Obi, you sad, pathetic little man. I'm not certani why you think I have a hard-on for the NRA. I'm not a member, and think they are misguided at times. as misguided, no doubt, as Ms. Hoebner.

If you want to fight about guns, find someone who cares. It's not me.

Gun rights is by far and away the most important issue facing Americans today. Personally, I welcome anyone to the correct side, regardless of their views on other issues.

Still an idiot.....

Sorry... let me just show you exactly what you just said:

"Gun rights is by far and away the most important issue facing Americans today."

Would you like to retract that statement?

Surely the most important issues are denying women abortions and gays rights to equality under the law ......

We can't deny the gays their rights unless we have our guns. Stupid Brit, use your head.

I thought you used the branding iron on gays .... as if seeing them mince down the street in their pink skirts and high heels wasn't enough

But gays are the reason it snows in Atlanta. After all, Atlanta has a domestic partnership registry for gay people. God cried frozen tears on them to remind them of their sins.

That is sooooo true ..... I thought as much

@ bo_sox48

I stand by that statement, and will continue to stand by that statement until the military/police monopoly on firepower is permanently broken.

@ NigeeBaby

No, we're protecting innocent babies and allowing states to define marriage, both of which are state powers enshrined in our Constitution. I have an idea. I won't presume to lecture on British rights and you won't presume to lecture me on American rights.

Because of all of the evils of this world, *clearly* the fact that Americans can own weapons and can use a traditional definition of marriage is *clearly* the most sinister. /sarcasm. If you don't like the way we do things, then don't move to America! It's not that complicated!

Okay, Gunfighter... okay...

While you are busy crying about having to self-identify as a gun owner in order to have a lethal weapon, just like you have to do with other lethal weapons that we all possess like cars, I'll slide my attention over to something that matters.

So let me get this "straight". If the gays were to pick up arms and start putting homophobes like yourself down then you'd be okay with that.

Yeah, they have the right to bear arms. Can't marry, because hey, that's a state thing, but even if you're one of those yucky gay people you can pick up a gun and blow someone's head off and claim self defense.

I'm curious, Oscar -- do you actually believe that supporting the right to legally own weapons is logically equivalent to supporting the right to legally murder?

Or do you just find fallacy fun?

I do find fallacy fun, but that's not relevant here. I also enjoy setting troll baits. Thanks for biting semck.

This whole thread is fallacy, and this whole thread is fun.

In any case. It wouldn't be murder. It would be self defense against homophobes.

"I also enjoy setting troll baits. Thanks for biting semck."

It's fine. I enjoy showing up liberals' attempts at thought-provoking humor as intellectually vacuous drivel, so this is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

"In any case. It wouldn't be murder. It would be self defense against homophobes."

No, it would be murder. Very few homophobes iminently threaten fatal bodily injury against any homosexuals, so self-defense would not apply.

An imminent threat of fatal bodily injury is not necessary for something to be self defense, you moron. How about I kick you in the nuts over and over again for about an hour. That's not fatal.

Also, homophobe violence against gays happens on a daily basis so you're either an ignorant fuck or an apologist for sexual orientation based violence. A couple of gays should rape your ass in self defense.

"An imminent threat of fatal bodily injury is not necessary for something to be self defense, you moron. How about I kick you in the nuts over and over again for about an hour. That's not fatal."

Depends on the state. In California, for example, that would be justified homicide ("great bodily injury.") On the other hand, in Texas, it would not:

" A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself."

(See also Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Chapter 9, Section 9.32, "Deadly force in defense of person.")

Of course, unless the state has a stand-your-ground law, there would be a duty to retreat instead of using deadly force, in any case, although if you failed to do so before being kicked in the nuts, I imagine you could raise a good argument that you couldn't thereafter.

"Also, homophobe violence against gays happens on a daily basis so you're either an ignorant fuck or an apologist for sexual orientation based violence."

It does, but rarely rising to a standard allowing killing in self-defense. And still, given your very broad use of "homophobe," most homophobes do not injure gays physically. In your first post that I responded to, you said, "If the gays were to pick up arms and start putting homophobes like yourself down then you'd be okay with that."

It's clear you were talking about vendetta killing, not self defense; and you certainly have not a shred of evidence that gunfighter has ever physically harmed a gay in his life; so stop trying to get all technical now and pretend you were talking about justifiable homicide. You were just spewing fallacy because you thought nobody would call you on it.

You were wrong. As usual.

Sorry, pasted the wrong section. Here we go:

"DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

"It's fine. I enjoy showing up liberals' attempts at thought-provoking humor as intellectually vacuous drivel, so this is a mutually beneficial arrangement."

*chortle*

"It does, but rarely rising to a standard allowing killing in self-defense."

Wait a minute, here. Just as a side note, if our old pal Zimmerman can get away with killing somebody because he "felt a little scared" I'm pretty sure than each and every violent attack on a gay person falls under that same umbrella. No?

I mean if I was gay and getting the shit kicked out of me by a few rednecks, and possessing knowledge that whatever (2%? 5%?) of these hate crimes result in a fatality, I'm sure not going to hesitate to use whatever means necessary to defend myself.

@YJ - Zimmerman was trapped underneath his assailant. If a gay guy finds himself trapped underneath someone hitting him, in Florida, yes he can shoot him. Let's not let a little thing like facts and comparable circumstances get in the way of a troll though, right?

Also, it varies from state to state. Remember, the US has States that decide what constitutes self-defense and murder. The feds only get involved if the killing spree crosses state lines or was part of the commission of another federal crime (like robbing a Federal Reserve).

YJ,

Sure, if you are in reasonable fear for your life, then you can use deadly force. But the point is, you have to be in reasonable fear for your life. Which is what I said in the first place.

Also, Zimmerman didn't "feel a little scared." At least according to his story, which the jury presumably found at least plausible, he was having his head pounded against the pavement by somebody who said he was going to kill him.

"I mean if I was gay and getting the shit kicked out of me by a few rednecks, and possessing knowledge that whatever (2%? 5%?) of these hate crimes result in a fatality, I'm sure not going to hesitate to use whatever means necessary to defend myself."

There were 30 anti-gay murders alleged in 2011, and that was a record number. It follows logically that one of the following facts is false:

(*) There is a very large amount of anti-gay violence.
(*) A significant percentage of anti-gay violence is fatal.

Actually if 30 murders is 2%, then that means there were 6000 violent attacks. I'd call that a large amount of anti-gay violence.

Sorry, that was the 5% number. if 2%, then 15,000 assaults. So between 6000 and 15,000. I'd call that a pretty good number.

Oh geez. I can't even seem to do simple math today... Forget all my numbers above. It's 600 and 1500. It's late in the workday.