Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Just gotta get your reactions on this one...
CurZ
Resident Hippy
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415135.stm[/url]
[quote]Florida law already allows people to shoot a potential attacker in their home, place of work or car.
But until now, courts insisted that anyone confronted in a public place should first try to run away.
Critics of the law say it will bring a Wild West attitude to Florida - magnet to hundreds of thousands of tourists.
One critic said all the measure would do is sell more guns and turn the state into a modern version of the OK Corral.
The bill has been heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the lobbying group which defends the rights of Americans to carry guns.
Dennis Baxley, the Republican sponsor of the Stand Your Ground bill said it was about meeting force with force.
"If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat," he said.
The bill has already passed the Florida Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother.
Opponents said the move gave gun owners a license to kill.
"For a House that talks about the culture of life it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," said Democratic state Rep Dan Gelber of Miami Beach.
"That's exactly what we're doing."
Opponents of gun control have celebrated recent victories: Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire last autumn, and since 2003, five states have approved laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons.
Thirty-five states now require the authorities to issue permits for concealed handguns to most applicants as long as they do not have criminal records, and two, Alaska and Vermont, allow concealed weapons without a permit. [/quote]
[quote]Florida law already allows people to shoot a potential attacker in their home, place of work or car.
But until now, courts insisted that anyone confronted in a public place should first try to run away.
Critics of the law say it will bring a Wild West attitude to Florida - magnet to hundreds of thousands of tourists.
One critic said all the measure would do is sell more guns and turn the state into a modern version of the OK Corral.
The bill has been heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the lobbying group which defends the rights of Americans to carry guns.
Dennis Baxley, the Republican sponsor of the Stand Your Ground bill said it was about meeting force with force.
"If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat," he said.
The bill has already passed the Florida Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother.
Opponents said the move gave gun owners a license to kill.
"For a House that talks about the culture of life it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," said Democratic state Rep Dan Gelber of Miami Beach.
"That's exactly what we're doing."
Opponents of gun control have celebrated recent victories: Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire last autumn, and since 2003, five states have approved laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons.
Thirty-five states now require the authorities to issue permits for concealed handguns to most applicants as long as they do not have criminal records, and two, Alaska and Vermont, allow concealed weapons without a permit. [/quote]
Comments
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." —Kosh
:D
Regards,
Morden
As a US Citizen we have the right to defend ourselves if attacked, carry a firearm and be FREE. We do NOT have the right to be stupid about any of the above. Gun ownership should be something is responsible and safe.
To be honest this bill does sound like a liscense to kill, but arguing to get it thrown out in a state held by republicans is just as dumb. Get the safety portion of the laws put in place instead.
In fact... I doubt the "law on emergency defense" actually makes specific mention of firearms. They are regulated by another law.
It only tells something to the effect... that emergency defense must not cause significantly greater harm than the minimum level necessary to reliably stop the attack (and not significantly more than the attack threatens to cause).
Lethal weapons should become justified in emergency defense, if an attack threatens life, health or freedom, and no lesser means of defense can reliably neutralize the attack.
(And as I live in Florida, I'm all for this law)
Will he get off scott free becuase no one can prove he was trying to rob you?
And when its found that the robber used a gun that was most likely not registered to him, didnt have a concealed carry permit, finds the guys wallet at his house, Im guessing they will be able to piece two and two together...
standard argument, but if you loosen gun control laws criminals will have better access to guns. Bullshit. criminals get their guns the same way they get everything else, illegally. They dont go to Kmart and buy a .45 before they go rob the wallmart.
[B]well the police would investigate first off...
And when its found that the robber used a gun that was most likely not registered to him, didnt have a concealed carry permit, finds the guys wallet at his house, Im guessing they will be able to piece two and two together...
standard argument, but if you loosen gun control laws criminals will have better access to guns. Bullshit. criminals get their guns the same way they get everything else, illegally. They dont go to Kmart and buy a .45 before they go rob the wallmart. [/B][/QUOTE]
not the ones with half a brain anyway... :D
Now I'm not defending the law, I'm just saying that it's probably no different than most state laws.
Jake
[B]hey, someone attacks me with lethal force, I'm going to return likewise. [/B][/QUOTE]
No.. y'see, this part is already pretty much in the current laws. If you're in a situation where your life is endangered, and escape would put your life in more danger, then go right ahead.
This is basically saying that you're no longer legally required to back down from a fight.
Basically, putting pride before common sense.
[B]As a US Citizen we have the right to defend ourselves if attacked, carry a firearm and be FREE. We do NOT have the right to be stupid about any of the above. Gun ownership should be something is responsible and safe.[/B][/QUOTE]
Why is it that everyone links guns with freedom?
meaning no more "Burgler breaks into home, you shoot them, but don't kill them, and they sue you for millions"
It's happened so many times before, the rule before was shoot to kill, now you don't have to kill them.
[B]Why is it that everyone links guns with freedom? [/B][/QUOTE]
because like free speech its a right granted to us by the constitution.
Many people also fail to realise that it took a gun to make them free.
[B]because like free speech its a right granted to us by the constitution.
Many people also fail to realise that it took a gun to make them free. [/B][/QUOTE]
I know I'm going to get hurt for this... but free from what, exactly?
[B]I know I'm going to get hurt for this... but free from what, exactly? [/B][/QUOTE]
Free from the tyranny of the hated British, of course. ;)
Regards,
Morden
A couple of world wars come to mind.
People alwasy do this, they always forget that their freedom came at a price, usually the price of young men called forth to serve.
Do you really think Hitler would have stopped at Europe? Do you think anything of Europe would be what it is today if the Americans had not been involved. Kudos to the Brits for holding the line as long as they did, they did what countless other coutries failed to do, slow Hitler down. But they could never have beaten him without our help.
Now tell me again how freedom and guns dont go hand in hand...
[B]not only the war of independence but any other war that US was forced to join to protect democracy here and abroad.[/B][/QUOTE]Doesn't work in here... too educated people.
Funny how your country doesn't bother about freedoms and rights of people when your big money corporations go to third world countries...
Like your beloved oil corporations in Nigeria!
(literally terrorising local people with help from bribed government)
And you conveniently forgot to mention that your country stayed away from WW2 until Pearl Harbor and your country delivered equipment to other dictator who was professional in killing people when Hitler just started "work practise".
Same in WW1, it took "couple" years from your country to join the war.
Before those most of your country did was selling material to those who had money, even with germany... (and to top of all Bush's family with other rich families was present in trade with Nazi Germany)
[B]Kudos to the Brits for holding the line as long as they did, they did what countless other coutries failed to do, slow Hitler down. But they could never have beaten him without our help. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's highly debatable. Operation Barbarossa awakened Hitler's "sleeping giant" in the form of Russia. Once he failed to take Moscow and retreated from Stalingrad, German defeat was only a matter of time once Russia was able to get the massive meat-grinder that was the Red Army into gear. It was a war of attrition and resources, which he couldn't hope to win.
By the end of the Battle of Britain, we'd achieved both aerial and naval dominance around the British Isles, and apart from the depredations of bombing and rationing; we weren't in any danger of being invaded. What's more Monty was making headway in Africa, and by 1943, we were starting to develop effective counters to the Kriegsmarine's U-Boat fleet. As a result, the British war effort wasn't just a case of holding Hitler at arm's length. (We were doing exactly the same with the Japanese in Burma.)
I don't doubt that the United States helped deliver the knockout blow, which ended the war. However, looking at the course of the war before the US got involved in the European theatre, we could have won it by ourselves by merely letting the Russians steamroll over the continent.
Regards,
Morden
[B]and turned all of europe into a soviet state. which couldnt have led to anything good. [/B][/QUOTE]
It depends, really. We can only really speculate as to whether Stalin would have stopped at the Franco-German border. It was Germany the Russians had the vendetta against, for obvious reasons.
What's more, Stalin's own Communist thesis was not one centred on waging war, conquest, and that of world revolution; it was very Russo-centric. Stalin solely wanted to pursue the ideology of Communism in Russia and Russia only, it's what brought him into such bitter conflict with Trotsky, who wanted world revolution. (Trotsky was assassinated on the orders of Stalin, or at least one of his subordinates.)
Of course, Russia's foreign policy changed dramatically as the "Iron Curtain" descended upon the continent after 1945, and the Cold War began.
Regards,
Morden
If I remember correctly, Stalin was pushing the allies to put more pressure on Hitler on our front (something the Brits were incapable of doing without outside help) to help ease the pressure in the east.
I didnt mean to turn this thread into yet another online "we saved your ass in ww2 riot", I was mearly using the world war as an example. Someone asked how guns and freedom go hand in hand, and like I said they forget it took a soldier with a gun to give them that freedom they so love.
As a former Marine, it really irritates me when people go all nuts about guns and how bad they are. They sit in their air conditioned little house with all the stuff they purchased in a capitalist economy and say guns are bad, get rid of them. How many soldiers died for you to have the right of free speech? How many have faught and died for you to be able to make your own choices? They dont know, and they dont care, all they see is what the liberals tell them, that guns are bad because they kill people.
Well, news flash, guns dont kill people, people kill people and they dont need guns to do it. Do guns facilitate certain types of crime? Yes probably, but putting a ban on a certain type of gun hasnt worked in the past because criminals dont buy guns from legal sources. They steal them or buy them on the black market.
I saw a news story the other day, cops around here are worried because some thug was arrested here locally in town and was carrying a gun called a [URL=http://remtek.com/arms/fn/57/]Five-Seven[/URL] this is an illegal gun. It has always been illegal, it was created in the last 8 years and as such immediately fell under a ban. You cant buy this pistol anywhere in America legally. But they here they are picking them off of criminals in small tyler texas.
The pistol is especially dangerous to officers because of the type of ammunition it uses, a 5.7x28mm round that was designed as an anti body armor round. This pistol is designed to penetrate body armor and kill your attacker. But its illegal, so how did this punk get ahold of it, or the ammunition?? Yep thats right illegally.
So, how do bans against guns do anything to stop crime in this country??
Why not go back to a time when we actually enforced the laws concerning commiting crimes with weapons instead of tying to ban them?
[B]Im not saying that the US is perfect. But if you think there would be a Europe today had we not gotten involved, your dumber than you make yourself out to be.
If I remember correctly, Stalin was pushing the allies to put more pressure on Hitler on our front (something the Brits were incapable of doing without outside help) to help ease the pressure in the east.
I didnt mean to turn this thread into yet another online "we saved your ass in ww2 riot", I was mearly using the world war as an example.[/B][/QUOTE]
If you're calling me "dumb", sir, then I am calling you arrogant.
As for our capabilities to take the fight to Hitler, pardon us for losing entire [i]generations[/i] in the mud of the Somme in 1916, and having our industry and infrastructure pummelled by the Luftwaffe in 1941.
The German military was spread so thin by Barbarossa, that Stalin didn't need our help. All he was concerned about was minimizing Russian losses.
You're right, this *is* [i]another[/i] "we saved your ass in WW2 riot", and it occurs more often than I can stomach. Don't think for a minute that I'm not grateful for America's intervention, but considering what we went through beforehand, isn't a little respect and magnanimity in order?
Regards,
Morden
But again, I was using it as an example.
maybe you didnt read my original post
[QUOTE]Kudos to the Brits for holding the line as long as they did, they did what countless other coutries failed to do, slow Hitler down.[/QUOTE]
You guys did about 5billion times what the french did. And took more casualties doing it.
[QUOTE]But they could never have beaten him without our help.[/QUOTE]
...which rubbed me the wrong way.
I'm sure you can understand my feelings in the issue, having an affliation with the military yourself. Members of my family have been serving with the British Army since my great, great, grandfather was cut in half by a piece of shrapnel at the Second Ypres; and the Second World War in particular is a touchy subject for me.
Don't get me wrong, I have great amount of affection and respect for the United States. Yet when the the inevitable "we saved your ass" sentiments appear when discussing the war, (and it's often phrased that way), I find it really quite insulting.
Regards,
Morden
[B]As a US Citizen we have the right to defend ourselves if attacked, carry a firearm and be FREE. We do NOT have the right to be stupid about any of the above. Gun ownership should be something is responsible and safe.[/B][/QUOTE]
Consider first that I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms, but the 2nd Amendment actually reads as follows:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What the 2nd Amendment actually does is allow the right of people to keep and bear arms towards the goal of forming a well regulated militia. We have that these days as the armed forces, especially the National Guard and Reserves. Various interpretations I've read mostly rely on ignoring certain words or others in the actual text. This is done much in the same way as people don't seem to read the 1st Amendment and what it means, where many people seem to have an odd idea that the 1st Amendment means they can say anything they want with impugnity at work or on other private media/forums. So, what it means is very much up for interpretation on both sides of the aisle.
[B]As a former Marine, it really irritates me when people go all nuts about guns and how bad they are. They sit in their air conditioned little house with all the stuff they purchased in a capitalist economy and say guns are bad, get rid of them. How many soldiers died for you to have the right of free speech? How many have faught and died for you to be able to make your own choices? They dont know, and they dont care, all they see is what the liberals tell them, that guns are bad because they kill people.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ive been in the military, I know exacly what a gun can do. Ive never been in a live firefight, but I dont think that applies here. Its because I know what a gun can do, and what guns make people do that I know guns dont belong in the hands of civilians, only highly trained professionals (police, military personell).