Posts by frozendrifter7

Why? So they can keep hiding the fact that those fancy gentlemen have been lining their pockets on the backs of every hardworking citizen in this city?

cosmicgull52 said:As the legally and fairly elected 46th President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden, stated, the state possesses the atomic bomb.

As the highly respected and insightful cosmicgull52 has written here multiple times, this is the single most foolish thesis regarding the Second Amendment as it is currently implemented. With today's legally available firearms, citizens cannot defend themselves from tyranny. To make this argument valid, Stingers, Javelins, and grenades would need to be available at Walmart.

The only true purpose of a semi-automatic rifle, besides hunting, is mass murder. And, naturally, idiotic posing on social media and at fascist truth rallies. Any other form of self-defense in real-life circumstances can be handled with a handgun.

But why bother with a pistol when a rifle makes the whole thing significantly easier?

Brenda Murphy3 said:That's true... but laws and regulations aren't built based on one-off incidents; they're built on the big picture... on the statistics.
The bottom line is that the USA could teach any country in the European Union a thing or two about protecting its own citizens and what freedom actually looks like... because being able to carry a weapon isn't just some hobby.

(And honestly, half the time in the USA, those court rulings aren't even about justice—it's just straight-up business for a judicial system that's mostly in private hands. They hand out these insanely long sentences that don't even serve a purpose... I think your perspective on this is pretty warped)

Then what is it? A punishment? Some kind of restriction?

Brenda Murphy3 said:No, I'm not claiming that... and if I'm following correctly, neither is unknown... where on earth are you even getting these conclusions?

Besides, the whole argument isn't even about whether what unknown did was technically legal; it's about whether his actions were actually understandable, reasonable, or just plain normal.

(You're just trying to mock people while spouting total nonsense and making comparisons that don't hold water... plus, you're insisting on things that nobody ever said, wrote, or even thought, let alone believes.

First off, you barged right into a conversation between me and Bubimir where we were discussing the USA, not Rittenhouse.

Secondly, this is what *you* actually wrote:

Brenda Murphy3 said:Of course you do, but unknown didn't do it that way... and honestly, I’m not even getting hung up on the act itself, but rather the fact that this kid was actually there, in a society where that kind of behavior is considered totally fine—which is a pretty broken set of standards if you ask me.

Besides, you don't have the right to protect your sister's stuff by wandering around the streets armed to the teeth... and nobody is going to view shooting someone in broad daylight as some sort of "extenuating circumstance" either... (and again—I think the kid is innocent, but that's not the point here).

There are certain things you just can't do in the European Union or the States—which is exactly why you live in one of the safest countries on the planet. In a place like this, a punk walking around armed like unknown would be facing serious felony charges, and his parents would be getting visits from every federal agency in town... (even though, let's face it, something like that almost never happens here...).

And that isn't exactly what we "established" in that long-winded post full of examples.

Try to follow the debate a little better. 👍

coastalgull9 said:When it comes to self-defense and the fundamental right to protect yourself, your family, and your property, I honestly feel like the USA still maintains a basic sense of common-sense justice, whereas we over here have completely lost our way.

This is an old case, but it serves as yet another reminder that the right to self-defense in our neck of the woods is a massive, ongoing issue. It’s because they’ve taken the difficulty of proving self-defense to such an absurd extreme.
Now, look, if someone just steps one inch onto your lawn, obviously you don't have the right to open fire on them. But that doesn't mean someone can jump at your throat and start beating the hell out of you without you having the right to defend yourself in kind.

I completely agree with you. We had a similar situation in the USA in Indianapolis back in 2006. Bogeski unfortunately spent more than five years fighting through the courts, while Kelava "only" got two and a half.

In certain American states, neither of them would have even been charged.

"Quote:"

ljimomoj As I was saying—though I suspect most people aren't even listening anymore—it goes like this: Sure, the American system is flawed—let’s not pretend otherwise—just like every other broken mechanism out there, and it can be brutally, relentlessly unforgiving once it sets its sights on you. But, despite all that grit and institutional failure, there is still something lingering there that we seem to have lost entirely... something I can only describe as "living, breathing, God-given justice." When some drunken piece of trash mows down kids with a car here in the USA—an absolute tragedy, mind you—we can actually expect that lowlife to face life in prison. It’s justice, plain and simple. But back home? If we were talking about those same circumstances, that sobered-up scumbag would probably just get a few years... a slap on the wrist, really... leaving them free to cynically laugh in everyone's faces. It's infuriating.

It’s absolutely maddening—truly, soul-crushing stuff. We have this drunk driver in Washington, D.C., who blew right through a red light and took the life of a young kid on a scooter... and what happens? The sentence handed down was actually *less* than the legal minimum. Less! Can you believe that? He was out on the streets again after only 15 months—just like that. And to top off this entire circus of injustice, the US government actually lost the lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights. It’s enough to make you lose faith in the entire system—it really is. Just total, systemic failure.

It’s the same old story—the bureaucratic machine grinding away while everyone else is just trying to survive the day. I was reading this piece about how the government is tightening the screws on minimum wage laws again, and honestly? It’s just more red tape designed to make life difficult for the little guy. They talk about "social protections" and "economic stability"—please—it’s all just political theater meant to distract us from the fact that the cost of living is skyrocketing while our purchasing power stays stuck in the mud. The whole thing feels incredibly cynical. You have these policymakers sitting in their ivory towers in Washington, D.C., patting themselves on the back for passing "progressive" legislation, while the actual people working two jobs at places like Walmart can barely afford rent in a mid-sized city like Indianapolis. It’s a joke. A bad one. And don't even get me started on how this affects small businesses. Every time they hike the floor, some big conglomerate finds a way to automate or outsource, leaving the local mom-and-pop shops to pick up the tab. It’s a cycle of inefficiency that never seems to end. We keep moving in circles, pretending we’re making progress when we’re really just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Honestly, if you believe these incremental adjustments are going to solve systemic poverty, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.

I can’t say I’m surprised—though my soul feels a little heavier for having read it—that we’re seeing yet another instance of senseless violence tearing through the fabric of our communities. It’s one of those stories that just makes you want to sit in a dark room, stare at the wall, and wonder when exactly we decided that this was the status quo. The details coming out of the investigation are, frankly, exhausting. You read these reports about local tragedies, and instead of feeling outrage, you just feel this profound, weary cynicism—this sense of "here we go again." It's the same pattern, isn't it? A flash of aggression, a life cut short, and then a long, drawn-out process of legalities and media cycles that rarely seems to touch the actual root of the problem. It’s a grim reminder of how fragile things really are. We talk about safety and order like they’re permanent fixtures of American life, but stories like this prove they’re more like thin ice—constantly cracking under the weight of human volatility. One moment everything is normal, and the next, a neighborhood is changed forever by someone else's impulse. It's maddening, truly.

hiddeneagle98 As I was saying—though I suspect most people aren't even listening anymore—it's all quite clear if you bother to look at the facts...
I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that people—under any semblance of normal circumstances—would just be parading around with firearms like it’s nothing. Honestly, why do you insist on talking as if this is some perfectly standard, everyday occurrence over there? It’s frankly exhausting to listen to.

I'm not entirely sure if they’re just showing off—though, let's be honest, some people certainly are—but Wisconsin is an open carry state, which means folks can walk around with their firearms in plain sight if that's what they feel like doing. It's just one of those things... quite a reality of life over there.

I am well aware—and if memory serves, I’ve already laid this exact argument out right here before. 😁

2. I am well aware—which is precisely why I took the liberty of drafting those permits myself.

3. I’m also fully cognizant that the criminal complaint will likely follow that exact pattern; regarding that Vinkovčanin fellow I mentioned earlier—he actually ended up in court under different circumstances and walked away completely acquitted.

Now, Bubimir and Brenda Murphy3 are both insisting that in the first and second scenarios, I somehow violated the laws of America 😁 Fortunately, neither of them works for the Department of Justice.

Christian Torres3 said:So someone tries to torch a house and you put them down for it? IMO, if you get lucky, they'd charge you with manslaughter.

It’s entirely possible, I agree. But would they convict me?

Here are three hypothetical scenarios—including yours.

You and I live in the same city—let’s say, Boise. You invite me over to your apartment on Maui for a few weeks because your place is top-tier, and I’m a friend of yours who happens to have a concealed carry permit. I head out there, bring along a small gun safe where I keep my pistol when I'm not carrying, and everything is fine—right up until 5:00 AM, when I hear glass shattering and two muffled voices coming from the next room. Since I know I should be alone, I grab the pistol from the safe, load it up, and head into the living room where I see broken glass and then, around the corner, two young guys attempting to rip a 60" TV off the wall. I point the gun at them, shout, and they bolt through the kitchen and out the back... I don't shoot; I see they've left, and I call the police to come over.

Will I face criminal charges? And if so, for what? I’m defending someone else's property, carrying a firearm outside my primary residence, and I didn't feel physically threatened since I was armed and clearly more capable than those two scrawny kids.

Scenario No. 2

Let's say my brother lives in Indianapolis and calls me to stay with him for a few days while he's away on business because he doesn't want his wife and kid home alone. There are massive protests happening in the city, some break-ins in the neighborhood, and general chaos in the streets, so he tells me to bring my gun. Permits, holster, safe, ammo, and the pistol in the car—driving straight to Indianapolis—which law am I breaking? To take it further, I walk around the house and the neighborhood with the pistol tucked in a holster under my jacket, and during one of these walks, I run into a group of suspicious-looking young men. 😁 We exchange a few words; I tell them to watch what they're doing and not to cause trouble like those savages did last night, noting that plenty of people around here are armed and things could get ugly, and people have had enough of the chaos. They give me a sour look, we part ways peacefully with pleasantries—they go one way, I head toward my brother's house—and that's it. A quiet, pleasant night in the neighborhood.

What laws did I violate?

Scenario Number 3—your scenario:

Suppose there has been major civil unrest in the city for several days now, and the police are doing little to nothing to stop it. I'm sitting in my house when a group of strangers passes by my front door, shouting things—some are being a bit rowdy, yelling, making general threats, lighting torches here and there... the standard scenery of a riot at 10:00 PM.

An hour later, a brick comes flying through my living room window, accompanied by the usual screaming and mayhem that follows unrest. I grab a pistol or a shotgun from the closet—whichever is closest—load it, and step into the dark living room, slowly circling the window. Outside, I see a guy about seven or eight meters away who is laughing and yelling, while another stands beside him holding a bottle with a lit wick sticking out. The second guy laughs to the first, saying this house is about to have a "cocktail" just like that shop did last night; he pulls a lighter from his pocket, lights the wick, and tosses the bottle toward the broken window and the room where I'm standing.

The moment the second guy throws the flaming bottle, I shoot him, hitting him twice in the chest, and he dies on the spot. The bottle enters my living room, shatters, and starts a fire.

I'll certainly be detained, but what else?

I'm glad you spoke up; if I recall correctly, you mentioned somewhere before that you used to be a police officer.

rowdytiger13 said:I already quoted him on the previous page.
The Second Amendment in the USA.

rowdytiger13, please tell me you aren't an attorney.

Where, specifically, does the law state that I am prohibited from legally defending someone else's property—any way I see fit—within the USA? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the property isn't even mine, but belongs to a close family member, and it's located in a different city than where I live.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Man, the nonsense you're spewing is honestly unreal.

What does even that have to do with what we were talking about?

Even if you do have your permit—it doesn't mean you can just go blasting someone because they're smashing up a 7-Eleven. You keep jumping from one topic to the next like they're all the same thing... they aren't... not even close... and then you have the nerve to claim that other people are "missing the important details." 🤣 ...for crying out loud...

I really need to start using diagrams here. Do you honestly not grasp that shooting someone isn't the only way to utilize a firearm for self-defense?

Brenda Murphy3 said:Of course you do, but unknown didn't do it that way... and honestly, I’m not even getting hung up on the act itself, but rather the fact that this kid was actually there, in a society where that kind of behavior is considered totally fine—which is a pretty broken set of standards if you ask me.

Besides, you don't have the right to protect your sister's stuff by wandering around the streets armed to the teeth... and nobody is going to view shooting someone in broad daylight as some sort of "extenuating circumstance" either... (and again—I think the kid is innocent, but that's not the point here).

There are certain things you just can't do in the European Union or the States—which is exactly why you live in one of the safest countries on the planet. In a place like this, a punk walking around armed like unknown would be facing serious felony charges, and his parents would be getting visits from every federal agency in town... (even though, let's face it, something like that almost never happens here...).

Down in Rhode Island, there is such a thing as a concealed carry permit, yet neither you, nor Bubimir, nor the rest of this crowd seem to grasp the most critical nuances of the law. Open carry, concealed carry, and several other vital legal distinctions are flying right over your heads because you all tend to lump everything together... which is a massive mistake.

Under which law, precisely? I’m all ears—do tell.

rowdytiger13 said:I’ve pointed this out a few times already: US law operates differently than ours or most countries in the European Union. They don't have the concept of exceeding self-defense limits like we do.
If Rittenhouse were in America, he'd be facing charges, but in the USA, he's fine. That's why he wasn't convicted.

🙏
Oh, brilliant. Truly a stroke of pure genius on your part.

Brenda Murphy3 said:See, this is exactly where you're missing the point...

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property"—that is absolutely NOT the same thing as someone being able to drive from Miami to Washington, D.C. just to play judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like settling a score on their own terms.

Do you honestly not see how those two things are worlds apart?

So, what—you don't have the right to protect your sister's house, or your brother-in-law's, or even your mother's? I wasn't just talking for the sake of talking when I told Bubimir earlier to take a long, hard look at who Dominick Black is and where he actually calls home.

driftingtinker said:I mean, just look at that guy from that Suburban city who went off with an AK and started blasting at two people in his own bedroom. If I recall correctly, he basically walked away with a light sentence.

Well, look at the guy from Indianapolis—he used a rifle to kill one person and wound another. Honestly, I can't quite remember if it went down in a hallway or a bedroom... a free man, through and through. 👍

Brenda Murphy3 As stated by:
No, that isn't what he said... honestly—I can't decide if half of you are just playing dumb for the sake of it, or if you genuinely fail to grasp some incredibly simple concepts.

What on earth?

coastalgull9 said:Does a guy from Miami really have any right to defend a Washington, D.C. resident's property if a portion of that Washingtonian actually wants to destroy and burn it down??
Perhaps California and Appalachia are such vastly different worlds that it’s considered dangerous to cross those lines—to even dare to feel any sense of kinship with someone from a part of the country where you don't live and attempt to stand up for them.

rowdytiger13 said:No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

Brenda Murphy3 said:everyone has a right to defend their property and themselves

Wait, how can you say that now? It’s obvious—even Bubi is admitting there is no 😁

Bubi, do yourself a favor and actually look up who Dominick Black is.

rowdytiger13 said:No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

Which specific law in America are we talking about here? I'm asking for the exact statute, article, and paragraph. Please.

You’ve been hit with a partial ban here on the forum—I sent you a direct message back on February 14th, so you should find it sitting right there in your inbox if you bother to check.

Just track down the thread you're looking for, then click on that total post count sitting right next to it—that’ll pull up a list of everyone who's contributed, ranked by how much they've talked. Once you spot your own handle in that lineup, just click the number next to it, and boom... it'll filter out and show you nothing but your own posts within that specific discussion.

My internet has been acting up all afternoon—just a complete disaster—so I haven't had a spare second to get this message over to you.

You were handed a partial ban because of your conduct—specifically, your habit of systematically dismantling discussions and providing absolutely zero positive value to the threads or the subforum at large.
Regards.