Fuck, Lumpy, the only response you have for ElvisL1ves is to beat the fuck out of him? That is just pathetic. Destroy his words and leave the man staggering, or give up and admit that he has bested you.
Without your gun, you are a coward, unless you can defeat the foe with your keyboard.
There’s really not much to destroy when all Elvis does is foam at the mouth and hurl insults. Personally, I think that getting riled up over insults from Elvis is like getting upset that some homeless guy that talks to himself and drinks his own urine tells you that you smell funny.
Hey Lumpy: I disagree with you on practically everything (except guns) but Elvis is really beneath your contempt, don’t let him bother you.
I’ve been sick lately and it’s making me grouchier than usual.
Excuses excuses. 
All he does is froth and invective? What about
To me, that looks like a salient question. Granted, it does seem to be presented in a quasi-trollish fashion, but, insult notwithstanding, failing to address the question of who deserves proper killing leaves the room a bit of a mess when the elephant finishes with it.
Your firearm gives you the ability to decide who deserves killing, but it is only after the fact, blood on the floor, that it is determined whether you had the just right to make that decision. And sometimes it appears as though the ex post facto determination itself may end up being as arbitrarily flawed as your initial decision. To me, that looks like a problem – one which centers directly on the open-ended right to have lethal weapons at hand.
AFAICT Lumpy has answered this by referencing the law associated with justifiable homicide (and perhaps defense against tyranny). So maybe the question was salient the first time it was asked, after that its just foaming at the mouth.
A LOT of things give me the ability to decide who deserves killing. The law tells me when I am justified in doing so. If Lumpy has EVER promoted killing people outside of the bounds of what constitutes justifiable homicide (and perhaps defense against tyranny), can you provide a cite?
I’m not saying that there legitimate differences of opinion are not valid but anything Elvis says can generally be dismissed out of hand.
Well, he’s certainly expressed views on assaulting people with a lead pipe that fall outside the bounds of what is legally justifiable, but let’s chalk that one up to Pit-induced hyperbole.
The best revenge is to live well.
in bed.
The law merely informs us of what is or is not probably acceptable. And it is not consistent: when you can even discharge your firearm at all may not be legally the same in Early, Texas as it is in St. Cloud, Minnesota or Eugene, Oregon or Rocky Mount, North Carolina. It is not practical to have a lawyer at hand to advise you on the legal boundaries of whether killing someone is allowed just now, and real-world situations are very often legally, pragmatically and morally ambiguous. Should I simply be required to trust your judgement because you have a pistol on your hip?
And in terms of moral ambiguity, “defense against tyranny” is a conundrum. “Tyranny” is highly subjective: your idea of oppression and injustice is almost certainly not the same as that of PETA or Westboro, so who gets to decide right or wrong in these cases? Defense against tyranny is literally, by definition, against the law, so promoting the use of guns for that purpose is in fact outside the bounds of legal and/or justifiable, because there will always be dispute about the validity of the cause.
Which is a matter of opinion.
I do hope we can now consider the mental health, anger management, and law-abidingness issues to be settled.
Yeah, good luck with that.
You’ve gained control again?
Cool.
IOW no u, is that it? :rolleyes:
You are not trusting my judgement. You are trusting the folks who set the state standards for self defense. These standards fall into a few categories but almost all of them require that it is necessary to address a threat of death or grave bodily injury. This is true in almost every state, the rules may be a bit different if you are in your home. I have a CCW and I had to take a test that measured my understanding of when lethal force was justified. I was made very aware of the fact that the consequences were severe if I got this wrong.
The guys who legally carry a gun at their hip in public are, generally speaking, much more law abiding than the general population, in fact they are more law abiding than the police. So if you trust the police, then yes, you’re probably safe to trust the law abiding gun toting citizen.
Yes, I agree. This is why I put it in parentheses. I generally think defense against tyranny is bullshit fantasy harbored largely by sons of the confederacy, and conservatives. In a functional democracy, there is no such thing as tyranny. The government may collapse but we are so far removed from tyranny that I don’t really get the concern.
An opinion shared by some people on the gun control side of the argument and almost unanimously shared by the folks on the gun rights side of the argument. This is not to say that he cannot rehabilitate himself, but he doesn’t really show any signs of even trying.
A man allegedly shot and killed a woman after the two survived a car collision:
THAT guy is 29? Did he serve two terms as President of the United States of America without anyone noticing? He looks older than me and my grandfather had grandchildren at my age.
It is the hair. I had about that kind of hairline (or less) at that age. In the face, he looks easily like he could be 29.
Here, **Damuri **claims that fewer lives being lost is a good thing, good enough to define the word “works”. Never mind that there is no evidence to support that it’s happening.
So, tell us, big guy: Would it be a good idea to have fewer innocent lives lost here in the US too? Would having policies that “work” in the sense you claim you mean be something we should strive for? And when do you plan to join the effort?
No ducking now. Show us.
Take as long as you need.