Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gun control group warns tourists of new Florida law

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:09 AM
Original message
Gun control group warns tourists of new Florida law

http://www.kwwl.com/global/story.asp?s=3932639&ClientType=Printable

Gun control group warns tourists of new Florida law

MIAMI Florida has a new law that gives legal protection to someone who shoots somebody else as long as the shooter feels threatened or is attacked. The law says citizens don't have to retreat from an attack as long as they are someplace they legally have a right to be.

...

Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm says Florida's new "stand your ground" law could cause the most aggressive people in society to overreact.

...

The Brady Campaign, a gun control group, was passing out leaflets about the law today at Miami International Airport.

Supporters of the law say it will make Florida safer.

Governor Jeb Bush calls the Brady Campaign's actions "pure, unadulterated politics," adding "Shame on them."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ooh, that symbol of the state of Florida as a gun is fabulous.
Kudos to the graphic artist who thought that one up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
57. It makes me want to visit!
I'm going to vacation near the trigger guard sometime soon! Can't wait.... Morans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
69. This law ought to be just great for FL tourism.
Amazing!+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rawtribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Being shamed by a member
of the BFEE.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. Governor Jeb Bush calls (this) "pure, unadulterated politics"
That would be THIS Jebbo Bush: "Florida Gov. Jeb Bush thanked the National Rifle Association Saturday for helping elect his brother president in 2000. ...
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," the younger Bush said.
The governor said he and his brother both support the NRA's contention that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains "the right to bear arms," is an individual right with few restrictions.
"The sound of our guns is the sound of freedom," said Bush, to thunderous applause from the gun group. "

http://goodbyenra.org/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
90. 2nd amendment okay -- but this macho stuff makes me sick.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-05 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #90
99. Don't buy into the Republican LIE
The Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to popguns...as court after court, the Founding Fathers and the ACLU all show.

The assertion that it does is a LIE with a right wing provenance. And not a very convincing one, at that.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Feel-good bloodshed will dampen tourism in Florida, to say the least.
As we saw in the 90s with the rental car murders, high-profile deaths keep the tourists--wisely--away.

Barbarism like that protected under the new law should help turn the state into an international pariah. Deservedly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
88. yea, remember those rental
car robberies/deaths a few years back? They cleaned that up right now when the tourist money stopped flowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. These clowns don't get it....
When the shit hits the fan and it's every one for themselves, do they think that living in a gated community is going to help.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is the text of the law:
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 02:06 AM by davepc
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm&StatuteYear=2005&Title=%2D%3E2005%2D%3EChapter%20776

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(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.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.



Having "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another" is not quite the same as "feeling threatened".

My advice to Florida residents and visitors: Don't commit forcible felonies against people in their homes or places of business, their vehicles or any other place they have a right to be. Take those simple easy steps and no one has the right to shoot you.

Whats a 'forcible felony' you ask?

well, under Florida law its:

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. In other words, the Brady Group nailed it correctly
and Jebbo's banana republic was pandering to the trigger happy...

"Don't commit forcible felonies against people in their homes or places of business..."Forcible felony" means treason"
Yeah, it's wonderful to have the sort of idiot who runs around with a popgun in his pocket decide that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. More like grossly misrepresented it.
Anyone who commits murder in the state of Florida and tries to justify it by claiming they "felt threatened" but can not prove 'reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another' is going to go to jail.

And people with guns don't get to decide what constitutes a Forcible Felony willy nilly. Each one has a specific definition.

For example (since its the one you decided to quote) :
876.32 Treason.--Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to the enemies thereof, or giving them aid and comfort. Whoever commits treason against this state shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


776.012: ... prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

If you blew somebody away, and then claimed they were declaring war on the State of Florida and there was absolutely no other response you could have possibly taken to prevent them for doing so...well...you better have a damn good defense team. Otherwise, you're going to go to jail for murder. I don't think "he was committing treason!" is going to fly real well unless you have a pretty significant amount of evidence and can prove that the employment of deadly force was the only way to prevent an imminent act. For example....something outrageously fantastic like being seeing a Timothy McVeigh type with his hand over the detonator switch. And I can't think of an instance where someone giving aid and comfort to an individual who is waging war on the State of Florida would put you in a position where you had absolutely no alternative but to shoot them.

I reckon someone can shoot a person hiding a terrorist and claim justifiable use of force...but when the prosecutor asks the suspect "If you knew a terrorist was being hidden and supplied by the individual you shot, why did you not call the police?" The defendants case is going to fly out the window unless they have a *real* convincing explanation.

Myself, in such an instance I think most reasonable juries would ask that question themselves, and convict the shooter on murder.

Funny, how you focus on the most unlikely instance, and leave out murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

Though, I guess depending an individuals motives, bomb throwing could also qualify as 'treason' under the Florida Law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Nope...they nailed it
Funny how the "most unlikely instance" pops up FIRST in the list of provocation for trigger happy imbeciles.

"Anyone who commits murder in the state of Florida and tries to justify it by claiming they "felt threatened" but can not prove 'reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another' is going to go to jail. "
Considering the "doorbell psycho" didn't go to jail in gun-crazy Florida, excuse the fuck out of me if I laugh out loud at that...

http://www.local10.com/news/2593427/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Thanks for posting that link, MrBenchley nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Any time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. He plead guilty to aggravated manslaughter
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 03:52 PM by davepc
http://www.local10.com/news/3843366/detail.html

He didn't do any significant jail time because the DA plead him out.

With a felony conviction he's no longer allowed to own a firearm in the State of Florida (or anywhere else in the United States)

Why did the incompetent prosecutor not take the case to trial?

High-profile attorney Roy Black defended Levin. Black is best known as an NBC legal commentator and for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith on a rape charge.


Ah, money buys 'justice' again. How this has anything to do with the Florida Self Defense Law, as the incident took place 2 years ago, I don't know one whit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Guess we'll have to wait and see...
what effect the new law will have on
similar cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. I think we can look to other states with similar legal principles
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 07:14 PM by davepc
and get a pretty good idea what the effects will be.

Other states with "Stand Your Ground" law include (but are not limited too)

New York
California
Texas
Arizona
Washington
Indiana
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Georgia
Colorado
Illinois

But for some reason the state of Florida is the big, bad, mean, gun loving murder capital full of trigger happy firearms fetish's.

Good book on the subject: No Duty To Retreat - Violence and Values in American History and Society Richard Maxwell Brown (University of Oklahoma Press; ISBN 0-8061-2618-3.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. No, before drawing any conclusion about Florida's...
law, we should see how it works as written,
and applied in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
75. Boy o boy, they threw the booklet at him!
No wonder Florida needed to give psychos like this a "Kill and go free" snuggle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
45. so it sensationalizes and exaggerates. that's advertising.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #45
72. Calling sensationalization and exaggeration "advertising". That's spin.
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. Unless it's gun nuts doing so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rexcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
34. Big deal...
the other person is dead!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. I don't think this law..
... is all that different from the law in Texas. If you break into someone's home, the homeowner has a right to use deadly force against you. I don't recall there being a huge problem with people shooting people under the cover of this law.

There was a case involving the Concealed Handgun Permit laws shortly after they went into effect. There was a minor accident involving a car and a delivery truck. The truck driver got out and verbally confronted the driver of the car. The driver of the car insisted he would report the incident. The truck driver got mad and started punching the guy in his car seat. He didn't know the car driver had a concealed weapon, which he drew and shot the truck driver in the chest.

Witnesses indicated that the truck driver hit him hard, and and was trying to pull him out of the vehicle. The truck driver died on the spot. The grand jury no-billed the car driver, as they should have.

Case closed.

If you want to be a thug, recognize that some of the pigeons out there are packing and will take you out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. ANYONE OWNING A CONVENIENCE STORE CAN NOW DEAL WITH ROBBERS
Its about time these Thugs woke up--- and found out some "SHEEP" will not be victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Heh. And they COULDN'T before? Why? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. That's always been the case in most states
Including California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Yeah, and look at what a backward toilet Texas is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. Example of my fear.
from the law you posted
----
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence,
----

Now in some states if I understand it correctly you are required to try to get out etc. before you can leagaly use force. Not that you can't use it if cornered but you have to try something else if reasonably possible. So what I fear is that the paranoied people (who tend to have these kind of things 'happen' to them) will be that much more likely to shoot someone by mistake in their own home. It already happens fairly frequently and my thought is that this will be likely to increase it. Literaly this law alows the person to shoot first before even bothering to say get out or I will shoot.

As I understand it even a police officer in most places couldn't just shoot someone who was breaking in to a house.

Anyway it seems pritty over the top to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. "Please be careful"
especially if you happen to be a person of color.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katidid Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. .. or gay. Don't talk about politics, Bush's, religion, family values
Shivo, abortion, the 'war', feminism or gun control while visiting the local 'watering hole'.

The weather is a nice topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. And if you're wrong, 10, 20, Life...
...or worse yet, the death penalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. Few think of concequences when acting.
Some do and they are of course very important but when one of these (typiclay rather paranoied) people is about to pull the triger the level of posible concequence is unlikely to affect their thought process.

Lots of people die each year from accidental shootings as it is. And in most places shooting someone who is breaking in without further evidence is a crime. Plus the person only needs to have a reasonable beleif at the time, they do not actualy have to be correct. which reminds me of these police officers who shot this guy who was pulling out his wallet.

This law provides a LOT of posibilities for accidental killings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. It's a reasonable man standard
That's an objective standard, not what you believe. If you are wrong, you are looking at an indictment. Maybe you'll get off and maybe you won't. When faced with a life sentence or a minimum mandatory of 20 years, you may be forced to plead.

The legislators who pass these laws have absolutely no idea of what the impact is in the courtroom and the penal system. The basic rule of thumb is that the more laws they make for political bragging rights, the more screwed up things become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
92. You missed my point.
I know its a reasonable man standard. My point was that there are plenty of cases where you can have reasonable doubt that a reasonable person may have under the circumstances come to a conclusion that would make a shooting legal than when you have an avoidence type law in effect.

Anyway my Main Point was it will likely lead to more accidental shootings, and I still beleive that is true.

BTW I think one funny thing about this law is that despite the exclusion of police etc. the FBI excecuting a sneak & peek (ie un-identified and breaking in) could get shot and it would be legal... that could be quite funny IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. The propagandists at Brady Inc have sunk to a new low.



Now they think they're the State department and are issuing travel advisories. :eyes:

Either their poorly misguided campaign is a thinly veiled attempt to cajole the FL tourist industry into putting the screws to the state legislature to overturn the law.

Or.....

It's the usual 'Sarah Brady and her amazing unicycling chimps' roadshow looking to get some attention.

Either way, I hope there's enough of a civil case here for the FL AG's office or the FL Bureau of tourism to put the thumbscrews to the Brady
circus act.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. How tragic for trigger happy morons all over Florida....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
60. Your compassion is overwhelming
No doubt you would remain staunch in your advocacy of guns even if it were your spouse spending the rest of their life in a wheel chair thanks to our existing gun laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abluelady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
18. Louisiana has a similar type of law.
If you're in your car and someone approaches you and you feel threatened, you can shoot them. They do not have to even have a weapon. Never get lost in Louisiana and approach a car with Louisiana license plates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
22. Is this more of "the streets will run red with blood" posturing?
Like they did after Florida passed a CCW law in the late 80's? Or how the 30+ other states that passed CCW laws would also have booming crime and murder rates?

BTW, overall crime rates are back to 1970's levels, consistantly declining since 1993.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. You mean 115,000 Americans shot isn't enough blood for you?
"Like they did after Florida passed a CCW law in the late 80's?"
Funny thing about that. They actually passed their idiotic law that passed out pistol permits like candy in 1986. Between 1986 and 1993, when the Brady law and the Assault Weapons Ban were finally passed, violent crime in Florida jumped 31%....

It declined nationwide after 1993, mostly due to Clinton's gun control laws and his COPS program, but it declined more slowly in Florida than it did in states with sane gun laws.

"Or how the 30+ other states that passed CCW laws would also have booming crime and murder rates?"
Australia and Texas each have about 20 million citizens. Australia has about 100 gun deaths a year, Texas has about 1,400....and according to gun loonies, it's Australia that has the gun problem.

The plain fact is that letting the gun lobby set public policy on this issue has been a flat out disaster, and that America has levels of shooting and bloodshed commensurate with a third world country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. The Brady and AWB passed in 1994, not 1993
Violent crime began to decrease a year before either law was implemented. Even after they were implimented, there were millions of firearms still in circulation that were never recovered by police. Were criminals turning in guns preemptively, or throwing them away?

"Between 1986 and 1993, when the Brady law and the Assault Weapons Ban were finally passed, violent crime in Florida jumped 31%...."

This was a continuation of a long-running crime increase that started in the early 80's as Reagan's economic policies destroyed the US economy, driving more people to crime and drug dealing. The crime rate was climbing in Florida for years before 1986, yet somehow all crime increases after 1986 are the sole result of their CCW law?

"Australia and Texas each have about 20 million citizens. Australia has about 100 gun deaths a year, Texas has about 1,400....and according to gun loonies, it's Australia that has the gun problem."

I am not discussing Australia, or Europe, or any other nation: this is a smokescreen to obscure my underlying point. How can the crime rate decrease to it's lowest level in 30 yrs despite 30+ states having CCW laws? The 1994 AWB did almost nothing to eliminate handguns from circulation, despite handguns being the most commonly used firearm for crimes. How can you credit the massive crime rate declines to the AWB when it addressed maybe 5% of all guns used in crimes in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #36
56. Check your facts again....
So your contention is that Florida letting loonies run around withg popguns in their pants suddenly became effective in 1994 (even though it was passed in 1986) just out of the blue....

That IS hilarious. There were 960,374 violent crimes in Florida in 1986 and 161,789 violent crimes in 1993...those pistol permits sure worked like a charm (NOT).

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

"The crime rate was climbing in Florida for years before 1986, yet somehow all crime increases after 1986 are the sole result of their CCW law?"
That wasn't the question...the CCW law was sold as a crime deterrent...which it certaiunly is not.

"I am not discussing Australia, or Europe, or any other nation: this is a smokescreen to obscure my underlying point."
Which is that if you ignore the results, a law that lets loonies wander around with popguns in their pants seems like a swell idea to loonies who want to wander around with popguns in their pants and people who sell guns.

"The 1994 AWB did almost nothing to eliminate handguns from circulation"
So do you support a handgun ban? A significant number of Americans do. If not, why not?

"How can you credit the massive crime rate declines to the AWB when it addressed maybe 5% of all guns used in crimes in America?"
Gee, that IS a puzzler. How could cutting down on any percentage of guns used in crime cut down on the number of crimes? Call for Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bravo411 Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. People have the right to protect themselves ...
Personally. I think this should be the law of the land. Why should a person have no choice in being a victim of a crime that results in their injury or death. I think it's stupid to have to end up being a victim because the police can't do anything to protect you before a crime is committed unless they're there when it happens. They can only help you once you've become the victim of a serious crime.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yppahemnkm Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
62. Very well said!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
25. Well, at least this loser organization has given-up on attempting to...
pass legislation, or even have an impact on legislation in DC.

I guess they realized the biggest impact they are capable of producing is handing out pieces of paper at an airport and watching them get thrown in the trash 30 seconds later.

Irrelevant and forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
29. Dupe Police reporting for duty...
This topic is already being beaten up with over 200 replies in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4953475
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
30. Glad I live in MA
There is a great group here that has been working on so called 'common sense' gun laws. They include a number of gun owners.

As a result we have drasticaly reduced our gun death rate INCLUDING accidental deaths.

We can still own guns if we like... and we can still act in reasonable self defense. I am not scared here, its not a lawless hole... just a state with (IIRC) the lowest gun death rate in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. I beg to differ.
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 07:07 PM by D__S
MA has the most obscene gun control laws in the country. They're a disgrace, really.

There is a great group here that has been working on so called 'common sense' gun laws. They include a number of gun owners.

Puh-leeze! "Common sense" you say?

Which "great group" are you reffering to? More than likely I know of them since I spend a certain amount of time fighting agendas like theirs. That would include attending public hearings at the State House once or twice a year, letter writing and making phone calls to various State reps.

The laws here are so complex and convoluted that no one really understands them.

Lawyers and Legislators who call the AG's office to get some clarification on a certain gun control law are told to consult with their attorney.

Here's the "common sense" shit I and other MA gun owners have to put up with...

An assault weapons ban.

Permits required for purchase and possession of all firearms.

Permits for purchase and possession of handguns are "may issue" (meaning the local police chief has the final say in the matter... and can deny the permit for any reason).

Permit required for possession and carrying of pepper spray.

Two separate sets of "safety" standards (one set is spelled out in the 1998 firearms law, the other set is the MA AG's consumer protection regs which essentially repeats the MA law).

Safety standards include" drop tests, metallurgical tests, group shot test, trigger pull test, requirement for either a magazine disconnect or loaded chamber indicator.

Because of those requirements, .22 caliber handguns that are used in Olympic competition and cost a $1,000 or more cannot be sold in MA by a licensed dealer.

A ban on ordering ammunition from out of state. That includes simple reloading components such as brass and bullets.

Firearms registration.

Depending on the type of club license a range is issued, silhouette targets or "human effigies" are prohibited. Put another way, a firearms safety course is required to obtain a permit to purchase, own and carry a concealed handgun in MA. Part of that safety course must include live fire range qualification.
Which would make more sense? Training a person on bullseye type targets? Or training them on silhouette type targets?


And if that's not enough, here's a sampling of current active legislation.

A ban on machetes (yeah, it's not a firearm, but the same "common sense" mentality is at work here).

Registration of "large capacity feeding devices" (30 round banana clips for the uninformed).

One gun a month.

Ballistics fingerprinting data base.

"Smart gun" technology.

A ban on .50 caliber "sniper rifles".

As a result we have drasticaly reduced our gun death rate INCLUDING accidental deaths.

And where is the study that concludes that any of these so called "common sense" laws have "drastically reduced our gun death rate INCLUDING accidental deaths"?

We can still own guns if we like... and we can still act in reasonable self defense. I am not scared here, its not a lawless hole... just a state with (IIRC) the lowest gun death rate in the country.

And a State with one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the country.

With the shit that's being forced-fed upon us by the gun-grabbers, it's no wonder that few here would want to jump through hoops in order to excercise their Constitional right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. Bravo Massachusetts!
That's it, I'm moving. We used to have responsible gun control laws here in the District of Columbia which we ourselves promulgated and which enjoyed overwhelming public support, but Repukes decided that we needed to be flooded with guns whether we wanted them or not, so now we're stuck with the same limitless access to any weapon of mass destruction a drunken criminal should want to use to vent their frustration on the world...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. District of Columbia has a defacto ban on all firearms
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 10:25 PM by davepc
and has had one since 1976. Despite attemps by the House to end the total ban on all private firearms in the District last year, no law has been passed that has changed that. I have no idea what "limitless access" you are talking about. If you mean criminals who ignore the law have limitless access to blackmarket firearms that they have no legal right to posess within the borders of the District, well then you are right. But people who comply with the law have no legal access to firearms.

But the District is making progress. In 1994 they had 287 gun homocides and 1,606 Assualts with a Deadly Weapon. In 2002 they had 201 gun homocides and 954 Assualts with a Deadly Weapon.

Gun control laws in action.

http:// mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,Q,547431,mpdcNav_GID,1549,mpdcNav,|.asp

The Law

With a few exceptions, it is illegal for individuals to own or possess a handgun in the District of Columbia.

DC Code, Title 6-2312, states that a registration certificate shall NOT be issued for a:

* Sawed-off shotgun
* Machine gun
* Short barreled rifle
* Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976.




Thats your idea of "responsiable gun control laws"? A total ban?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Well, since rifles and shotguns were still allowed...
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 11:36 PM by KevinJ
...it was never a total ban, so no, it did not live up to my idea of responsible gun legislation which would be a total ban on all firearms, such as they have in modern, civilized parts of the world like Europe, but it was at least an improvement over the wild west Tombstone approach to guns which prevails in much of the rest of this country. However, you can rejoice: guns are being rammed down District residents' throats now whether they like it or not and 99% like it not at all, but that's Republican "democracy" for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. total ban on all firearms = responsible gun legislation
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 12:36 AM by davepc
okey doke. At least you're honest and upfront about where you stand.

District law requires all shotguns and rifles to be disassembled and unloaded at all times when they are in a persons home. The law doesn't make any exceptions. If someone is kicking down your door with a gun in their hand, and you are somehow able to get to your disassembled rifle or shotgun and assemble it in time and load it -- congratulations -- you've just committed a crime.

DC ST § 7-2507.02 Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

(emphasis mine)

http://dccode.westgroup.com/Find/Default.wl?DocName=DCCODES7-2507%2E02&FindType=W&DB=DC-TOC-WEB%3BSTADCTOC&RS=WLW2%2E07&VR=2%2E0

Heck, even possessing ONE ROUND of pistol ammunition is a crime in the District.

In the face of all this regulation, how are guns being "rammed down District residents throats"? Since most people who would like to legally posses a firearm in the District simply can not, who are these unfortunate individuals who are having guns thrust upon them by the state?

Since you stand for a "total ban on all firearms" you propose to do about that pesky 2nd Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms provisions found in many state constitutions? Would you suggest the official policy of the Democratic party be to repeal them?

Oh, one last thing. Which countries in modern civilized Europe have a total ban on firearms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. DC "Personal Protection" Act
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 08:59 AM by KevinJ
Republicans have tried for years to get this thing through, which repeals the DC Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, limiting access to firearms. I thought I had heard that the Republicans had finally achieved a solid enough majority in Congress to ram it through, but I just did a quick check on the bill status at THOMAS (HR 1288 and S 1082) and it looks like both the House and Senate bills are still grinding their way through committees, so DC's self-imposed and popular ban on assault weaons and handguns is in fact still on the books for the time being, but it's under assault and it's anyone's guess how long it will survive.

As for the Second Amendment, I've never perceived the conflict gun advocates do. The Second Amendment states that, for the purpose of possessing "a well regulated Militia," the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I have no problem whatsoever with well-regulated institutions of national security keeping and bearing arms. The allegation that the Second Amendment extends to provide unlimited access to all citizens to all firearms is not what I believe the Second Amendment states. Had that been the framers' intention, they could have simply said that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, period, end of story, no context. That they chose to articulate the right within a specific context rather than as a blanket right to me suggests that it was not their intention to confer unfettered access to any and all weapons upon every Tom, Dick, and Harry. It is therefore a qualified right, not an absolute. That numerous laws limiting access to military firearms have survived Supreme Court scrutiny confirms in my mind that SCOTUS also understands the Second Amendment to be a qualified right, existing within a specific context and not a blanket absolute. The acquiescence of gun owners to limitations on access to certain military hardware suggests that even they understand that the Second Amendment does not grant them unlimited access to any and all firearms. Yet those same people who will perceive no contradiction with the Second Amendment if they are barred from possessing and operating, I dunno, a howitzer, for example, will turn around five seconds later and claim that the Second Amendment absolutely gurantees everyone total access to all firearms when they're trying to advance their positions. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe that the Second Amendment confers an absolute right, in which case any encroachment on your perceived right to bear any arm imaginable should be in your eyes unconstitutional, or you accept that it articulates a qualified right, not an absolute, in which case, what can and cannot be regulated becomes a matter of interpretation. For my part, I'm happy to go with what the framers articulated in the Second Amendment, asserting the right to keep and bear arms in the context of well-regulated militias, the modern day equivalents of which would be the military, the national guard, and trained law enforcement officials.

p.s. Oh, almost forgot, in Europe, I understand the UK has an almost total ban on firearms. Germany I know regulates firearms so heavily as to constitute almost a total ban, although it remains possible for people if they're willing to comply with a host of regulations. Not sure what France's gun laws are like, but I'd wager a year's salary that they're far more restrictive than the ones we have here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Yeah, that Democracy thing can suck sometimes.
I mean, sometimes the opinions/interests of the majority takes precedence over the Bill of Rights. What else can we apply this simple lesson to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. I'M SOOOOOOOOO GLAD I'M MOVING AWAY FROM HERE!
JEBYA IS A MORON PIECE OF CRAP. THE BUSHISTA FAMILY MUSTA GOT INTO FAMILY DRUG PARTIES OR SOMETHING IN THE EARLY 70'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NUTS...


OH MY BEAUTIFUL MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
38. Maybe the Brady Campaign can encourage them to visit Chicago or DC.
they will be soo much safer there because people can not own handguns...safest places in the USA!:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. LOL!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. No longer in DC
Repukes decided that the District didn't have the right to pass their own gun laws, so guns are being forced on us whether we like them or not. Of course, it's always been a futile effort since two blocks away in Virginia, any one who wants an uzi can get one from an ATM machine 24 hours a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #47
61. Damn!
I live in VA and the ATMs in my area don't give out free uzis! We are getting ripped off here.

I thought that there was a proposal on removing the DC ban, but it wasn't passed as of yet...do you know for a fact that it was passed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Not yet
Sorry, I misspoke, the DC "Personal Protection" Act I gather passed the House, but is still tied up in committee. Can't help but wonder whether the shrub would sign it, I mean, given that DC is 86% registered Dems who loathe and hate him with a passion, it would take a brave man to want to see all of those people armed to the teeth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #47
64. You'll find gun loonies hate freedom with a white hot passion
In Missouri, even though a majority of citizens rejected an idiotic law that allowed nuts to wander around with concealed weapons when it was put to a referendum, the Republicans and the gun lobby foisted it on them ANYWAY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. and the Dem gov that vetoed the CCW legislation...
didn't even make it out of the democratic primary when we went for reelection.

Great support!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. Yeah, who cares what voters want as long as nuts get guns
By the way, good job there by our "pro gun democrats"...as usual, they're all "pro gun" and not a fucking speck of "Democrat."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Township75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. the registered democratic voters got what they wanted...
and apparently there are way more pro gun dems than anti gun dems.

Maybe one day there will be enough anti gun dems that they can make a team to go into a 3 on 3 basketball tournament or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Gee, now be sure and show us
why the voters that didn't want nuts running around with guns changed their mind.

For that matter, show us where anybody who isn't a gun loony said guns had anything to do with Holden's defeat. Most sane people attributed it to allegations of corruption.

http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/StateProfile.aspx?sp=MO

"Maybe one day there will be enough anti gun dems"
There are. That's why gun nuts have to keep trolling in here nine and ten times...and why our "pro gun democrats" arre sitting here cheering for Jebbo Bush and the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
39. Just wait until some old person who's hearing aid battery is low
and someone asks him/her for change for a dollar or directions to Disneyworld while sticking their head in the old person's car window to hear better..

Ex-wives can get a restraining order, invite the old man over for dinner with the KIDS (whee, I get to see my own kids!) and then when he comes back the second time she just POPS him and has finally GOT that sumbitch (who may have been a perfectly nice man)..

Date Rape.. chick has sex drunkenly with some little prick and then next morning he won't "hold her" and wants to make an escape realising that he made a mistake (as did she) and she sees that he has no intention of calling her back..

BANG - "He RAPED me!"

Someone DOES need to create a campaign to tell everyone (especially Germans who were dying like flies in rental cars there years ago) NOT to go to DisneyWorld, to tell Florida to Fuck OFF as this is INSANE use of a law that is standard in just about any state - you have to right to kill if someone is going to use lethal force..

Just make sure that when they are in your house to toss them a baseball bat in a friendly way, so they have their prints on it when you splatter them like Kurt Cobain..

this is BAD, time to boycott Florida in a BIG WAY..

That's one screwy state - I was there vacationing and was buying a sixpack of beer for the camp fire, had my sons (underage) and my galfriend with me in line - the check out lady REFUSED to sell ME beer (even tho I showed my ID at age 50) because of the people WITH ME - my galfriend didn't have her ID with her (why should SHE be carded, obviously older than 21) so NO SALE..

Of course I told the check out lady that I wouldn't be using their store and would tell everyone I knew NOT TO, Ever.

It's nuts down there, especially the middle section, and the panhandle where you see Hillbillies ALL DAY LONG.. another planet.

I'll stay in Hawaii, tho the cops here usually just SHOOT people and ask questions later, rather be shot by a cop than some old lady who misunderstands me :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Your imagination is fertile
A lot of fear showing through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Sounds like it could be made into a Michael Moore movie.
Ohhh, wait a minute!

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #39
55. What a load of horse manure!
<<Just wait until some old person who's hearing aid battery is low and someone asks him/her for change for a dollar or directions to Disneyworld while sticking their head in the old person's car window to hear better..>>
What a lovely view you have of elderly people...not. Even someone who's stone deaf can tell the difference between threatening and non-threatening body language. Being old doesn't mean a person's stupid. Plus, anyone who's stupid enough to stick their head into the window of a stranger's car pretty much deserves what he/she gets. Even little kids know that for safety's sake, you're supposed to stay well beyond the grasp of a car's occupants.

<<Ex-wives can get a restraining order, invite the old man over for dinner with the KIDS (whee, I get to see my own kids!) and then when he comes back the second time she just POPS him and has finally GOT that sumbitch (who may have been a perfectly nice man).>>

That's truly the stupidest scenario I've ever heard. If the man has been slapped with a restraining order, he's going to be made painfully aware of that fact when the papers are delivered to him. Meaning, he would know he's in violation of said restraining order, and therefore would be breaking the law if he went to "dinner with the kids". Here's a clue: judges don't just dole out restraining orders indiscriminately, so it's not like some "perfectly nice man" is going to have a court order slapped on him.

<<Date Rape.. chick has sex drunkenly with some little prick and then next morning he won't "hold her" and wants to make an escape realising that he made a mistake (as did she) and she sees that he has no intention of calling her back. BANG - "He RAPED me!">>

Your view of women is even more disgusting than your view of the elderly. Try reading up on date rape to get some idea of what it really is, instead of inventing such nonsense. That last story doesn't even have any connection to the "stand your ground" law, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about! Sheesh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishnfla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
50. What a stupid approach
I can understand being against the law, even though I happen to agree with the Castle doctrine in general

But to try and scare tourists with a whispering campaign is a waste of time, effort and credibilty.

What does this have to do with tourists? Just about next to nothing. They come here no matter what. The only thing that will stop them are catostrophic things like terrorism or hurricanes.

If they think their scare campaign will effect tourism, they have no concept of how overseas visitors view the US already. You have to be careful anywhere you travel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. I agree.
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 11:46 PM by D__S
But there's a certain method to their madness (read my post #17).

The Brady folks (and gun control crowd in general), have fallen way behind in their cause and this FL advisory thing is the best thing they can come up with to keep their organization and goals in the spotlight.

In a way, it's almost a good thing. How often do you see a special interest group self-destruct as badly as the Brady Campaign has?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
58. Wow it is so good to see people willling to come across teh divide on this
I mean you DU'ers on both sides are so willing to take eachother seriously.

I saw no arrogance or hubris in this thread. I saw no one talking down to their fellow DU'ers. All I saw was compromise and a very learned discussion on how to fix some of the problems with gun violence in this country. Respect all around....


and on a more reality based note.... This issue that is very serious fro all concerned is never going to be resolved with both sides acting like know it all elitists hard liners that can't budge because they are right and anyone disagrees is wrong. Its crap like this going on endlessly with no real progress towards solving the problem and meanwhile everyone points fingers at their opposites shifts blame and refuses to see how their vision of how it should be may have some flaws.

Then again this is what democracy looks like I suppose... meanwhile more innocents die while people concern themselves with their precious agendas and forget once again the art of compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #58
63. Well that IS rich....
"meanwhile more innocents die while people concern themselves with their precious agendas"
Tell us, please, who it is that opposition to this imbecilic law kills anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Im talking about both sides of this incredibly frustrating debate
that has gone on for way too damn long.

Apologies for the snarkynes of my post above, but I find myself in the middle on this debate. How many firearms owning liberal pacifists do you know?

Ther has to be compromise to be reached somewhere on this issue, but especially in regards to this thread I see the same old arguments form both sides. I find it incredibly dissapointing every time I peek in on a gun debate thread that there has been no movement. By either side... don't you find that dissapointing in the extreme?

To rationally answer your question opposing isn't the problem as far as I can see, it is the manner in which it is conducted. Both sides of this debate and the larger overall gun debate are extreme in their passions and I think that passion comes from a devotion to the ideals of their agenda... meanwhile if we cant seek compromise in a rational, respectful and tactful manner the other sides panties twist a little tighter in opposition, nothing gets resolved and more innocents die.

Thats all I meant, sorry for not being more clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. I hear you
I wish there was some middle ground on this topic, but it's unfortunately one that defies compromise, as it's a life or death issue to both sides: advocates believe guns make them safer; opponents believe it makes life for everyone more dangerous. Which side is right? I'm not sure there's any way to know for sure, but regardless, both sides perceive that lives are at stake, so the debate mirrors the pro-life/pro-choice contest, insofar as there's no real room for negotiation. If you're pro-life, you believe that a fetus is a living soul and taking its "life" is tantamount to murder. People who believe that aren't ever going to be satisfied with compromise solutions, as even one "murdered" fetus is unacceptable in their eyes. Same with guns. Those of us who oppose widespread access to them will continue to point to kids getting shot with their parents' revolvers, people being shot coming home late at night and mistaken for a burglar by their nervous spouses, teenagers bringing their uzis to school, and we will always find that unacceptable. Advocates will point to episodes where a woman walking down the street blows away an African-American male who might have been intending to harm her (or maybe to just ask for a light, we'll never know), and will argue that, were it not for guns, that woman might now be a rape victim or dead. I honestly don't see any way out of the quandary, as innocent lives will surely be lost either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. You're making this more black vs. white than necessary
...advocates believe guns make them safer; opponents believe it makes life for everyone more dangerous. Which side is right?...

I believe owning firearms makes you neither safer nor less safe.

I would say the same about not owning firearms.

Safety is mostly a function of life choices and behaviors; how we interact with other people, mostly unrelated to inanimate objects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. From Bobs ass to you ears!
lol...

Now see that is what Im looking for but, I am afraid that you and I are in a small minority regarding the black white and especially the predominatly gray.

Someone will be along shortly to ream you for the veiled "guns dont kill people..." thingy, Im sure.

Yeah pretty much spot on as far as I can tell though.

How come you never PM'd me back, fuckin' slacker! lol...

My arms aren't for protection (I think.. I mean you never know... if theres a bunch bush cultists that want to harm the family and such), Ive used 'em for food and a couple of times to put the disease ridden animal friends I have down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Firearms owning liberal pacifist standing up to be counted here
:hi:

Owning a firearm != Using a firearm in a non-peaceful manner.

Eschewing weapons != Embracing non-violence.

HTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. Bear in mind
that right wing loonies DO troll in here on this issue, and even boast about it on their own forums...

"How many firearms owning liberal pacifists do you know?"
Not many....on the other end I've never met a civilian who HAD to have a gun who wasn't either a criminal wannabe or a gaping asshole. And I've never walked away from a discussion of the issue with a "gun rights" supporter thinking, "Yeah, there's someone I trust with a dangerous weapon."

"I see the same old arguments form both sides."
Only one of those sides is based on facts, and it isn't the "gun rights"side.

"don't you find that dissapointing in the extreme?"
It's disappointing to see "pro gun democrats" stick up for Jebbo Bush, but not surprising, given what I've seen from this trigger-happy bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. I dont have to have a gun anymore, but you might be surprised
how much having some fowl and deer in your freezer cuts down on the grocery bills. though I guess I could just buy that tasteless rubber fibre they call meat at the store nowadays.

Were you attempting to insult me here?
"Not many....on the other end I've never met a civilian who HAD to have a gun who wasn't either a criminal wannabe or a gaping asshole. And I've never walked away from a discussion of the issue with a "gun rights" supporter thinking, "Yeah, there's someone I trust with a dangerous weapon."

I hope not I tried to be kind in my response to you... strangely enough some of the biggest least trustful gaping assholes I've met with guns were not civilians.

Im hyper aware of trolls just as any DUer is, this does not mean thaat every gun rights supporter is a member of the NRA, not by a long shot.

The rest of your post was insult laden and I guess that just proves my original point. The art of compromise is lost on you regarding this issue it seems.

Sorry to have wasted your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. I'm hardly surprised by any pro gun crap that surfaces...
"Im hyper aware of trolls just as any DUer is, this does not mean thaat every gun rights supporter is a member of the NRA"
That's really hilarious in a thread that features pro-gunners pissing and moaning about disrespect for the NRA's imbecilic law in Jebbo's banana republic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. Ok! Answer this please, why are you behaving this way toward me?
What are you seeking to accomplish here with me as a DU'er on this thread?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Jeepers!
You mean pointing out that crooked Jebbo Bush and the corrupt GOP pushed through an absolutely imbecilic law in Florida at the behest of the corrupt gun lobby is bothering you? How come.

"What are you seeking to accomplish here with me as a DU'er"
You mean besides pointing out what an imbecilic law this is, and pointing out that the GOP is in bed with the gun lobby and pandering to loonies?

I got a problem with anyone who puts a cheesy hobby above the good of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. No, you put your ego above your own agenda.
I think you just like to biggen yourself up by hurling insults and your trying to seem so passionately committed is belied by the numerous opportunities I gave you to make your point after my initial somewhat snarky post. I tried to find some understanding and resolve and actually looked to you for that but instead I got insult after insult...

Your attitude pushes more people away from your cause but I'm sure you already knew that... I mean you referenced the trolls earlier... you do realize they like to champion causes and make themselves look like jerk wad wing nuts doing it, right? Just so they can screw up that cause. Please stop trying to frame those that disagree with you as freeper types. You know the rules, hit alert if you really believe that you have some bush cultists on this thread.

Are you getting the hypocrisy and arrogance of your tone an demeanor yet?
Care enough about your country to not insult the fuck out of possible converts to your cause? I doubt it...


You said
"You mean pointing out that crooked Jebbo Bush and the corrupt GOP pushed through an absolutely imbecilic law in Florida at the behest of the corrupt gun lobby is bothering you? How come."

Uh no... jeeze you really suck at reframing and parsing words isn't going to help that I think. Mr Megalomania please go back through my posts on this thread... hell through my whole time at DU and show me where I supported this law, or where I say I don't support people pointing out there views that stand in opposition to it?

No.. you wont find it so don't bother (like you would anyways). I have a problem with certain tactless tactics on both sides of the aisle because all it does is push the problem further away from ever being solved.

In fact I think the whole point of my initial post and the follow ons, was to try and nurture this debate toward some sense of respect for each other. You don't want that anymore than your counterpoint fanatics on the other side. Alls you want to do is say "I'm right 100%, no room for compromise and anyone who tries deserves to be insulted"... at least thats what your posts and some few others on the opposite side came off as.

My question and your response.
"What are you seeking to accomplish here with me as a DU'er"
You mean besides pointing out what an imbecilic law this is, and pointing out that the GOP is in bed with the gun lobby and pandering to loonies? "

Wow! If only thats what you were doing. Yet if one looks and reads, they will see you couched every reply here with insults and an unwillingness to listen to reasonable voices. You're posts in fact would seem to indicate that you are a horrible spokesman for anything that needs detente in spades. In the vein of a Bolton...

Again I'm sure you don't care but if people see enough of this from one side or the other it turns them away from the agenda you supposedly support. Which in turn leaves not just myself but many others wondering.... just what agenda are you supporting?

I have a problem with anyone who puts their own ego driven needs above the country or even their purported cause (but maybe ego is someones cause).

Now see I used some insults here... kinda had to because I'm not sure you actually read these posts unless they flatter or insult you. My final point is that you did nothing for your cause in this thread except turn off people to it, insult your counterparts so that you could have no compromise and furthered your own ego by espousing seemingly masturbatory exclamations of self righteousness.

I'm sure you are content with that...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Gee, that's so cute....
Excuse the fuck out of me if I don't really care about your newfound solicitous concern for my point of view.

"I'm sure you are content with that..."
Yup. Nothing I enjoy more than pointing out what a dishonest pile of right wing crap "gun rights" is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. You're a fanatic just like the people you fight... want a gun to shoot
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 03:51 PM by frictionlessO
them with? That is how you are reacting...

My concern was not at all newfound and again you fail to look at the history of this sub-thread... and prove to a T my original statement, that you absolutely have to have it your way and your way is not calling anyone out on anything... you are just another disabused bully with an ego problem same as the people you are fighting.

Meanwhile more kids get to die because neither of you know how to compromise like sensible tactful people. Im sure you are also content with that.

Good day to you Mr. Benchley dont let your equally blood soaked ego drag you down... and I'll remember not to bother with this cause anymore if you and your opposites are the self appointed defenders of your respective agendas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Tee hee hee....
"I'll remember not to bother with this cause anymore"
Ta ta...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frictionlessO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Was that your hope all along?
I seriously thought it might be, I just didn't figure you'd be silly enough to actually respond to it.

So your goal is to remove fellow progressive liberals from your cause. What exactly is your cause if that is your gleeful desire? I also wonder how much of a pariah you must be amongst fellow gun control advocates that are just trying to get some sane laws in place.

"You're either with us or against us" appears to be your stance here as you do not allow or broker any allowances for discussion or compromise... sad that you have become what you supposedly hate.

Again good day to you MrBelchley... oh just so you know because I know your mind just glosses over the parts you cant use to attack someone, the rest of what I said to the quote that you adoringly took out of context was

"I'll remember not to bother with this cause anymore....if you and your opposites are the self appointed defenders of your respective agendas."

Which thankfully you are not, at least on the gun control side, I dare say from the gun control advocates I know and party with you'd disgust them as much as any of the people they fight against. In fact I really can't wait to talk to them about the fanatics on their own side, I really hadn't met one before you came along. So thank you for the education.

Buh bye...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-05 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #93
96. I doubt you'd be much help anyway....
Edited on Fri Oct-07-05 07:54 AM by MrBenchley
And it is hilarious to hear somebody who threatened to storm away from me flying into a rage when I say goodbye.

"Again good day to you MrBelchley..."
Ta-ta, adios, and hit the bricks. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

"I also wonder how much of a pariah you must be amongst fellow gun control advocates that are just trying to get some sane laws in place."
Feel free to ask one. Try Bill Buckhead or Iverglas..they're among the few that can still stomach the rancid stew of stupidity, dishonesty and right wing horseshit that makes up "pro gun democrats" in the Gungeon.

"In fact I really can't wait to talk to them about the fanatics on their own side, I really hadn't met one before you came along."
Gee, you must not get out much then. But it's hilarious to read that in THIS thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
73. "New" Law? big deal . .
Virginia has had an identical law since the late 1800's, and is one of the safest states in the US . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
78. The GOP's also pushing a law to let loonies take guns to work
Because, goddamn it, you never can tell when you might "feel threatened" by the twitchy kid pushing the mail cart around the office...or he might feel threatened by YOU.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sfl-guns1002,0,7134462.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
94. Wow, does that mean someone has the right to just go down to Florida
and shoot some repugs for being hatemongers? That's just the stupidest law I've heard of in a while. Can o' worms if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Your opinion might change if you actually read what the law says
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 06:39 PM by slackmaster
Cue Dorothy Parker's response to a challenge to come up with a sentence using the word "horticulture".

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. Wonder what Dorothy Parker would have made of gun crazy loonies
I hope you're not calling "Jamastiene" a whore, slack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-05 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. Evidently...
You'll notice that the only legal requirement for "treason" is that the trigger happy loon who shoots somebody feels "threatened" by it.

And of course, a couple bullets can help make the discussion of that "treason" one-sided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC