As always, the legal commentary from John Stupidwood amuses to no end.
Where he's likely to be surprised, is that when he goes hunting for those drug dealers and confronts one and uses his weapon, he will be charged.
Nice. So now I'm "hunting" for people simply because I want to protect myself from the very people who've openly expressed an interest in murdering me? That's classic. He's apparently assuming I go out confronting people and attacking them or provoking them. I've been doing this for over three years now with nary a fistfight, let alone a gun fight, to show for it. If I was going out and seeking confrontation, you'd have heard about it by now! I'd had have had more than one confrontation if that was actually the modus operandi I was using.
I'm well aware that the doctrine of self defense doesn't afford you any protection if you are the aggressor. My carrying of the sidearm is purely for defensive purposes against people
seeking confrontation with me, and it's not to enable me to plug bad guys who piss me off and don't run when I attack them.
Thanks for the lecture dipshit, but as anyone who's applied for a carry permit in VA (a state where, unlike MD, you're actually required to demonstrate proficiency with firearms and take a two day legal seminar on when you can and can't shoot) knows, self defense is an affirmative defense. When you use force against an assailant, the state presumes a crime has been committed, and you're typically required to provide the affirmative case (in other words...the burden is on me to demonstrate my case) that you acted in a justifiable fashion.
Like I said, I don't need any "training" re: the use of force, thanks; not only have I been trained in tactical firearms usage, I've also been made well aware of the legal ramifications of the use of force and the parameters wherein it's justifiable. Drug dealers mad at me because I've observed their activities who decide to chase me down the street and corner me leaving me no other option or means of retreat--justifiable. People I chase down the street if I were evil and crazy enough to do so--not justifiable. You generally have a duty to retreat in MD except at home. Anyone forcing their way into my home is presumed to be doing so with the intention of harming me or my family, and thus I have duty to retreat in my "castle."
Gotta love legal advice from the maroons who brag about their participation in sex crimes on public forums. Next up, investment advice from Ken Lay, Jack Grubman, and Bernie Ebbers. Yawn...
He continues:
So this guy is a self appointed enforcer of laws?
Eh what?!? Like I said, I've never arrested anyone, assaulted anyone, or even drawn my sidearm. I merely said that you'll get no trouble from me if you quit breaking the law in my neighborhood (hence my reference to my close relationship with law enforcement). I guess we can thank John Dudwood for being a useful idiot and giving me the chance to clarify: make no mistake, I'm not appointing myself anything. I'm merely someone who passes on to law enforcement information that helps THEM enforce the laws.
I don't even own a pair of handcuffs.
He's probably one of those who wanted to be in the military, but lacked the intelligence or couldn't meet the physical requirements. He probably wanted to be a police officer too, but couldn't pass the psych tests.
Noted without comment other than pointing out that's simply more unsupported aspersions at my character from people who brag on the Internet about engaging in sex crimes. Funny. Kinda like Jessica Simpson insisting that Enrico Fermi guy wasn't all that bright.
Here he takes the cake, in reference to my pointing out that their dollars support the felony drug trafficking in our area:
A statement like that is ridiculous. I could just as easily say that Sebastian's love for his Glock pistol makes him a neo-nazi because Gaston Glock's best friend is Jörg Haider, former leader of Austria's ultraright Freedom Party and a Hitler admirer. Yea I know that's a stupid assumption, but you all get the point. Kinda like saying we all support terrorists because we use petroleum.
Well for starters genius, Gaston Glock makes a product that's LEGAL and has a legitimate purpose, and the money his company takes in is used for all sorts of legitimate purposes, like paying salaries and taxes. By way of contrast, no such justification for engaging in criminal activity with known drug addicted women exists. Don't come to a gun fight with a knife; indeed, JS seems to have arrived at an intellectual tank battle armed with a sharp stick.
Cover it up all ya like boys: you know goddamned well those nasty skank bitches wouldn't be hobbing your shriveled up old knobs for a measly twenty bucks if they weren't addicts. Saying that giving a known dope addict money to spend on dope isn't supporting the drug trade is like saying giving a recovering alcoholic a drink isn't helping them relapse--in both cases you know exactly what the end result is going to be. Hell, on your own precious USASG site you buffoons readily admit that the sex workers you frequent
are all addicts. That isn't even up for debate. Your activities feed their habit, which in turn feeds the continued presence of addicts and dealers in Pigtown.
If you can't handle that reality, get a new hobby.