U.S. Virgin Islands seizing guns, ammo in anticipation of Irma

Rational thinking people don't think its inappropriate to have one gun. A bullet is a bullet. Equally as deadly.

 

Because of your irrational fears and your desire for the state to have a monopoly on force.
That it, this issue here is you, not me.

 

Or more than one.
Or ten.

 

Well, lets see. Dead bodies, bullets in their chests, blood. It would be pitiful to try using the Constitution as a crutch in a court of law, more like cheap defense.

 

We are talking about US terriroty, why do you think help wouldn't be brought in immediately?

Some of you all have been watching too much TV.

 

None of this happened in Houston where there are far more people and far more guns.
Your fears remain irrational.

 

Again, answer me this. If I plow down hooligans with my car and claim it as self-defense, does that automatically free me of being charged with vehicular homicide due to claims of "self-defense?"

 

In your case, you'd be the one with bullets in your chest and blood, and that is absolutely your right to be a victim.

 

Why would you do this unless you're a murderer?

You keep trying to change the subject. We are talking about the gov't seizing guns in time of natural disaster. Please stay on topic.

 

So when is it ok to use self-defense that wouldn't be considered cheap?

 

Its no different than if I shot a bunch of hooligans in my house. Whether by vehicle or gun, murder is murder.

And many times now, I have given rationale as to why the gov't should seize guns in these times.

 

It simply becomes a weak defense in a court of law to free someone of murder charges.

 

Well then don't shoot the hooligans that enter your house. Let them kill you and your family. You'll feel much better about it in the end.

 

Oh look - red herring.

 

Not even you believe this.
If a bunch of hooligans force their way into your house, they don't even need a weapon for you to have the right to shoot them in self defense.

 

Again, murder is murder. In comparison, I become no better than them.

 

If no one can answer why killing with a vehicle is no different of an act of self-defense than it is with a gun, then they have no argument. Both are weapons, both kill. The person who claims self-defense becomes the one with blood on their hands.

 

Self-defense is not murder.
But, you know this.

 

Yeah, okay. I guess James Holmes was a saint as well. Going by your logic.

 

Under the relevant circumstances, the weapon does not matter - -killing in self-defense is killing in self-defense.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.
You continue to argue with nothing but fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Self-defense is not murder.
But, you know this.

 

which is what happens to people who can't protect themselves

 

I'm not sure how you'd kill with a vehicle in self defense, if you're in a vehicle, you'd be able to get away, but I'm sure there are situations that i can happen. If your life is threatened, then you have the right.

You seem to prefer to be killed in most situations. That's okay and it's your right.

 

Anyone can claim they kill in self-defense. That's why murder then becomes a moot crime. If you're going to say you kill in the name of self-defense, then you are saying you want to decriminalize homicide.

 

No, you're saying that foolishness