Anti-Self Defense lobby has a new web site


PDA






davec
April 13, 2006, 03:14 PM
http://www.licensetomurder.com

http://davecrazy.squabble.org/ltmSmall.JPG

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Self Defense lobby has a new web site" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jojosdad
April 13, 2006, 03:22 PM
Just took a look:barf: - must go "Make My Day" by taking a shower - I feel unclean.

Mulliga
April 13, 2006, 03:24 PM
"Freedom States Alliance"? What a joke. They even have an antigun blog up. But whatever. Fancy Flash movies and celebrity endorsements are old tactics and they don't seem to be very effective...

Thefabulousfink
April 13, 2006, 03:25 PM
From the site's FAQ:
According to the NRA, this law grants you, as an American, a right to self defense. But what it really does is strip anyone who pulls a trigger of any responsibility at all. That's why we call it a "License to Murder."

That's why you already have a right to self defense in America. If you or your family is threatened, you have the full ability to fight back. And if you need to use deadly force to do that, you already have that legal right, with or without this law.

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond that. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonizer was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.



As most websites put up by antis (Brady Bunch), it is full of a tiny bit of fact, lots of inflamitory buzz words, and a few outright lies.

No one will get anything out of this other than the allready entrenched anti-gun foot soldiers.

It might, however, provide us with some good ammunition:evil:

LeoC
April 13, 2006, 03:31 PM
AIIEE MY EYES! MY EYES! :(

Anyone else notice the molding seam at the end of that Beretta? And the lack of visible rifling? And the oddly inset smaller barrel? Airsoft :rolleyes:

And how DARE the parent organization call themselves the "Freedom States Alliance"?!:fire:

ElTacoGrande
April 13, 2006, 03:34 PM
The NRA should not be lobbying for these laws. These are unneeded laws and they make the NRA look bad.

Henry Bowman
April 13, 2006, 03:41 PM
The NRA should not be lobbying for these laws. These are unneeded laws and they make the NRA look bad.Reluctantly, I agree. I'm glad they are sweeping across the heartland, but (contrary to what the antis assert) they have nothing specifically to do with gun or gun-ownership rights. I don't think it's a "gun" issue. It's a self-defense issue.

Thefabulousfink
April 13, 2006, 03:43 PM
I think we should be striving to remove the "duty to retreat" laws. Being protected from a civil suit after a self-defense shooting is nice, but the way some of these laws are written does make a few of the dimmer bulbs think they can kill for any reason.

Heaven forbid lawmakers write a law in plain english so that everyone can understand it.:confused:

forrestd
April 13, 2006, 03:45 PM
I wonder how many of the endorsing celebrities have bodyguards that carry a gun on them. :rolleyes:

RaggedClaws
April 13, 2006, 03:47 PM
Does anyone have any examples of folks in this country (I know of cases in the UK) sued or criminally convicted for using deadly force in self defense? Don't get me wrong, I'm just wondering if there was a problem before this legislation hit the scene.

mp510
April 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
http://www.licensetomurder.com/nra.jpg
Notice the gun is clearly a Glock outline. Dosen't Glock have proprietary rights to that shape?

ElTacoGrande
April 13, 2006, 03:48 PM
they have nothing specifically to do with gun or gun-ownership rights. I don't think it's a "gun" issue. It's a self-defense issue.

They're not a gun issue and they're pointless. Ultimately deciding whether it was a "good shoot" will be up to prosecutors judges and juries and their culture, values and perceptions of the actors will make the decision. These laws change little if anything.

And they make the NRA look bad and they're a waste of time and effort and resources.

Come on NRA, please try fighting for our gun rights in some harder battles, like CCW in California and repealing sporting use laws. Stop it with this stuff. It disgusts me.

geekWithA.45
April 13, 2006, 03:56 PM
Oh, :cuss: them, and all their followers and funders.

Justin
April 13, 2006, 04:10 PM
I love how the FSA has mulitple websites in an attempt to appear bigger than they really are.

I've never heard of them making any sort of public appearance, organizing rallies, or doing even 1/10 of the public screeching that the Brady Campaign does.

rnr4me
April 13, 2006, 04:17 PM
We've had a 'make my day' law here in CO for several years now. I haven't heard of any abuses, and I keep pretty good track of the news.

This is the same thing they tried on the CCW states. "oh, it'll be murder in the streets" . "people will be shooting people from their cars" etc. Didn't happen either. Except of course the criminals who did that stuff already.

V4Vendetta
April 13, 2006, 04:27 PM
Just looked to see what celebrities they had on their side. I didn't see any & I don't want to look again. I feel dirty. Like I just rolled around in sewage. Excuse me while I go vomit.:barf: :barf: :barf:

wingnutx
April 13, 2006, 05:00 PM
"Freedom States Alliance"

Well that's about as Orwellian as you can get.

Zundfolge
April 13, 2006, 05:04 PM
"Freedom States Alliance"

Well that's about as Orwellian as you can get.
That clearly fails the "fancy catsup" test.

I can't imagine that the hyperbole and foaming at the mouth works with fence sitters.


These kinds of sites do nothing more than make the radicals feel good ... sort of a "preach to the choir" thing ... I seriously doubt they are getting converts with this kind of "license to murder" and "states where murder is still illegal" tripe.



Which makes me happy because its clearly a sign that "we" are winning :D

Mongo the Mutterer
April 13, 2006, 05:19 PM
Which makes me happy because its clearly a sign that "we" are winning Yes we are.

And it makes the elitist gun grabbers of the Left crazy..... :evil:

But vigilance is the key. They are not going to go away.:(

Pafrmu
April 13, 2006, 05:26 PM
Come on guys, Its for the children.

El Tejon
April 13, 2006, 05:28 PM
Meet the FSA's newest member.:D If the blissninnies only knew.:neener:

1. These statutes are merely restatements of existing law. They are prominent because of Kirk's Second Law of the Internet (if Florida does something it is the first state in the Union to do it as it has 25 electoral votes).

2. The objective/subjective standard of self-defense has not been changed. Before the "stand your ground" laws all one needed to exercise deadly force was "reasonable belief". The antis are lying and attempt to imply that this standard has someone been made lesser.

3. These proposals are not entirely feckless if they contain civil immunity (I believe they should contain many other provisions but the NRA does not let El Tejon anywhere near the model legislation).:D

Mongo the Mutterer
April 13, 2006, 05:45 PM
No El T.. The antis are lying and attempt to imply that this standard has someone been made lesser. They are actually lying??? :rolleyes:

Kind of like the "Children" statistics they use which include 20 year old gang bangers???? :)

El Tejon
April 13, 2006, 05:47 PM
Yeah, O.K., so I was restating the obvious. Sort of like these statutes the blissninnies are bleating about.:D

Jeff White
April 13, 2006, 06:27 PM
From the sites FAQ:

According to the NRA, this law grants you, as an American, a right to self defense. But what it really does is strip anyone who pulls a trigger of any responsibility at all. That's why we call it a "License to Murder."

That's why you already have a right to self defense in America. If you or your family is threatened, you have the full ability to fight back. And if you need to use deadly force to do that, you already have that legal right, with or without this law.

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond that. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonizer was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

We have to be careful that we don't make them sound as if they are right:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2352528#post2352528

I wouldn't be surprised to see links to posts like some of them in the thread I referenced on these anti websites. Sometimes we're our own worst enemy.

:banghead:

Jeff

Clean97GTI
April 13, 2006, 06:49 PM
Its an old tactic that always serves people well.
You take something out of context and serve it in soundbyte form and you've got yourself a basis for argument.

Thats all that site does. Perhaps they would like to look at some of these "green states" on that list and read the sections on defense of self and property. A whole lot more of them would be red.
Nevada for one allows me to use force to stop someone in the commission of a felony (breaking and entering, burglary, grand theft auto are all felonies here) no matter where I am.

At any rate, this is just the same old boring tactic they've tried for years and its always easily defeated with sensible arguments and debate. Thats the real trick though...getting them to sit down for debate and use logic. Their argument only lives in the margins, so they want to keep em wide.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 13, 2006, 06:49 PM
Groups like FSA do more to encourage the misconception that these laws allows anything but self-defense. Look at the ridiculous hyperbole thrown around during the debate over the Florida bill. It is almost like the media wanted to make a tragedy happen by trying to sell everyone on the idea that it was now OK to pull the trigger for any reason at all.

XD_fan
April 13, 2006, 08:13 PM
On the licensetomurder site they list WA as a murder illegal state. Only problem is we have no duty to retreat here. "Stand your ground" or whatever you wish to call it is the rule of law here. The site and its parent site FSA are both very long on emotion and extremely short on fact.

tyme
April 13, 2006, 08:25 PM
Usability failure.

If I don't have the cookie already, licensetomurder.com tries to set a cookie and then redirects to freedomstatesalliance.com, which links back to licensetomurder. I have a plugin to easily enable/disable cookies, but only for the current site, and my browser is set to reject cookies by default. I don't get a chance to enable cookies before the redirect, so I have to resort to the standard dig-through-menus-and-grant-cookie-permissions-for-this-site routine. What a pain.

If that weren't bad enough, the initial page is all flash. Big web-design no-no.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-Self Defense lobby has a new web site" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!