Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns

Quote from PiggyBank:

Right, I was talking about you being stupid.. and here you are continuing on that path. I can't imagine that a jury would EVER convict someone who is licensed to carry, pulling out his weapon in FUCKING OBVIOUS SELF-DEFENSE and killing an innocent bystander by accident (it wouldn't even cross my mind). Remember, there was a heavily armed retard indiscriminately attempting to MASS MURDER the whole crowd of innocent people.

We have a second amendment, we have a right to protect ourselves.. it is a good thing. Accept it.
More...
you are wrong. you are responsible for where your bullets go.

try thinking a little bit. you are in a dark theater. you hear a gunshot from behind. you pull your gun and turn around. you see 5 guys standing up with guns. which one do you shoot. maybe they are all working together.
and dont forget. if you kill the wrong guy you are going to prison.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

...you are in a dark theater. you hear a gunshot from behind. you pull your gun and turn around.


you see 5 guys standing up with guns. which one do you shoot. maybe they are all working together.
More...
Is this hypothetical scenario before or after the proposed magazine capacity limit?

If before, obviously you shoot them all.

If after, well then you'd have to shirt the two that look the most serious, reload shoot the next two most serious, reload and take out the 5th guy.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

I did.

" flaming liberal ass hole who ignored the "no guns" sign on the door"


The flaming liberal ass hole was the shooter, who ignored the "No Guns" sign.

And you claim to be a college grad?
More...
Luke . . . what he meant was if there was ''no guns'' sign then the law abiding movie goers must have left their firearms at the door.If that was the case, then how were they going to shoot back....huh ?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

I did.

" flaming liberal ass hole who ignored the "no guns" sign on the door"


The flaming liberal ass hole was the shooter, who ignored the "No Guns" sign.

And you claim to be a college grad?
More...
But the movie goers who were hypothetically shooting back did not ignore the "no guns" sign?
 
Quote from Spiker:

Luke . . . what he meant was if there was ''no guns'' sign then the law abiding movie goers must have left their firearms at the door.If that was the case, then how were they going to shoot back....huh ?
More...
You'll have to excuse Lucrum. He's an idiot.
 
Quote from Spiker:

Luke . . . what he meant was if there was ''no guns'' sign then the law abiding movie goers must have left their firearms at the door.If that was the case, then how were they going to shoot back....huh ?
More...

No moron want he meant was he thought I said the audience ignored the sign.
Only that's NOT what I said.

So again I beg you. Please stop posting to me. Your comments are so fucking ridiculous it gives me a headache just reading them.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:



The first step toward insanity is the suspension of rational thinking.
More...

And YOU have mastered it beautifully, well done.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

you are wrong. you are responsible for where your bullets go.

try thinking a little bit. you are in a dark theater. you hear a gunshot from behind. you pull your gun and turn around. you see 5 guys standing up with guns. which one do you shoot. maybe they are all working together.
More...

I'm right. There is no possible case for charging the guy attempting to take out the REAL LIFE mass murderer who IS killing people. the premise of that case would essentially be - you don't have a right to defend yourself. All u can do is sit there and cry or run and hope u don't get shot in the back.

Your argument is akin to saying that after 9/11 we should have just left the terrorists alone because innocent lives would be lost when trying to kill those responsible, OR we should have stayed out of WWII after Pearl Harbor because innocent people would die when we went to war. or maybe those guys and girls on Flight 93 shouldn't have attempted to take out the terrorists on board because the plane could have landed in a neighborhood and killed innocent people. If you believe ANY of this shit, you need to pull your pants down, reach up into your gaping ass with both hands, and give your head a good yank. I'm no doctor but it seems like this will work, if not, what's the difference?

If there is one right that no one can possibly take from you, it is the right to LIFE. this piece of shit put these peoples lives in jeopardy they have every right to respond in kind. I gotta tell ya if my life is ever on the line, in a situation like this, the last thing on earth I will give a flying fuck about is "how will others judge my actions." By the way, if you would convict a guy for shooting back because he killed an innocent by accident, you are unfit for jury duty.. that would be a win for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top