Still not safe,could have a Derringer up the bunghole.
And you’re exposing yourself, which is a sex crime.
[Free Waterfall, Senior]That’s nature’s pocket![/FWS]
[Chris Walken voice]I hid this uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass two years…[/CWv]
Nope. The two things are separate. But if it’s reasonable to imagine, based on the circumstances, that someone is an imminent threat, you can shoot them. The threat does not have to be real, it has to be apparent to a reasonable person.
There can be good faith debate about whether it was reasonable to think the perception of danger was reasonable in any given case - but repeatedly pointing out that someone was unarmed is utterly irrelevant.
And as the both of you have shown us repeatedly, neither you nor Smapti are reasonable people.
To state that as a fact, rather than backing it up with any sort of, well, reason, is somewhat ironic.
“Us”? Who is this “us” you are referring to? Does “us” refer to the people who object to anyone having a different opinion than “us” do? :rolleyes:
Example 1
Example 2
I’d just like to note that it’s posts like these that make the interweb so gosh darn interesting to read.
Well, we’d gladly lump you in with them, but it’d be easier if you changed your username to “sorehinge”.
I was thinking “unhinged”.
Well, if he became “offhinge”, we could call them the SoS gang. Somehow, SSd or SdS seem inapropos.
Was the question too difficult for you? You’re still referring to yourself in the plural sense. Who do you believe you represent?
FYI - there is no reason for you to change your nom de plume. Bryan Ekers would still mean Bryan Ekers, for whatever that’s worth. :rolleyes:
I think this one puts it in the “unhinged” column, Bryan.
Cite: This entire thread.
I’ve often suspected that you do a lot of thinking unhinged. It’s nice you can finally admit it. Which step is that in your recovery program?
It took you an hour and a half to basically say “I know you are but what am I?”
Sad.
In that particular context, smart-alecks.
It offers me the perfect comeback to the occasional claim that it’s easy to criticize from behind a veil of anonymity, i.e. someone is losing the argument, plays one of the few trump cards they think they have - “well, you’re just a bunch of anonymous internet cowards” or whatever.
Was there a time limit? Do you hear a ticking clock? Does anyone else hear your ticking clock? What makes you sad? Are you often sad? Does it make you sad that others do not devote all of their time waiting for your royal edicts? Do you realize that you’re not really the Czar of anything? What? Too soon? 
Okay, so I propose this triumvirate be known as “sus” for the purposes of mockery, though I will cheerfully acknowledge that doorhinge/unhinge might not be deserving of parity with Steophan and Smapti until he contributes quite a bit more to the thread.
ETA:
In light of the post immediately preceding this one, which sneaked in there while I was typing, I withdraw the proposal since doorhinge/unhinge is very clearly NOT deserving of parity with S&S since they’re mostly earnest in their irrationality and doorhinge is prone to outbursts of lame attempts at humour which undercuts anything serious he might have to say on the issue.