See two of them in action right here:

Well that is their right. If their house does get robbed or they get killed, it's kind of your fault.

Some ambulance chasing lawyer is drooling at the thought of the anti-gun neighbor getting robbed, and how much the court will award the robbed neighbor because the other neighbor put out that sign.

(10-27-2009 03:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well that is their right. If their house does get robbed or they get killed, it's kind of your fault.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd have to say it's at least partially the fault of those who actually kill them.

(10-27-2009 04:16 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-27-2009 03:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well that is their right. If their house does get robbed or they get killed, it's kind of your fault.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd have to say it's at least partially the fault of those who actually kill them.

Oh yeah it's entirely the killer's fault. Those people with the sign in their yard will have to feel like s**t though.

Why should the sign poster fill bad? It's the neighbor who wants to infringe upon the right of his neighbor to protect himself and maybe not get killed. Should the anti-gun neighbor fill bad if his neighbor has his guns taken away then gets killed? Do people in cities with strict gun laws fill bad when un-armed citizens are killed?

(10-27-2009 03:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If their house does get robbed or they get killed, it's kind of your fault.

Obviously it's primarily the killer's fault. Secondly, (if you ask me) it's the man of said-unarmed-house's fault for not protecting his family and property adequately. Least (to no fault) is the neighbor who placed the sign. But I'm not a big enough jerk to call attention to their weakness in defense, or to not help a man in need.

Man up and protect your family. Also, man up and not be a dick-hole to your neighbors like this guy.

(10-27-2009 05:38 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(10-27-2009 03:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  If their house does get robbed or they get killed, it's kind of your fault.

Obviously it's primarily the killer's fault. Secondly, (if you ask me) it's the man of said-unarmed-house's fault for not protecting his family and property adequately. Least (to no fault) is the neighbor who placed the sign. But I'm not a big enough ******* to call attention to their weakness in defense, or to not help a man in need.

Man up and protect your family. Also, man up and not be a dick-hole to your neighbors like this guy.

I doubt the guy would post a sign if his neighbor simply said, "Guns aren't for me."

That's why I don't have a problem w/ the guy's sign...his neighbor wants to impose his beliefs on others? Let him see all the consequences first.

Impose his beliefs on others? Isn't that what we do when we vote?

Change pro/anti-gun to pro/anti-choice. Is it still imposing beliefs?

(10-27-2009 08:20 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  Impose his beliefs on others? Isn't that what we do when we vote?

Change pro/anti-gun to pro/anti-choice. Is it still imposing beliefs?

Sure. Abortion imposes someone's will on the baby. That's where most pro-life people object, and why the pro-abortion people have tried to rephrase the discussion as "choice." If it were really about choice, then why do most of those same people get upset about vouchers, charter schools or homeschooling?

But yes, we do impose beliefs on others when we vote. My philosophy says I must accept this to some degree by my choice to live in society. It's the give and take of the social contract.

However, the contract is void when people step over certain lines. The Bill of Rights provides some guidance as to those lines.