Responsible gun owner protects personal property

[IPA4Me]

This thread is for responsible gun owners and their stories.

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1727832806443671683

[BIG APPLE CAT]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1727832806443671683

They draw all our attention to the south and then the real invasion comes from the north

[Sandstone Outcropping]

https://twitter.com/kimmichex/status/1757886167989752112?s=20

[cfbandyman]

Proper place for that

[mocat]

The "_______ Strong" things are super cringe to me

which one do you think we'll get?

#KCSTRONG or #CHIEFSTRONG

[Trim]

The "_______ Strong" things are super cringe to me

which one do you think we'll get?

#KCSTRONG or #CHIEFSTRONG

https://x.com/kstatesports/status/1757930216586883404

[star seed 7]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

[Spracne]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

... if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm of another ...

[star seed 7]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

... if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm of another ...

To paraphrase Munch from Fargo S5, his life is forfeit

[sonofdaxjones]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

... if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm of another ...

Define “reasonably necessary ” for us Spracs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[star seed 7]

Shut up and go be miserable somewhere else for a day

[Spracne]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

... if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm of another ...

Define “reasonably necessary ” for us Spracs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a legal test. I could easily do it, but I find it mighty more satisfying to tell you to go eff yourself, so that's where I'm going at the moment.

[sonofdaxjones]

I'm not usually this guy but you pop off a gun at an event with hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children, you are fair game to be beat to death on the spot.

... if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm of another ...

Define “reasonably necessary ” for us Spracs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a legal test. I could easily do it, but I find it mighty more satisfying to tell you to go eff yourself, so that's where I'm going at the moment.

Not much of a definition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Then there's the "jury of your peers" part, where nothing else matters because the guy you beat to death was trying to kill a bunch of kids.

[nicname]

What would a world with no guns look like? Like instead of guns dudes had swords and the like.

I’m not a gun guy, but in a world of swords, I’d probably be a sword guy. Some guys would prob be carrying bow and arrows. Some guys prob with like a full arsenal; swords, bows and arrows, maybe a battle axe and some throwing stars and a pair of daggers.

Just walking around strapped.

[Spracne]

What would a world with no guns look like? Like instead of guns dudes had swords and the like.

I’m not a gun guy, but in a world of swords, I’d probably be a sword guy. Some guys would prob be carrying bow and arrows. Some guys prob with like a full arsenal; swords, bows and arrows, maybe a battle axe and some throwing stars and a pair of daggers.

Just walking around strapped.

It's unlikely they'd be able to kill 50-some-odd people with a bump stock.

[OB_Won]

What would a world with no guns look like? Like instead of guns dudes had swords and the like.

I’m not a gun guy, but in a world of swords, I’d probably be a sword guy. Some guys would prob be carrying bow and arrows. Some guys prob with like a full arsenal; swords, bows and arrows, maybe a battle axe and some throwing stars and a pair of daggers.

Just walking around strapped.

It's unlikely they'd be able to kill 50-some-odd people with a bump stock.

It’d also take a hell of a lot more courage than spreading bullets through a retreating crowd before going out in a blaze of glory.

[sonofdaxjones]

*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

Any legal textbook could have told us that.

[hjfklmor]

*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

Any legal textbook could have told us that.

and yet, you asked.

[nicname]

Maybe a dagger guy rather than a sword guy.

[sonofdaxjones]

*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

Any legal textbook could have told us that.

and yet, you asked.

I asked spracs, not a textbook

[star seed 7]

*sigh* There's the "reasonable" part, which is a so-called objective standard based on the legal fiction of the Reasonable Man. And then there's the subjective part, which relates to the harm perceived by a person. You put them both together, and BOOM, you have an objective-subjective test.

Any legal textbook could have told us that.

and yet, you asked.

Dax has always had a tenuous grasp of the question-answer dynamic

[sonofdaxjones]

Stalkerbot is constantly confused by words like, "Define reasonably necessary for us Spracs"