Elderly California store owner fires at armed robbery suspect who shouts, 'He shot my arm off!’

Thanks for your input.

I've already got a substantial earth berm as a bullet backstop that is about 35 yards from my blacksmith shop and can get a 100 yard shot at the impact berm if I shoot from the barn. Behind the berm is about 400 - 500 yards of heavily wooded land.

The good folks at the sheriff's department have said that everything is OK but my primary concern is bothering my very patient and understanding existing neighbors with whom I have a very friendly relationship.
It's for that reason alone that I will look into getting a suppressor or two.

Since I live about 400 yards away what is considered a scenic byway, most of the complaints come from people just driving by who don't know that shooting is a sacred tradition in this county.

A good friend just went through the process of getting a suppressor so that seems to be the best way to go.

Thanks again,

 

Do you think the men who wrote the document would have mentioned registration if they intended it to be operational?

The idea of registration of firearms originated with the modern 'liberal' mindset which demands government control all aspects of our lives. Pure poppycock.

 

You put it in bold, but I'm changing it in red.
Do you see that this is about criminals, like my source said? Thanks for playing.

 

You need to prove it or else you got no argument.

 

You have it exactly backwards.

In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
-Bruen, 2022

Onus is on you to show firearms registration, as a condition of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Good luck.

 

Nope. So that's a problem for the people who claim its unconstitutional.

I sourced that the most common way criminals are getting their guns, is because friends and family are selling/giving/lending it. So that's why.

And currently the US simply got weak gun laws.
While the majority want better ones. I also sourced that.

 

I don't have to prove it if I don't have an argument what the hell are you arguing with me for. Every single post you make in response to me tells me I have an argument.

 

I'm not going to trust some anonymous poster. Sorry.
So you've lost the argument. Thanks for playing.

 

I guess that encompasses your replies too? I'll save this for later use, thank you

 

you don't have to trust me you just have to think critically and outside of the political orthodoxy.

Maybe accept that your opinion might not be correct. I know with people desperate to be correct that's too much to ask but it's much easier to change your mind than it is to change the world.

Then there's no need to post any more responses to me outside of ecostroking so I'm going to take any post in the future from you on this topic as you forfeiting your victory and returning to the argument because you have to sort more of it out.

Unless you are trying to dominate the subject by declaring victory the argument would be over so we'll see if you post again I look forward to it.

 

All he has to do is accept his bias and think critically he doesn't have to trust me he can trust himself but he won't allow that because he might get to the same conclusion I did.

And I represent the evil in his religion so he can't let that happen this is called disgust-based thinking it's really rather lacking a nuance is where you pick someone from another tribe and say they're disgusting because they're from another tribe. It's kind of the basis for all bigotry 31 ever wonder where that comes from this is where.

 

I don't. You got no source so no argument / lost the argument.

 

yes its red now.. do you still not understand it? The Law wont work on criminals.. remember when I asked you this..

So when I asked you for a law that would target criminals you put in red for everyone to see that your ideas are useless? Great work..

So again do you have any other ideas that would actually be able to target criminals? (and also would be constitutional)

Because coming up with a law that cant target criminals seems pretty pointless

 

Then why are you arguing with me? You forfeited your victory to struggle for dominance. You lost and you'll lose again because you simply must have the last word.

That is the behavior of a person with a weak position.

 

Onus is on you to show firearms registration, as a condition of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Else, it violates the 2nd.
Good luck.

 

Onus is on you to show firearms registration, as a condition of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Else, it violates the 2nd.

 

Pointless? I still see no problem that with no law abiding citizen can register their gun. And THEY can not transfer on paper the ownership of a weapon. So when they find a criminal having the gun that was illegally sold, given, lend to a criminal... the law abiding citizen loses not just his gun, but the ability to own any guns. That will end the most common way a criminal gets it's hand on a gun.

 

Your claim I lost, is not found on anything.
You lost because you could not prove your point.

 

I can't prove a negative.

 

You keep cutting out my argument, so you lost.
While you got no argument.

 

You keep declaring that. You are trying to convince yourself.

 

you're not talking about a Law abiding citizen.. you're talking about a felony straw purchaser criminal.. WHO WONT REGISTER THE GUN and even if they are found out to NOT have registered it.. NOTHING CAN HAPPEN TO THEM,

How the hell are you still not understanding that "The Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns"

So you think that a straw purchaser is going to commit a felony straw purchase.. ignoring the straw purchase law but somehow follow the registration law? a law he has NO legal obligation to actually follow? Please tell me your trolling because you might as well start talking about magic and unicorns if your living in a fantasy world where criminals care about following the laws..

 

You were not asked to.

 

Indeed.
You keep on declaring that you don't need to prove a thing.
And that's of course why I keep saying that you lost the argument when you can not or will not prove your point.

 

And suddenly your claim that you can not register a gun is gone, since lawful citizens can be made to register.

Cars are registered. They got a license plate and a vehicle identification number. Cops use it to trace it back to the original owner all the time. Even when it's just a rental... they go ask the company who paid for it, how, when, the CCTV images of that day. The same thing will happen if you register guns. They'll be knocking on the door of the person whose name the gun is registered to, and start asking questions. It also should lead to that the person loses it's right to own guns since it carelessly passed it to terrorists and so aided them. We can't have that. And here you are thinking you can get the same results with weak gun laws. The US tried it for decades, and the results are abysmal.