• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Good look for the pro gun crowd?

Good look for the pro gun crowd?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Yes, this is beneficial to the pro gun crowd

    Votes: 8 47.1%

  • No, not a good look

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
swing_voter said:
Click to expand...


What is the provenance of this scene?

Is that their private property?

From the link site page:

A social media video showed the armed couple standing outside their large home Sunday evening in the upscale Central West End neighborhood of the Missouri city.
Click to expand...
YouTube

So it appears they were letting people know this was their property and they would defend it.

I guess it now depends on what the "brandishing" laws say in regards to home defense/property rights for that jurisdiction.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What is the provenance of this scene?

Is that their private property?

From the link site page:

YouTube

So it appears they were letting people know this was their property and they would defend it.

I guess it now depends on what the "brandishing" laws say in regards to home defense/property rights for that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...



Oh, the black people were breaking into their house? I didn't see that.


If that's their house, they are a lot richer than they dress. Maybe they're the servants?
 
swing_voter said:
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see what the ammosexuals have to say about this. Private property, blah, blah, gun ownership rights, blah blah, shouldn't have been around.

They were on the sidewalk. Does she bring out her gun when someone takes an evening stroll on the sidewalk? Maybe when someone walks the dog?

I'll bet the mail carrier is terrified.

Oh wait -- :roll:
 
swing_voter said:
Oh, the black people were breaking into their house? I didn't see that.


If that's their house, they are a lot richer than they dress. Maybe they're the servants?
Click to expand...

Did you watch your own video?

Looked like a mixed crowd to me, or do you only see "Black" when you watch such reports?

Then an ad hominem attack on the property owners. :roll:

You don't have any right to be on anyone's property without their express permission.

Meanwhile, after viewing the random destruction of public and private property, I don't think it is necessarily a "bad thing" to tell people to get off your property, and show you mean business.

Or would you prefer we start pulling up video of store/home owners doing the same in areas with the threat of rioting?

Still, it remains (as I clearly stated) how the laws of that jurisdiction can and/or will be applied to the situation.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure assault with a deadly weapon is a forcible felony and thus according to SYG shooting her would not result in being charged.
 
Did the woman even have a firearm?

:mrgreen:

One of the other videos identifies the homeowners as lawyers.....
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm pretty sure assault with a deadly weapon is a forcible felony and thus according to SYG shooting her would not result in being charged.
Click to expand...


That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
 
:laughat:
Superfly said:
Can't wait to see what the ammosexuals have to say about this. Private property, blah, blah, gun ownership rights, blah blah, shouldn't have been around.

They were on the sidewalk. Does she bring out her gun when someone takes an evening stroll on the sidewalk? Maybe when someone walks the dog?

I'll bet the mail carrier is terrified.

Oh wait -- :roll:
Click to expand...
:lamo
Typical leftist nonsense.
They were trespassing on private property.

new-jersey-2nd-amendment-3.jpg
 
Captain Adverse said:
Did you watch your own video?

Looked like a mixed crowd to me, or do you only see "Black" when you watch such reports?

Then an ad hominem attack on the property owners. :roll:

You don't have any right to be on anyone's property without their express permission.

Meanwhile, after viewing the random destruction of public and private property, I don't think it is necessarily a "bad thing" to tell people to get off your property, and show you mean business.

Or would you prefer we start pulling up video of store/home owners doing the same in areas with rioting?

Still, it remains (as I clearly stated) how the laws of that jurisdiction can and/or will be applied to the situation.
Click to expand...

If you are outnumbered, you make yourself a target by brandishing. Better to remain in the house and only expose the weapon when you intend to use it. And best to intend to use it only if you are in legitimate fear for your life.
 
swing_voter said:
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
Click to expand...

When she pointed it at people. Kinda puts her mistake in perspective.
 
ecofarm said:
When she pointed it at people. Kinda puts her mistake in perspective.
Click to expand...
iLOL She made no mistake.

The protesters made a mistake by trespassing on private property.
 
swing_voter said:
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
Click to expand...

A lawyer could make that argument. There is no guarantee that argument would hold up in court, however.

In any case, brandishing a firearm is always stupid unless you have law enforcement responsibilities.
 
swing_voter said:
That's a very good point. The moment she whips out that gun, if someone shot her dead, that would be self defense.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
They were on their property and the protestors were trespassing.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
A lawyer could make that argument. There is no guarantee that argument would hold up in court, however.
Click to expand...

If what she did is a forcible felony, and I believe it is, then there are no lawyers involved under SYG. Shooting someone for a documented forcible felony in progress means you are not arrested.

There's no charge and no lawyer.
 
ecofarm said:
If what she did is a forcible felony, and I believe it is, then there are no lawyers involved under SYG. Shooting someone for a documented forcible felony in progress means you are not arrested.
Click to expand...

If it is ruled a forcible felony, then yes. If she was on her own property, and especially if the person she aimed the firearm at was also on her property, then she may not be guilty of anything thanks to the castle doctrine.

And even if the shooting were ruled self-defense and the shooter was not arrested, he or she could still be sued. And the hypothetical victim looks like her family could afford some good lawyers.
 
lwf said:
If it is ruled a forcible felony, then yes. If she was on her own property, and especially if the person she aimed the firearm at was also on her property, then she may not be guilty of anything thanks to the castle doctrine.

And even if the shooting were ruled self-defense and the shooter was not arrested, he or she could still be sued. And the hypothetical victim looks like her family could afford some good lawyers.
Click to expand...

My claims presume the person firing at her was in legal possession of the firearm including not committing a crime at the time.

If forcible felony, no arrest. SYG protects from civil suit.

I'm pretty sure she could have been shot without any legal or civil repercussions. That's a big mistake on her part and she lives at the mercy of society.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
https://i.imgur.com/eBU3Y7Z.png[IMG]

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/xEawSpQ.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
[img]https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/new-jersey-2nd-amendment-3.jpg
Click to expand...
 
tacomancer said:
It looks like they have no excuse for not being trained. Just look at how she is holding that gun.
Click to expand...
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.
 
ecofarm said:
My claims presume the person firing at her was in legal possession of the firearm including not committing a crime at the time.

If forcible felony, no arrest. SYG protects from civil suit.
Click to expand...

SYG doesn't protect against a civil lawsuit. It may help you in defeating one, but you can still be sued. And depending on the quality of the lawyers, defeating the suit is not guaranteed even if you are protected from criminal prosecution under SYG.
 
Excon said:
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.
Click to expand...

A "private" neighborhood street is not her property.
 
Excon said:
She can hold it anyway she chooses to protest her property.
Click to expand...

And I can make fun of her for it. Seriously, look at this.

XVmaY8G.png


Terrible trigger discipline. The way she is holding it, there is no way to control her aim (and she not even attempting to aim), she is not looking where she is pointing.
 
ecofarm said:
A "private" neighborhood street is not her property.
Click to expand...
You have no actual point.
The protestors were trespassing and the property owners had every right to remain on their property with their guns to prevent any further crime from happening to their home or property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom