If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Meet the lobbyist responsible for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law   (meetthenra.org) divider line 225
    More: Interesting, lobbyists, NRA  
•       •       •

11676 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2012 at 9:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



225 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-21 12:23:48 PM

wthgtfo: the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force.


t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-03-21 12:28:56 PM
Synopsis: There's nothing really wrong with the law itself, it doesn't even actually apply to the case that it's being erroneously applied to, and the woman who lobbied for it is batshiat insane.
 
2012-03-21 12:30:11 PM

Saborlas: I support gun control for the sole reason that it makes rednecks butthurt.


I apply your exact theory to my wanting Tim Tebow to succeed!
We're probably like, long lost bros!
 
2012-03-21 12:32:11 PM

pedrop357: FuturePastNow: According to the US Code, the militia only includes women if they're in the National Guard. And men between 17 and 45 years of age. It might need to be updated.

Which would be relevant if the amendment limited the right to keep and bear arms to 'members of the militia' and not 'the people'.


I was simply pointing out that arguing that the "militia" consists of everyone in the country capable of bearing arms, as Giltric said, is false when the term has a legal definition which is much more limited.

You are correct that the text of the 2nd Amendment makes no such limitation; its reference to the militia is simply a statement that probably should have been left out for the sake of clarity.
 
2012-03-21 12:36:39 PM

Muta: ArkAngel:

Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.

The vast majority of Americans have never eaten rabbit. They avoid rabbit not because they think they talk but because there are better alternative. I'm not asking you to join the 21st century, just the later half of the 20th.


My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.
 
2012-03-21 12:38:49 PM

keepitcherry: Muta: ArkAngel:

Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.

The vast majority of Americans have never eaten rabbit. They avoid rabbit not because they think they talk but because there are better alternative. I'm not asking you to join the 21st century, just the later half of the 20th.

My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.


Rabbit is AWESOME! So is pheasant, duck, venison, and bear.

I always find it odd how people can be against hunting, yet are ok with fishing. I do both.
 
2012-03-21 12:38:56 PM

pedrop357: Some people would like the choice to carry a gun on their person at all times, or most of the time, or sometimes.


I am not an idiot. I understand the concepts of rights and freedoms. That is not my area of confusion.

I just wonder what the argument is when someone thinks that it's reaonsable or even sane to have an object that has been designed for a specific use and purpose, but that is also dangerous to others around them, with them in all possible combination of life scenarios. I argue the appropriateness of it. It is absurd to me. It can't possibly be appropriate in all situations.

And using the argument that having to lock your gun in your car when you go to school is impractical because your car might get stolen, is a poor one. Yes, your car might get stolen with your gun in it. Might be safer to leave the gun at home, unless you need it to do your job or protect your person against immediate and deadly threat.

If it's not a job requirement, why do you need a gun with you at all? That must be because you want to have it to protect your person. Fair enough.

Protect yourself against whom? Another person? Do you think that someone is going to target you? If so, you must have a compelling reason why. Because walking around with a loaded gun assuming that someone, somewhere, somehow might shoot you is paranoia unless you have a good reason to think you will have to resort to deadly force.

Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.
 
2012-03-21 12:41:21 PM
This woman is an asshole. Why would the NRA even admit to her being a lobbyist? Is their collective dick JUST THAT TINY???
 
2012-03-21 12:41:58 PM
I like the idea of killing anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.
 
2012-03-21 12:41:59 PM

bluehubcap: Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.


That doesn't even matter. going on 7 years after Katrina and people call preppers nuts too.
 
2012-03-21 12:42:48 PM

R.A.Danny: keepitcherry: Muta: ArkAngel:

Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.

The vast majority of Americans have never eaten rabbit. They avoid rabbit not because they think they talk but because there are better alternative. I'm not asking you to join the 21st century, just the later half of the 20th.

My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.

Rabbit is AWESOME! So is pheasant, duck, venison, and bear.

I always find it odd how people can be against hunting, yet are ok with fishing. I do both.


Exactly, makes no sense to me. Rabbit is one of the tastiest things you can eat, it's just one of those things for some reason or another people get freaked out about it. I want to come over for dinner at your house, lol.
 
2012-03-21 12:43:24 PM

keepitcherry: R.A.Danny: keepitcherry: Muta: ArkAngel:

Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.

The vast majority of Americans have never eaten rabbit. They avoid rabbit not because they think they talk but because there are better alternative. I'm not asking you to join the 21st century, just the later half of the 20th.

My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.

Rabbit is AWESOME! So is pheasant, duck, venison, and bear.

I always find it odd how people can be against hunting, yet are ok with fishing. I do both.

Exactly, makes no sense to me. Rabbit is one of the tastiest things you can eat, it's just one of those things for some reason or another people get freaked out about it. I want to come over for dinner at your house, lol.


Bring beer
 
2012-03-21 12:45:25 PM

R.A.Danny: bluehubcap: Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.

That doesn't even matter. going on 7 years after Katrina and people call preppers nuts too.


:)
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-03-21 12:47:51 PM

pedrop357: This is how the media cycle helps encourage bad laws and the repeal of good ones.

A bunch of people circle like sharks the first time the (stand your ground) law MIGHT have been misused. The feds are supposed to be investigating it now and just got started.

Before the whole story can even be told, the stand your ground law is being blamed.

What's the alternative? Go back to a situation where if someone threatens another person's life, that person has to run or retreat risk being shot or stabbed in the back OR even after they retreat they can still be considered criminally under the idea that if they stopped to shoot, they weren't retreating?

At least the dust settle and the facts come out before trotting out another story about how the Florida law is the cause of this.


The dust has settled on many similar cases.

From Wikipedia:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[28][29] The laws critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road range, and even street gang violence.
 
2012-03-21 12:48:23 PM

keepitcherry:
Exactly, makes no sense to me. Rabbit is one of the tastiest things you can eat, it's just one of those things for some reason or another people get freaked out about it. I want to come over for dinner at your house, lol.


I have my grandfather's recipe for rabbit pie. Yummy! (Mind you, he snared them since it's easier than searching for metal fragments in the meat.)
 
2012-03-21 12:52:51 PM

R.A.Danny: bluehubcap: Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.

That doesn't even matter. going on 7 years after Katrina and people call preppers nuts too.


4.bp.blogspot.com


I wonder how many Korean homes and businesses were kept from being burned down back in 92.
 
2012-03-21 12:55:44 PM
Obviously she needs to carry a gun at all times to fend off all those potential suitors.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-03-21 12:55:50 PM

FuturePastNow: pedrop357: FuturePastNow: According to the US Code, the militia only includes women if they're in the National Guard. And men between 17 and 45 years of age. It might need to be updated.

Which would be relevant if the amendment limited the right to keep and bear arms to 'members of the militia' and not 'the people'.

I was simply pointing out that arguing that the "militia" consists of everyone in the country capable of bearing arms, as Giltric said, is false when the term has a legal definition which is much more limited.

You are correct that the text of the 2nd Amendment makes no such limitation; its reference to the militia is simply a statement that probably should have been left out for the sake of clarity.


Ah, so it's like the bible, only the parts you like matter. The fact that it clearly states the intent behind the Amendment is just a translation error.
 
2012-03-21 12:59:02 PM

Allen. The end.: This woman is an asshole. Why would the NRA even admit to her being a lobbyist? Is their collective dick JUST THAT TINY???


Nope, but she is great in bed with politicians.
 
2012-03-21 01:04:45 PM
I miss the old days... the really really old days where the Sheriff had you turn your gun in at his office when you got into town or you spend the night in the hoosegow.

It all seems to be anti-government at it's root. "The police can't protect me AND we shouldn't even have to pay the taxes that allow Police (union members btw) to operate." It feels like we're racing toward some Mad Max future where it's every man for himself, so that when Jesus finally does come back, he should be wearing a vest and maybe call ahead so we know to expect him and he doesn't just *surprise* everybody.

Gun Bless America
 
2012-03-21 01:11:51 PM
I disagree entirely with Stand Your Ground laws. Your Weeners in a dangerous situation should be to get out of it, not to kill someone. Sure, if there's no way to retreat, defend yourself, but you better have a reason that you couldn't resolve the situation without taking a life. And that's in previous laws.

Think about it this way. These laws tell you that you can kill someone who wants to steal your wallet. Of course you have nothing but disdain for someone who would kill a guy to take the $30 in his wallet. But then why don't you have the same feeling for someone who would kill to not lose $30?

Real life situations are more complex than this, obviously. But that only reinforces the need for people to know that they should try to find solutions that don't involve loss of life. The guy you're feeling threatened by might only be carrying a bag of Skittles, so don't kill him until you've tried just getting out of there.

I should reiterate - I am not against self defense. But I certainly believe that part of self defense is willingness to retreat. It doesn't make you a coward or less of a man to decide that nobody needs to be hurt today. Another part of self defense is situational awareness (take a concealed carry class if you don't believe me) so that you don't get into situations where you will have to hurt or kill someone to defend yourself. Both of these are ignored by Stand Your Ground type laws.
 
2012-03-21 01:14:46 PM

bluehubcap: ArkAngel:
Do you have life insurance? Home insurance? Car insurance? Why are you living in fear of all these bad things happening to you? We better take away your Constitutionally-recognized rights.

You consider carting a gun around everywhere you go on par with purchasing home insurance? Wow.

What if you were to walk around living life assuming that bad things, reasonable things, can happen (ie. basement flooding in bad weather or a kitchen fire) and you do something relatively painless to offset that potential loss, like purchasing insurance.

Then, let's say you want to buy insurance for something that is less likely to happen, something that would defy all reason, such as getting bitten by a shark while living in, and never leaving, the state of Kansas. That is the level of insurance you're purchasing when you feel the need to walk around armed all the time. The "shark" is the mad gunman who might decide to open fire on a college campus, hospital, cemetary or nursing home.

Yes, people do get bitten by sharks, but normally it's because those sharks are in the water and they're in there with it. What if, and I know this sounds absolutely crazy, you were to go somewhere that guns weren't allowed? That would be like not swimming in shark infested waters, wouldn't it? Well, that would take the fear out of getting shot right out of your day. Whew! One less stress, huh?

Seriously, I think the idea of being armed at all times, everywhere, is paranoid.


But is it more paranoid than viewing every armed person as a potential mass murderer that's just begging for an excuse?
 
2012-03-21 01:16:11 PM
bluehubcap

karnal: Yeah - but it is all BS when coming from you....your logic is "She's got a real gun fetish" and "How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?....but the kicker is "I don't like Disney and never did"....which just tells me that you are probably a liberal tree hugging dolt with penis envy.

So, because I hold the opinion that the general public could probably get along just fine if they weren't able to take their 9mm into a hospital, a school or even a nursing home, I'm a "tree-hugging dolt with penis envy"?
Yep. That's it exactly. You've found me out.



No - you are a "tree-hugging dolt with penis envy" because you "don't like Disney and never did".
 
2012-03-21 01:20:04 PM

theREVinPA: The law is fine. This crazy lady is fine. It all boils down to the nut job that shot the kid. It's people like him that give the rest of us law following gun carriers a bad name.


QFFT!
 
2012-03-21 01:23:28 PM
My name is Bernhard Hugo Goetz and I approve this thread.
www.biography.com
 
2012-03-21 01:39:38 PM

vpb: FuturePastNow: pedrop357: FuturePastNow: According to the US Code, the militia only includes women if they're in the National Guard. And men between 17 and 45 years of age. It might need to be updated.

Which would be relevant if the amendment limited the right to keep and bear arms to 'members of the militia' and not 'the people'.

I was simply pointing out that arguing that the "militia" consists of everyone in the country capable of bearing arms, as Giltric said, is false when the term has a legal definition which is much more limited.

You are correct that the text of the 2nd Amendment makes no such limitation; its reference to the militia is simply a statement that probably should have been left out for the sake of clarity.

Ah, so it's like the bible, only the parts you like matter. The fact that it clearly states the intent behind the Amendment is just a translation error.


But it doesn't clearly state that, which is why people argue over the meaning.
 
2012-03-21 01:44:53 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: But is it more paranoid than viewing every armed person as a potential mass murderer that's just begging for an excuse?


No, that's the same thing. .
 
2012-03-21 01:50:47 PM

jaytkay: Azlefty: bluehubcap: Seriously, I think the idea of being armed at all times, everywhere, is paranoid.

Why are you so paranoid of lawful Citizens carrying a legal firearm?

Why do conservatives use so much inappropriate capitalization?


I do so because I am to lazy to capitalize all the letters when making a point.

Or

Perhaps we worry about other things besides the the style manual when posting on a blog

Now, why do you libs attack the grammar in blogs instead of refuting the point that was made? ;)
 
2012-03-21 01:56:30 PM
I may have missed it, but I did not see anyone yet point out the actual owner of the linked website:

This website is the property of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. It is in no way affiliated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) or any other organization.


The item that I have not read about yet is the clout protecting the Zimmerman guy here. It seems to me that since he was in this gated community he lived there too, so Mom and Dad (or is Uncle the Mayor or Police Chief?) probably have more to do with keeping him out of the slammer than simply shabby police work.
 
2012-03-21 02:02:47 PM

anotar: The item that I have not read about yet is the clout protecting the Zimmerman guy here. It seems to me that since he was in this gated community he lived there too, so Mom and Dad (or is Uncle the Mayor or Police Chief?) probably have more to do with keeping him out of the slammer than simply shabby police work.


From what I have read and had friends (lawyers) from Seminole County tell me is that the Sanford PD is a bunch of Redneck yokels who find it easy to believe his self defense claim because of the kid being attractive and successful, well that and the fact that a real investigation would require actual police work
 
2012-03-21 02:02:58 PM

bluehubcap: Protect yourself against whom? Another person? Do you think that someone is going to target you? If so, you must have a compelling reason why. Because walking around with a loaded gun assuming that someone, somewhere, somehow might shoot you is paranoia unless you have a good reason to think you will have to resort to deadly force.

Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.



No one may target me specifically in that they have a specific beef with me and will seek me out.
No one's looking for me, no one's out to get me

BUT, there's a substantial history of people harming others presumably at random. If I could know each day that I would be guaranteed not to be harmed that day by anyone anywhere, I would leave my gun at home or in the car.

I carry a fire extinguisher in my car, I check it every week or to make sure it's charged and in good shape because I never know when a fire is going to happen. I don't expect to start putting out fires and I'm pretty sure no one is setting fire to my stuff and I'm not setting anything on fire. BUT, the unpredictable nature of fires suggests that I should be prepared for one to break out. I also have a first aid kit in my car for similar reasons.

Look at every rape and kidnapping case. How many store clerks would be alive if they had been more paranoid and carried a gun? Do you think those people had any warning that some scumbag would randomly choose to target them? Sometimes a person only becomes the target the moment they end up in the "bad guy's" sights. How do you propose we all deal with that?
 
2012-03-21 02:06:08 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

PROUD
 
2012-03-21 02:10:57 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: But is it more paranoid than viewing every armed person as a potential mass murderer that's just begging for an excuse?


Ever hear of a straw man? Look it up. Then, next time you feel like restating someone's opinion in a way that's not entirely accurate, remember it. Then, don't say anything.
 
2012-03-21 02:14:11 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: I should reiterate - I am not against self defense. But I certainly believe that part of self defense is willingness to retreat. It doesn't make you a coward or less of a man to decide that nobody needs to be hurt today. Another part of self defense is situational awareness (take a concealed carry class if you don't believe me) so that you don't get into situations where you will have to hurt or kill someone to defend yourself. Both of these are ignored by Stand Your Ground type laws.


Stand your ground laws came about so that those who did have to defend themselves did not have the onus of proving that they had exhausted all avenues of escape even when it placed others in jeopardy of harm. This I agree with, the issue is that many of these laws are so poorly written that it allows the aggressor to claim self defense when thet are the ones who started or even escalated the situation.

Many states who have "Stand Your Ground" laws do have this written into the law. Arizona is a good example, if he had done it there - excluding the unincorporated parts of Maricopa County, because Joe don't follow no stinkin laws- he would be in jail with a murder charge hanging over his head, because he left his vehicle and escalated the situation.
 
2012-03-21 02:15:06 PM
It's funny, I was reading about all of this cool stuff a lobbyist had done and then I started picking up on the context of the author who.. about 1/3 to 1/2 way through started adding in negative remarks/connotation to the bullet list of historical facts.

I might not have agreed with everything the woman or stood for but in general she supports individual freedom, so good on her.
 
2012-03-21 02:16:35 PM
Also I have no idea about the details of some apparent ongoing case many posters are commenting on...
 
2012-03-21 02:18:47 PM
I'm a CCW holder, and carry regularly. Not to work, since I work on state property, but most everywhere else.

I had someone ask me why I carried a gun, did I expect to be attacked?

I asked him why he wore a seat belt, was he expecting to crash?

I also carry a first aid kit in my car, road flares, a tow rope, a spare tire, etc...etc...etc....

I've been mugged. Twice. I was pretty sure the second time the guy was gonna stab me to death. After that, i swore i would never be defenseless again.

I'm not out to confront anyone, or be a tough guy.

I just want the OPTION to legally defend myself with lethal force to defend my own life, or that of my loved ones.
 
2012-03-21 02:25:51 PM

ddelorm: I'm a CCW holder, and carry regularly. Not to work, since I work on state property, but most everywhere else.

I had someone ask me why I carried a gun, did I expect to be attacked?

I asked him why he wore a seat belt, was he expecting to crash?

I also carry a first aid kit in my car, road flares, a tow rope, a spare tire, etc...etc...etc....

I've been mugged. Twice. I was pretty sure the second time the guy was gonna stab me to death. After that, i swore i would never be defenseless again.

I'm not out to confront anyone, or be a tough guy.

I just want the OPTION to legally defend myself with lethal force to defend my own life, or that of my loved ones.


NO,NO,NO!

According to hoplophobes you do so because you are an insecure internet tough guy with a small peener whose entire self-worth is bound to the peener replacement you call a gun, and you also have mental issues because you fantasize about blowing someone away.

It is funny but I have trained several anti gun folks on the use and responsibilities of firearms ownership and self defense AFTER the were a victim of violent crime, amazing at how having some cretin graphically show you how little they think your life is worth changes your attitude about firearm ownership and self defense.
 
2012-03-21 02:32:47 PM

Mentalpatient87: So, just to clear things up: the only choices are "Disney" or "Ted Nugent?"


Here's your spectrum; Charlton Heston, Barney Fife, SpongeBob

Pick your side!
 
2012-03-21 02:39:33 PM

R.A.Danny: keepitcherry: Muta: ArkAngel:

Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.

The vast majority of Americans have never eaten rabbit. They avoid rabbit not because they think they talk but because there are better alternative. I'm not asking you to join the 21st century, just the later half of the 20th.

My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.

Rabbit is AWESOME! So is pheasant, duck, venison, and bear.

I always find it odd how people can be against hunting, yet are ok with fishing. I do both.


If you used guns for fishing they would opposed to it. I actually prefer dynamite for fishing.
 
2012-03-21 02:40:49 PM

Azlefty: ddelorm: I'm a CCW holder, and carry regularly. Not to work, since I work on state property, but most everywhere else.

I had someone ask me why I carried a gun, did I expect to be attacked?

I asked him why he wore a seat belt, was he expecting to crash?

I also carry a first aid kit in my car, road flares, a tow rope, a spare tire, etc...etc...etc....

I've been mugged. Twice. I was pretty sure the second time the guy was gonna stab me to death. After that, i swore i would never be defenseless again.

I'm not out to confront anyone, or be a tough guy.

I just want the OPTION to legally defend myself with lethal force to defend my own life, or that of my loved ones.

NO,NO,NO!

According to hoplophobes you do so because you are an insecure internet tough guy with a small peener whose entire self-worth is bound to the peener replacement you call a gun, and you also have mental issues because you fantasize about blowing someone away.

It is funny but I have trained several anti gun folks on the use and responsibilities of firearms ownership and self defense AFTER the were a victim of violent crime, amazing at how having some cretin graphically show you how little they think your life is worth changes your attitude about firearm ownership and self defense.



Clearly, people who say that have never seen my peener. ;)

I trained a friend of mine after they became a lawyer and started coming into contact with actual bad people. Hooked them up with an army instructor I knew for professional training.

Complete 180 form their "Guns are Evil" stand previously.

Nothing like meeting someone who would think zilch of beating you to death to make you start pricing a nice Sig.
 
2012-03-21 03:11:48 PM

Azlefty: jaytkay: Azlefty: bluehubcap: Seriously, I think the idea of being armed at all times, everywhere, is paranoid.

Why are you so paranoid of lawful Citizens carrying a legal firearm?

Why do conservatives use so much inappropriate capitalization?

I do so because I am to lazy to capitalize all the letters when making a point.

Or

Perhaps we worry about other things besides the the style manual when posting on a blog

Now, why do you libs attack the grammar in blogs instead of refuting the point that was made? ;)


OK, addressing the point, "Why are you so paranoid of lawful Citizens carrying a legal firearm?"

Because people who see the grocery store as a terrifying place where they need to carry a handgun are by definition overly emotional and lacking normal skills needed to function in public.
 
2012-03-21 03:29:12 PM

Allen. The end.: This woman is an asshole. Why would the NRA even admit to her being a lobbyist? Is their collective dick JUST THAT TINY???


Another anti-gunner who is obsessed with the size of someone else's penis. Just go ahead and admit you're gay, it's perfectly acceptable you know.
 
2012-03-21 03:32:27 PM

ddelorm: I'm a CCW holder, and carry regularly. Not to work, since I work on state property, but most everywhere else.

I had someone ask me why I carried a gun, did I expect to be attacked?

I asked him why he wore a seat belt, was he expecting to crash?

I also carry a first aid kit in my car, road flares, a tow rope, a spare tire, etc...etc...etc....

I've been mugged. Twice. I was pretty sure the second time the guy was gonna stab me to death. After that, i swore i would never be defenseless again.

I'm not out to confront anyone, or be a tough guy.

I just want the OPTION to legally defend myself with lethal force to defend my own life, or that of my loved ones.


That makes you a crazy, paranoid, right-wing nutcase in the eyes of many of the leftys around here.

Oh and they also think you have a small penis.
 
2012-03-21 03:38:32 PM

jaytkay: OK, addressing the point, "Why are you so paranoid of lawful Citizens carrying a legal firearm?"

Because people who see the grocery store as a terrifying place where they need to carry a handgun are by definition overly emotional and lacking normal skills needed to function in public.


Hehe, nice. So people who currently conceal carry are overly emotional and lacking in skills needed to function in public. And you are hoping anything you say after that is to be taken seriously?
 
2012-03-21 03:44:02 PM

trappedspirit: Hehe, nice. So people who currently conceal carry are overly emotional and lacking in skills needed to function in public. And you are hoping anything you say after that is to be taken seriously?


Not by socially inept bedwetters, no.
 
2012-03-21 03:49:05 PM

Callous: wthgtfo: the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force.

[t3.gstatic.com image 225x225]


I understand that times have changed, but if people like her want to be strict about the interpretation then I say we throw it right back in their faces. Granted, its not conducive to a logical and rational debate but they don't seem to concerned with that.
 
2012-03-21 03:52:07 PM

Silverstaff: wthgtfo: Also, the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (new window)

Current legal precedent holds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms for purposes of defense of self and home, independent of any service in a militia.

The SCOTUS did recognize that this right can be limited by circumstances such as place and time, so you are not legally entitled by the Constitution to carry everywhere at all times, but it also did make it clear that you can protect yourself with firearms.

That being said, Mr. Zimmerman wasn't engaging in self defense, he was a vigilante. He saw a black teenager walking through his neighborhood, assumed he was a criminal, and went outside his house and off his property to hunt the youth down and attack him. The Sanford police responded to the call, saw a dead black kid and an old white man saying it was self defense and thought that was that. . .until the issue didn't go away and Mr. Martin's family didn't leave it at that.


I understand that, but this was in response to the woman saying rapists weren't in the constitution, ergo they have no rights. I was not meaning to say that the interpretation of the constitution does not/should not change with the times, simply pointing out a major flaw in her very strict and narrow world view. Probably didn't get it across very well.
 
2012-03-21 03:52:26 PM

jaytkay: Because people who see the grocery store as a terrifying place where they need to carry a handgun are by definition overly emotional and lacking normal skills needed to function in public.


Who sees the grocery store as terrifying? You're not trying to create a false equivalence between carrying a firearm in a place and being terrified of that place, are you?
 
2012-03-21 04:04:21 PM

Silverstaff: wthgtfo: Also, the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (new window)

Current legal precedent holds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms for purposes of defense of self and home, independent of any service in a militia.

The SCOTUS did recognize that this right can be limited by circumstances such as place and time, so you are not legally entitled by the Constitution to carry everywhere at all times, but it also did make it clear that you can protect yourself with firearms.

That being said, Mr. Zimmerman wasn't engaging in self defense, he was a vigilante. He saw a black teenager walking through his neighborhood, assumed he was a criminal, and went outside his house and off his property to hunt the youth down and attack him. The Sanford police responded to the call, saw a dead black kid and an old white man saying it was self defense and thought that was that. . .until the issue didn't go away and Mr. Martin's family didn't leave it at that.

wthgtfo: Silverstaff: wthgtfo: Also, the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (new window)

Current legal precedent holds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms for purposes of defense of self and home, independent of any service in a militia.

The SCOTUS did recognize that this right can be limited by circumstances such as place and time, so you are not legally entitled by the Constitution to carry everywhere at all times, but it also did make it clear that you can protect yourself with firearms.

That being said, Mr. Zimmerman wasn't engaging in self defense, he was a vigilante. He saw a black teenager walking through his neighborhood, assumed he was a criminal, and went outside his house and off his property to hunt the youth down and attack him. The Sanford police responded to the call, saw a dead black kid and an old white man saying it was self defense and thought that was that. . .until the issue didn't go away and Mr. Martin's family didn't leave it at that.

I understand that, but this was in response to the woman saying rapists weren't in the constitution, ergo they have no rights. I was not meaning to say that the interpretation of the constitution does not/should not change with the times, simply pointing out a major flaw in her very strict and narrow world view. Probably didn't get it across very well.


And I forgot to mention the whole thing about forcing colleges and universities to allow firearms on to their property. She has pushed for pretty much allowing a weapon anywhere, even in places where it might be a really really bad idea or doesn't fit with the ideals of whatever institution or group runs the property. I don't mind that she wants to protect herself, but there are reasons you shouldn't bring a firearm into a psych ward, a college campus, etc. Plus, the owner of a business should be allowed to keep them out of his place of business if he wants to. He has the right to refuse service to anyone, why do people who want to conceal carry get a pass? No one is forcing them to use his services or buy his goods, so its not necessary for them to go there so they can't argue it infringes on their rights. It would be like arguing that every American has the right to Wal-mart or Gamestop. Just isn't true.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report