DescentBB

rooting out demonically possessed family members:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/nc-d ... -the-lord/

I'm afraid I would have done the same thing to save myself from being burned to death. Sadly, if the son was truly mentally ill, he probably would have lit the match before anyone had tried to talk him out of it. Such is the state of our mental health system.

Yea, just think how horrible things could have turned out if the son had the gun, and the only hope for the father was to reach for a flammable liquid.

I don’t think this one really works for you slick…not that any of these posts do anyway.

HINT...guy saves his life with a gun...

bull★■◆●. He shot first and didn't contemplate the actions which a reasonable person could have come up with(which are numerous). If that is the depth of your thinking, I feel sad for you.

Yea, I’m sure your situational awareness would have saved the day.

as your utter lack of awareness has no doubt saved several.

You don't know me.

So this is not a reasonable person, and this is supposedly an argument against the 2nd amendment preserving the rights of reasonable people? Or are we just going to strip this country down in order to protect all of the idiots from themselves and let government tell us what to do? Will make for a weak nation... As usual, Slick, this isn't an argument for anything. I hope you don't pull anything reaching like that.

my whole point, by the way, in dropping these little gems is this: At no point did the founders wish the citizenry to have the right to bear arms for ANYTHING other than defense of society. Not, to gun down fellow citizens, family members, act like vigilantes, etc, etc, etc. I keep waiting for one incident that involves forming a proper militia, or anything close.

Sadly slick, you seem to think your twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment has any bearing. SCOTUS has already found against you. So suck it up and realize better legal minds have already handled it. and just to counter your incident:

"Ricardo Medina Jr., who played a Power Ranger in two incarnations of the popular TV series, was arrested on Saturday and accused of killing his roommate with a sword at their Palmdale, Calif., home. "

I doubt the cutlery dealer intended that usage.

Let's see. I'm doused in gasoline, my crazy son standing over me holding matches ready to light me up like a dry Christmas tree and I have my gun on hand. What to do......

So it comes down to either me getting burned to death and maybe the son lives, if he doesn't get lit up at the same time he lights up me. Or shoot the son, he maybe dies if I hit him in the right spot and then I don't get burned. What a choice if one has time to think about it. Gut reaction, shoot the son, I don't get fried.

Naaahhhh…you have plenty of time to form a committee and get an opinion.

callmeslick wrote:my whole point, by the way, in dropping these little gems is this: At no point did the founders wish the citizenry to have the right to bear arms for ANYTHING other than defense of society.

Lets work with your interpretation then.

For the founders to amend the Constitution to ensure individuals had the right to weapons in order to 'defend society' leaves no other outcome than the individual to be in possession of a weapon.

This particular little gem you tossed out as bait, if it is to be used as you intended, as an example of something not covered by the 2nd amendment, would require one to believe that the authors would have said 'You may have a gun to shoot an invading army but not use one to shoot someone who creeps into your bed chamber and soaks you with lamp oil intending to burn you to death in your bedclothes...'

sorry slick, I'm just not buying it.


I've read the letters and publications they put out regarding the rights they highlighted, read the debate surrounding standing armies etc. and the interpretation you have often shared is completely flawed. They specifically rejected the notion of the central authority controlling the weapons. They specifically cited the ability of individual men to be able to be armed at home in order to counter a threat.

You can once again cite 'every lawyer you know' but they are just as wrong as you if they truly take your position in this.

The issue has been settled by scholars who studied the documents and the contemporaneous evidence. Historians who are experts on the topics, etc.
They all have found the 'individuals right to keep their own weapons' was the precise intent. The logic behind it was 'it is the only way to keep the people free'.

They never once talked about only for this particular threat or that one but not this one etc.....they saw the gun as a tool the individual would need to have to protect his freedom.period.

And it doesn't matter one tiny bit if you think the logic behind the intent no longer has merit, you are not in charge. So follow your own advice, 'stop whining and go win enough elections' to lock up all the weapons.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So this is not a reasonable person, and this is supposedly an argument against the 2nd amendment preserving the rights of reasonable people? Or are we just going to strip this country down in order to protect all of the idiots from themselves and let government tell us what to do? Will make for a weak nation... As usual, Slick, this isn't an argument for anything. I hope you don't pull anything reaching like that.

I don't trust my average fellow American to properly steer a shopping cart, much less handle a deadly weapon. Thus we get gems like this: "I don’t know nothing about guns, but I have to protect myself.”

Though honestly by far the worst part of all this is the "my boy done got possessed by dem demons!" bull★■◆●. How about getting him some proper ★■◆●ing treatment for a legitimate mental illness?

Top Gun wrote:...

Though honestly by far the worst part of all this is the "my boy done got possessed by dem demons!" ****. How about getting him some proper **** treatment for a legitimate mental illness?

I can't argue with that, especially since the wife said something about he didn't have to shoot him. But none of that is a gun problem, the headline could just as easily read 'Man stabs son in chest' and judging from the initial report probably would have.

Top Gun wrote:How about getting him some proper ★■◆●ing treatment for a legitimate mental illness?

it's the south. It's to be expected.

If you listen to the audio IMO it doesn't sound as nuts as the article. Just sounds like a bad situation all around. People make bad decisions and do bad things to each other all of the time. I know TG's type have all of the answers in society. I could have all of the answers too if I were to play the hypocrite. On the other hand I've heard horror stories about the kind of facilities they might consign this young man to as part of what some might call a solution. Until I hear someone hit upon the concept of mental problems initially stemming from an act of will I'm not going to have much respect for the field.

Absolutely no bearing on the 2nd amendment at all, Slick just wants us disarmed.

tunnelcat wrote:Let's see. I'm doused in gasoline, my crazy son standing over me holding matches ready to light me up like a dry Christmas tree and I have my gun on hand. What to do......

So it comes down to either me getting burned to death and maybe the son lives, if he doesn't get lit up at the same time he lights up me. Or shoot the son, he maybe dies if I hit him in the right spot and then I don't get burned. What a choice if one has time to think about it. Gut reaction, shoot the son, I don't get fried.

In slicks fantasy world, all you have to do is pull out your cell phone, call the cops and a police officer will teleport to you in under 10 seconds to save you.

if I'm doused in gasoline, I'm neither using a cell phone(static), NOR firing a gun. I'm getting the hell out of the situation, fast.

You have a good point about using the gun, but that is a risk you have to make an instant call on.

Oh, and better hope the kid didn’t barricade the door.

Assuming you have the benefit of mobility anyway... Wasn't this guy in bed at the time?

I have a suspicion that we will find out he wasn't sleeping with his gun and was out of bed/danger when he retrieved it and the shooting was more anger than defense.

I think you're probably right.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Until I hear someone hit upon the concept of mental problems initially stemming from an act of will I'm not going to have much respect for the field.

...this is maybe the most ★■◆● statement you've ever made. For once in your life try getting a goddamned clue.

It's important to excel in at least one aspect of your life.

I can't speak to all mental illness, but a person's will has a lot do with what takes place in that person's life. I'm convinced that some people allow themselves to descend to certain levels of insanity for selfish reasons, and don't realize how hard it is to get back.

I don't think you will find many experts in the field, if any at all, that deny some people suffering mental illness have triggered the onset by drug abuse or other self destructive catalyst.
But they have a hard enough time getting support/attention for their efforts that highlighting a minor factor like that has a net negative result.
Physical illness happens, for the most part without any contribution from the ill. Why attach extra stigma to them and by doing so make public support harder to get?

Clearly, mentally ill persons are just possessed by demons due to their wicked ways. We need more funding for qualified priests to do exorcisms.

Medical Science (psychology in particular) just had a lol.