It's actually generally reserved for people who force entry into occupied homes.

It's not always a legal term, but "home invader" would be correct.

This would've been dispatched as a "home invasion in progress" which is the very definition of "hot call".

Blue lights, sirens, F the speed limit, F the red lights, OHHRAH GET SOME MOTHER****ER etc.

I see no hot button issues here. No need to defend.

I strongly encourage Democrats to publicly call for the disarming of US citizens in their own homes.

I think it would turn out wonderfully.

fewer unarmed teenagers would be shot imo

Then you guys should get Democrats to call for this legislation IMO.

LOL, and we're back to where we started

Contrary to popular (gun nut) belief, Dems don't want to take away your guns.

That you think anyone who didn't vote Obama faps to fantasies of "gunning down urban utes"?

So wait, your first post ITT, in which you directly respond to suzzer "baiting" you, and you go on to laud the bull**** suzzer is loling at, that's (1) suzzer "failing," and (2) not you thinking this lie is a good reason to rally the village?

Dems don't publicly denounce those who call for gun control either.

In other words, your silence is deafening.

Homie, nobody is trying to come for Redneck Nation's guns. For one thing, y'all got Chick-fil-A crumbs all over them so obviously no metrosexual federal agent will want to get their fingers all greasy.

For another, we don't really care. All we ask is that you avoid shooting unarmed teenagers to death and stop getting creepy deathboners when talking about how much you want to shoot people. You're embarrassing America in front of the rest of the internet.

Do you have some prominent Dem politicians in mind? Honestly I don't follow gun control discussions that closely so maybe I'm missing those that are calling for outright bans. Could you link me to some?

ETA: ****, you can even link a bill some no name politician has introduced to ban guns and I'll go on the record denouncing it if that helps.

Oh please, anyone too ****ing stupid to realize suzzer was looking for some jackass to stumble in going "Yea, that ****ing Obama's gonna take our GUNZ! I seen it on Free Republic!" has no business publicly opining on anything.

BTW, I find my own ideas about what sells and what doesn't to be better than any regular poster ITT. And that, edited a bit, would sell.

True story: I was nearly gunned down as an unarmed teenager

Though, guns being illegal wouldn't have stopped the police officers who kicked in our front door to stop me robbing myself from having guns.

Clearly there are idiots who find it compelling. That's how suzzer found it. That's not the point, though. You, after giving us racism-spotters such grief for "crying wolf," are here, ITT, lauding, rather than condemning, actual, confirmed, indisputable from both sides, false cries of gun control. Yet somehow, this is good for gun control (you're not condemning the person who's spreading the lies, namely, certainly not with the same fervor you condemn people who spot racism), but even if I grant for the sake of argument that the billboard in question isn't racist, somehow calling that racist when it's not racist is a horrible setback for people who oppose racism.

C'mon Wookie. You're smarter than that. Don't just make **** up.

You know that wasn't at all the point of my condemnation.

My point was aimed at specific posters, who constantly "racism racism racism" everything to the point where everyone just skips their bull****, even when it may have some validity.

I seriously expected better from you.

This has to be one of the oddest posts I've read in a while ITF.

It literally comes close, but still stays under on the weirdness radar, of LirvA's posted convo with that girl he ****ed in TX.

And that's saying something.

It's all references to bull**** and most of it doesn't even link correctly.

You're giving lip service to the most preposterous of gun paranoia. Meanwhile, neither Fly nor I call everything racist. AlexM obliged you with a list of bunch of things superficially related to something we've called racist that we have not called racist.

Your shtick on gun control is literally to the point where people are skipping or loling at your bull**** even when you think you have a point. That's what this thread is.

Suzzer: "lol gun people."
DBJ: "Actually, they have a point..."

Clearly you're skipping it. Which is fine, but that really negates your ability to comment on it.

Secondly, you're not Fly, you've never been Fly, and I don't know for what possible reasoning you've chosen to link your typically decent posting style with Fly's.

If you in your heart truly believe there's racism in that billboard about gas prices, fine. That's (IMO) an error in judgement on your part, not a new bonding between you two.

FFS, Fly and I were in perfect agreement in the Sovereign Citizen thread, doesn't mean I like him.

I mean Jesus, ITT he referenced the plot of "The Turner Diaries", because he's officially gone so far over the edge that he can't step back like I can and say "I'm FOS here, but I'm doing it for a cause I believe in", he, in his mind truly believed that because NeBlis, myself and the other "gun people" support gun rights we would have actually read "The Turner Diaries".

If you're going to take every post anyone makes LOLing at Fly about calling **** racist personally because you happened to think Fly was right one time then you'll be butthurt banning alot more than just me and LirvA.

You know how when lirva got his panties in a knot because you took a job as a sheriff and he thought you were morally corrupt for doing a job that involved locking up people for growing a plant. Your logic here is very similar to what his was there.

God that Minnesota story is just sick.

If someone who shoots unarmed people repeatedly until they are no longer a threat and then walks up and gives them a "clean finishing shot" can legally own guns the system is clearly broken.

I am in principle pro gun ban, I like the gun control in Britain, but in the case of America it is pretty unrealistic to get to a situation where you can logically argue to get rid of guns because so many criminals have guns - but being pro gun control where obviously dangerous people who fantasise about the opportunity to shoot people with their guns are not allowed to legally own guns is clearly the right move.

Several of which post in this forum, one is a mod in the Econ forum who backed the murder of census takers who dont even try and test you, just merely take too long to get off your drive when they come to knock on your door.

The only difference between these nutters and a serial killer is the serial killer has less patience.

Here's a link in case anyone missed the story.

I am having a hard time with this one. I think it's tragic the two teens were killed, but tragic in a way not dissimilar to how I'd feel if someone met their death doing wingsuit base jumps. Breaking into remote houses in rural places (on Thanksgiving no less, as if to guarantee occupancy) where every other person owns at least a hunting rifle and where Castle Doctrine is mother's milk, well, that's Darwin Award material.

That said, and leaving aside that he sounds like he has grave personal issues, the homeowner could have found a more reasonable way of handling the situation. Maybe I missed it, but it didn't look like he offered a verbal warning, or even fired a warning shot, or barricaded himself plus gun plus phone. He just immediately went into stealth kill mode. On the other hand, I know jack about optimal behavior in a spot like his.

In Scandinavia, tho, you just let them rob you.

...

Okay, so thinking about it, right or wrong, my personal approach would be to meld the suggestions above and lock myself in a room, form a makeshift barricade, crouch behind it with my rifle, and yell out to the robbers that they could take what they wanted but I'd shoot if they came in here, and oh, they have five minutes before the police arrive.

You could just, you know, hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived. No shots needed. They were unarmed kids hoping for empty houses. Like the cops are going to scare them any more than having a gun drawn on them by some crazy dude.

what

Yeah you think?