Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "Phoenix homeowner who killed intruder warns other thieves" video.

@1974dormouse Are you still pretending like the boogie man is taking away guns? He clearly was able to get another, same day. Your unsubstantiated fears feed your delusions.
4
@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO He isn’t defenseless if he can obtain another gun. In no way is it a crime to process evidence. Try a little reason. Your life will be so much more rewarding.
3
Oh yeah? How?
2
@alexunlv This isn’t a violation of the 2nd because this isn’t preventing him or anyone else from being armed. His right to bear arms was in no way infringed. This is demonstrated by the fact that he was able to get another fire arm, same day. You don’t get to make assertions about reasonable people, or what is reasonable. It is reasonable in the event of a death by firearm, that laws are followed.
1
@Vex916T He was able to, so his rights were not infringed. Not being able to afford a fire arm may likely be the reality for millions of people. That doesn’t mean their rights are infringed. You’ve been radicalized and are hyper sensitive, apparently. He hasn’t been charged. His weapon will be returned to him. Try to calm down.
1
@brandonhill2183 I never said “oh, just go buy another one”. What I said was, his rights are not being infringed, nobody is,preventing from from obtaining another one. It seems they are currently in the process of establishing, confirming, and recording that the weapon was lawfully used. There is a process. You don’t get to magically declare it to make it so. It’s the same reason cops can’t just execute people they feel are guilty, even when they are guilty. Due process. Is anyone denying this guy from obtaining another fire arm?
1
@ModernDecay70 What I know is that his rights aren’t being violated. He still has the right to arms. Nobody has infringed upon his rights. And you can’t seem to grasp this. The point of my comparison was to spotlight the fact that even what people have rights, the people aren’t guaranteed to have the means to exercise them. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend simple concepts because you’ve been radicalized to believe in the boogie man.
1
@ModernDecay70 In this case, it appear the man has another fire arm, same day. Explain how,his rights have been violated. If you want to argue the legal process should change to reduce the time involved, that might be legitimate. Your suggestion that his rights have been violated is fallacious.
1
@ModernDecay70 You’re still admitting you can’t follow.
1
@ModernDecay70 Has anyone stopped him from obtaining arms? Yes or no.
1
@alexunlv No, I’m not saying the government has a right to take anything away. I’m saying he still had every right to own a fire arm, and nobody stopped him. You’re very confused. Just answer the question on whether or not he was able to obtain another fire arm that same day, and your argument crumbles. And since you still won’t answer that single question, you’re not being reasonable. You’re so radicalized by the boogie man, you can’t see the trees.
1
@alexunlv Consider this…. If this man had owned five fire arms, but only used the one that day….are you arguing they would taken all five from him? Of course not. Can you see the trees yet?
1
@alexunlv Your straw man argument doesn’t address the point. His rights were not infringed upon. He is still able to possess a fire arm. This particular weapon is being used as evidence as the result of a crime. It will be returned. But I the mean time, he can still exercise his rights. You’re confused on the topic. Probably because you can’t see straight with your emotional radicalization. Nobody is preventing him from owning or possessing fire arms. Those rights have not been violated in any way. How is it you can’t grasp such a simple concept.
1
@alexunlv His rights to own and possess a fire arm were never infringed. He was able to legally obtain another fire arm same day. You’re making a different argument, but you can’t even grasp it. Was he able to own and possess other fire arms? Yes. Did anyone attempt to stop him? No. His 2nd amendment rights were never in question.
1
@Roadking556 And? Did this prevent him from his rights? Of course not. You’re confusing two issues. He still has his 2nd amendment rights. What you’re complaining about is red tape, not rights. Do you see the difference? Some people are so radicalized be the fear of a boogie man, they can’t differentiate.
1
Maybe the police are the tyrants the left think they are, eh?
1
@bluesman97 I don’t live in a constant state of fear where I can’t sleep without a fire arm. I hope you don’t either.
1
@ffjsb So far, all of the arguments on this string of posts have demonstrated to be moronic. Nobody’s rights were taken away, yet in their radicalized delusions…they’re convinced somehow that is happening. Yet, when the police kill people without cause, they will defend it until they’re blue in the face. And even participate in insurrections.
1
@Roadking556 The red tape is t a result of rights, or rights infringement. The guy in the story was able to secure a fire arm same day. You’re confusing two different topics. In no way were his rights impeded. He still had his rights, and exercised them same day.
1
@brianwilson4861 In other words, you are able to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.
1
@philhand5830 You’re clearly radicalized. My only position is that the guy in this news clip still has his 2nd amendment rights. Suddenly everyone is a Marxist and the boogie man is at the door?
1
@RSD 3 The most gun violence is caused by gun owners. In fact, all gun violence is caused by gun owners.
1
@RSD 3 That’s where you’re sounding like you’ve been radicalized. I never made any assertions about restricting rights or taking away guns. My only argument is that the guy in this story was able to obtain another fire arm same day, which demonstrates that his rights were not violated and he was able,to exercise them freely. But here you are, all amped up making baseless accusations about taking away rights. You’re a good example of a very bad example.
1