Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

Depending on the possible intruder, your dog may not survive the intrusion. Violent, aggressive, possibly drug addicted criminals may harm your dog.

Anonymous wrote:As a homeowner, you must be able to show that you were under threat of imminent harm before you shoot someone. If you just shoot someone who enters your home, state prosecutors could come after you.

Protecting your home with a gun should be commensurate with the threat and gun owners should know this. If you shoot dead a teenager attempting to steal a bike, state prosecutors could come after you.

This is why Harris’s comment was irresponsible.

As a homeowner, you must be able to show that you were under threat of imminent harm before you shoot someone. If you just shoot someone who enters your home, state prosecutors could come after you.

Protecting your home with a gun should be commensurate with the threat and gun owners should know this. If you shoot dead a teenager attempting to steal a bike, state prosecutors could come after you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

You obviously have a really small penis, and are desperate to make up for it.

No, I'm a female living in a large city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

Get the gun, you don’t want your dog catching something from the perp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

So, you think property crime deserves the DEATH PENALTY?!? WTF??

Castle doctrine should be universal and absolute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

So, you think property crime deserves the DEATH PENALTY?!? WTF??

You are wrong to minimize breaking and entering and theft as some minor property crime. Very often, innocent victims of those crimes are harmed or killed by those criminals intent on stealing others' belongings. Teach your kids the importance of not stealing. Homeowners would be stupid to wait until the criminal harms them before taking defensive action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

So, you think property crime deserves the DEATH PENALTY?!? WTF??

There's an old saying, "Crime doesn't pay." Teach your kids not to steal and not no break into homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

Get one now while you still can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

So, you think property crime deserves the DEATH PENALTY?!? WTF??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

You obviously have a really small penis, and are desperate to make up for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not true that you can shoot just anyone who enters your home - it depends upon the state. Some require reasonable retreat first, or response commensurate with the offense - is the entered demonstrating attempt to use deadly force, or is it an unarmed burglary or even drunken person entering wrong house.

If we are meaning talk about gun control, our leaders should talk responsibly about the topic and not just make little quips

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/18/us/stand-your-ground-laws-explainer

Reasonable retreat?! Do you mean after your polite, calm request asking them to please leave? How close to you or your loved ones will you let them get?

Just call 911 and let the police handle it. Vigilanteism is not the answer Kamala!

PP here. You might want to think about what an intruder can do to you, your loved ones, and your home in the 12 to 15 minutes before the police can get there.

Violence is never the right answer.

Protection is the right answer when criminals break into your home. In our home, we have no guns, but I'm beginning to think one is needed. For now, any intruder will be met by an 80 lb dog.

OK, MAGA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are laws for a reason and gun owners should know them. A unarmed teenager breaking in to quickly steal your purse - ok to shoot him?

Our officials in charge of changing gun laws - should at least acknowledge there are LAWS.

No one should break into someone else's home. That teenager is a criminal.

Well there's that one extreme of picking a fight with a random teenager who was walking outside minding his own business and then shooting him when the fight you picked with him starts going wrong... Zimmerman basically legalized random shootings of anyone you don't like with little grounds in many red state jurisdictions.

That said I don't think we need to worry about Kamala stalking random teenagers in her neighborhood and shooting them the way George Z did.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about your opinion of who should be shot or not - this is about gun owners being cognizant of gun laws. A gun owner, especially one involved with law making, should know this.

Might be wise if criminals were aware of those gun laws before they break into people's homes to steal, assault, rape, or kill.

It’s not about your opinion of who should be shot or not - this is about gun owners being cognizant of gun laws. A gun owner, especially one involved with law making, should know this.