Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
warning or bullet?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LightningCrash" data-source="post: 1507102" data-attributes="member: 4278"><p>Is there case law that proves <strong>your</strong> point? I've shown you Dawkins. CCW isn't even a point of discussion here, how do you feel that it relates to the discussion at hand? The SDA isn't even what's being discussed here. We've been discussing the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 (Title 21 § 1289). How do you think your comment relates to Sec 1289?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>and Fritz Pierce was just a country bumpkin with a pistol shoved down his pants, but it has set precedent for almost one hundred years. Heller v DC was just about a guy wanting a pistol.</p><p>Even a felon can commit justifiable homicide... yet in this case the jurors didn't feel Dawkins was justified, even though he claimed was defending another who he claimed was in imminent peril. Why do you suppose that is? How do those circumstances differ from shooting a convenience store robber in the <strong>back</strong>?</p><p></p><p></p><p>ETA:</p><p>You might think I'm going on a bit, but I really want to explore the whole issue. I don't want to hear later that someone shot somebody in the back solely because Herp McDerp on OSA said you wouldn't go to jail for it. To be sure, I'd rather not have someone in a position where they need to shoot someone at all, but it would be nice if they do end up in such a position, they have previously considered the legal ramifications.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightningCrash, post: 1507102, member: 4278"] Is there case law that proves [b]your[/b] point? I've shown you Dawkins. CCW isn't even a point of discussion here, how do you feel that it relates to the discussion at hand? The SDA isn't even what's being discussed here. We've been discussing the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 (Title 21 § 1289). How do you think your comment relates to Sec 1289? and Fritz Pierce was just a country bumpkin with a pistol shoved down his pants, but it has set precedent for almost one hundred years. Heller v DC was just about a guy wanting a pistol. Even a felon can commit justifiable homicide... yet in this case the jurors didn't feel Dawkins was justified, even though he claimed was defending another who he claimed was in imminent peril. Why do you suppose that is? How do those circumstances differ from shooting a convenience store robber in the [b]back[/b]? ETA: You might think I'm going on a bit, but I really want to explore the whole issue. I don't want to hear later that someone shot somebody in the back solely because Herp McDerp on OSA said you wouldn't go to jail for it. To be sure, I'd rather not have someone in a position where they need to shoot someone at all, but it would be nice if they do end up in such a position, they have previously considered the legal ramifications. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
warning or bullet?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom