Pretty sure the meaning was that OJ was found Not Guilty, therefore **Scumpup **must think he’s a Good Guy. 'Zat right?
Nope. big fella, I am just referencing things that you have told us on this very board. I take it from the scorn you are heaping on those ideas that you have now changed your mind? Surely your copious intellect is coupled with an equally mighty memory?
'Fraid you’re gonna need an explanation of that, including how it applies to the OJ comment the rest of us have been discussing.
That post, as short as it was, did showcase an impressive feat of mental gymnastics.
Yeah, based on some technicalities and some stupid actions by the prosecutor. I think it is a pretty rare situation where you can get away with threatening law enforcement with lethal force, and be acquitted by a jury of your peers.
I would not hesitate to apply the “thugs who wants to kill cops” label to them.
Good guys want guns to protect themselves from bad guys with guns. I have a question about this . If you support gun control, then I’m not interested in your answer. If you believe the Second Amendment is a God-given right that transcends any beliefs of the Founding Fathers, then I’m also not interested in your answer. If you support gun rights but believe the Second Amendment was a work of mortals rather than God then please help me understand your views — please answer the hypothetical question. Please don’t fight the hypothetical.
Imagine that a genie shows up; and with a wave of his wand he can eliminate all guns in the 50 states and make it impossible for new guns to be manufactured in, or imported into, the 50 states. Police and military still have guns but the genie’s power prevents them from being misused. With the same wand he can cause Congress and the states to vote to replace the 2nd Amendment with an Amendment confirming the general gun ban.
Let’s not debate whether such a genie is physically possible. Let’s stipulate that the genie exists and everyone is aware of his power.
No American will need to fear a bad guy with a gun anymore. Of course, you may still fear a bad guy with a knife, and want to carry a knife for protection.
Would you support this No-Gun regime?
No. Firearms are fantastic tools for self defense. They give the small, weak, infirm, and elderly a realistic chance of defending themselves from more physically-capable aggressors.
No. I am not in favor of the physically weak, the elderly, the members of social/ethnic/religious minorities, the just plain alone, etc. being left to the mercies of those who are stronger, more numerous, or just plain more vicious.
I’d do it if the genie could also invent a completely non-lethal device that could remotely stun someone with no lasting physical damage, long enough for them to be restrained and dealt with properly. (And believe me, such a device will eventually be invented, probably within 50 years.) That would be the ideal solution, to me. But in the absence of such a device, even without guns in society, people would still need to protect themselves from people trying to stab them or knock their heads in with baseball bats; and while a physically fit person would probably be able to hold their own, there’s still the issue of the physically incapacitated people which other posters have raised.
Sorry, should have quoted the first time.
Ask OJ about using a gun to steal your stuff back.
That post is positively Trumpian. You’ve a long history at this board of dancing around what law abiding means, using the term “good guys” (scare quotes yours) whether the person you are responding to did or not, the “one bad day” thing is yours. Anybody who wants to can search on your name and those terms. Your posts here, on the topic of gun rights, are my cite.
Ah, OK, gotcha. I thought you were referring to his Not Guilty verdict in his murder trial, therefore making him a Good Guy. My question about stealing your stuff back was meant to refer to the Sheriff of Nottingham’s taxes being theft rather than public policy, thereby legitimizing Robin Hood’s image as a Good Guy. The memorabilia OJ was stealing “back” had been legally seized for the Goldmans as part of the civil judgment, something not generally thought unjust.