*you'reOf course it matters, your comparing apples and oranges. Is horse thieving still punishable by death like in the 18oo's ? Nope, again apples and oranges.
*you're
There is a good reason to use the ignore button lol I tend to ignore stupid.
Personally, I would consider shooting looters in the act to be unconstitutional.I made a point. My point is valid. Other than that I don't really care enough to debate it.
Personally, I would consider shooting looters in the act to be unconstitutional.
There's that whole bit about a right to due process, I forget the specifics.
I'm unreasonably irritated by incorrect usage of 'you're' and 'your'.your point?
Making something legal doesn't make it constitutional.Shooting looters is unconstitutional... I have not stated that it is legal, only that it could be made legal and THEN it could happen.
I'm unreasonably irritated by incorrect usage of 'you're' and 'your'.
Making something legal doesn't make it constitutional.
You got that correct
Can you shoot looters if they loot shooters?
Or maybe if they boot scooters.... or toot hooters.... sorry I been drinking a little...
Unbelievable how the shooting looters topic had ten times more response than any legitimate topic.
Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
For the love of all that is holy. After wading through 49 pages of this crap, I'm all for shooting gun-toting kiwis (apterygidae) who advocate the shooting of looters even if it is both illegal and unconstitutional! :roll: Such determined troll-like behaviour should be a capital offence against the natural laws of the universe. Caveat Apteryx!
A pox on both your main islands!
Angry Evilroddy.