Legally armed Asian rescues white woman from being robbed and gets punished for it. Police chief - “We don’t want people to fire weapons into our community,”
(media.patriots.win)
🥾🔨 BURN, LOOT, MURDER 🔨🥾
Comments (157)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
In the military they teach you to fire warning shots on certain guard details. I know that for a fact. Crazy that we wouldn’t allow our civilians to use the same potentially life saving techniques.
Our government is nothing if not retarded. They somehow interpreted "right to privacy" to mean "free taxpayer subsidized access to abortions" and "shall not be abridged" to "bans or restrictions on almost all types of firearms."
Have you seen the Commerce Clause, while you're at it? It's used to justify most federal powers because most everything, including breathing, in some way affects "Commerce ... among the several states."
Read the Supreme Court majority opinion on this as well. A farmer was keeping his own corn and using it for other purposes above the amount he was allowed to grow. It never even crossed state lines. BUT they considered that it effected the market.
Precedent doesn't matter. Constitution doesn't matter. All that matter is the whims of the ruling class.
At this point I am fully convinced that democracy has reached a dead end. I would absolutely prefer a conservative autocracy.
Unpopular opinion: the best form of government is benevolent dictatorship. The only problems with benevolent dictatorships are all the malevolent dictatorships in between.
It might work in America if people were actually willing use their guns against tyranny...
Probably not. Every continuum if force class I've received specifically mentioned not to use warning shots. USMC. What branch/detail are you talking about?
If you draw your gun and don't shoot it, that's proof right there you didn't really fear for your life, is what I was taught in training classes.
Army. Guarding ammo facility. It was in writing to fire warning shots whenever possible.
Were you guarding an ammo facility in or near Syria under Michael's Husband? Because I could see him issuing orders to fire "warning shots" and then to retreat. But only to retreat after opening the locks, and helping the intruders load the heavy weapons.
I served under Clinton. Stateside and in Europe/Balkans. The one exception was Stinger ground to air missiles. You were to prevent those from being stolen at all cost.
I did a training exercise (usmc) in the Philippines. one day after a joint range day, local Filipinos tried to raid all the brass to pick up. The Filipino marines fired warning shots at them and our first sergeant flipped his shit cuz we don’t do that in the marines. People in the back of the convoy thought we were under contact. Good times.
You can't fire warning shots in a city as you are responsible for where every single bullet goes.
I'll say you're half right. If you hit somebody with a stray bullet, you should be responsible for that. However, if you simply break up a robbery, potentially save a life, and nobody is harmed, what exactly are you responsible for?
There is also a constitutional argument that you can. There is nothing against warning shots in our constitution. Good luck ever getting our courts to admit that.
In my state you are responsible for where every bullet goes so if you miss and strike a person you can and will get in trouble. Pulling your gun is the warning shot, every shot after that is to end the threat.
I do agree with you but the law isn't going to be followed anymore so we can't look at things from that perspective. Anyone who defends their self or defends another is going to be at least persecuted and at most prosecuted and throw in jail.
Obviously we here all know the Deep State doesn't want anyone to stand up and rebel against unjust authority so examples have to be made but that will backfire on them as it always does.
Do the police have to follow that same rule? In my state I know they shot over 120 rounds at a kid armed with a cellphone, assumed it was a deadly weapon, and kept firing until they killed him. They also hit a random Mexican in the arm who in a bar with one of the strays, he refused to press charges for probably obvious reasons... Oh right "rules for thee but not for me!!!" type BS I'm sure...
Get onto juries and nullify those prosecutors.
If we don't fulfill our duty as one of the constitutional checks and balances against corrupt prosecution then we can't complain about the system.
Let's take that argument ad absurdum, shall we?
How is that an absurd argument?
My willingness to negotiate limitations to the second amendment begins somewhere around ICBMs, but that seems like a real issue if we’re being honest.
I meant let's take it to absurdity. Why? Because any framework you give the legal system will be used to absurdity sooner or later. Every bullet fired that doesn't incapacitate the threat is a "warning shot". More important is the fact that you couldn't fire any bullets anywhere within a 3 mile range of any other human being besides your assailant, ever. You wouldn't even be able to let loose a round if you weren't two inches away from the assailant's brain stem and that doesn't sound like a defensive situation does it? You could never fire a shot around the family you're trying to protect even (and if you doubt that, start shooting steel targets at less than 25 yards and see how bullets ricochet like life is imitating a cartoon). That rules out not just cities but also most counties in America. Except that's not reality. How can we know that? Well, police have no problem firing their guns in cities or any other populated area. You could say they're better trained but they're not and they miss a LOT. So should we put in rules just to hassle citizens? You would if you had other goals besides safety. Why? Because police and citizens both almost never shoot innocent bystanders in collateral fire. Both miss (a lot) under stress and yet very few people end up shot with the bullets that penetrate through a body or miss entirely. Where do people get shot by stray bullets? I'm glad you asked and it's places like Chiraq where people already engaged in criminal behavior spray bullets at rival gangs or drug dealers in an attempt to send a message or just through sheer incompetence. The other exception being the (maybe hilarious, though not to the people inside) times police "misidentify a suspect's car" and pump it full of bullets. But let's talk about warning shots. A ridiculous amount of violent encounters get stopped by "brandishing" and "warning shots". The police know this, the citizenry knows this and the courts know it. But legally speaking, warning shots are still not allowed. If the person who flashed a gun or fired a warning shot wasn't defending themselves, they can be charged with other crimes. The only time someone would only fall under brandishing or warning shot violations would be if they were engaged in a defensive situation, used their gun appropriately and the legal system was being used to punish them and send a message to other citizens that they shouldn't use their guns in self defense. It's understandable if a bullet whizzes past you and you get upset, that makes sense; I would too. But focus your rustled jimmies on the criminal rather than the person defending themselves from a criminal. If a citizen engages in self defense and shoots your property, they're liable (it gets replaced or you get compensated and all is well with the world). If a citizen engages in self defense and hits a bystander, it's a minimum of manslaughter. So what exactly are we talking about here, "poorly" worded gun control meant to hassle the citizenry? You needn't look further than NY, CA, MA or NJ to see some of this absurdity being successfully litigated.
All according to plan.