Jump to content
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • A person exercising their rights, breaking no law should not have a gun pointed at him. Care to explain how that is a strawman? The IRS is different?  How so?  A man following the law (the deputy) oh I can't be here with my gear?  okay i'll leave.  Rentacop procedes to point gun at a non threat.  And you think this is completely different?  Technically the rentacop was fired, arrested and charged.  Technically the deputy wasn't. So in your opinion anyone perceiving a threat is justified in taking lethal action against the perceived threat.   So when I see a bunch of guys in vests and black BDUs and cattying sidearms, i would be justified in pointing a gun at them?  Every Tuesday at lunch.  Funny how i am able to resist.  Man i dont even call the cops. Champion? No.  Support a person exercising their constituional protected rights absolutely. So your stance is  "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Unless I disagree or it might cause someone distress" My stance stops at the period.  
    • Strawman, again, really? Cant simplify it any further for you. I think you get the points made but it breaks your argument so here we go, strawman again.    You brought up the IRS guy. How about an actual response to my comments. Here they are again: But if you are referencing the guy that drew down on the local deputy at the IRS, guess what, he was actually correct that local LE does not have the authority to be armed on federal property. As I understand it that is the actual law. So now what? His judgement was poor but technically correct? Following your logic I would expect you to actually be siding with the security guard because the LAW says the deputy cannot be armed on the premises and the guard was following the law. BUT reasonable judgement would dictate no real threat existed. This is the exact flip side of wallmart. The deputy technically broke the law but was clearly not a threat. The "auditor" was within the law but one could easily articulate he looked like a threat given the totality of the circumstances and the timing of the Texas Wallmart shooting.  
    • Well isn't that great as long as you agree with the point of view all is wonderful.  If you don't agree its okay to shoot them.  
  • Create New...