if im wrong please tell me what you argument is because you are all over the place. What is your argument?
My original statement still stands, i would have infact killed the guy and theres nothing in my statement that makes me a murder, untrustworthy or violates gun laws lol
Killer, murderer, semantics.
In case I wasn't clear, I support strict gun laws. You don't. Saying that you would kill (murder) an unarmed man, just because you can, hurts your position. It's attitudes like yours that gives us those strict gun laws you oppose.