4 ms·
I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no s
by m0zg 6y ago
I mean I'm pretty sure that hitting someone with a fucking rock in the head with full force qualifies as "violent". I'm sure you wouldn't like it, sword or no sword. Nor would you like to protect your property from looters unarmed.
This comment and others like it reminds me of this gem right here: https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/...
- HarryHirsch 6y agoReddit has something to say about this man: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/gu5eal/machetewielding_man_attacked_by_dallas_mob_in/fsgdp7o/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/gu5eal/machetewield... It thinks he was a total fuckwit.
- newacct583 6y agoThe article doesn't allege he was hit with a rock unbidden though. It says he was attacked after "chasing" "looters" with a sword. I'm sorry, but at that point combat has been engaged. Every 2A advocate here would agree that anyone in that circumstances would be entitled to stand their ground and fight back. And apparently they did.
- m0zg 6y agoSo if looters get shot, that's OK in your book as well? Or, if a store owner catches a looter, would it be OK to "engage combat" and bash their head in with a rock? Best I can tell he was just chasing them away, he hasn't done harm to anybody.