Another Mall shooter finds his destiny... A good guy with a gun...

[Donald H]

You keep saying this. Do you know what happened in the Kenosha that night?

The first guy to get shot ran up behind Rittenhouse and attempted to grab his rifle WHILE another idiot fired a handgun in to the air -- an action almost CERTAIN to cause a shooting (and did cause a shooting). That guy was never charged with a crime, even though his actions STARTED the shooting.

This is validation of the idea that vigilantes can be granted 'special' 2a rights to prevent a mass shooting. Kyle killed/murdered,whatever the bad guys first and he did it legally. This suggests that aremed vigilantes could be successful.

From there came a chain of events where leftist assholes were trying to get vengeance on Rittenhouse, who was obviously not attacking but fleeing, trying to surrender to police.

Right. Only I have to disagree on the leftist assholes. IMHO you all have the potential to be that.

Rittenhouse ONLY engaged hostile targets to PERFECTION.

Total prefection!
And in other similar situations the new vigilantes, special police, regime's police could be granted 'special' rights to shoot first when they see a leftist dressed up in his camo costume carrying an AR-15 or a JR-15. There's hardly any doubt what he's up to!

So, I don't know what point you are trying to make with that example.

The Kyle incident demonstrates great potential for vigilantes who could act proactively. Don't you agree?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is validation of the idea that vigilantes can be granted 'special' 2a rights to prevent a mass shooting. Kyle killed/murdered,whatever the bad guys first and he did it legally. This suggests that aremed vigilantes could be successful.

But, as you now know, Kyle did NOT fire the first shot and was not the aggressor. So, no. An armed person cannot engage another justifiably without the other FIRST being an aggressor. NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY, YOU CANNOT PREVENT VIOLENCE. A violent person will strike before a defense can be mounted....ALWAYS. YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT without going full-blown Minority Report.

And in other similar situations the new vigilantes, special police, regime's police could be granted 'special' rights to shoot first when they see a leftist dressed up in his camo costume carrying an AR-15 or a JR-15. There's hardly any doubt what he's up to!

That's NOT how it works, Mr. Minority Report. The guy dressed up, ready to do some shit must ACTUALLY do some shit before civilians can engage. PERIOD.

The Kyle incident demonstrates great potential for vigilantes who could act proactively. Don't you agree?

NOTHING. I REPEAT. NOTHING Kyle did was "proactive." He was 100% reactive.

I don't know what bullshit point you are trying to make, but it sounds like you're doing your best Biff impersonation and being a snarky shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is validation of the idea that vigilantes can be granted 'special' 2a rights....

Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?

 

[Donald H]

Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?

A less tolerant duck would report you for repeating the same message 5 or more times already!

 

[M14 Shooter]

A less tolerant duck would report you for repeating the same message 5 or more times already!

I don't see an answer to my by question:
Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?
Well?

 

[woodwork201]

I question if there would be anything unconstitutional with taking a test before being allowed to vote. I think it would solve a lot of our political problems. I would like to weed out people like the Obama Phone and Obama money ladies. Our founders never intended for people with no money being able to vote for reps that promised to take money from people that had it to give to them. Even our founders didn't think it was a good idea for everybody to vote as a right. That came later on.

How did we end up with a fool like Biden for President? People use the same criteria to elect representatives as they did their favorite American Idol contestant. They don't base it on what they've done in the past, it's a personality contest with them. Let's face it, Trump has an abrasive personality. A friend of mine recently passed away. She told me of when she went to a gas station and made a comment about the prices to the lady filling up next to her. The woman responded "I don't care if it's $10.00 a gallon, as long as Trump isn't President anymore!" Those are the people that shouldn't be voting.

I like to use this scenario I created: Let's say the MLB decided that managers or owners didn't pick the players anymore. They will let the people of their city pick the players instead. In your city, anybody can vote on players: their nationality, their race, how cute they are, just any reason they want. In my city, you had to demonstrate an acute knowledge of baseball to be able to vote on players. Which one of our teams will do the best that year?

You're right about voting in the US from 1789 until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. But that all changed. Now they cannot ban anyone from voting except for commission a crime. Therefore, they cannot require a fee, a test, training, or anything else that would prevent someone from voting.

Technically, I will admit, you're right, though. Technically, they can pass such a requirement but doing so would reduce the number of representatives in Congress that the state would get.

Interestingly, the right to vote is the only right that the Constitution explicitly allows to be stripped for commission of a crime but, no, you can't translate that explicit statement to all other rights; the context and intent was clearly about voting only.

 

[WEATHER53]

A less tolerant duck would report you for repeating the same message 5 or more times already!

So answer then.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And should only those who take it serious enough to study for a test be allowed to vote? (I sure wish it were so). Should only lawyers get a lawyer? Should there be a test/certification process for the free press? Hillary sure thought so; do you?

At this point, I would no longer oppose returning to only property owners voting.

A year should show if there are serious issues with Constitutional Carry.

It's been in force over a year in many places. No issues at all.

Don’t we have have mandatory classes on civics, the Constitution, early American history and our system of government as part of our school curriculum?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wait...you're serious?

 

[Flash]

This is validation of the idea that vigilantes can be granted 'special' 2a rights to prevent a mass shooting. Kyle killed/murdered,whatever the bad guys first and he did it legally. This suggests that aremed vigilantes could be successful.

Right. Only I have to disagree on the leftist assholes. IMHO you all have the potential to be that.

Total prefection!
And in other similar situations the new vigilantes, special police, regime's police could be granted 'special' rights to shoot first when they see a leftist dressed up in his camo costume carrying an AR-15 or a JR-15. There's hardly any doubt what he's up to!

The Kyle incident demonstrates great potential for vigilantes who could act proactively. Don't you agree?

The vigilantes were the BLM/ANTIFA assholes that ere destroying the city. The ones that took it on themselves to attack a kid because he helped put out one of their street fires.

The police advocated their responsibility to protect the public by standing down to the mob rule.

 

[Donald H]

So answer then.

I've already answered Shooter. I don't hate anything about the incident of course. I'm mildly disappointed that the shooter got his mass shooting in before the 'good guy' could stop him.

That's the reason I'm trying to promote vigilantes for America's problem with guns.

They don't necessarily be 'Stromtroopers' to be given special rights and privileges.

 

[Donald H]

The vigilantes were the BLM/ANTIFA assholes that ere destroying the city. The ones that took it on themselves to attack a kid because he helped put out one of their street fires.

The police advocated their responsibility to protect the public by standing down to the mob rule.

Then both sides need vigilantes or stormtroopers too.

 

[WEATHER53]

Skilled, sane and sober people carrying weapons are valuable to society.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The shooter may have been done and maybe not, but he got his mass shooting and there was no way of preventing that.

That's the reason why I'm suggesting that american needs vigilantes who can spot a potential shooter and then shoot first. Sort of like the police do in a limited way.

You got the wrong impression if you think I want you all to give up your guns. For nearly a month now I've been saying it's the American culture of war and killing people that's the problem.

Having said that, there's still the issue of being able to stop a mass shooter before he goes off and starts.

We need to get on to the idea of vigilantes and them being granted second amendment privileges that will allow them to be proactive.

The term 'proactive' needs to be examined more closely. It doesn't have to mean murdering a shooter on a hunch. The Rittenhouse incident can promise some possibilities!

You need a prefrontal.

Why do you hate the fact Dicken stopped this shooter?

Because he WANTS and NEEDS a high body count. He MUST have dead children.

 

[Donald H]

You need a prefrontal.

Because he WANTS and NEEDS a high body count. He MUST have dead children.

That's not true but it's a good reason why we should include the potential of the new JR-15 in the discussion.

 

[Donald H]

The vigilantes were the BLM/ANTIFA assholes that ere destroying the city. The ones that took it on themselves to attack a kid because he helped put out one of their street fires.

The police advocated their responsibility to protect the public by standing down to the mob rule.

Are you sure that 'advocated' is the word you intended?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need a prefrontal.

Because he WANTS and NEEDS a high body count. He MUST have dead children.

He does.
And he hates anything that gets in the way.

 

[Desperado]

This is how you end up as a Mass Shooter in an Open Carry State!

 

[Flash]

Then both sides need vigilantes or stormtroopers too.

Nope, you are wrong. I don't think the term vigilante means what you think it means.

The BLM/ANTFIA shitheads were the aggressors and the ones that started and perpetrated the destruction.

None of the several citizens that testified in the trial said they went downtown to do anything more than protect the property that the police refused to protect. That is NOT being a vigilant by any definition.

The BLM/ANTIFA shits were the ones doing all the damage. They took it upon themselves to attack a kid that had only tried to put out one of their street fires.They were the ones that fired the first shot. They were taking the law into their own hands to punish a kid that they felt was opposing their agenda and that is the element that makes them vigilantes.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here it is again.:

Look how many magazines that motherfucker was carrying. He was expecting to kill 100 people.

Poor worthless dead motherfucker.

Every gun grabbing cocksucker in the world is livid at this little piece of shit stain didn't even have time to reload.



I would walk right up to that rotting carcass and piss in his face.

 

[Donald H]

Here it is again.:

Look how many magazines that motherfucker was carrying. He was expecting to kill 100 people.

Poor worthless dead motherfucker.

Every gun grabbing cocksucker in the world is livid at this little piece of shit stain didn't even have time to reload.



I would walk right up to that rotting carcass and piss in his face.

Aren't you kicking it up a notch by using the word I've bolded/ I don't know what the moderators think of it's use but I'm not going to report it. I've reported my share already.