The Photo

The protesters? Yes.

 

Someone needs to show explain this to her.

 

Link?

 

Still waiting for the image that shows those goddamned libruhl Black people were trespassing onto Joe and Karen's property to the point where they deserved to be threatened with death.

 

Guns 'N Posers

 

There's a middle ground here in that, since the couple did not fire upon anyone while standing on their own property and thus, probably didn't commit a crime. Yet, they showed themselves to be coward racists who assumed the horde of black and brown people walking past their home toward another destination were at all interested in their property.

The world now knows who they are, and their community will either shun, embrace or forget about them. Their business may collapse, or it may flourish representing clients who harbor the same fears they have of people of color.

 

Shit, just saw this after posting something similar.

 

The only question is did they break through the lock or was it unlocked.

St. Louis couple pulls firearms on protesters cutting through their private street - CNN

 

Insane Clown Pussies.

 

This is a valid argument, sort of. Defending yourself or family is 100 percent the reason to own and wield a gun, and it is for that reason alone I do support the Second Amendment. If those protesters broke into their home, they would be well within their rights to gun down every fucking one of them. But those people were not out there wielding their weapons in "self defense." They were, I guess, defending their property. I think it's reasonably understood they have a right to do so.

However, I hate the idea of "protecting" property with firearms. They were basically waving guns around to prevent having to file an insurance claim to fix whatever damage they thought could potentially be done to their home (even though I haven't seen any accounts of vandalism by that particular group). No matter how badass they felt doing so, the only thing they did was drastically increase the chances of something really bad happening.

A couple years ago, we had some punk college kids steal our Christmas lights right off the side of our house. They walked up 50 yards from the street, grabbed several strings of lights and a lighted reindeer and ran off. I chased them outside in my boxer shorts, but they got in their car and took off. I posted our Ring camera footage on social media in an effort to identify the thieves, but we never found them. Terrible experience, kids were terrified, etc.

But probably the thing I remember most were the number of people who asked if we were armed (we are not) or suggested that we should have been. I got into fairly lengthy argument with a former friend about Second Amendment rights. He said I was "unable to protect my family" because I didn't own a gun. "What if they had entered the house and attacked my family" he posited.

The hypothetical notwithstanding — which was moot since my house was deadbolted and, frankly, I'm pretty good in a fight — I had to ask, what if I owned a gun? Should I have run outside and shot the perpetrators in the back as they ran away for stealing literally $60 worth of Christmas lights from my property? I would have been within my rights, but is that an outcome that would have served anyone well? Would my kids have learned that human lives are worth less than the $60 it cost to purchase those lights?

He never responded to those questions.

There may be some exceptions, but I doubt there are many instances where defense of property is worth killing somebody.

 

Sorry you don’t have shoot to commit a crime. Assault is defined as the threat of imminent bodily harm. Pointing a gun meets that definition to a T.

 

Google Image Result for https://c8.alamy.com/comp/K3648Y/charlies-angels-us-2000-lucy-liu-cameron-diaz-drew-barrymore-date-K3648Y.jpg