Armed hero with concealed weapon permit shoots carjacker

tacolover wrote:

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.

So in other words, you are the opposite of Gary.

DiscoGary wrote:

spade detector wrote:

No, Gary, it is not a liberal stance that liberals "desire the police to stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens who shouldn't be allowed to have guns to defend themselves

Oh yes it is! The liberal MSM media has spent decades apologizing for black riots and making excuses like "their voices weren't being heard", etc.

They give those riots their tacit approval when they fail to unconditionally condemn the violence and refuse put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who deserve it.

I stand by my statement.

Then you aren't even as moderately intelligent as I had previously thought. This is disappointing. The right used to have SOME reasonable constituents.

tacolover wrote:

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.

The only "ideology" I have expressed in this thread is the desire to see this event and it's results repeated throughout the country, ideally sponsored by our government.

I don't see how that is defining anything as the opposite of anything else.

You have become incoherent.

ooops, wrong thread.

Libtards love guns wrote:

tacolover wrote:

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.

So in other words, you are the opposite of Gary.

Your characterization of an affirmative and objective truth as a shallow retort based on another's logical crutch is an affront to critical thinking.

There was no need to rephrase my statement. It was perfect, as are tacos.

You may rest now.

DiscoGary wrote:

You have become incoherent.

I anticipated that this may happen - it is the inevitable effect that logic has on your mind.

I do appreciate your honesty though.

tacolover wrote:

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.

In THIS thread I have not defined my ideology at all. I was merely pointing out how liberals have got themselves into a nasty logical position by simultaneously pushing the Race Hustling narrative, police brutality chicken-little stories, and the ever present gun control.

Daily Reality wrote:

sometimes a great nation wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html

Funny how this story is largely absent from every major news website.

Criminal THUGS are thwarted from commiting violent crimes every single day in America by an Armed Citizen.

Libtards don't believein a right to self defense/ self preservation. They believe that people should lay down and die and never fight back.

Fck that. Fck them! Put as many rounds in a thugs face as possible, kill the fckers, kill them PERIOD.

Please explain how the shooter was performing an act of self defense or self preservation?

You are headed down a slippery slope when random people can appoint themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.

libtarder wrote:

Please explain how the shooter was performing an act of self defense or self preservation?

Will you settle for an act of heroism?

Okay, this'll be the last time I ask (in this thread):

Why don't you just spell "fuck" the regular way? You actually bring *more* attention to foul language by using itsy-cutesy forms of the words.

DiscoGary wrote:

libtarder wrote:

Please explain how the shooter was performing an act of self defense or self preservation?

Will you settle for an act of heroism?

No, not in this case. Your 2nd amendment right does not include carrying to be a hero.

Dial it up wrote:

Can't Wait wrote:

Can't wait for the resident morons to assign perspectives to their favorite bogeyman.

Oh yeah, looks like there was no waiting at all.

Your comment might hold some water if one of your butt buddies didn't already do exactly as I described on page 1

The difference between "the" liberal take vs. "a" liberal take seems to be incomprehensible for you.

libtarder wrote:

You are headed down a slippery slope when random people can appoint themselves to be judge, jury and executioner.

Now I'll give you my ideology regarding this issue, so by all means poke holes in it if you can.

The core of my ideology is based on this:

A just government helps the individual protect their rights to

Life

Liberty and

Property.

Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Anything more is an abuse of power.

If that sounds extreme, well, it just happens to be the law of the land because that's the kind of government the Constitution put in place.

Governments are simply a way of collectively protecting our individual rights by spreading the cost over many people to make it more efficient. We never give up the right to protect ourselves or our neighbors when we delegate some of that power to the government.

In this case the guy with the gun was helping his neighbor defend her rights to life and property. He was being a "good citizen" and rightly deserves the title of hero. If he had got it wrong and killed someone who was not involved in a serious crime, then it would be the government's job to make him pay the price through the legal system.

That's what a coherent ideology looks like. No whining. No hate. No gender, race, or economic warfare. No blaming villains and victims games.

Did you study at the rush limbaugh institute for advanced conservative studies too? What year did you graduate?

Libtards love guns wrote:

tacolover wrote:

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.

So in other words, you are the opposite of Gary.

No offense but that was ridiculously lame.

Dial it up wrote:

Can't Wait wrote:

Can't wait for the resident morons to assign perspectives to their favorite bogeyman.

Oh yeah, looks like there was no waiting at all.

Your comment might hold some water if one of your butt buddies didn't already do exactly as I described on page 1

Your comment might have some validity if you were not 100% wrong about anyone on this thread being a "buddy" of mine.

Oh, but to your credit you did use that word "butt". Good job! Bet that really cracked up your 6th grade classmates.

I am solidly liberal. And I agree with what I believe is the gist of what you wrote above. Especially as it applies to this event.

I would have to disagree with two things:

1) The Declaration of Independence specifically refers to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It says nothing about property. Further, the US Constitution ( a pretty important document in its own right) starts as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Note the positive action of promoting the general welfare explicitly stated therein.

2) The notion that "anything more (than protecting life, liberty and property) is an abuse of power" is just plain silly. Doing away with government investments in infrastructure, basic science and yes, social safety nets can be called an "abuse of power" if it makes you feel better but that won't change the fact that such investments have dramatically improved the lives of pretty much everyone.

rainbow connection wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

Your comment might hold some water if one of your butt buddies didn't already do exactly as I described on page 1

The difference between "the" liberal take vs. "a" liberal take seems to be incomprehensible for you.

I'm well aware of the difference between "the" and "a." However, when it comes to predictable, sheep liberals there isn't a difference.