Man in Texas killed trying to pick up kids from ex-wife

[Balcones 309]

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Yeah 40s and 50s. Any other theories?

Shooter was really short. I’m guessing years of pent up anger in that shot.

[South Austin 52,588]

22 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Shooter was really short. I’m guessing years of pent up anger in that shot.

[Bigbend1812 12,927]

[Nicole44 22,077]

4 minutes ago, Bigbend1812 said:

 

[CooterBrown 18,027]

There has been a shift in thinking to “a gun would be a great solution to this problem,” and it’s not a positive shift for us.

When you normalize guns as something that’s necessary in grocery stores, when walking the street, at junior’s ballgame, etc. and you constantly preach a culture of fear and us vs them, there’s no other possible outcome really.

[Deej 76,903]

6 hours ago, MrBig said:

Judge Anne-Marie and the shooter Kyle. Never trust a man with a bow tie.

http://electcarruth.com/about.html

He's dressed like Matlock's regarded grandson.

[Sawbonz 27,586]

18 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

All of that said, if you are on someone’s porch, and they’ve asked you to leave, you should probably leave. When they go inside and come out with a weapon, you should absolutely leave. When they fire a warning shot at you, you should absolutely leave. That’s a bad time to play middle school bump chest and shit talk. Dad made a fuckload of mistakes, and is now dead.    

Really feels like they knew he was a hothead, set him up, and he played right into their hands 

 

also

 

I bet she’s never opened a single one of those books

 

[crash_davis 23,115]

it's 2021 and we are regressing to settling arguments by shooting the other party.

the fuck kinda world are we leaving our kids?

do these fucksticks dream of scenarios where they can shoot someone in their front yard?

[Brisketexan 105,311]

it's 2021 and we are regressing to settling arguments by shooting the other party.
the fuck kinda world are we leaving our kids?
do these fucksticks dream of scenarios where they can shoot someone in their front yard?

Yes. That’s exactly what they fantasize about. This is the problem, dude.

[StruggleBus 3,922]

22 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

I find self defense law very confusing and murky. 

Personally, I’d use deadly force if someone entered my home or seriously threatened my wife or kids.

This wasn’t one of those situations but he’ll probably end up a free man.

[Jkwellborn 6,732]

Yes. That’s exactly what they fantasize about. This is the problem, dude.

You keep claiming that every one that carries a gun has that fantasy and you know you’re full of shit. I’m not saying the shooter hadn’t, but give me a damn break. This was a situation of assholes colliding. It looks like a set up like was mentioned a few posts ago.

[workswithseed 2,110]

4 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

it's 2021 and we are regressing to settling arguments by shooting the other party.

the fuck kinda world are we leaving our kids?

do these fucksticks dream of scenarios where they can shoot someone in their front yard?

Let me tell you about the Hatfields and the McCoys.

 

 

[crash_davis 23,115]

dude was probably already fucked for firing the warning shot. he escalated the situation.

hope his tiny ass gets butt fucked all the time in prision.

https://www.uslawshield.com/warning-shots-texas/

Quote

Between the Lines

Let’s start with what you absolutely should not do in Texas: that is, do not go outside and fire a warning shot into the air. If you do, you will most likely be arrested for a serious felony. While you could spend hours searching for the term “warning shot” in the Texas Penal Code, we are here to tell you it is not there. And while there is not a clear statement of Texas law that says, “Fire a warning shot and go to prison,” some courts have determined that they are considered deadly force, and your actions will be judged accordingly.

Texas law defines “deadly force” as force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. There’s little guidance from Texas case law, but it is safe to assume a prosecutor would argue warning shots or discharging a firearm in the direction of another human being is a use of deadly force, because the round is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if it strikes someone.

Returning to our trespassers. If you fire that warning shot, regardless of where the barrel is pointed, you will likely be arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. If you proceed to trial, you would probably not be able to use justification as a defense because you used a higher degree of force than the law allows against a mere trespasser.

Use Force, Not Deadly Force

Now, what should you do in our example? You can legally use force if he doesn’t run away when you tell him to scram. You could also threaten to call his mother or the police, and if that doesn’t deter him, you can physically eject him from your property. Texas Penal Code section 9.41 provides a person the ability to use force, but not deadly force, to terminate a trespass onto your property.

Trespass occurs when a person enters onto or into property knowing the entry is forbidden or remains on the property after being told to leave by someone with authority. Remember, preparation for any scenario is important as a responsible gun owner. In this situation, you should leave the firearm holstered and reach for the telephone first. Let’s leave the warning shots to Hollywood, unless you want to star in a personal production of the Shawshank Redemption.

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

Shooter was really short. I’m guessing years of pent up anger in that shot.

Who was the aggy $9.95er? Taylor Hamm? We sure that isn’t him?

[crash_davis 23,115]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Who was the aggy $9.95er? Taylor Hamm? We sure that isn’t him?

nope. this dude was too tall for hamm.

[Zepol87 9,191]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes. That’s exactly what they fantasize about. This is the problem, dude.

Yea evidently some high school age kids had jump into a few backyards and stole some stuff in our neighborhood. Guy posted about it on Facebook neighborhood page and nextdoor. The comments were nothing but I really hope they try my backyard I have a few things waiting for them and agreeing how fun it would be. That's fucking insane imo but the norm in my neighborhood. I hate little elm 

[Pato del Muerto 52,586]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes. That’s exactly what they fantasize about. This is the problem, dude.

They fantasize about it for a while, but when it doesn’t happen organically they look for ways to engineer it now. Be it fucking with an ex over his kids, heading to a neighbor’s house or protest area to protect random property, or following/chasing down a person who they deem as suspicious for any number of spurious reasons. 

[Brisketexan 105,311]

You keep claiming that every one that carries a gun has that fantasy and you know you’re full of shit. I’m not saying the shooter hadn’t, but give me a damn break. This was a situation of assholes colliding. It looks like a set up like was mentioned a few posts ago.

Everyone? No, of course not. Too damned many? Yep.

See below….this is just fucked up:

Yea evidently some high school age kids had jump into a few backyards and stole some stuff in our neighborhood. Guy posted about it on Facebook neighborhood page and nextdoor. The comments were nothing but I really hope they try my backyard I have a few things waiting for them and agreeing how fun it would be. That's fucking insane imo but the norm in my neighborhood. I hate little elm 

[Goredho 17,419]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

It means “bring a gun, shoot somebody” is a solution that is much more popular than it once was. And it’s tied to our culture and the way we think.

E.g., 35 years ago or so, I had a shotgun in my car for probably 4-5 months of the year (we’d go to and from dove and goose hunts directly from school). I mean, it was right there in the parking lot, every day. First….the culture was such that the fact that I had a gun on school property didn’t flip anyone out. Admin was well aware that we kept our shotguns in our cars; our dean of students even helped us move them between cars one Friday afternoon as we were chatting.

Second….it never even OCCURRED to me to go get my gun to resolve a dispute. And yeah, I had a fair number of disputes and even physical fights in high school. But it literally didn’t even cross my mind to “get my gun to protect myself.” I never thought that way. Honestly, I still don’t. I don’t keep a gun in the nightstand or under the bed (I actually did for a few weeks this year when we were sheltering a victim of domestic abuse and there was a specific threat, and it made me pretty uncomfortable).

There has been a shift in thinking to “a gun would be a great solution to this problem,” and it’s not a positive shift for us.

 

 

57 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

When you normalize guns as something that’s necessary in grocery stores, when walking the street, at junior’s ballgame, etc. and you constantly preach a culture of fear and us vs them, there’s no other possible outcome really.

 

You all are onto something here.  I grew up in a small town in west Texas in the 70s and 80s.  Literally everyone hunted, and literally everyone owned guns.  But the guns were 12 gauges, .30-06s, 30-30s and pistols that were mostly revolvers and the occasional 1911 Colt .45.  No one felt a need to own an assault rifle. No one felt the need to take a pistol on their hip into the grocery store.  And no one settled their disputes with a gun.

I’m not sure exactly how or why that flipped to what you see today with so many people owning enough weaponry to outfit a SWAT team and feeling the need to open carry all over the place and buy out Walmart’s ammo supply as soon as the truck arrives.  Im not even arguing that shouldn’t be allowed — I’m just sort of baffled why people feel the need for this level of armament today when no one had it or wanted it 30-40 years ago.

[workswithseed 2,110]

10 minutes ago, Goredho said:

 

You all are onto something here.  I grew up in a small town in west Texas in the 70s and 80s.  Literally everyone hunted, and literally everyone owned guns.  But the guns were 12 gauges, .30-06s, 30-30s and pistols that were mostly revolvers and the occasional 1911 Colt .45.  No one felt a need to own an assault rifle. No one felt the need to take a pistol on their hip into the grocery store.  And no one settled their disputes with a gun.

I’m not sure exactly how or why that flipped to what you see today with so many people owning enough weaponry to outfit a SWAT team and feeling the need to open carry all over the place and buy out Walmart’s ammo supply as soon as the truck arrives.  Im not even arguing that shouldn’t be allowed — I’m just sort of baffled why people feel the need for this level of armament today when no one had it or wanted it 30-40 years ago.

Just make sure everyone knows what an assault rifle means.

[CooterBrown 18,027]

Just make sure everyone knows what an assault rifle means.

So, anyone buying the latter is a LARPer.

[workswithseed 2,110]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

So, anyone buying the latter is a LARPer.

My lever action makes me a larper. Tacticool is what you're thinking.

[Brisketexan 105,311]

You all are onto something here.  I grew up in a small town in west Texas in the 70s and 80s.  Literally everyone hunted, and literally everyone owned guns.  But the guns were 12 gauges, .30-06s, 30-30s and pistols that were mostly revolvers and the occasional 1911 Colt .45.  No one felt a need to own an assault rifle. No one felt the need to take a pistol on their hip into the grocery store.  And no one settled their disputes with a gun.
I’m not sure exactly how or why that flipped to what you see today with so many people owning enough weaponry to outfit a SWAT team and feeling the need to open carry all over the place and buy out Walmart’s ammo supply as soon as the truck arrives.  Im not even arguing that shouldn’t be allowed — I’m just sort of baffled why people feel the need for this level of armament today when no one had it or wanted it 30-40 years ago.

This.

It’s also when gun shows became something completely different than they used to be. I went to them in the mid 80s, and you could check out all kinds of hunting guns, accessories and parts for them (new barrel, that sort of thing), along with some old military surplus (M-1 Garand and carbine, that sort of thing), along with some basic accessories and outdoor gear.

Then around that time, they became something else. Lotta black rifles, AKs, and “tactical” everything. Along with fucking weapons of mayhem - I remember a booth selling shotgun shells filled with razor darts, or lead balls connected to each other with wire. And the last gun show I went to had a booth with shit like a cane that if you pressed a button, blades popped out the bottom sides. I asked the guy what the hell anyone needed that for. He explained that it was good for “beating off dogs….of any color.” Then I saw the actual KKK commemorative lockblade knife in the display case, and I walked out.

They went from a gathering of outdoorsmen and shooting enthusiasts, to a gathering of super-tactical aspiring militiamen. It was fucked up. And in the past 30 years, I’m sure it’s only gotten worse.

[4th and 5 4,915]

The shooter committed a murder. Not manslaughter or something else. When you intentionally cause the death of an individual, it is murder under TPC Ch 19.

The question is whether the murder is justified under chapter 9 TPC.

A person may be able to use force or deadly force to protect themselves, another person, or property.

You really need to analyze the facts chronologically.

Some facts we don’t know, like whether the deceased was a trespasser. Did he have notice that his entry was forbidden, or receive notice and fail to depart?

It is important to note that The shooter producing a weapon is force, not deadly force, per TPC Ch 9.

He can probably use force to terminate a trespass. So the production of a weapon is probably legal. But the shooter just didn’t produce the weapon.

Discharging the firearm in the ground is deadly force, an aggravated assault, and also the crime of disorderly conduct -  discharge firearm. I don’t see any justification for that at the moment it occurred.

This is significant for a couple reasons. One, if you are engaged in criminal activity, you lose the castle doctrine presumption and no duty to retreat instruction that you might have in a self defense case. Similarly, provocation, by firing into the ground by the deceased, causes the same legal consequences. Moreover, I don’t think this is a castle doctrine case anyway as element one of the defense is missing (attempt to enter or remove from occupied habitation, business or vehicle).

So the shooter is going to have a jury decide his case without the benefit of the most favorable parts of the law regarding defensive use of force. And the jury can consider whether the failure to retreat was unreasonable. Basically straight up old school self defense law.

Back to the chronology of the events. The production of a weapon is probably legal to terminate a trespass on land. The discharge of the firearm appears to be an unjustified aggravated assault. At that point the deceased, not the shooter, has a right of self defense. Grabbing or attempting to grab a firearm pointed at him seems like reasonable use of force in self defense, regardless of whether the deceased is guilty of provocation or not being in a place where he had a right to be or engaged in criminal trespass if that is found to be the case. It is still reasonable force if he is the victim of an unjustified aggravated assault.

Keep in mind the STATE has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  that the use of force, or deadly force, to protect persons or property was NOT justified under Ch 9 TPC. It is not the defendants burden to prove his use of force was justified.

I think the shooter has an uphill battle. The video makes him appear to be the first person who used force that was not justified.

[Chooky 13,318]

1 hour ago, Zepol87 said:

Yea evidently some high school age kids had jump into a few backyards and stole some stuff in our neighborhood. Guy posted about it on Facebook neighborhood page and nextdoor. The comments were nothing but I really hope they try my backyard I have a few things waiting for them and agreeing how fun it would be. That's fucking insane imo but the norm in my neighborhood. I hate little elm 

It has become the norm just about anywhere.  Millions of pot-bellied dipshits who wet dream about being some kind of suburbanite version of Doc Holliday out there.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Me and my friends used to steal beer out of open garage fridges in the neighborhood since we were too young to buy it ourselves. Also toilet papered a few houses. I guess nowadays I’d get shot for that. 

[txhorns 2,413]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Me and my friends used to steal beer out of open garage fridges in the neighborhood since we were too young to buy it ourselves. Also toilet papered a few houses. I guess nowadays I’d get shot for that. 

You should get shot for stealing a man’s beer.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, txhorns said:

You should get shot for stealing a man’s beer.

Well my 16 year old self wasn’t as wise as you.

Death penalty and immediate execution for stealing beer seems harsh to me, but I guess I grew up in a different time.

[TexasEd 8,077]

25 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

The shooter committed a murder. Not manslaughter or something else. When you intentionally cause the death of an individual, it is murder under TPC Ch 19.

The question is whether the murder is justified under chapter 9 TPC.

A person may be able to use force or deadly force to protect themselves, another person, or property.

You really need to analyze the facts chronologically.

Some facts we don’t know, like whether the deceased was a trespasser. Did he have notice that his entry was forbidden, or receive notice and fail to depart?

It is important to note that The shooter producing a weapon is force, not deadly force, per TPC Ch 9.

He can probably use force to terminate a trespass. So the production of a weapon is probably legal. But the shooter just didn’t produce the weapon.

Discharging the firearm in the ground is deadly force, an aggravated assault, and also the crime of disorderly conduct -  discharge firearm. I don’t see any justification for that at the moment it occurred.

This is significant for a couple reasons. One, if you are engaged in criminal activity, you lose the castle doctrine presumption and no duty to retreat instruction that you might have in a self defense case. Similarly, provocation, by firing into the ground by the deceased, causes the same legal consequences. Moreover, I don’t think this is a castle doctrine case anyway as element one of the defense is missing (attempt to enter or remove from occupied habitation, business or vehicle).

So the shooter is going to have a jury decide his case without the benefit of the most favorable parts of the law regarding defensive use of force. And the jury can consider whether the failure to retreat was unreasonable. Basically straight up old school self defense law.

Back to the chronology of the events. The production of a weapon is probably legal to terminate a trespass on land. The discharge of the firearm appears to be an unjustified aggravated assault. At that point the deceased, not the shooter, has a right of self defense. Grabbing or attempting to grab a firearm pointed at him seems like reasonable use of force in self defense, regardless of whether the deceased is guilty of provocation or not being in a place where he had a right to be or engaged in criminal trespass if that is found to be the case. It is still reasonable force if he is the victim of an unjustified aggravated assault.

Keep in mind the STATE has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  that the use of force, or deadly force, to protect persons or property was NOT justified under Ch 9 TPC. It is not the defendants burden to prove his use of force was justified.

I think the shooter has an uphill battle. The video makes him appear to be the first person who used force that was not justified.

Thanks,  I think the circumstances that led to the encounter will also play a role.  If the ex-wife/mother was supposed to produce the kids at 3:15 and the agreed spot was where they were how could he have been trespassing?  He was executing the court ordered custody exchange and the ex-wife was violating it.

Edited November 28, 2021 by TexasEd

[Goredho 17,419]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Just make sure everyone knows what an assault rifle means.

Understood, but my point was that there was no real civilian market for high-capacity semi-automatic weapons chambered for military rounds in the 70s.  No one in my small town owned anything like an AR-15.  It was overkill and completely unnecessary for the utilitarian reasons people owned guns.  Now, they do own them, a lot of them, for reasons that I don’t understand.

Something in the 80s timeframe created the rise of a completely different kind of civilian gun market and consumer demand, one less focused on guns as utilitarian tools and more focused on defense against nebulous human threats.  It is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it would be interesting to see a serious examination of why and how that happened.

Edit:  Am guessing at least part of it had to do with urban migration and fewer hunters for gun manufacturers to sell their products to.  They needed a new reason for people to own guns beyond simply hunting and rural utility.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Goredho

[4th and 5 4,915]

13 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Thanks,  I think the circumstances that led to the encounter will also play a role.  If the ex-wife/mother was supposed to produce the kids at 3:15 and the agreed spot was where they were how could he have been trespassing?  He was executing the court ordered custody exchange and the ex-wife was violating it.

That could’ve been the agreed-upon spot, and his entry upon the property was legal, but once the owner or person in control of the property gives notice to depart and he fails to do so he is a criminal trespasser. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by 4th and 5

[Willfully Horn 8,049]

If this thread has become a gun discussion, let me invoke Stonekettle’s maxim, that there are no gun accidents, only negligence. Adopting this as a truth would be a step in the right direction, IMO. At least incidents like the one I will spoiler won’t be swept aside, legally.

 

Spoiler

Police believe 10-year-old’s shooting in Shelbyville was accidental, no charges for now.

SHELBYVILLE, Ky. —

Shelbyville authorities have ruled a shooting over the weekend that claimed the life of 10-year-old Erik Perez was accidental.

In an update from the Shelbyville Police Department Monday afternoon, leaders said after a preliminary investigation no charges will be given to the man who pulled the trigger. 

According to investigators the shooting happened Sunday night at a home on Zelkova Drive. Police there was a gathering when suddenly a gun was discharged striking 10-year-old Perez in the chest shortly before 2:30 p.m. 

A person called police while providing medical care to the child until officers arrived. Perez was then rushed to UofL Hospital Shelbyville, where he died. 

"When you hear of shootings, usually it's adults, but when it involves a child that's just that's bad," said Shelbyville Police Department Sergeant, Kelly Cable. 

According to Cable, the person who pulled the trigger brought the firearm to the home. The update states he left the home after the shooting. Relatives of Perez were then interviewed.

"He’s like a family friend," said Cable. "Which makes this whole thing even more tragic." 

Police said no one is in custody nor facing charges at this time.

The case will be turned over to the Commonwealth's Attorney for further review.

Shelby County School leaders say the 10-year-old boy attended multiple schools in the district. Crisis response teams which include mental health professionals and school counselors were sent to all of the district's schools.
 

https://www.wlky.com/article/shelbyville-accidental-shooting-boy-no-charges-now/38323811

 

 

 

 

[txhorns 2,413]

31 minutes ago, txhorns said:

You should get shot for stealing a man’s beer.

It was a joke but you are definitely a complete asshole for stealing beer out of people’s garages.

[Superhero 8,836]

When White Knighting goes terribly wrong.

Dad was an idiot for not walking away when the BF brought out a gun. BF was a prick for getting the gun and shooting when dad was no longer a threat. I hope the fucker goes to prison and gets sodomized ass everyday. Twice a day. Maybe with a baseball with barbed wire wrapped around it.

[bmbmd 1,027]

It's Lubbock, Jake.

[hobbes2702 13,061]

52 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

That could’ve been the agreed-upon spot, and his entry upon the property was legal, but once the owner or person in control of the property gives notice to depart and he fails to do so he is a criminal trespasser. 

Not a lawyer here, if they (property owners) are violating the court order is he (deceased) still a criminal trespasser?

[TPCJ007 48]

For the legal folks, when Chad and Kyle first chest-bumped, what if Chad had a neck tattoo saying "Born To Kill", could that be a contributing factor in what Kyle's next actions should be vs no tattoo?

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

This is a tragedy where no one acted wisely. Custody battles have claimed more than a few lives. I ultimately blame the mom for being an insufferable See You Next Tuesday that caused the entire thing. I've known plenty of family law folks - the horror stories are unreal. She intentionally is both antagonizing her ex and putting her new toy with an obvious Napoleon complex in a shitty situation. I'm guessing the guys wishes he would have said "FU" and re-activated his Tinder account.

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

8 minutes ago, TPCJ007 said:

For the legal folks, when Chad and Kyle first chest-bumped, what if Chad had a neck tattoo saying "Born To Kill", could that be a contributing factor in what Kyle's next actions should be vs no tattoo?

Spoiler

No, but if Chad had signaled "OK" totally different.

 

[Underdog 28,771]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Let me tell you about the Hatfields and the McCoys.

 

 

Carter/Wakefield <<<<< Hatfield/McCoy.

 

[closetohumping 17,462]

29 minutes ago, TPCJ007 said:

For the legal folks, when Chad and Kyle first chest-bumped, what if Chad had a neck tattoo saying "Born To Kill", could that be a contributing factor in what Kyle's next actions should be vs no tattoo?

Nope.  Chad verbally threatened Kyle 

[hornian 5,223]

14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Not a lawyer here, if they (property owners) are violating the court order is he (deceased) still a criminal trespasser?

Interesting angle (to me) is whether the shooter was actually in the process of helping the girlfriend commit a crime - interference within child custody.  

[DDD Dad 14,348]

Fucking racist mixed couple white dude killing guy. 

Mixed race couple?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

[F250 28,817]

50 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Mixed race couple?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

Some people have very specific requirements for who is and isn't a Caucasian.

 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

Some people have very specific requirements for who is and isn't a Caucasian.

 

She looks Hispanic to me?  I don’t know where the “mixed couple” lines start, but when I was in middle school, dating that chick would have a bunch of the Hispanic dudes pissed at you. Things were more chill by high school.  I’m sure that may not match some census check box.   Still, a far cry from a dude burning a cross because he killed another white guy.  Or I guess he’s a klan member because he had a gun. Don’t know, stupid joke was stupid. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

2 hours ago, Goredho said:

Understood, but my point was that there was no real civilian market for high-capacity semi-automatic weapons chambered for military rounds in the 70s.

This is simply not true. The 30 carbine and M1 Garand say hi. They were EXTREMELY popular and could be purchased thru mail order since not long after WWII. For like $20. Actual military surplus, unlike the AR15 which is not a military platform. While no one was probably hunting with them, I’d bet dollars to donuts there were some stored in the closets in your hometown in the 70’s. 

[Brisketexan 105,311]

This is simply not true. The 30 carbine and M1 Garand say hi. They were EXTREMELY popular and could be purchased thru mail order since not long after WWII. For like $20. Actual military surplus, unlike the AR15 which is not a military platform. While no one was probably hunting with them, I’d bet dollars to donuts there were some stored in the closets in your hometown in the 70’s. 

Correct. But the purpose and culture around them wasn’t “tactical I’m a militia!” Shit, I bought an M-1 carbine at a gun show in high school. I bought it because it was a cool piece of history, and it made a decent utility ranch rifle if I saw a coyote. That’s it. I didn’t buy tactical goggles and helmet and socks and shit to go with it so I could be Billy badass and take on all comers including the gubmint.

There was a serious difference in gun culture back then compared to today, and you know there was.

[F250 28,817]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

She looks Hispanic to me?  I don’t know where the “mixed couple” lines start, but when I was in middle school, dating that chick would have a bunch of the Hispanic dudes pissed at you. Things were more chill by high school.  I’m sure that may not match some census check box.   Still, a far cry from a dude burning a cross because he killed another white guy.  Or I guess he’s a klan member because he had a gun. Don’t know, stupid joke was stupid. 

I was joking about you conflating race with ethnicity. She is clearly caucasian so they are not a racially mixed couple.

Edited November 28, 2021 by F250

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

There was a serious difference in gun culture back then compared to today, and you know there was.

I’m not claiming there wasn’t. But to say there weren’t any high capacity SA arms is just plain fallacy. Maybe the poster didn’t know, but that doesn’t change the fact.  And those were legit war weapons that have circulated the general populace for the last 70 years. What many think the AR is, but ironically isn’t. 

[SHOOTER12 8,826]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Really feels like they knew he was a hothead, set him up, and he played right into their hands 

 

also

 

I bet she’s never opened a single one of those books

 

Bet those legs have flown open over and over like a cheap shutter in a high wind though...