Instant justice

[Troglodyte]

He has also never said that immigrant lives fetal lives or criminal lives are good or bad lives. He has attempted to equate the lives of the aborted fetus, tthe immigrant, and the criminal.

He has attempted saying that being outraged over the abortion of babies while accepting the death of these three is somehow hypocrisy.

He has argued that it is a hypocrisy to worry about the future of aborted babies while not caring about the potential future of immigrants.

Scattered is an understatement.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

No. The hypocrisy is celebrating a person's death while being "pro-life". You (supposedly) believe in the sanctity of life and yet clearly don't believe in redemption. You are confident that a pregnancy is God's plan, but have no confidence or patience for God's plan to ultimately deal with sinners.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No. The hypocrisy is celebrating a person's death while being "pro-life". You (supposedly) believe in the sanctity of life and yet clearly don't believe in redemption. You are confident that a pregnancy is God's plan, but have no confidence or patience for God's plan to ultimately deal with sinners.

Once again your inability to comprehend leads you down a rabbit hole.

Saying they got what they deserved and "good"that that the homeowner was victorious is not equal to celebrating. Jesus what a dumbass.

One thing is for sure, you've no clue what I believe in. As scattered and random as your thoughts are, and as much as your arguments waver and how often you backtrack, I'm pretty confident you don't know what you want.



Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[mightyguru]

Why is a story about somebody defending their house in political?

 

[IndySteel]

Why is a story about somebody defending their house in political?

2nd amendment. Libtards would rather ban guns so he couldn't protect himself, his family, his possessions...

 

[Steelin]

2nd amendment. Libtards would rather ban guns so he couldn't protect himself, his family, his possessions...

If it saves just one life...nevermind all of the lost lives due to the criminals.

 

[mightyguru]

2nd amendment. Libtards would rather ban guns so he couldn't protect himself, his family, his possessions...

Not true. That's a ****** blanket statement. I don't want any guns taken away. And don't call me libtard.

 

[IndySteel]

not true. That's a ****** blanket statement. I don't want any guns taken away. And don't call me libtard.

libtard

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I've been stuck in travel hell the past couple days, but wanted to add, now that I'm back in front of a keyboard...

Trog's put forward this notion that this is an either/or scenario. That we either celebrate their deaths, or we lament their deaths. That premise is where his notion breaks down, before it even begins. To him and other Libtards, there's no other option. Just the two. There are other permutations to this situation that the Liberal mind can't fathom.

I celebrate all life. I've mentioned many times on this board that Malcolm X is one of my two heroes. Why him? Because he was a bad dude. He turned his life around. Became holy. Then changed a 2nd time. Most humans can't fundamentally change once. In his early days, he was known as 'Red' when he was a hoodlum in Boston, breaking and entering and stealing from people. I'm glad beyond belief he survived his own evil ways and became a productive, world-changing person and that he never killed an innocent person. But I also realize he put a lot of people's lives at risk in those early days. And had he found a bullet and died, I'd have said good. He was putting innocent lives at risk and could have snuffed out a life. And he would have deserved the end he met.

Those three people that died may have had productive lives like Malcolm did. But we will never know. I'm sad for that, but also glad. And it is possible to feel that way. To feel sad that 3 souls were lost that, had they had the right influence, may have been productive, loving humans. But the same could be said for John Wayne Gacy. No one got to him. Many died at his hand. Too bad he didn't meet a gun early on.

These three criminals - for that's what they are - brandished weapons and may have killed innocents. They died. I say good. It's sad that they weren't redeemed before making such a dumb, and fateful decision. But they went to the point of putting innocent lives at risk. And the bad guys died at the hand of the good guy. Being glad that the good guy got the bad guys is not equivalent to celebrating their deaths. It's a "too bad" situation. "Too bad they died, but so glad innocent humans didn't die. Happy for this outcome v one where the innocents were slaughtered by criminals."

Hard for Libs to understand, I know.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Swing, miss.

At least these souls had a chance at life, a chance to turn into decent human beings. Thankfully they've been eradicated after being given their chance at life.

Those aborted souls...one will never know, eh?

Pure innocent souls. If you live by the sword you will die by the sword. Those fully grown adults who know right from wrong chose poorly. That's on them.

 

[wig]

My opinion on handgun ownership and usage has changed over the years, entirely due to conversations on this board.

I do believe a person has the right to defend himself or herself and certainly his or her home. That just makes sense. If somebody breaks into your home and you truly believe they intend to do you deadly harm, I believe you have the right and obligation to protect your family. On the other hand, if you are merely exercising deadly force for the joy of it, if, for example you were aware that only 1 person had a knife but you shot all three anyway, well - that's murder. Particularly if they were trying to escape. Your situation goes from one of trying to protect yourself to one of attempting to kill people on your property who are no longer threats. However it would likely be very difficult to prove this so, we shall assume that the homeowner was simply under the assumption that all the assailants were armed and planned to do deadly harm to members in the house. A perfectly logical assumption.

Now, a fellow was just arrested in NY for firing at least 10 rounds outside his home as two men attempted to kidnap his fiance. This is much more complicated. He fired shots randomly into the neighborhood. While he WAS legitimately trying to defend his fiance and he was in fact successful, what if one of his rounds had hit a neighbor? Is is that murder? Is that manslaughter? How can it not be? How is he not completely legally responsible for discharging a weapon in a neighborhood indiscriminately? He didn't HIT either of the alleged kidnappers. So that means 10 rounds or more went into the surrounding neighborhood. The fact that he DIDN'T hit anybody is virtually a miracle.

So, while you certainly have the right to protect yourself and I will defend that vehemently, you are also responsible for any potential collateral damage or harm you may do while defending yourself. This is inescapable as you're using a weapon of deadly force. Assuming each person accepts that responsibility, there's no problem.