Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, lobbyists, NRA  
•       •       •

11689 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2012 at 9:56 AM (4 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
 
2012-03-21 09:58:21 AM  
Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.
 
2012-03-21 09:59:06 AM  
Anarchy is the law.
 
2012-03-21 09:59:43 AM  
Thank you, Marion P. Hammer.

An individual, engaged in perfectly legal activity, should be able to defend himself or herself without the ludicrous requirement to turn his back and flee.
 
2012-03-21 10:00:27 AM  
I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?
 
2012-03-21 10:02:39 AM  

EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.


Exactly,

"Stand your ground" laws are meant to overturn prior "Duty to retreat" laws that essentially criminalized self defense except in the most extreme of circumstances.

It's about self-defense, not a license to be a vigilante stalking people you think are criminals and executing them.
 
2012-03-21 10:03:58 AM  

EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.


yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.
 
2012-03-21 10:04:06 AM  
You can thank the Bush family for it to courtesy of the supposedly "smart" one ( Jeb ). The rich have traditionally been a drag on most countries but the disaster known as the Bush family has been like a plague, WWIII and the end of the world all wrapped up in one.
 
2012-03-21 10:04:16 AM  
You can't touch this.
 
2012-03-21 10:04:21 AM  

CAADbury: Thank you, Marion P. Hammer.

An individual, engaged in perfectly legal activity, should be able to defend himself or herself without the ludicrous requirement to turn his back and flee.


& a kid should be able to walk back to his father's house with a bag of skittles without getting murdered. EnderX states it well:


EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

 
2012-03-21 10:04:24 AM  
Thanks Marion!
 
2012-03-21 10:04:54 AM  

Silverstaff: It's about self-defense, not a license to be a vigilante stalking people you think are criminals and executing them.


^THIS

Prosecute Zimmerman as a vigilante, convict him for murder, and gift-wrap him for "Cell-block Caesar".
 
2012-03-21 10:07:02 AM  
Holy crap, she's bonkers.
 
2012-03-21 10:07:05 AM  

I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.


Yeah I'll agree with you there. You nut jobs don't get it.
 
2012-03-21 10:09:12 AM  
I see no problem at all with this.
 
2012-03-21 10:09:46 AM  

img.fark.com

 
2012-03-21 10:10:04 AM  

I Said: The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.


As I stated up thread, this case bears quite a few hallmarks of utilization of actual LEO tactics. Last year, there was a local case of an officer shooting and killing a local punk who was "driving right at him(!)" after the officer intentionally positioned his self in the middle of the road so that the punk would have no other choice. Imagine that. If a police officer wants to shoot you, all he has to do is step off the curb so that you are approaching him with a "deadly weapon" (in the form of your POV). You are toast.
 
2012-03-21 10:10:15 AM  
Read the article.

What a horrible, malicious coont.

/supports gun ownership but wants tighter gun regulations
 
2012-03-21 10:10:25 AM  
She's a complete asshole. Wow.
 
2012-03-21 10:10:26 AM  
It's stand your ground, not chase down and confront on someone else's property.

This debate should not be happening, because it is not applicable to the case in Stanford.

The "Watch Commander" was not standing his ground, he was creating a confrontation where one did not exist, and got trigger happy.

People trying to apply Stand your Ground laws are just trying to cover up the murder of an uppity n***** by a guy who had no business owning a gun.
 
2012-03-21 10:10:41 AM  

Silverstaff: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

Exactly,

"Stand your ground" laws are meant to overturn prior "Duty to retreat" laws that essentially criminalized self defense except in the most extreme of circumstances.

It's about self-defense, not a license to be a vigilante stalking people you think are criminals and executing them.


That's what I think is so screwed up about the lack of prosecution in this case. How can a person force a confrontation, then use excessive force in response resulting in death, then claim self-defense?

Sounds like an iron-clad defense for any subsequent cases of road rage. Just push the other car in front of a semi, and claim you felt threatened. As long as the other driver is dead, you're in the clear!
 
2012-03-21 10:12:35 AM  
Okay, I went back to TFA and found many, many more disturbing things there:

- "Liberalize the law concerning the use of lethal force in public by gun carriers" - I guess innocent bystanders are just collateral damage
- "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past
- "Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms" - this is a fabulous idea...Doctor: "um, ma'am, I'm not allowed to ask you anything about firearms, but can you please answer in a way that doesn't include firearms as to why your child has a hole in his head?"
- Hammer renewed her opposition to an effort by the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association to ban the carrying of firearms in hospitals and nursing homes - yes, guns in an environment that includes lots of oxygen tanks. One bang-boom and lots of people suddenly come into an inheritance.

I Just couldn't go further...this woman is insane.
 
2012-03-21 10:13:51 AM  
bluehubcap


I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?



That's as far as you got? Makes you a lazy reader.
And you consider her "perverse" for growing up hunting and eating her own food? Makes you closed minded.

It was an interesting article.
 
2012-03-21 10:14:10 AM  
FTFA: "She explains that she founded USF 'because Florida was seeing what I would call a burst of gun control measures being filed by northerners who had moved to South Florida and had brought the stuff that they had moved away from with them.'"

/should be posted at every arrival hall in every airport and southbound interstate south and of the Potomac and East of the Rockies
 
2012-03-21 10:14:21 AM  
My dad also grew up on a farm and started carrying a gun at five years old. He even killed a guy while on guard duty in the army. Even he doesn't feel like he needs to carry a gun everywhere he goes to feel safe. This is where she starts to look a little on the crazy side.

csb:(1967)Dad was in basic and was put on guard duty over night. A young officer liked to shoot the only lightbulb and watch the recruit/draftee panic in the dark. My dad's turn came and instead of panic levels the M-16 and emptied the mag. The MPs found the guy in the bushes. He didn't get time to turn and run. No charges since dad did what he was suppose to do.
 
2012-03-21 10:15:05 AM  
If a "Stand Your Ground" law is in place and I am somewhere where only one other person can observe me, what is there to stop that person from shooting me, saying he felt threatened, and using "Stand Your Ground" as a defense against even being arrested and investigated? Is it just by their good grace that I continue breathing?
 
2012-03-21 10:16:11 AM  

Bob16: You can thank the Bush family for it to courtesy of the supposedly "smart" one ( Jeb ). The rich have traditionally been a drag on most countries but the disaster known as the Bush family has been like a plague, WWIII and the end of the world all wrapped up in one.


Well that seems to be a well thought out and fact rich statement. Thanks for that deep analysis
 
2012-03-21 10:16:56 AM  
Basically "The Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Criminal Committee, Bob Johnson, said Hammer possessed, "the lowest standard of integrity I have ever seen for a lobbyist in Tallahassee."
 
2012-03-21 10:17:16 AM  
I don't see how it applies either, Zimmerman was the aggressor ... SYG shouldn't apply to the aggressor.
 
2012-03-21 10:17:33 AM  

karnal: bluehubcap


I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


That's as far as you got? Makes you a lazy reader.
And you consider her "perverse" for growing up hunting and eating her own food? Makes you closed minded.

It was an interesting article.


Please. I've grown up on rabbit pie, venison and moose. I didn't want to shoot them when I was six, though.

Got anything else besides personal insults?
 
2012-03-21 10:17:54 AM  

bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


It's a hunger games prequel.
 
2012-03-21 10:18:36 AM  
In a radio interview with NRA News on January 11, 2011, Hammer expressed outrage that Florida residents would be denied the ability to bring guns into cemeteries to mourn their lost loved ones.

See? Asshole.
 
2012-03-21 10:19:19 AM  

I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.


Precisely. "Stand your ground" is not even in play here. Sanford PD's hamfisted failure to do basic investigation, and then mis-applying things is the problem.
 
2012-03-21 10:19:28 AM  

beta_plus: FTFA: "She explains that she founded USF 'because Florida was seeing what I would call a burst of gun control measures being filed by northerners who had moved to South Florida and had brought the stuff that they had moved away from with them.'"

/should be posted at every arrival hall in every airport and southbound interstate south and of the Potomac and East of the Rockies


I thought what "Northerners" were moving away from was snow.
 
2012-03-21 10:20:08 AM  

bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


Hungry ones?
 
2012-03-21 10:20:26 AM  

SwingingJohnson: Anarchy is the law.


Thank you, thank you very much.
 
2012-03-21 10:20:48 AM  

bluehubcap:
- Hammer renewed her opposition to an effort by the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association to ban the carrying of firearms in hospitals and nursing homes - yes, guns in an environment that includes lots of oxygen tanks. One bang-boom and lots of people suddenly come into an inheritance.

I Just couldn't go further...this woman is insane.


Because handguns and dementia mix so well.
 
2012-03-21 10:21:21 AM  

bluehubcap: Okay, I went back to TFA and found many, many more disturbing things there:

- "Liberalize the law concerning the use of lethal force in public by gun carriers" - I guess innocent bystanders are just collateral damage
- "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past
- "Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms" - this is a fabulous idea...Doctor: "um, ma'am, I'm not allowed to ask you anything about firearms, but can you please answer in a way that doesn't include firearms as to why your child has a hole in his head?"
- Hammer renewed her opposition to an effort by the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association to ban the carrying of firearms in hospitals and nursing homes - yes, guns in an environment that includes lots of oxygen tanks. One bang-boom and lots of people suddenly come into an inheritance.

I Just couldn't go further...this woman is insane.


I read those same items and thought the same thing. This lady literally wants the ability to carry a weapon in every single part of her life like this is same Western movie and she might have to take down some bad guy in some kind of shoot out.
 
2012-03-21 10:21:28 AM  

Bob16: You can thank the Bush family for it to courtesy of the supposedly "smart" one ( Jeb ). The rich have traditionally been a drag on most countries but the disaster known as the Bush family has been like a plague, WWIII and the end of the world all wrapped up in one.


WTF are you babbling about??
 
2012-03-21 10:21:46 AM  
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.
 
2012-03-21 10:22:40 AM  

Silverstaff: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

Exactly,

"Stand your ground" laws are meant to overturn prior "Duty to retreat" laws that essentially criminalized self defense except in the most extreme of circumstances.

It's about self-defense, not a license to be a vigilante stalking people you think are criminals and executing them.


Oh bullshiat, the "Stand Your Ground" laws are for the same bed-wetting paranoids who need to carry their guns everywhere. These Wannabe Tough Guys are itching for a chance to take revenge on the kids who bullied them in school.

Every d@mn self-defense class tells you to de-escalate or try to remove yourself from the situation. Any Adult knows once the fists or bullets start flying, anything can happen, all of it usually bad.
 
2012-03-21 10:23:22 AM  
the centuries of jurisprudence on self-defense were perfectly satisfactory. people who defended themselves were not being convicted.

the old standard worked as well as it needed to. lowering the burden only increases the danger of justifying a non-self defense homicide or a disproportionate use of force, it does not decrease the danger of prosecuting the justified, because the justified were not at risk.

every homicide should be thoroughly examined. if it were justified by self-defense, then it is justified. the so called "duty to retreat" included a reasonableness standard and proportionality. this new doctrine is more subjective and less demanding. it clouds the notion of reasonable force and opens the door to abuse.

the age old justification standard was working (I have not heard of anyone satisfactorily arguing a legal crisis with the old justification).

lowering the burden on the justification swings too far in the favor of accepting homicide. it's a balancing act. you don't want to justify everything.
 
2012-03-21 10:23:26 AM  

HAMMERTOE: I Said: The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

As I stated up thread, this case bears quite a few hallmarks of utilization of actual LEO tactics. Last year, there was a local case of an officer shooting and killing a local punk who was "driving right at him(!)" after the officer intentionally positioned his self in the middle of the road so that the punk would have no other choice. Imagine that. If a police officer wants to shoot you, all he has to do is step off the curb so that you are approaching him with a "deadly weapon" (in the form of your POV). You are toast.


The kid didn't stop the car?
 
2012-03-21 10:25:11 AM  
How can anybody take this backwoods anachronistic fruit-loop seriously?
 
2012-03-21 10:25:33 AM  

LarryDan43: bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

It's a hunger games prequel.


+1
 
2012-03-21 10:26:35 AM  
She seems like a pretty smart cookie.
giving reasonable people the ability to enjoy their rights shouldn't have to be such a battle.

The current situation may prove to have been an arsehat claiming something that wasn't true and murdering an innocent.
and it seems like that's what happened

but I like her fight, and could put her reason up against the emotion of some whiners

What a horrible, malicious coont.
this woman is insane.
She's a complete asshole
she's bonkers.


welcome to fark
 
2012-03-21 10:26:49 AM  
bluehubcap

karnal: bluehubcap


I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


That's as far as you got? Makes you a lazy reader.
And you consider her "perverse" for growing up hunting and eating her own food? Makes you closed minded.

It was an interesting article.

Please. I've grown up on rabbit pie, venison and moose. I didn't want to shoot them when I was six, though.

Got anything else besides personal insults?


Heigh ho, the dairy-o......You didn't read the entire article - and you decided she was unstable because she took an interest in hunting at a young age. What have you got?
 
2012-03-21 10:27:35 AM  
Your 2nd Amendment rights don't trump my 1st Amendment rights.

Or my rights as a property owner to limit guns in my business.

/gun-owner
//Florida raised
///Hunter
////Think the scales have tipped to far towards gun lobby
 
2012-03-21 10:27:41 AM  

bluehubcap: karnal: bluehubcap


I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


That's as far as you got? Makes you a lazy reader.
And you consider her "perverse" for growing up hunting and eating her own food? Makes you closed minded.

It was an interesting article.

Please. I've grown up on rabbit pie, venison and moose. I didn't want to shoot them when I was six, though.


Some kids are more curious than to accept that food simply appears in the fridge.
My neice was fully in to gardening with her grandmother by age five.
A family that hunts? With adult supervision its probably not usual.
 
2012-03-21 10:28:26 AM  
Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)
 
2012-03-21 10:29:00 AM  

bluehubcap: How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


It depends on how hungry they are.

My youngest tells me she likes to eat veal. She says all serious-like: "Daddy, the cruelty makes it taste better."
 
2012-03-21 10:29:54 AM  
biggest piece of shiat in florida, and that's saying something.
 
2012-03-21 10:31:03 AM  

xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)


So, the question then is are there more killings, or are more people claiming self defense?
 
2012-03-21 10:32:53 AM  

bluehubcap: - "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past.


Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (new window)

How long did that "safe feeling" last?
 
2012-03-21 10:33:07 AM  
FTA: Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms.

So a doctor can't ask if you have gun on you before an MRI? Nothing bad can come of that.
 
2012-03-21 10:33:08 AM  

bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


They need a new button--'smart','funny','dimwit'
 
2012-03-21 10:33:37 AM  

I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.


I'm not sure how "stand your ground" can be equated with "chase someone who is trying to escape you". If this guy would have stood his ground like the dispatcher asked him to no one would have died.
 
2012-03-21 10:34:50 AM  
Can I just check that I have this right? In Florida, you are allowed to pick a fight with an unarmed person and then, if they hit you back, kill them? Wow.
 
2012-03-21 10:34:50 AM  
Clinging to grand daddy and a squirrel.
 
2012-03-21 10:35:07 AM  
georgeyporgey


bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

They need a new button--'smart','funny','dimwit'



Careful - bluehubcap does not like personal insults.
 
2012-03-21 10:35:19 AM  

thurstonxhowell: If a "Stand Your Ground" law is in place and I am somewhere where only one other person can observe me, what is there to stop that person from shooting me, saying he felt threatened, and using "Stand Your Ground" as a defense against even being arrested and investigated? Is it just by their good grace that I continue breathing?


Clearly, should you find yourself in proximity to another person, and there are no witnesses handy, you should shoot the other person "just to be sure".
 
2012-03-21 10:35:22 AM  

bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


Any six year old girl who isn't brainwashed in to a Disney fantasy. You don't seem to realize that when you live on a farm, you don't sit around and watch movies all day. You work, and you work hard, even at six years of age. I didn't grow up on a farm but I have worked on one, and everyone in the family helps out, whether it's driving heavy machinery, or picking flowers or blueberries to sell. Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality. I would dare to say that a 6 year old girl living under these conditions is probably far more mentally mature than a six year old girl who watches movies all day.
 
2012-03-21 10:36:33 AM  

orbister: Can I just check that I have this right? In Florida, you are allowed to pick a fight with an unarmed person and then, if they hit you back, kill them? Wow.


No, you have that wrong.
 
2012-03-21 10:37:30 AM  

wren337: I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.

I'm not sure how "stand your ground" can be equated with "chase someone who is trying to escape you". If this guy would have stood his ground like the dispatcher asked him to no one would have died.


It happens when you have a vastly-inflated sense of self-importance, and view the entire neighborhood and "your ground".
 
2012-03-21 10:37:54 AM  

way south: bluehubcap: karnal: bluehubcap


I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


That's as far as you got? Makes you a lazy reader.
And you consider her "perverse" for growing up hunting and eating her own food? Makes you closed minded.

It was an interesting article.

Please. I've grown up on rabbit pie, venison and moose. I didn't want to shoot them when I was six, though.

Some kids are more curious than to accept that food simply appears in the fridge.
My neice was fully in to gardening with her grandmother by age five.
A family that hunts? With adult supervision its probably not usual.


I fished with my uncle when I was 6. Still had two treasured goldfish at home (silver and goldie, we were not that inventive with pet names).

That's not disturbing at all; using that as a jumping off point to batshiat insane policies is.
 
2012-03-21 10:37:57 AM  

natas6.0: She seems like a pretty smart cookie.
giving reasonable people the ability to enjoy their rights shouldn't have to be such a battle.


I think the operative word here is "reasonable".

Is it reasonable to think you need a gun on your person to teach a college course? Is it reasonable to think you'll need a gun while visiting mom, dad or grandpa in the nursing home?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. If fear becomes so paralytic that you need that crutch everywhere you go, then you are no longer a reasonable person. You're paranoid. May as well wear a helmet in case something might fall from the sky and hit you on the head or a life jacket, in case of flood, or how about a designer bullet proof wardrobe?

If it appears that I'm reducing this to ridicule, it's because I find the need to have a gun every single place I go absolutely ridiculous. I'm not that afraid of life. Ms. Hammer apparently is.

(Of course, I use "you" as a general term, not specific to natas6.0.)
 
2012-03-21 10:39:05 AM  
First simulpost ... and with a prod Scot

/here's to health and houghmagandie.
 
2012-03-21 10:41:32 AM  

lack of warmth: csb:(1967)Dad was in basic and was put on guard duty over night. A young officer liked to shoot the only lightbulb and watch the recruit/draftee panic in the dark. My dad's turn came and instead of panic levels the M-16 and emptied the mag. The MPs found the guy in the bushes. He didn't get time to turn and run. No charges since dad did what he was suppose to do.



I love a good prank, but WTF was that officer thinking?
 
2012-03-21 10:41:34 AM  

bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?


If by mentally stable you mean awake to the realities of the world, then I would say all of them. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. If I had to hazard, I would say your version would mean falling in line with the brainwashed Disneyfiction of reality where everything is sunshine and happiness all the time.
 
2012-03-21 10:41:44 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: bluehubcap: How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

It depends on how hungry they are.

My youngest tells me she likes to eat veal. She says all serious-like: "Daddy, the cruelty makes it taste better."


Sick little kid you've got there.
 
2012-03-21 10:41:56 AM  

xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year


On the bright side, homicides have gone down.
 
2012-03-21 10:43:42 AM  

Scerpes: xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)

So, the question then is are there more killings, or are more people claiming self defense?


Read the article. The law places such a high burden of proof on law enforcement and prosecutors that cases that would have been a slam dunk manslaughter conviction were instead passed up to state prosecutors and later dropped. I think we're seeing a little bit of both as the public catches on to just how easy it is to get away with killing someone.

FTFA: "But the law has also been used to excuse violence in deadly neighbor arguments, bar brawls, road rage - even a gang shoot-out - that just as easily might have ended with someone walking away."
 
2012-03-21 10:43:59 AM  

bluehubcap: Okay, I went back to TFA and found many, many more disturbing things there:

- "Liberalize the law concerning the use of lethal force in public by gun carriers" - I guess innocent bystanders are just collateral damage
- "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past
- "Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms" - this is a fabulous idea...Doctor: "um, ma'am, I'm not allowed to ask you anything about firearms, but can you please answer in a way that doesn't include firearms as to why your child has a hole in his head?"
- Hammer renewed her opposition to an effort by the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association to ban the carrying of firearms in hospitals and nursing homes - yes, guns in an environment that includes lots of oxygen tanks. One bang-boom and lots of people suddenly come into an inheritance.

I Just couldn't go further...this woman is insane.


Actually, it used to be common a while ago for kids to bring their rifles to high school, as they often would hunt on the way home. For decades this was not an issue, because guns were just a part of the American culture, far more than they are now.

Also, I'm not sure shooting an oxygen tank will make it explode.
 
2012-03-21 10:44:04 AM  

lack of warmth: csb:(1967)Dad was in basic and was put on guard duty over night. A young officer liked to shoot the only lightbulb and watch the recruit/draftee panic in the dark. My dad's turn came and instead of panic levels the M-16 and emptied the mag. The MPs found the guy in the bushes. He didn't get time to turn and run. No charges since dad did what he was suppose to do.


Internet tough guy by proxy?

/7 proxies?
 
2012-03-21 10:44:34 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: This lady literally wants the ability to carry a weapon in every single part of her life like this is same Western movie and she might have to take down some bad guy in some kind of shoot out.



Sadly, I have a brother here in central Florida that has the same mindset. I suppose it's just an amazing coincidence that this mindset coincided with Obamas election as POTUS.
 
2012-03-21 10:44:45 AM  

xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)


And the increase wasn't just a re-classification of previously "unjustifiable homicides" as "justifiable homicides"?
 
2012-03-21 10:45:27 AM  

Muta: xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year

On the bright side, homicides have gone down.


*snort*
 
2012-03-21 10:45:43 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: bluehubcap: How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

It depends on how hungry they are.

My youngest tells me she likes to eat veal. She says all serious-like: "Daddy, the cruelty makes it taste better."



That's worse than me and my cousins playing with the lobsters before we cooked them. Grandpere wouldn't let us, though, said it made the meat tough. I still name them before I put them in the pot.

My cousin Kevin once saw his dad come home after a hunt and the deer was draped across the trunk of the car - Tante Gisele says "look Kevin, it's Bambi!". I thought that kid would never watch another Disney movie, but he took it well in stride. On the other hand, he was deathly afraid of sitting on the toilet because he thought he'd lose his penis down the drain like his sister. Kids are weird.

I grew up knowing where our food came from, but I still didn't want to shoot a fluffy bunny when I was six. The woman in question is a tad gun happpy.
 
2012-03-21 10:46:22 AM  

The_Sponge: lack of warmth: csb:(1967)Dad was in basic and was put on guard duty over night. A young officer liked to shoot the only lightbulb and watch the recruit/draftee panic in the dark. My dad's turn came and instead of panic levels the M-16 and emptied the mag. The MPs found the guy in the bushes. He didn't get time to turn and run. No charges since dad did what he was suppose to do.


I love a good prank, but WTF was that officer thinking?


He wasn't.,,and he got to reap his reward.
 
2012-03-21 10:48:53 AM  

Itstoearly: Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality.


The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?
 
2012-03-21 10:49:33 AM  

karnal: georgeyporgey


bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

They need a new button--'smart','funny','dimwit'


Careful - bluehubcap does not like personal insults.


Personal insults weaken an argument. If you can't argue your POV without them, then you don't know how to argue logically.
 
2012-03-21 10:50:35 AM  

CAADbury: xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)

And the increase wasn't just a re-classification of previously "unjustifiable homicides" as "justifiable homicides"?


It's more than just that. As I stated above, people are catching on. Dispute with a neighbor? *BANG* "He lunged at me officer." Someone cuts you off/rides your bumper/flips you off? *BANG* "He had a tire iron, I was scared!"
 
2012-03-21 10:50:37 AM  

bluehubcap: natas6.0: She seems like a pretty smart cookie.
giving reasonable people the ability to enjoy their rights shouldn't have to be such a battle.

I think the operative word here is "reasonable".

Is it reasonable to think you need a gun on your person to teach a college course? Is it reasonable to think you'll need a gun while visiting mom, dad or grandpa in the nursing home?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. If fear becomes so paralytic that you need that crutch everywhere you go, then you are no longer a reasonable person. You're paranoid. May as well wear a helmet in case something might fall from the sky and hit you on the head or a life jacket, in case of flood, or how about a designer bullet proof wardrobe?

If it appears that I'm reducing this to ridicule, it's because I find the need to have a gun every single place I go absolutely ridiculous. I'm not that afraid of life. Ms. Hammer apparently is.

(Of course, I use "you" as a general term, not specific to natas6.0.)


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.
 
2012-03-21 10:51:33 AM  

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.


The problem is, the ratio keeps creeping up. I have been a gun owner since well before I was allowed to vote [and this will be my 40th voting year] and I am beginning to see the logic of some gun control measures. The issue is that NRA folks have pulled the pendulum bob too far to one side, demanding absolutes. The results will be, at some point a response that is too extreme on the other side but supported by many that want stupidity to at least slow down. That is what pendulums do.
 
2012-03-21 10:51:50 AM  

Muta: Itstoearly: Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality.

The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?


Because Disney isn't reality. Animals don't talk - they get eaten.
 
2012-03-21 10:52:41 AM  

TravisBickle62: orbister: Can I just check that I have this right? In Florida, you are allowed to pick a fight with an unarmed person and then, if they hit you back, kill them? Wow.

No, you have that wrong.


Yeah, it only applies in Sanford, and if the other person is black.
 
2012-03-21 10:54:02 AM  
I found this quote interesting.

"Sex offenders are not protected by the Constitution."

Really? So you don't need to give them a trial, and you can give them any punishment you want. They are now outside the law.

/not convinced.
 
2012-03-21 10:54:04 AM  

StrangeQ: bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

If by mentally stable you mean awake to the realities of the world, then I would say all of them. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. If I had to hazard, I would say your version would mean falling in line with the brainwashed Disneyfiction of reality where everything is sunshine and happiness all the time.


Actually, no. I don't like Disney and never did. They candy coat and dumb down too many things and re-write stories to have happy endings everywhere they go. It's not realistic.

It is, however, fairly realistic to think that most six year old girls think bunnies are cute. Most little girls love animals and would rather care for them than kill them. That was my viewpoint.
 
2012-03-21 10:54:31 AM  

Muta: Itstoearly: Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality.

The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?


Wow...and I think this is the first time I've ever said this...because sometimes reality has a conservative bias?
 
2012-03-21 10:54:47 AM  

TravisBickle62: orbister: Can I just check that I have this right? In Florida, you are allowed to pick a fight with an unarmed person and then, if they hit you back, kill them? Wow.

No, you have that wrong.


Well, not necessarily. If there's no witnesses, it's just your word against the dead dude's. Then, quiet frankly, what are the police going to use to prosecute you?

It may very well be the law is AMAZINGLY badly written.
 
2012-03-21 10:54:50 AM  

Itstoearly: Actually, it used to be common a while ago for kids to bring their rifles to high school, as they often would hunt on the way home.


But, you know, things have changed in the last 70 years and it guns are no longer welcome at highschool.
 
2012-03-21 10:54:52 AM  
I support gun control for the sole reason that it makes rednecks butthurt.
 
2012-03-21 10:56:17 AM  

TheGhostofFarkPast: bluehubcap: Okay, I went back to TFA and found many, many more disturbing things there:

- "Liberalize the law concerning the use of lethal force in public by gun carriers" - I guess innocent bystanders are just collateral damage
- "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past
- "Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms" - this is a fabulous idea...Doctor: "um, ma'am, I'm not allowed to ask you anything about firearms, but can you please answer in a way that doesn't include firearms as to why your child has a hole in his head?"
- Hammer renewed her opposition to an effort by the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association to ban the carrying of firearms in hospitals and nursing homes - yes, guns in an environment that includes lots of oxygen tanks. One bang-boom and lots of people suddenly come into an inheritance.

I Just couldn't go further...this woman is insane.

I read those same items and thought the same thing. This lady literally wants the ability to carry a weapon in every single part of her life like this is same Western movie and she might have to take down some bad guy in some kind of shoot out.


Wait, wait, wait... that was a woman?
images.wikia.com
 
2012-03-21 10:56:51 AM  

bluehubcap: It is, however, fairly realistic to think that most six year old girls think bunnies are cute. Most little girls love animals and would rather care for them than kill them. That was my viewpoint.


And is that a result of nature or nurture?
 
2012-03-21 10:58:12 AM  
Wow. There are a lot of racist liberals in this thread who feel that hispanics do not have a right to bear arms or to self defense or to be innocent until prove guilty.
 
2012-03-21 10:59:51 AM  

bluehubcap: - "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past


I think you mean, yeah, trying to prohibit guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past
 
2012-03-21 11:01:30 AM  

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.
 
2012-03-21 11:04:55 AM  

StrangeQ: bluehubcap: It is, however, fairly realistic to think that most six year old girls think bunnies are cute. Most little girls love animals and would rather care for them than kill them. That was my viewpoint.

And is that a result of nature or nurture?


I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist, but I think girls tend to be hardwired to nuture naturally. I honestly believe that the female gender, without outside influence, is inclined toward caregiving. Especially where the object of their care is something that they appeal to - like a small animal that they may consider cute. I don't think I'm far wrong in that, or it's an unreasonable statement.

Of course there are outliers, but I'm talking of the average young female.
 
2012-03-21 11:05:39 AM  

Muta: FTA: Prohibit doctors, including pediatricians, from asking patients questions about firearms.

So a doctor can't ask if you have gun on you before an MRI? Nothing bad can come of that.


The doctor should follow a more comprehensive line of questioning, "Do you have any metal on you? Any coins, keys, pocket knives, firing pins, bullets, depleted uranium anti-tank rounds, you know, that kind of metal?"
 
2012-03-21 11:07:29 AM  

StrangeQ: The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?

Wow...and I think this is the first time I've ever said this...because sometimes reality has a conservative bias?


Are you saying the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls need to kill rabbits for food? What year do you live in? No, sorry, 'reality' in the early 21st century USA for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls supports my position.
 
2012-03-21 11:08:04 AM  

beta_plus: Wow. There are a lot of racist liberals in this thread who feel that hispanics do not have a right to bear arms or to self defense or to be innocent until prove guilty.


I'd love for this guy to be innocent until proven guilty. But when Sanford PD won't even bring charges to prove or disprove guilt in a court of law, then what, besides the court of public opinion? Fortunately, higher authority has responded to common sense, and will seat a grand jury 10 April to determine if charges need to be pressed.

/liberal
//non-racist
///speciesist, hates ferrets
 
2012-03-21 11:08:58 AM  
Being a native Chicagoan, I'd vote for her at LEAST 4 times.
 
2012-03-21 11:08:59 AM  

ArkAngel: Muta: Itstoearly: Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality.

The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?

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


So, just to clear things up: the only choices are "Disney" or "Ted Nugent?"
 
2012-03-21 11:09:52 AM  

Mentalpatient87: ArkAngel: Muta: Itstoearly: Little girls under these conditions don't get lost in Disney fantasies, they get grounded in reality.

The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?

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

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


Disney isn't a viable choice, so no.
 
2012-03-21 11:11:10 AM  
Okay....I'll agree that Florida should get rid of the SYG law over this one incident as long as people agree to get rid of welfare/medicare/safety nets due to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of acts of fraud committed.
 
2012-03-21 11:12:26 AM  

bluehubcap: StrangeQ: bluehubcap: It is, however, fairly realistic to think that most six year old girls think bunnies are cute. Most little girls love animals and would rather care for them than kill them. That was my viewpoint.

And is that a result of nature or nurture?

I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist, but I think girls tend to be hardwired to nuture naturally. I honestly believe that the female gender, without outside influence, is inclined toward caregiving. Especially where the object of their care is something that they appeal to - like a small animal that they may consider cute. I don't think I'm far wrong in that, or it's an unreasonable statement.

Of course there are outliers, but I'm talking of the average young female.


Do you think they like sugar n spice and everything nice?
 
2012-03-21 11:13:01 AM  

bluehubcap: StrangeQ: bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

If by mentally stable you mean awake to the realities of the world, then I would say all of them. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. If I had to hazard, I would say your version would mean falling in line with the brainwashed Disneyfiction of reality where everything is sunshine and happiness all the time.

Actually, no. I don't like Disney and never did. They candy coat and dumb down too many things and re-write stories to have happy endings everywhere they go. It's not realistic.

It is, however, fairly realistic to think that most six year old girls think bunnies are cute. Most little girls love animals and would rather care for them than kill them. That was my viewpoint.


You're serious? I thought your Boobies was just trolling. If you are raised on a farm you learn where food comes from. That's not to disagree with your statement that MOST little girls think bunnies are cute. Because MOST little girls are not raised on a farm and are raised in an environment pretty detached from reality. But calling eating rabbits a perversion for a six year old is narrow minded.
 
2012-03-21 11:13:07 AM  

orbister: Can I just check that I have this right? In Florida, you are allowed to pick a fight with an unarmed person and then, if they hit you back, kill them? Wow.


Yes. And depending on the municipality, you can also kill someone and make it look like there was a fight afterwards because the cops will send a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to investigate the crime incident. Just don't have any narcotics on you when the narcotics detective arrives.
 
2012-03-21 11:14:08 AM  

R.A.Danny: Being a native Chicagoan, I'd vote for her at LEAST 4 times.


'Cause we all know Chicagoans pick top notch politicians...
 
2012-03-21 11:14:40 AM  

Mentalpatient87: R.A.Danny: Being a native Chicagoan, I'd vote for her at LEAST 4 times.

'Cause we all know Chicagoans pick top notch politicians...


Yes, Democrats.
 
2012-03-21 11:16:49 AM  
I think it's time for Messiah to update the words of one of their best rave tunes.

i2.fastpic.ru

The year is 2012.
The [f]right[ened] wing areas have become known as "free fire zones."
The police will not enter.
There is no law...
 
2012-03-21 11:18:47 AM  

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.
 
2012-03-21 11:19:32 AM  
We need someone like her here in California. Let's start with 'shall issue' please.
 
2012-03-21 11:25:17 AM  
I bet I could make a fortune arguing that reckless shootings are protected under the firearm's own 1st Amendment rights. Use Citizens United to argue that firearms are also people and that their only means of speech is through the firing of a bullet. After all, one Amendment isn't enough for an object mentioned directly in the Constitution.
 
2012-03-21 11:25:23 AM  

trappedspirit: You're serious? I thought your Boobies was just trolling. If you are raised on a farm you learn where food comes from. That's not to disagree with your statement that MOST little girls think bunnies are cute. Because MOST little girls are not raised on a farm and are raised in an environment pretty detached from reality. But calling eating rabbits a perversion for a six year old is narrow minded.


It kind of is appropriate for the lady in question. She's got a real gun fetish.
 
2012-03-21 11:26:20 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: bluehubcap: - "Force colleges and universities to allow guns on their campuses" - Force them? Yeah, guns on college campuses has worked out so well in the past.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (new window)

How long did that "safe feeling" last?


At the hundreds of other colleges and universities in the United States?

Probably pretty damned good.

For the R.A. who had to wrangle a few hundred students away from home for the first time, experimenting with alcohol and drugs in what has generally been a consequence-free environment?

Quite good knowing that they could do their job and not have to worry about whether the student he catches in a drunken fight with his girlfriend is carrying.

I worked the job for two years. It was bad enough dealing with the pseudo-anarchist who made napalm in his room, the manic-depressive alcoholic who liked to break windows "for fun" when he got loaded and a hundred other things as well as go to school full time and work part time to pay for it.

The last thing a college campus needs is firearms.

If you want to change the culture so that firearms CAN be carried then go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

But until then you've proposed one of the worst ideas imaginable.
 
2012-03-21 11:28:14 AM  

Giltric: Okay....I'll agree that Florida should get rid of the SYG law over this one incident as long as people agree to get rid of welfare/medicare/safety nets due to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of acts of fraud committed.


How many layers of stupidity does this post have? Can anyone count? I see at least 5.
 
2012-03-21 11:28:22 AM  

Muta: StrangeQ: The vast majority of the people in the US don't grow up on farms. The "reality" for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls is movies and pre-killed and packaged meat. Why is the 'reality' of a small minority of 6 y.o. girls being used as the gold standard for how the rest of society has to live?

Wow...and I think this is the first time I've ever said this...because sometimes reality has a conservative bias?

Are you saying the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls need to kill rabbits for food? What year do you live in? No, sorry, 'reality' in the early 21st century USA for the vast majority of 6 y.o. girls supports my position.


Ah, so you mean the fabricated reality pulled over their eyes so they don't learn until sometime in their 20s if ever that those pre-packaged chicken squares were once cute little chicks. Kinda like the fabricated reality that many conservatives wrap themselves in to convince themselves that global warming is a hoax.

I'll say it again; in this case, reality has a conservative bias. Get over it.
 
2012-03-21 11:29:26 AM  

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?
 
2012-03-21 11:35:30 AM  

Silverstaff: It's about self-defense, not a license dreaming to be a vigilante stalking people you think are criminals and executing them.


FTFY
 
2012-03-21 11:35:58 AM  

Scerpes: xalres: Since this law passed claims of self defense in killings have gone way up to the tune of twice a week on average last year. Linky (new window)

So, the question then is are there more killings, or are more people claiming self defense?


Many people are now trying to hide behind that law. Many seem to forget the part about not putting yourself in a dangerous situation in the first place.

Example: You are in your house, doors locked. There are a couple trouble makers outside.

Do you:

A) call the police

B) grab your gun and go outside

The proper answer is A. If they try to get into your house, fire at will. If you go out to confront them (with your gun) you are putting yourself into a dangerous situation, one that could have easily been avoided. Stand Your Ground doesnt apply in that case.

FL gun laws have essentially made it a "be careful who you fark with" situations for "tough guys" and general thug criminal types.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-03-21 11:40:17 AM  

HAMMERTOE: I Said: The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

As I stated up thread, this case bears quite a few hallmarks of utilization of actual LEO tactics. Last year, there was a local case of an officer shooting and killing a local punk who was "driving right at him(!)" after the officer intentionally positioned his self in the middle of the road so that the punk would have no other choice. Imagine that. If a police officer wants to shoot you, all he has to do is step off the curb so that you are approaching him with a "deadly weapon" (in the form of your POV). You are toast.


He could have chosen to stop. Running people down with a car is generally frowned upon.
 
2012-03-21 11:41:05 AM  

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?
 
2012-03-21 11:44:55 AM  
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.
 
2012-03-21 11:45:47 AM  
bluehubcap

karnal: georgeyporgey


bluehubcap: I got as far as "six year old girl, hunting and eating rabbits and squirrels" and decided that's enough perversion right there. How many mentally stable six year old girls want to eat Thumper?

They need a new button--'smart','funny','dimwit'


Careful - bluehubcap does not like personal insults.

Personal insults weaken an argument. If you can't argue your POV without them, then you don't know how to argue logically.


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.
 
2012-03-21 11:45:57 AM  

I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.


Just to be clear in this case the 911 operator was not a cop. They don't have authority to tell you what to do.
 
2012-03-21 11:46:09 AM  

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?


Who said I'm paranoid of that? I just wonder why "lawful citizens" feel its so necessary. I don't understand the necessity of it. Is it a right that is so fundamental to how you live? I'm not being snarky, I am genuinely baffled by this need.
 
2012-03-21 11:47:28 AM  

Randomly: Your 2nd Amendment rights don't trump my 1st Amendment rights.

Or my rights as a property owner to limit guns in my business.

/gun-owner
//Florida raised
///Hunter
////Think the scales have tipped to far towards gun lobby


This. I'm willing to bet that even though she is all for forcing a business to accept firearms on their property, she is dead set against forcing them to provide coverage for birth control. If she wants to say "it ain't in the constitution" then she needs to re-read the whole thing. "Promote the general welfare". Also, the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force. Not so you could carry a hand cannon because you wet yourself at the sight of someone darker than khaki.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-03-21 11:49:25 AM  

thurstonxhowell: If a "Stand Your Ground" law is in place and I am somewhere where only one other person can observe me, what is there to stop that person from shooting me, saying he felt threatened, and using "Stand Your Ground" as a defense against even being arrested and investigated? Is it just by their good grace that I continue breathing?


Nope. It doesn't work if you are committing a crime (such as resisting arrest) so it wouldn't work against being arrested, but otherwise it does.

The odd thing is that this isn't the first time this has happened, it is just the first time involving a white shooter and a black guy getting killed, so it makes a good story.

Link (new window)
 
2012-03-21 11:53:23 AM  
I bet she has a menacing looking vagina
 
2012-03-21 11:54:23 AM  

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



The militia is "the whole people".....which is every man woman and child in this country capable of bearing arms.
 
2012-03-21 11:57:24 AM  

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.
 
2012-03-21 12:00:57 PM  

R.A.Danny: Mentalpatient87:

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

Disney isn't a viable choice, so no.


Nugent isn't reality either.
 
2012-03-21 12:01:15 PM  

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.
 
2012-03-21 12:01:22 PM  
Guy in my apartment complex got killed, and the shooter used the "Stand Your Ground" defense.
 
2012-03-21 12:03:44 PM  

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


The militia is "the whole people".....which is every man woman and child in this country capable of bearing arms.


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.
 
2012-03-21 12:03:46 PM  

vpb: HAMMERTOE: I Said: The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

As I stated up thread, this case bears quite a few hallmarks of utilization of actual LEO tactics. Last year, there was a local case of an officer shooting and killing a local punk who was "driving right at him(!)" after the officer intentionally positioned his self in the middle of the road so that the punk would have no other choice. Imagine that. If a police officer wants to shoot you, all he has to do is step off the curb so that you are approaching him with a "deadly weapon" (in the form of your POV). You are toast.

He could have chosen to stop. Running people down with a car is generally frowned upon.


This is why there is a difference between offensive and defensive charging in basketball (I hope I'm using the terms right, I don't really watch basketball at all).

Someone with fire in his eyes and hate in his heart running down a cop is a bit different than a cop jumping in front of a car, yelling "STOP!" followed by BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
 
2012-03-21 12:03:51 PM  

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


The militia is "the whole people".....which is every man woman and child in this country capable of bearing arms.


Romantic nonsense. There is no way they were thinking of women and kids as part of a regular militia.
 
2012-03-21 12:05:01 PM  

The Amazing Rando!: Guy in my apartment complex got killed, and the shooter used the "Stand Your Ground" defense.


Sounds even more legit then the Zimmerman case.
 
2012-03-21 12:05:48 PM  

barefoot in the head: Romantic nonsense. There is no way they were thinking of women and kids as part of a regular militia.


The idea evolved for the better.
 
2012-03-21 12:06:27 PM  

bluehubcap: Who said I'm paranoid of that? I just wonder why "lawful citizens" feel its so necessary. I don't understand the necessity of it. Is it a right that is so fundamental to how you live? I'm not being snarky, I am genuinely baffled by this need.


Well that's your problem.

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

Some people would like to carry on the way to the nursing home/hospital/whatever and not have to leave their gun in the car where it can be stolen. It's worth noting that people who carry pepper spray and rape whistles do so even in sensitive places despite the extremely low risk of rape in a nursing home.

The police carry everywhere, even in nice low risk places. Either they feel the need to be prepared for some remote possibility OR they don't want to leave their gun in the car while they go into the nursing home or hospital to pick up/drop off paperwork.

When I start seeing the police disarm before entering certain places, I'll support laws that require average citizens to do so.

In the meantime, your confusion and bafflement really only affect you. I could easily say that I'm baffled too. My 'confusion' would be as to why people who don't see the need to carry guns everywhere and don't understand why some would want to do it, make such a big deal out of the issue and their resulting confusion. You're confused, accept that. When you ask people why they do it, accept their answer and move on. It's not hurting you or anyone around that some guy has a gun on his person.

When you start challenging their answers, you're no longer just some confused guy "asking questions", you're starting an argument or debate and should be a little better prepared and learned on the subject.
 
2012-03-21 12:06:52 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.


I made rabbit stew once with a rabbit my cat brought home. Man, that cat could hunt! He used to be a couch potato, but when we moved to the country and he discovered that there were snacks roaming around outside, there was no stopping him. He would have eaten the rabbit if I hadn't taken it for myself.
 
2012-03-21 12:07:25 PM  

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'.
 
2012-03-21 12:09:13 PM  

barefoot in the head: Giltric: wthgtfo: the second amendment was for establishing a militia/draft force


The militia is "the whole people".....which is every man woman and child in this country capable of bearing arms.

Romantic nonsense. There is no way they were thinking of women and kids as part of a regular militia.


No...they were kind of sexist back then. Women can now own property and vote....and can even serve in combat.

Is the Constitution a living document?

Does freedom of speech and the press only refer to voice and printing press?
 
2012-03-21 12:09:27 PM  

StrangeQ: Ah, so you mean the fabricated reality pulled over their eyes so they don't learn until sometime in their 20s if ever that those pre-packaged chicken squares were once cute little chicks. Kinda like the fabricated reality that many conservatives wrap themselves in to convince themselves that global warming is a hoax.


Not really. In real reality none of those girls need be involved in the killing of their own food and so don't need a gun for gathering food. In fabricated reality, the girls are still not involved in the killing of their food but since animals die for the food to be available, they need a gun anyway because that how food was procured 80 years ago.
 
2012-03-21 12:11:48 PM  
Seriously? Nobody yet?

i249.photobucket.com

Also: color me unsurprised Marion Hammer is with the NRA.
 
2012-03-21 12:13:11 PM  

pedrop357: The police carry everywhere, even in nice low risk places.


Wow. Really?

That's weird because their jobs don't involve seeking out dangerous situations or anything like that. They should leave the iron back at the station!
 
2012-03-21 12:13:48 PM  

Muta: R.A.Danny: Mentalpatient87:

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

Disney isn't a viable choice, so no.

Nugent isn't reality either.


Well he's unreal, that's for sure.
 
2012-03-21 12:15:48 PM  

pedrop357: The police carry everywhere, even in nice low risk places. Either they feel the need to be prepared for some remote possibility


Thats because the cops despite having shifts/hours to work are still cops when "off duty".
 
2012-03-21 12:15:57 PM  

Giltric:

Sounds even more legit then the Zimmerman case.


Maybe, but the mall cop in the Brandon Patrick shooting was authorized to carry, and there hasn't been much publicity about the case.
 
2012-03-21 12:22:27 PM  

thurstonxhowell: If a "Stand Your Ground" law is in place and I am somewhere where only one other person can observe me, what is there to stop that person from shooting me, saying he felt threatened, and using "Stand Your Ground" as a defense against even being arrested and investigated? Is it just by their good grace that I continue breathing?


There are many complex factors that would go into the application of the laws in such a case. For example, just how dark is your skin relative to that of the shooter? Also, the relative curliness of your hair would be taken into account. Having relatives or friends who are policemen or polticians would be helpful to either side. So you see, there aren't any simple, cut-and-dried rules that can determine the outcome.
 
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.
 
2012-03-21 04:12:10 PM  

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


Is your dad a 6 y.o. girl?
 
2012-03-21 04:12:30 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.


Yeah, but they have guns and you don't. If you don't perceive a threat you're living in Disneyland.
 
2012-03-21 04:16:52 PM  

vpb: The odd thing is that this isn't the first time this has happened, it is just the first time involving a white shooter and a black guy getting killed, so it makes a good story.


The shooter was Hispanic. What makes this a story is that the dead guy was an unarmed kid and the fact that the shooter chased him down before shooting him. The shooter wasn't "standing his ground", he initiated the conflict. If he had left the kid alone (like the police dispatcher told him to do) then the whole thing would have ended.

I May Be Crazy But...: 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?


I've been robbed at gunpoint. I had about $30 in my wallet. It cost me a lot more than that, probably $100 or more, plus a lot of time and trouble.

I didn't just lose the $30, I also lost my drivers license, which is a major pain to replace because when you go to try and get it replaced, they want you to show your old drivers license as ID. The fact that they have my picture and fingerprints in their database should, logically, make it easy for them to verify me. But they don't do that, so I had to do a bunch of stuff like getting a copy of my birth certificate, school transcripts, marriage license, etc. Oddly enough, I could get all of those things without showing any ID, and by using those, I can get an ID. That means anyone could get an ID in my name the exact same way.

And of course, I had to buy another wallet, and I had to cancel and replace credit cards, stuff like that.

So the thief may only gain $30, but the victim is out a lot more than that. And the thief isn't going to rob one person and stop. The kind of person who will rob you at gunpoint isn't going to suddenly turn honest, and $30 isn't going to give him the life of luxury that he would like, so he's going to rob someone else, and then someone else.

So screw him. The only good thief is a dead thief.

Pretending that the thief is no worse than the guy who would kill a thief just puts you on the thieves side. Being a criminal should not be a safe career choice.
 
2012-03-21 04:21:06 PM  

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

Is your dad a 6 y.o. girl?


No but it sure sounds like you are, pussy.
 
2012-03-21 04:23:02 PM  

wthgtfo: 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 didn't follow this bit of legislation. I could see a bill to prevent *public* universities from banning firearms, such as Utah has done, but did it actually say that private universities couldn't?
 
2012-03-21 04:25:32 PM  

JuggleGeek: The shooter was Hispanic. What makes this a story is that the dead guy was an unarmed kid and the fact that the shooter chased him down before shooting him. The shooter wasn't "standing his ground", he initiated the conflict. If he had left the kid alone (like the police dispatcher told him to do) then the whole thing would have ended.


Yup, so far, that appears to be the case. Under the facts currently known (and I understand that trials often have information that's not publicly widely-known), I don't think this would pass the "reasonable person" standard. I favor castle and standing-ground laws, and this still stinks.
 
2012-03-21 04:30:29 PM  

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


It's illegal for me to drive while not wearing a seatbelt. The only reason I carry a spare tire is because it came with the care. I guess I am just one of those people who aren't afraid of their own shadows. Your life must be very sad.
 
2012-03-21 04:37:00 PM  

treesloth: wthgtfo: 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 didn't follow this bit of legislation. I could see a bill to prevent *public* universities from banning firearms, such as Utah has done, but did it actually say that private universities couldn't?


FTAHammer was the primary lobbyist for a bill introduced in the Florida state legislature in January 2011 that sought to force the state's colleges and universities to allow guns on campus. Under SB 234, anyone with a concealed handgun permit recognized by Florida would have been able to carry a loaded gun onto a college campus-including into classrooms and dormitories.

The bill was introduced just days after Florida State University sophomore Ashley Cowie, 20, was accidentally shot and killed at a fraternity party by fellow student Ryan Wilhelm, who discharged his semiautomatic AK-74 assault rifle while showing it off. Wilhelm had a blood alcohol level of approximately .10 at the time of the shooting and had also been smoking marijuana.


It hasn't passed yet, but she is pushing for it. And you are right, it is only public universities. Sorry that I didn't make a clear distinction. But from the looks of things I doubt it will be long before she pushes for that too. And didn't know about the Utah thing. Probably another reason to avoid that state.
 
2012-03-21 04:41:42 PM  

keepitcherry: No but it sure sounds like you are, pussy


How so Mr. Internet Toughguy?

I was just trying to stay on topic. After all, Ms. Hammer's claim to knowledge on what is best for everyone is that she killed rabbits when she was six. I questioned whether that makes her the authority for the other 99% of Americans who weren't killing rabbits at 6. The person I responded to pointed out that his dad makes rabbit pasta like that had something to do with the price of tea in china. I wanted him to clarify what appeared to me a non sequitur. Are you too stupid to discuss the merits of guns without resorting to name calling?

Why not go shoot your gun at a paper plate and talk about how close together the holes are? it might make you feel like a real man.
 
2012-03-21 04:48:13 PM  

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

...

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.


Let me start by saying I agree with about 95% of what you have said and is the reason you will not find me with a gun on my person 99.9 of the time. Even when I am out backpacking in the woods you will find me without a firearm. However I feel compelled to answer.

I do not believe the average law abiding citizen has the expectation their day will present them with a situation where they should consider defending their life with deadly force. Although I generally don't have a problem with those who want to be prepared for such a situation, and that is the answer to your question. They should have the right to be prepared! Unless you have a gun on your person, you are unlikely to be prepared to face a life threatening emergency where a firearm would be appropriate. That being said I choose not to prepared to face stations like being in the store at the time of an armed robbery. Instead I choose to be prepared to vacate and render aid to everyone who needs help (except maybe the robbers). There is this defense guy who tells me you are 83% less likely to be shot if you run away, and I don't like being shot.

Ten years ago there were neighborhoods in my city where I might choose to be armed before going out in public because of my robbery example. I want to have the right to be armed. If there were a disaster like hurricane Katrina in my city, I would have a firearm by the bedroom door because in that situation law enforcement was completely overwhelmed and people were facing looters on their own.

/do you still eat rabbit, elk and things?
 
2012-03-21 04:58:01 PM  

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


I peaked at your profile, you can come eat dinner at my house. Rabbit happens once in a while, there are 2 pheasant in the freezer along with some sturgeon right now, and don't get me started on deer or bear.
 
2012-03-21 05:14:29 PM  

wthgtfo: It hasn't passed yet, but she is pushing for it. And you are right, it is only public universities. Sorry that I didn't make a clear distinction. But from the looks of things I doubt it will be long before she pushes for that too. And didn't know about the Utah thing. Probably another reason to avoid that state.


For what it's worth, it's worked out pretty well here. Very few students even want to carry here, but it was more a matter of the university trying to tell the state that it was exempt from the state's preemption laws rather than explicitly authorizing carry. But, as much as I favor gun rights, I'd find it pretty ridiculous to force private universities to allow firearms. I think that trying to do that would be a completely different kind of case than they're used to fighting, and it would trigger private property protections that have generally held up well.
 
2012-03-21 06:24:37 PM  

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

...

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.

Let me start by saying I agree with about 95% of what you have said and is the reason you will not find me with a gun on my person 99.9 of the time. Even when I am out backpacking in the woods you will find me without a firearm. However I feel compelled to answer.

I do not believe the average law abiding citizen has the expectation their day will present them with a situation where they should consider defending their life with deadly force. Although I generally don't have a problem with those who want to be prepared for such a situation, and that is the answer to your question. They should have the right to be prepared! Unless you have a gun on your person, you are unlikely to be prepared to face a life threatening emergency where a firearm would be appropriate. That being said I choose not to prepared to face stations like being in the store at the time of an armed robbery. Instead I choose to be prepared to vacate and render aid to everyone who needs help (except maybe the robbers). There is this defense guy who tells me you are 83% less likely to be shot if you run away, and I don't like being shot.

Ten years ago there were neighborhoods in my city where I might choose to be armed before going out in public because of my robbery example. I want to have the right to be armed. If there were a disaster like hurricane Katrina in my city, I would have a firearm by the bedroom door because in that situation law enforcement was completely overwhelmed and people were facing looters on their own.

/do you still eat rabbit, elk and things?


I do, I do. Yum!
 
2012-03-21 07:06:17 PM  

pute kisses like a man: the centuries of jurisprudence on self-defense were perfectly satisfactory. people who defended themselves were not being convicted.

the old standard worked as well as it needed to. lowering the burden only increases the danger of justifying a non-self defense homicide or a disproportionate use of force, it does not decrease the danger of prosecuting the justified, because the justified were not at risk.

every homicide should be thoroughly examined. if it were justified by self-defense, then it is justified. the so called "duty to retreat" included a reasonableness standard and proportionality. this new doctrine is more subjective and less demanding. it clouds the notion of reasonable force and opens the door to abuse.

the age old justification standard was working (I have not heard of anyone satisfactorily arguing a legal crisis with the old justification).

lowering the burden on the justification swings too far in the favor of accepting homicide. it's a balancing act. you don't want to justify everything.


if you think the duty to retreat is centuries old jurisprudence I must tell you that you don't have the vaguest idea what you are talking about. there isn't even a duty to retreat in the UK, and there hasn't been since Henry codified a right to stand your ground as long you acted reasonably in 1532.
in NY state the duty to run for your life wasn't forced upon the population until 1965.
stand your ground laws don't change any of the balancing, you still have the affirmative obligation of proving you honestly feared for your life or serious bodily injury and that a reasonable person in your place would have experienced that same fear.
you just no longer have the ridiculous obligation of turning your back on a person who intends to end your life and run for the hills.
these laws are simply just redressing the moronic liberal overreach that dumbasses like yourself managed to pass which put violent criminals on squarer footing with the law than honest citizens who became their victims.
and this has nothing to do with zimmerman case.
 
2012-03-21 07:07:44 PM  
She looks pleasant.
 
2012-03-22 12:40:06 AM  
Someone explain this to me:
In addition to providing immunity to criminal prosecution and civil action, I saw one other notable provision the immunity to ARREST, without having "probable cause" that the use of force was not lawful:

(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Why was this provision considered necessary, and what is the bearing on this case?

It seems unusual to me, because arrests which don't lead to charges happen all the time. I would think if I just shot someone, that it would not be unreasonable to arrest me, take the gun into evidence, and I'll remain silent until my lawyer explains how and why the SYG law applies, and if the case is decent the DA will probably say "nevermind" because attempting to prosecute losing cases with a position unsupported by law is bad for his job.

Normally, police don't arrest you UNLESS they have a probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Why would they DO this? It's pointless and generally bad for business, and brings up constitutional rights against unreasonable arrest. But because they specifically included this term here, it seems to mean something more.

If they're making it impossible to ARREST someone without showing probable cause, can you ever HAVE probable cause? Seems to me if the other person is dead, you decline to answer questions, can they ever establish probable cause to arrest you? To me, I might say, well, the body over there is pretty farking good probable cause even if you have a plausible story, but then why state that in the statute?

It says they can investigate using "standard procedure", but if you need to analyze his shirt for powder residue, but can't be arrested yet, can't he just go home and clean it before you get a warrant for this item? Isn't part of the motivation for arrest to secure evidence against tampering, or is that something else?
 
2012-03-22 08:58:16 AM  

Skarekrough:
At the hundreds of other colleges and universities in the United States?

Probably pretty damned good.

For the R.A. who had to wrangle a few hundred students away from home for the first time, experimenting with alcohol and drugs in what has generally been a consequence-free environment?


As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.

I have a concealed permit. It's redundancy for me, as it keeps me from having to explain to idiots why exactly I'm exempt from my State's concealed weapon law. I'm exempt because of what I do for a living and who I work for. I "meet or exceed" my State's training requirements for law enforcement officers, am required to qualify periodically, et cetera. Hell, I still keep my "Firearms Instructor" certification up to date, despite the fact that I no longer get paid to kick in doors and train my co-workers. Yet if I were to go on the local campus with my concealed, issued sidearm to be a guest speaker, there's no shortage of morons (of course, this does NOT include the campus police, they're fine with me being armed on campus) who would have a problem with me keeping my gun on me, instead of leaving it locked in my car. This is despite the fact that it's against policy for us to leave our guns in our cars.

Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

I'd be far more willing to speak on campus if the people who run the campuses weren't such whiny little biatches.

Oh, and BTW, shootings on college campuses aren't any rarer than shootings at K-12s.
 
2012-03-22 09:54:35 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.


It would depend muchly on the housing situation. Housing is a for-profit venture for them so the emphasis has been on retaining those students throughout their college career. Keep in mind that students rarely go JUST for four years and due to the financial crisis there were alot who went back to school to let it blow over.

Where I was an RA my first year more than 50% of the students were over 21. At the time they were actively looking for that number to be higher.

However, like most gun arguments, the point was missed entirely.

The environment fostered in college is one of being reduced or free of many consequences. They handle the policing of many matters internally. While minor acts of violence, some vandalism, theft and alcohol possession would likely net a person off-campus with relevant consequences, on-campus the emphasis is on rehabilitation so the institution can keep the customer (student) there. It's usually only when the student becomes a serious hazard to others around him will they bring in campus law enforcement. It is only when things are WAY out of hand do you start to see town and state police. In order to see any real consequences you need to go through two levels of deterrent.

For the sake of a paying customer they foster this environment. In the real world it wouldn't fly. Which is why something like firearms, the results of which have permanent real-world consequences aren't a good idea.

If you want to change that environment then knock yourself out.
 
2012-03-22 09:55:55 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

I'd be far more willing to speak on campus if the people who run the campuses weren't such whiny little biatches.


You're too frightened to step on a college campus and you keep a list of which professors are "anti-gun morons".

Which mall do you patrol, brave warrior?
 
2012-03-22 11:09:55 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.


Dude, you're doing it wrong. I actually managed to change a professor's mind on the matter, and it wasn't by driving a wedge or shunning them. It also wasn't easy, but it was engaging and educational.
 
2012-03-22 12:54:23 PM  
Prosecute Zimmerman as a vigilante, convict him for murder, and gift-wrap him for "Cell-block Caesar"

//

With some of his comments heard on the recording from the 911 calls he may be prosecuted under the hate crimes laws. The police chief should definitely be fired though. It's not his job to determine guilt or innocence, but he did it any way.
 
2012-03-22 02:56:43 PM  

Skarekrough: Secret Master of All Flatulence: As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.


You can own a gun at 18, you just can't buy one. In some states you can even get a CCW permit at 18. I did.
 
2012-03-22 04:44:59 PM  

treesloth: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

Dude, you're doing it wrong. I actually managed to change a professor's mind on the matter, and it wasn't by driving a wedge or shunning them. It also wasn't easy, but it was engaging and educational.


No kidding,
Next time you are invited to give a lecture say "SURE, but I will only give it at the gun range so that I can train all your students how to shoot safely after I give my talk"
 
2012-03-22 11:34:09 PM  

maxximillian: I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.

Just to be clear in this case the 911 operator was not a cop. They don't have authority to tell you what to do.


Actually the police don't either, the police cannot tell you to not prevent a crime with any authority behind it.
 
2012-03-23 06:52:03 PM  

EnderX: Actually the police don't either, the police cannot tell you to not prevent a crime with any authority behind it.


The "crime" that the shooter prevented was "walking home and giving skittles to his brother".

/We can't have that.
 
Displayed 225 of 225 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report