Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Yes he did, its funny how blanks cut down on the recoil lol





Wait a minute Joe, one groups like that are hard to shoot without some serious training and recoil control! That takes a lot of training with a .40 or higher which I believe was what he was using in that scene, and the speed at which he shot was just perfect, people train professionaly for years and cant accomplish that.

Secondly, they may just have been street thugs, but they were street thugs pointing a gun at him, which makes them now dead almost murderers. Now, even though I really like the movie scene, taking out the guy with the gun (minus head shot) would have been the real life answer, then giving his buddy the chance to run, which it looks like he would have. If you honestly think that the guy with the gun was just just a harmless thug and that stopping him by shooting was cold blooded murder (minus the head shot) than I pray you never encounter a situation anything like this, because your values would surely be the death of you and those with you.

Well, Josh, I missed most of all that has been said of late. Probably because I put lerch on my ignore list and all I see is that he said something. Since I am not the slightestest bit interested in his pompous drivel, I cut him out of the loop and only see what he says if someone else quotes him.

But just to clarify, I said I liked the movie SCENE. I have not watched the movie and have no clue what kind of person the character who did the shooting was like. And the SCENE... the SCENE... the SCENE showed a guy asking about his briefcase when the thug comes back with a gun and puts it in his face. What I saw was self defense, and that's what I was responding to... an act of self defense. I'm really not surprised too much that lord lerch would find something else stupid to say.

See... now if you guys will quit quoting him, I won't have to be so crusty...

I tried to tell you in a previous thread that talking about the second amendment and politics gets ugly quick! Can I say I told you so now?

The test of civility has failed. This thread is now closed.

Originally Posted by urleebird

What I saw was self defense, and that's what I was responding to... an act of self defense. I'm really not surprised too much that lord lerch would find something else stupid to say.

So, you didn't see him shoot the disabled thug in the head as he walked away? That's murder.

Thanks for your keen insight into intelligent thought and human nature. I think think you've shown us all who you are.

[quote=urleebird;70050]

What I saw was self defense, and that's what I was responding to... an act of self defense.

If you saw that, yoou're probably the only one. When your assailant is disabled and you're out of danger, self defense is over. I don't remember if the gun was still nearby, but all he had to was kick it out of reach. Shooting him in the head is murder.

I'm really not surprised too much that lord lerch would find something else stupid to say.

And I'm not surprized that you didn't see this was murder. I wonder what happened to you that so distorted your mind, tha you see an attacker lurking aound every corner who must be destroyed, even after you're no longer in danger. You can't stick your head i the sand. We all love our country at least as much as you do, but "my country right or wrong went out with the Neuremberg Trials. One of our most important duties in a democracy is to make sur our country doesn'r cross the line. To you there's no line, just like there's no line between self defense and murder.

I couldn't care less whether you read my posts or not. Your narrow mind could only have one response anyhow. And I don't say that without some sadness. Everyone else here has revealed some level of judgment. You have revealed only a gut reaction that makes the source of every critical comment about the US an American hater and every modrate person a lover of criminals or teerrorists. How sad you are!

Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I think you're through fooling us. We all see what you stand for, and it's clearly not something American or democratic. I didn't know what you meant by "your kind of people, but I'm beginning to get an idea.

So, you shouldn't be surprized when people disagree with your political statements. When your friends criticize you, you need to stop and think. The greatest critics here were from countries that are traditional political allies of the US and share the ideals of democracy with us. That would give me pause, and I wouldn't lash out at them toughtlessly, but apparently that's your reaction to anyone who disagrees with you. Find someplace in this thread where you were'nt antagonistic towards someone who disagreed.

I can't say for sure, but I think I know youu on an online basis longer than anyone here. We were PMing and getting along in a friendly way on Yahoo SRP long before this (com) site existed. The first sign of friction came in September when you made a sharp reply to something in one of my posts and I responded in kind. I got the crudest, threatening PM in response. Since then, you and I have been walking on eggshells. Last week, I even sent you a PM (unanswered) saying that I didn't despise you and we shouldn't be enemies, since we would be running into each other here continually.

So, I don't expect any more from you than what I see here. Ignorance is bliss and yours is incredible. Do you notice that this response is personal? It's a personal response to a personal attack. Now, I'll jus sit back, and I expect you to alienate the rest of the people that disagree with you.

See... now if you guys will quit quoting him, I won't have to be so crusty...

There's a big difference between crusty and bigotry. Obviously you haven't figure it out yet.