[–] lettersofmarque 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Um, it's a gun not a hogie. I don't think it will end how you think it will end.
[–] YodaDankfish 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Fucking crazy bitch. If she just sprays someone unprovoked, that is assault. In that case the guy with the gun now has a legal right to defend himself with his firearm/beat the hell out of her.
[–] MisterWings 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
It is battery but more or less the same thing. Also stealing someone else's firearm is a felony of the federal kind and she would either end up shot and/or arrested and sent to prison and also sued by the gun owner. It is literally the perfect storm of bad ideas wrapped into one.
Oh and possibly add unlawful detainment to the mix too depending on how the prosecutor takes it.
[–] Washingtons6pack 0 points 18 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago
"Him"... Women can't open carry guns? How sexist.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 44 points 45 points (+45|-1) ago
[–] green_man 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yep. Dumb dumb here would be commuting a litany of crimes if she succeeded with her endeavor and most likely be arrested, ignoring the fact she would probably get shot in the process.
Dumb dumb here also seems to think that guns are only used by men. The only person I've seen open carry recently is a little old lady taking a walk. I wonder what dumb dumb's reaction to that would be. Any responsible gun owner will tell you that guns are not for killing, they're for recreation, protection, and even art. Dumb dumb doesn't seem to understand this.
[–] Ziekk 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Using any force to hold someone (who hasn't done anything incredibly illegal) against their will waiting for police is False Imprisonment. You can't touch anyone, man. The only ones who can are shopkeeps in many states, and that's for theft.
All this is very state specific, but no, you cannot hold someone against their will because you believe they may be doing something against the law for that individual.
[–] 5406942? 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
It would probably depend on which cop responded to the incident (although I doubt that she would be smart enough to call 911 before she tried this, and after she did this, whoever she attacked would be justified by self-defense if she was dumb enough to explain it the same way).
[–] [deleted] 0 points 33 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
No its alright because TEHY do it.
Dont discourage the hugbox think its like natural selection.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 132 points 132 points (+132|-0) ago
[–] BAppreciAting 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Her, or its philosophy, derives from women not being held accountable for their actions, females need to be held accountable, female concentration camps?, and their international puppet masters need to be extinguished?!$.
[–] markrod420 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It is funny how hard the left seems to be actively trying to bring about orwells nightmare.
[–] 14936786-02 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Reminds me of that girl that saw a guy with a holstered pistol and took a picture. The comment she put with it was saying something about how she could disarm the guy the guy and fire all rounds with ease.
[–] 1HepCat 0 points 17 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago
And yet it does hold a perverse, self-fulfilling logical consistency:
I am a violent would-be criminal and I carry a weapon. Therefore, some people who carry weapons are violent would-be criminals. Since both propositions hold (especially the first), it's reasonable to expect that I will ATTACK!!
[–] bfriend13 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Funny and Iike the Archer reference as well.