Because it never happened in the first place.

@TheArbitrator

@Magenta Me too... several and none of them fit the story being told.

@RocktheHouse[quote] Maybe the father was the peeping Tom.[/quote]

@graphite I'm not attacking him if it happened like he said. There are a lot of unanswered questions. For example, where is the bleeding peeping tom?

@ViciDraco He was attacked before he could effectively use his firearm, you fool.

@SW-User why's he closing in on a criminal like that? Keep your distance and shout. Especially if you have a gun. Getting in close is stupid, you fool.

@ViciDraco Oh yeah, shout so he can hear you and run away and then harass/potentially assault other children.

Personally, I would've tried to keep him there until the police came.

@MistyCee

Good. We're making progress.

There are other Constitutional rights whose exercise is not absolute.
Freedom of religion does not include a right to mutilate female genitals, for example.
Freedom of speech does not include a right to incite murder or riot, for example.

And freedom to keep and bear arms does not include a right to shoot someone because he "looks suspicious."

Where and how these freedoms are are limited were (and continue to be) decided in the judicial system.

@Slade Is that the difference between exercising a right and "epically executing" it?

@MistyCee 🙄

@SW-User Progressive liberals have few to no children anyway. Kids are bad for the environment, you know.

@cherokeepatti and he should aim for the head

@MistyCee I realize there has been a lot of discussion since your reply and I don't have time to review it all. I don't know there was ever any explicit intent by the founding fathers of our great nation to allow firearms in the use of self-defense. I suppose one could argue that is implicit, since the intent of the 2A was to allow citizens the means to depose a tyrannical government. Call it the ultimate in checks and balances. By having the right to use lethal force to depose a tyrannical government, personal freedom and liberty is given a high priority. Thus, any violent personal attack that can be considered potentially life-threatening is also a threat to personal freedom and liberty and thus lethal force can be used. Specific State law and other legalities might provide more specific criteria for the use of lethal force. In this case, my argument was that unless the peeper was a direct threat to the father or daughter, IMO his use of lethal force might consider that death a homicide by some DAs. Now if dad heard noises and was unaware of a peeper outside his daughter's window, and went outside to investigate, sure... if he was attacked using lethal force (knife in this case), I believe he had justification to use like force (a gun) in his own defense and that of his loved ones. I live rural and have the means and ability to defend against single or multiple threats and stop said threats very effectively. Ditto for carrying concealed on my person. Does that mean if I see someone on one of my CAMs looking through a bedroom window I am going to go out and confront said individual? No. I will call 9-1-1, report the issue, then make sure all means of access inside are secure. That keeps the DA happy and gives no lawyer an avenue to steal my assets. I mean, why? Why interdict someone who is not an immediate threat? Everyone has a choice IMO in how defend themselves or not at all. Nobody has a right to tell me how I can and cannot defend myself.

@rfatoday Dude, slow down, and feel free to break up paragraphs to make your thoughts easier to digest, and for humble SWeeps like myself to be able to respond to.

I don't have an issue with self defense, but I don't think the intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve it, and actually think that the overall intent of the Drafter/Founders was to pass a compromise form of government which wouldn't re-write or reconstruct the basic legal customs they intended to preserve, unless otherwise stated.

It's hard to pierce your wall of text, but I dispute a bunch of it, like:
[quote]
the intent of the 2A was to allow citizens the means to depose a tyrannical government.
[/quote]

This seems way too simplistic to me. I get the background of the Revolution, but it wasn't passed until 1791, after both the Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion, and when it did, the organized militia clause was part of it, despite Scalia's dismissal of it and what, imo, is a resulting absurd interpretation of " original intent."

Self defense, imo, was something the Drafters probably felt like they needn't talk about, because they weren't really concerned about civil law, in the sense of the rights of disputes between citizens between themselves (Non citizens like Indians or foreigners are a slightly different topic, albeit not totally irrelevant).


My point is that that I don't think that the founders intend to to regulate state criminal law in terms of self defense when they passed the 2nd Amendment in 1791.

@SW-User Exactly. And permanent sexual mutilation of young children is now "gender-affirming care." Sick, sick, sick.

@graphite Agreed

@RocktheHouse he pulled a knife. He threatened the father. The father didn't shoot him. But with all the POS that our worthless president allows to cross our border he probably should have.

@Vin53

It does sound a bit far fetched, but nowadays nothing surprises me.

You're a peeping tom and the girl in her bedroom makes you and rushes out of the room, now I ask you, what would be the point of waiting there to see what happens next?

@SmoothKnight

@Vin53

I get that. I'm just saying that some perps aren't very bright.

@Vin53 [c=800000]Your reply made me LITERALLY LOL. You are hereby granted a 24-hour reprieve. [/c]

My comments are friggin awesome. Avoid them at your own peril of adoration...loss.

@ProfessorPlum77

@Vin53 [c=800000]How can I avoid them if you post to me? [/c]
🤔

@Magenta I often did as a teen...didn't mean I wanted random guys staring at me through my bedroom window.

@ViciDraco So, what would you do if someone lunged at you with a knife?

@SW-User I'm in a wheelchair and I don't keep a gun on my person. But I'm also not going to get close enough for someone to lunge at me with a knife.

If I get a gun for personal protection I'm damn well going to practice using the thing.

@ViciDraco lol, well good for you. Hopefully you won't ever be in a position where you have to protect your child (assuming you don't have any, but whatever) because some weirdo with a knife has been spying on them.

Also, are you saying he should've shot him? 🤔

@SW-User Yeah, he should have dropped the gun and then go inside for a knife🙄

@Slade I'm arguing why he owned a gun in the first place.
What happened is just one example out of many. I believe mace, a knife, throwing stones... all better than a gun.

@SW-User There is no preparation for how to respond when an armed perv comes to your house to potentially harm your child, lol.

This guy is obviously very dangerous and so was probably aggressive, which (as previously said) points to him physically overcoming the father during the attack. As the father would've feared for his life, he shot the gun hoping it would stop his intrusion and subsequent attack.

It actually worked, because he left. Had he not been armed it could've been a very different story. And, had he used his gun with the intent to kill we would probably have a dead perpetrator...which according to you is a bad outcome.

@Vin53 [quote]could've been a frggn raccoon in reality.
[/quote]

I think that is racist.

@SW-User Internet 'texas peeping tom father shoots'

@Budwick Yeah I already found it, but thanks.