They're at it again in Michigan......

[donkee]

Ran across this one while checking out www.gunnewsdaily.com

Another blood in the streets and you're too unstable to be able to defend yourself/family. I'll be sending off an e-mail shortly....

http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news05.txt

Welcome back, Wyatt Earp



Monday, September 26, 2005 3:04 PM EDT



Commentary by Dave Frownfelder

Have our legislators been watching too many John Wayne westerns lately? Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle.

Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure.

Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough without giving would-be Dirty Harrys the green light to start blasting away when somebody breaks a window in their home. That may be taking the idea to an extreme, but that's society today, one extreme or the other, with very little middle ground.

What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable?

Even Tombstone in the 1880s had laws on where guns could be used. Personal protection was always the most important consideration.


However, the Michigan Legislature is almost making it mandatory to be packing heat when you go out. You never know who may be armed and ready to get John Wesley Hardin on you.

The measures - House Bills 5142 and 5143 - were referred to the House Judiciary Committee Sept. 7, but no dates have been set for action. The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant.

Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.

The Michigan bills are patterned after measures recently enacted in Florida. The Florida law takes effect Oct. 1 and gives residents the right to defend themselves in public places, including on the street or in a place of business.



Apparently lawmakers want to see life imitate art, judging by the shoot-outs seen regularly on television and in movies. Noting that the 2001 law made it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Michigan, a spokesperson for the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out the obvious failing of this new effort.

"This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort. It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date...than you are an intruder," said Carolynne Jarvis.

How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law? Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either. An armed society is an angry society. It is also a paranoid one that doesn't trust anybody.

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments. Does the Legislature mean to make one commandment more important than another?

Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

Have we forgotten that, or is the value of life now measured by degree?

David Frownfelder is a staff writer for The Daily Telegram. He can be contacted at 265-5111, ext. 258, or via e-mail at [email protected].

 

[NCP24]

How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law?

Sounds like a good idea, “crackhead-junkie-thief” beware.

 

[Henry Bowman]

What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable?

Oops. You just opened your mouth and proved to the world that you're a moron. :banghead:

 

[Standing Wolf]

Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough without giving would-be Dirty Harrys the green light to start blasting away when somebody breaks a window in their home.

Leftist extremists are the poorest losers of all.

 

[DRZinn]

Scared? Don't break into someone else's property and you won't get shot.

 

[Oldnamvet]

A long time ago when I lived in El Paso, a thug tried breaking into my apartment. My wife heard them and I got out the .357. When the guy started coming through the window I cut a notch out of his ear. He yelped and took off. Later the police told me I should have waited a minute until he was halfway through and then drilled him "between the running lights". If he started to fall out, I was to go out and push him the rest of the way into the room. Then I was totally justified in using deadly force. Wonder if Texas law is still the same now?

 

[pcf]

How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law? Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either. An armed society is an angry society. It is also a paranoid one that doesn't trust anybody.

Oh the Irony.

 

[chopinbloc]

sent an e-mail:

I wonder if your recent opinion piece was intentionally misleading or if you simply don't understand the facts. In case you do have any interest in journalistic integrity, I offer a few rebuttals.

"Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough..."

While it may be personally offensive to you, shall issue concealed carry laws have caused a marked reduction in crime in every state where they have been enacted.

"Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle."

"What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable?"

This is where it seems that you are purposefully distorting facts and misleading people. Everyone knows there is a clear legal difference between forced entry of a home or vehicle (otherwise known as home invasion and carjacking) and tresspassing. A person who breaks into an occupied structure demonstrates the intent and ability to cause a person harm. A person who breaks into an occupied vehicle does the above and, in many cases, has already assaulted the rightful occupant of the vehicle by forcing entry. The new law DOES NOT justify the use of deadly physical force for simple trespassing and you know it. Further, warning shots are dangerous and illegal.

"You never know who may be armed and ready to get John Wesley Hardin on you."

I don't know who's armed but I know that the only people who will assault me are the criminals who do not care about, nor are protected by the new law. I don't plan on kicking in anyone's door in the near future.

"The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant."

What do you propose they are there for? Throw a tupperware party? Play bridge? Remember, the key word here is occupied. That's why it is a violent assault, not just a simple property crime.

"How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law?"

A red herring that has nothing to do with the new law. Such a law could never be enacted or enforced and you are indulging in hysterical statements because of a lack of rational argument.

"Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments."

If you insist on making it a Biblical discussion, the Hebrew word often translated as "kill" actually means murder, not that facts are of any import to you.

"But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set."

It also seems that you believe the same "crackhead-junkie-thief's" life is more important than mine. For some reason, not many criminals have been stopped or lives saved by the phrase, "Stop or I'll dial 911 and the police will be here in twenty minutes to an hour." Not surprisingly, many lives have been saved by the phrase "Stop, or I'll shoot." If you are concerned about the new law then stop breaking into people's houses and carjacking soccer moms. The only thing I have left to say is that maybe most people didn't notice that while you quoted an anit-civil rights advocate, you did not quote anyone who supports the new law. Well, it is an opinion piece, you aren't expected to be balanced, or rational for that matter.







of course, angry letters - or kind, polite ones for that matter - aren't likely to change any journalist's mind. i do think they might keep them from writing retarded pieces like that, if only to keep their inboxes clean. then again, they'll probably just stop publishing a point of contact like the rest of the journalists.

 

[Ryder]

No crackhead-junkie-thiefs around here and I've never been taught anything about them but I do believe I'd value them greater than the writer of this garbage.

I have always been willing to shoot a home intruder on sight. Criminals already know this. No need for a jury trial to prove guilt after someone kicks in my door. They've sentenced themselves.

I am always armed. My kid knows this and still he thinks it's funny to sneak around the house late at night. Haven't shot him yet. That's a total non-issue. Like I am going to forget I have a kid? Hahaha, not likely

Paranoid? That's hilarious coming from someone who's every sentence consists of improbable fears.

The article is uninformed and disingenuous. Such opinions are automatically discounted by any intelligent person.

 

[71Commander]

Nothing to add. Just want to subscribe to the thread. Interesting topic of value.

 

[ravinraven]

Hey, Chopinbloc!

You wrote a great rebuttal to the dunderhead. But you probaly wasted your time. He/she/it can't be smart enough to read it. If it were, it wouldn't have written the "editorial" to begin with.

rr

 

[El Tejon]

Dear raving Mitchegun liberal,

Please look to your south. Indiana has had such a statute for decades. Where is the problem?

Are you in Michigan so different than your neighbors to the south? Will passage of this modification (it simply changes a presumption) to your self-defense statute make you all homicidal maniacs, frothing at the mouth to legally kill the UPS man or Girl Scout selling cookies? Or, will it simply help decent normal humans avoid the tangles of Problem #2?

Relax, you and your kind are losing. Soon all your base will belong to us and we will turn your base into a shooting range for the use of teaching children, women, minorities and Democrats in sandals to use firearms.

Oh, by the way, we in Indiana carry our guns in bars. Meditate on that, Beardo the Wierdo!

Very truly yours,

Kirk "El Tejon" Freeman

 

[Kurush]

I swear the more anti-self-defense "local newspaper editorials" I read the more they start to look like they're being written off of a boilerplate. I wonder if we could find a pattern and get them in trouble for plagiarism.

 

[Gunpacker]

They are not interested in logic-as always

Idiot transfers immediately from defending against "someone breaking into your home or vehicle" to "shooting someone who breaks your window." They simply want to push buttons for unthinking antis, who are known to be unable to think for themselves. They just swallow the drivel and start shouting.
If one assumes that 1/2 of one percent of all legitimate gun users are actually criminals, that doesn't change things a bit. The hidden criminals would use them as they want anyway. Seems that the antis worry far more about the armed honest citizen than they do the armed, murdering, raping, pillaging criminals. Ever notice when a career criminal is caught, there might be mention of his lengthy record, but no rants about punishment, solving the problem or even about the unfortunate victims. Their destroyed lives are simply the cost of allowing criminals the freedom that they deserve. The only "victims" that get sympathy are the ones killed or injured by an armed citizen while in the commission of a crime.