15-yr-old Blind and Deaf Dog Kicked To Death

Nah, this is the off-topic section, champ.

It's too bad the dog owners weren't present so they could have used lethal force in an effort to protect their property.

Well, do whatever you'd like, but you're going to get a warning.

Yeah, because how would they have know that they guy wasn't going to try to rupture their spleens by kicking them?!!

In fact, if one of them had been carrying a 9mm, he could have done great justice by protecting the neighborhood from a possible threat to life!

Shoot first, ask questions later!

"Mommy government, please save me from all of my problems! I can't take care of them myself because I can't be trusted to do anything! Help me mommy government!!!"

Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out! Ride'em Cowboy! Gonna get me some Injuns!

Dear God, please forgive me, I had to shoot him, he was drooling over my DVD player. Please forgive me for being disingenuous in court about my motivation. Yes, I claimed I was in fear for my life, when in reality, I was just protecting my honor like any good (read: not evil - because it's always about the black and white ultra-Christian, black and white view of "Good and Evil" Neanderthal would!

You're proving my point for me, "Nolan". You don't think people should have the right to defend themselves because you think nobody can control their own actions. Do you have a lot of problems controlling yourself? Do you have someone that takes care of you all the time and tells you what to do and protects you?

Gunning people down haphazardly is the real lack of self-control.

I haven't proven jack-shit for you. That makes no sense whatsoever in light of what I wrote. Oh well, par for the course I suppose.

Yes, because if people are allowed to defend themselves, they will just go out of control and start shooting random people. What a silly way to look at things. Not everyone is as irresponsible as you, "Nolan". Not everyone needs mommy government to protect them from everything all the time.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I very firmly beleive this as it's happening here in Toronto RIGHT NOW. Okay, so Average Joe can't gun down people in the heat of the moment (hell, if they're following our current gun laws, they can't anyway because it's in a safe with a trigger lock and ammo is in a seperate location), but what about those gang bangers who gun down innocent bystanders on a crowded street. Their guns aren't freaking legal to begin with.

Debating gun issues with a troll is like debating gun issues with a troll, only less rewarding.

Yea, "Nolan" needs to stop his trolling ways.

Look, I own rifles and shotguns. I am a hunter. I am a veteran who knows how to handle many types of weapons.

You keep sounding off with this "another mind reader" pablum like a broken record, yet you're the only one I see doing it.

You should damned well know, unless you have an extreme problem comprehending English, that by "haphazardly", I meant gunning someone one down in your home simply for being there. I guess I am going to have to hold your hand and walk you through each line of what I write, and I certainly won't use metaphor again, as you just don't seem to be able to wrap your brain around it.

You make me miss Korg, and that's saying a lot.

I think you're assuming a certain position on my part. I don't see the gun issue in black or white terms, and I own firearms myself.

You break into my house and you may find yourself looking down the barrel of a Remington 1100 -- BUT I won't just go shooting you just because you're there, unless you're wielding a firearm yourself. This is the point about self control I am trying to make to Stankleberry.

P.S., what do you think is the percentage of gun owning victims of gang-banging (excluding other gang-bangers) who get the chance to fire back? I'd guess that it's REALLY low.

Even lower in Canada. Sorry for making an assumption, was just the way the exchange unfolded that made me think otherwise.

Well actually even unde rthe florida law you still must establish that the intruder is attacking you, or threatening you. There is no presumption that someone in your house is attacking you just by being there. This law means that you are not obligated to flee from an attck in your home, workplace, or now in public. But you must first establish that you are being attacked.

Jake,

In Florida, entering a home invites being killed. Our laws allow us to shoot first without checking intent. The reason for that is, in the dark it's hard to know if there is a weapon. If one lets the intruder know you are aware of his presents, he may shoot first.

If someone so much as sticks his head in a window he can expect a bullet to the brain. We are safer with these laws than without. Criminals have chosen to commit crime where he is less likely to come in contact with a victim in Florida, because we are armed in public.

Florida even had to make rental cars look like non-rental, because criminals knew the people coming from other countries were unarmed.

The more gun friendly laws Florida passed, the crime rate against Floridians (where the criminal comes face to face with the victim) fell dramatically.

"The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims."

I guess it all comes down to perspective. If one (or a state legislature) thinks it's law-abiding to blow someone's brains out for sticking their head in a window, I think they've got it backwards.

The truth is, not many people stick their heads in windows in Florida because they like their head without bullet holes.

Common sense didn't leave when a law was passed. People still act as they would have anyhow. Only now, the victim is protected, rather than the criminal.

When was this law enacted Kevn?

On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this law.

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one.

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It took effect on October 1, 2005.

Thanks, I'll be comparing and contrasting burglary rates at such time as the numbers become available (probably in 2007), to see what, if any effect, this law has on them.

I would point out that burglary rates have been declining in Florida for well over a decade. They peaked in 1989 with 289,254. There has been a steady decline, without your new law in place, ever since, which was at 172,898 in 2000. Over 100,000 less!!

Another interesting fact, Texas, which has had a similarly loose law to Florida's for many years, had 906.3 burlaries per 100,000 residents in 2000. Now, the state I live in, Minnesota, where we don't have such laws, nor embrace such a cavalier attitude towards shooting intruders, has a per capita burglary rate of 530.9 per 100,000 (same year). Nearly HALF of that of Texas. See why I think this cowboy-esque approach is really a bunch of hogwash? You guys are really good at reciting scare tactic rhetoric, but the numbers just don't bear your claims out.

I still wanna know why the guy is putting Nolan's name in quotes.

And I still say dogs are people, too, and if you don't know that, you're less of a person for it.

coco

It's because I think he is an alt, and I let him know that. So now he is playing tit for tat. Ironically, his urge to keep doing it just makes my belief that he is an alt that much stronger. It obviously struck a nerve when I mentioned it, because he is still apparently quite affected by it.

I find it highly unlikely that he is just some new user who stumbled in here 2 weeks ago as he claims.

well my dear, if your capable of kicking a dog in the first place it shows just how humane you really are. and as for telling me dogs are not people your one sick person. dogs are just as equal to people. they are kids in the home, the ones who love you and give you happiness.
you obviously do not own any pets and if you do i hope someone takes them from you to put them in a better home. kicking a dog that is helpless is low and whoever hurts an animal should be hurt themself. to bad the system looks at things like this to lightly. really is shame