Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ijustlookedthatup t1_jdcrqtj wrote

Reply to comment by dgroach27 in VIDEO: ATVs Blitz Providence on Tuesday by Previous_Floor

No, it will not stop the ATV problem. But it may help stop people from being dragged out of their cars and beaten. Or at the very least give someone the chance to stop themselves from becoming a victim of violent crime.

5

dgroach27 t1_jdcu6q8 wrote

What makes you seem like a vigilante is there can be a very thin line between community self defense and a mob of vigilantes, especially when those who intend to do harm to an individual or the community are difficult to distinguish from those who don't intend to do harm.

−2

Ijustlookedthatup t1_jddl7yx wrote

I specifically brought up the recent case of a woman and then a man being dragged out from the car and beaten. Is this something you Consider vigilantism to stop the person or persons attacking you? I didn’t speak of vigilantism, that was brought up by you. I believe in adequate self-defense.

3

dgroach27 t1_jddn6xe wrote

Love the condescending question, of course that's not vigilantism. You also talked about community self defense.

>When government does not act it is up to the individual and community to protect themselves.

I was providing input on why someone called you a vigilante. Literally no one is saying people shouldn't defend themselves but when you say stuff like "When government does not act it is up to the individual and community to protect themselves." after saying "This why the second amendment exists" it isn't out of the realm of reality for someone to interpret that as you wanting more than 'individuals using "adequate self-defense"'. It is especially not out of the realm of reality considering the country we live in.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_jdel7m2 wrote

I can see how what I said could be seen that way but that is absolutely not at all what I mean. If someone went out and created trouble for those riding the ATVs I would say they should be charge for assault with a deadly weapon. I merely say that anyone who get aggressed by these groups should have the right to defend themselves.

2

VinylGator t1_jdg365n wrote

I’ve followed this thread quite closely.

> Literally no one is saying people shouldn’t defend themselves

That seems to be precisely what your argument has been?

> government does not act it is up to the individual and community to protect themselves.”

I mean, I fucking hate guns, but can you reasonably explain to me why the right to carry a gun is not justified here? Like actually reasonable?

Is this woman, who is violently being grabbed from her car, that also has her children in it, supposed to say: “nah, nah, nah, nah, aboo, boo, I call time out! I’m going to call the police. Things are in time out until they arrive!”

What more could a right to self defense exist of?

> it isn’t out of the realm of reality for someone to interpret that as you wanting more than ‘individuals using “adequate self-defense”’. It is especially not out of the realm of reality considering the country we live in.

This is your projection to attempt to self validate your ridiculous interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less.

1

dgroach27 t1_jdgfgjh wrote

I’m pretty sure I never said people shouldn’t defend themselves buuuuut you have been following this thread quite closely so you’re probably right. Whatever you say big guy.

1

VinylGator t1_jdg1ipb wrote

Right. A women being accosted from her car with children is difficult to distinguish from a group of people in the act of accosting her

I like how the woman, with her children, suddenly became a “mob”.

1