Kansas City home owner shoots, kills intruder with shotgun

[Penny Lane 8,159]

wait I thought I started it..

You told me you were responding to charles, which I responded to. GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT.

[Teddy B 17,252]

yeah the sexual tension between those two, they should go start their own game thread.

Penny is too kind and patient and she does have a soft spot for the handicapped, so this exchange is understandable.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You told me you were responding to charles, which I responded to. GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT.

Only one way to end an argument with a women

Your right I am sorry

Penny is too kind and patient and she does have a soft spot for the handicapped, so this exchange is understandable.

Glad you are back. I wondered what happened to her air support

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yeah, Teddy. You left me here with no one to +1 me. That was rude.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Only one way to end an argument with a women

Your right I am sorry

Glad you are back. I wondered what happened to her air support

Penny needs no support from me or anyone. Your lack of reading comprehension is well known.

You say one thing and mean another. You remind me a bit of this guy.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yeah, Teddy. You left me here with no one to +1 me. That was rude.

I just cleared that up.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Penny needs no support from me or anyone. Your lack of reading comprehension is well known.

You say one thing and mean another. You remind me a bit of this guy.

cute....Well then maybe you can show me the post in which I said Penny is against legal gun ownership for homeowners.

P.S. you are projecting also

[Penny Lane 8,159]

cute....Well then maybe you can show me the post in which I said Penny is against legal gun ownership for homeowners.

P.S. you are projecting also

Everyone else is always the problem

I've quoted the post for you.

Sorry you don't want to explain it.

[Teddy B 17,252]

cute....Well then maybe you can show me the post in which I said Penny is against legal gun ownership for homeowners.

P.S. you are projecting also

Nope, I have no reason to point out the obvious to you. If you don't see it or don't get it, that's your problem.

I'm projecting? Is that a new way of saying I got wood?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Person 1: I have no problem with guns used for protecting yourself or your home.

Person 2: I will never be against a homeowner legally owning/operating a firearm for protection.

Person 3: I feel the love!

Person 4: This is like a breakthrough at an AA meeting, or watching kittens open their eyes for the first time, etc...

What does Person 4 mean?

Edited September 5, 2013 by Penny Lane

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Everyone else is always the problem

I've quoted the post for you.

Sorry you don't want to explain it.

You quote a post in which i said, " Penny does not support legal gun owners to have guns in their home" ?

Must have missed that one ROFL

I did see a post in which i said to Charles we have had a breakthrough, implying WOW most of us finally agree on something.I play on the parody of my screen name.

Now what kind of magic glasses you have to turn that into I said " Penny does not support legal gun owners to have guns in their home" ?

is beyond me...

You totally invented something i did not say in a post not directed to you, and in the same post accuse me of making stuff up and reading comprehension issues.

Yes ladies and gentlemen this could only happen during the 9-5 bizarre world progressive shift here at VJ.

Don't worry, they will all be off they clock soon and it will return to normal.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I did see a post in which i said to Charles we have had a breakthrough, implying WOW most of us finally agree on something.

... do you not see that's exactly what I'm saying?

It brings me back to my original comment.

You don't pay attention to what people are saying if you think this is us "finally" agreeing on this issue. Always have. Nothing new.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If some1 breaks in... I don't have time to determine if the intruder is armed & dangerous....

That's exactly it. Our home is our sanctuary from the cold, cruel world. When someone enters it uninvited, it is sacrilegious. It isn't our responsibility to find out who they are or why they are in our living room, but it is our God-given right to protect our loved ones from whatever potential evil they might be bringing upon our homestead.

There was an incident around the holidays, years back, where a woman woke to hearing some stranger in her living room, near her Christmas tree. The room was completely dark. She called out to the intruder several times to identify himself, but he said nothing, so she fired in toward the shadowy figure, killing him instantly. When she turned on the lights, she found that intruder was actually her 5 year old nephew. As tragic as this story is, lets not be detracted from the real fear of someone violating the safety of our home. We should be able to act on that fear with extreme prejudice because it isn't our responsibility to determine who it is and what they are doing there.

[Peikko 1,575]

You did. You said that the person committing the crime was not actually a criminal until they are convicted.

It is silly because you are confusing limitations on government actions against individuals (innocent in the eyes of the STATE until proven guilty) with individuals rights to defense of their property and themselves. That principal goes back to Roman law (speaking of civilized societies)

I said:

To be a criminal you have to be convicted of a crime and even once you have been convicted of a crime you still have rights and a place in society albeit incarcerated and away from the rest of society. Criminals are incarcerated for fixed terms (except in exceptional circumstances) and once their sentence is served they are freed from prison and resume life outside . Criminals are not branded and excommunicated from society.

To which you replied:

Elevating the rights of criminals who are in the act of committing a crime above the rights of their intended victims

What I said does not translate as giving criminals more rights than the intended victims, only an active imagination could think that it does.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Truth is right in this sense: The Bill of Rights was written to give rights to those that could be charged with a crime and to those that would preach dissidence. Since the founding fathers were by and large smugglers and malcontents engaging in unlawful activities while they were subjects of the Crown, they wanted to protect their interests when forming a government of their own.