RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

lovmuffin -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 4:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ? I have been a life member of the nra since the early sixties,I have a collection of the "american rifleman" that goes back to the early fifties. The covers were works of art. Each issue brought a color pic in great detail, inside were thoughtful discussions about the enginering difficulties imposed by the limitations on their current technology and how these inovative individuals went about solving these mechanical problems. Now it looks like any of a dozen or so "gun rags" on the rack at the supermarket. Look at their membership,stable for decades, then a burst, motivated by non issues that ignorant people then take up with religious fervor. It is what powers their machine. The machine which started as a way to foster civilian marksmanship and now has become a machine which offers some nebulous "they"who are gonna "get you" unless you vote for this candidate. If you have an "issue" with the nra that you would like some help with you will get a recording about how the nra is fighting hard to yadda yadda yadda but please stay on the line. If you do not have a hard line and a speaker phone you get to pay by the minute for the priviledge of asking for some help on one of their fuck ups. Yes I would have to agree that the nra has its mouth firmly wrapped around the korporate kock. Who does this refer to as a life member ? Still doesn't prove anything. Edited to say, OOPs I thought I was responding to DomKen. Though my question still stands.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 7:11:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Ken I do believe the NRA has an inordinate influence on our legislatures both state and federal but I don't believe they are fear mongering. Their message is there is no need to be afraid if you are armed and being armed is the way to solve problems. The only way the "don't be afraid if you carry a gun" message works is if they make the people afraid.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 7:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ? NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners# NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042 http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1 The Huffington article is pretty much all supposition the same as your posting. But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years -- and includes ties both financial and personal, a Huffington Post examination has found -- has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns? What examination ? I would have to ask them the same thing I asked you. And further down they state The NRA declined to comment. In recent years, it has argued that defending gun owners and the gun industry is one in the same. Which is how I see it. At least it wasn't all one sided. The Nation article is pretty much the same shit littered with facts that prove nothing. But I'll waste some more time and check out the rest of your links to see if I find anything that might support your notion. The nation article links to the statements made by both sides and to facts showing the relationship. You simply handwaved it all away. That refutes nothing. Either disprove the facts presented or accept them.

lovmuffin -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 7:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ? NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners# NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042 http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1 The Huffington article is pretty much all supposition the same as your posting. But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years -- and includes ties both financial and personal, a Huffington Post examination has found -- has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns? What examination ? I would have to ask them the same thing I asked you. And further down they state The NRA declined to comment. In recent years, it has argued that defending gun owners and the gun industry is one in the same. Which is how I see it. At least it wasn't all one sided. The Nation article is pretty much the same shit littered with facts that prove nothing. But I'll waste some more time and check out the rest of your links to see if I find anything that might support your notion. The nation article links to the statements made by both sides and to facts showing the relationship. You simply handwaved it all away. That refutes nothing. Either disprove the facts presented or accept them. Of course the NRA has a relationship with gun manufacturers. It doesn't mean their sole purpose is to protect their interests only. Their political purpose is to protect the 2nd amendment. They do this on many different fronts including alliances with gun makers. Do you really think the only reason to stop law suits against gun makers was to protect just them ? If these freakin law suits had continued the price of firearms would be astronomical. I'm not arguing with some of the facts but I'm disputing the conclusion that "the gun manufacturers are in the pockets of the NRA" though if not for the NRA their future would certainly be in doubt.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 8:26:48 PM)
You may dispute the conclusion but the facts are the facts. the NRA is now about protecting the gun makers not in doing anything for sportsmen which what the organization is supposed to be about. Also I note you fail to even attempt to respond to the overwhelming facts that prove the ALEC and the NRA are behind CCW and SYG laws.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 8:45:29 PM)
ALEC didn't even exist in the 1960s, when states started moving away from the Jim Crow era 'must retreat' chattel (slave) laws, and the move toward the right of all people to self defense (influenced by Wechlser ) began.

lovmuffin -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:05:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You may dispute the conclusion but the facts are the facts. the NRA is now about protecting the gun makers not in doing anything for sportsmen which what the organization is supposed to be about. Also I note you fail to even attempt to respond to the overwhelming facts that prove the ALEC and the NRA are behind CCW and SYG laws. "the NRA is now about protecting the gun makers not in doing anything for sportsmen which what the organization is supposed to be about". That is not a fact. That's just a conclusion and I'm not suckin for it. I'll get to the rest of it when I can.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder. You clearly have no tactical acumen. Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is. Tactics would indicate you don't let anyone approach you while armed. Since he had no need to shoot and an avenue of retreat was available to him that is what he should have done. The floaters had no such option. their backs were literally to a river. Their rafts were not powered and likely didn't even have much in the way of oars, that's why they're called floaters. His only demand was that they leave floating away would have satisfied that at the time he shot even Darts wife admitted that they were moving toward him. The officers who arrested Crocker said they appeared to be drunk, alcohol makes people very brave and very stupid. They had already done what they claimed to have come ashore for you would think that getting back in the boats and leaving was what they would do, assuming they are telling the truth. When four drunks are coming for you it may well be to late to retreat. And before your selective memory tells you otherwise I still think he is guilty of manslaughter unless something dramatic comes out. You just want the blood of a gun owner. Bullshit. He had just fired at one of them after the person he had demanded leave his property had done so and instead of being satisfied had gone and gotten a weapon and then shot at one of the group. You want them to turn their backs on the crazy murdering asshole? Really? I want a person who has gone to incredible lengths to justify a clear cut illegal killing simply because the guy had a gun to acknowledge that this is clearly 2nd degree murder and prove he isn't just defending the guy with a gun again. Just to make the point manslaughter requires some mitigating factor. He was not under the sort of provocation sufficient to make a reasonable person lose control. He was not defending himself. He does not have a diminished capacity to understand right and wrong. He did not accidently kill (in the law any use of a deadly weapon is assumed to include the intent to kill). There is simply no mitigating factor to lower the charge to manslaughter. He might if the prosecutor simply wants to save money and time get a manslaughter plea but a trial which follows the law would convict this scumbag of 2nd degree murder and quite possibly first degree (he did leave and fetch a weapon, it could be argued that does show intent and a plan). When the guy moved on him that is a mitigating factor. No I want them to leave before he fired a warning shot they could have when he went back to his car but in spite of their statements that they were only there for the pit stop they told him they would not leave. If they were telling the truth why did they refuse to leave when he told them to when he didn't have a gun. You got something right and then blew it. When you are armed you don't let them get too close. Even if they were on the easement doesn't mean he was. He started shooting at them when they moved to close the distance. And he was moving back when he did it even in the widows statement. As for my motivation you have never gotten it close to right. Again you act like someone who wants a gun owners blood but wants somebody else to do it for you.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:18:07 PM)
Alec was "founded" in 1973. It began as the "Conservative Caucus of State Legislators". and, according to its founder, Mark Rhoads, it was a direct result of the feeling of powerlessness among the conservative party from the political climate of the 60's and early 70's. http://books.google.com/books?id=VAqNKMfgdk4C&pg=PT203#v=onepage&q&f=false

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:21:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The problem with warning shots are One you don't know where they will strike. If the person with the gun in their hand does not know where the bullet will strike would it be prudent to pull the trigger? A warning shot in the air has to land somewhere...probably not a good idea in general. A "warning shot" at the feet of ones intended victim is called adw in all jurisdictions. A warning shot into the ground at your own location shows that you have a loaded firearm. quote: Two they force you to give the tactical advantage to your attacker. With the gun still in your hand still loaded how is the shooter put at any sort of disadvantage? quote: When you pull the gun it should be too late to be concerned with escalation. And yet there remains the disire to call this manslaughter or perhaps disturbing the peace[8\|]how droll. If fired into the air you can't know were it will land, when fired into the ground it can bounce. In either case it is aimed away from the other person. While you are firing the warning shot and waiting to see if he runs away what is he doing? And you deliberately misrepresent my position how droll

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law Here is a list from the local newspaper where I live about the real history of "Stand Your Ground" laws here in Florida. This law has already been abused by too many of the wrong people. Of course the law has been abused. It is meant to be abused. To no greater extent than any other law. What is your opinion of the Roderick Scott case?

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:35:40 PM)
quote: If fired into the air you can't know were it will land, when fired into the ground it can bounce. In either case it is aimed away from the other person. A bouncing bullet is aimed away from the other person? As far as the air, what goes up must come down. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Bullet-Fired-in-the-Air-Strikes-Chesterfield-Boy-214371901.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ohio-freak-death-man-fires-gun-air-bullet-travels-mile-kills-15-year-old-amish-girl-article-1.994626 Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down. In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time. http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 An illegal act isnt made legal simply because the shooter believes no one will be in danger.

Phydeaux -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen . Also I note you fail to even attempt to respond to the overwhelming facts that prove the ALEC and the NRA are behind CCW and SYG laws. Uh, no. Last I knew, Alec didn't have the ability to pass a single damn thing. Just like liberal interest groups, howevery they craft legislation and attempt to find legislators to support and sponsor it. Or do you suppose that AARP had nothing to do with Obamacare getting passed. The simple fact is - the nation has gotten polarized to such an extent that it takes an inordinate amount of organization, clout, members, influence to get anything do. And good/bad ideas, are fundamentally decided by party in power.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:44:05 PM)
Remove lobbying... easy fix.

Phydeaux -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:47:37 PM)
New case has a homeowner firing on a black teen intent it seems on burglarizing his home in New orleans. Its after 1 am. The boys had cased the place earlier in the day. This guy is fried. I have to say, I'm not sure when we got so that its ok for people to burglarize peoples houses. Not sure when invasion at night is OK. I really wonder what might turn things around in the black community.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:48:35 PM)
Employment

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:52:01 PM)
quote: New case has a homeowner firing on a black teen intent it seems on burglarizing his home in New orleans. Its after 1 am. The boys had cased the place earlier in the day. This guy is fried. If you mean the homeowner, yes, I can see why he would be fried.

Phydeaux -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:58:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Remove lobbying... easy fix. Really? So you would prevent someone from speaking to a legislator? On what grounds? Doesn't that strike you at least a little as a conflict with free speech and freedom of assembly? Or - are you saying that you should restrict the ability of people that used to work for the govt. for lobbying for a corporation? Yet, no compete clauses have been struck down because you cannot infringe on someone's ability to make a living. Or- are you saying that no one employed by a company can talk to a legislator. Really? What about labor unions (the biggest of which are huge enterprises on their own behalf). What about NGO? Charities? Not to mention - not every idea that comes out of lobbyists are bad. Additionally, the staff of the government has grown huge. Frequently the staff of an agency know the laws, grants and procedures in place far more than a newly elected congressman. Is it possible that might put too much power in the hands of the staff, and hence the executive branch? Not trying to be difficult taz. Just don't see an easy way to 'just ban lobbying'

Phydeaux -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 9:59:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Employment Gonna have to have another idea - cause that aint gonna happen in the next 5 years. Besides, significant minorities wont take a job. Ever work at a welfare office - its hair raising.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/28/2013 10:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Remove lobbying... easy fix. Really? So you would prevent someone from speaking to a legislator? On what grounds? Doesn't that strike you at least a little as a conflict with free speech and freedom of assembly? Or - are you saying that you should restrict the ability of people that used to work for the govt. for lobbying for a corporation? Yet, no compete clauses have been struck down because you cannot infringe on someone's ability to make a living. Or- are you saying that no one employed by a company can talk to a legislator. Really? What about labor unions (the biggest of which are huge enterprises on their own behalf). What about NGO? Charities? Not to mention - not every idea that comes out of lobbyists are bad. Additionally, the staff of the government has grown huge. Frequently the staff of an agency know the laws, grants and procedures in place far more than a newly elected congressman. Is it possible that might put too much power in the hands of the staff, and hence the executive branch? Not trying to be difficult taz. Just don't see an easy way to 'just ban lobbying' Speaking? no... paying for the honor? yes.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875