DirksterG30
Member
69Chevy, check out http://www.gunowners.org/ and click on Legislative Action Center. You can find the info you need there.
license to murder .com, prepare to barf!
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
69Chevy, check out http://www.gunowners.org/ and click on Legislative Action Center. You can find the info you need there.
gwalchmai
Member
Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I see nothing wrong with shooting a retreating car full of galoots who just broke into your home and beat you. As long as you don't hit any innocent bystanders, of course.
My feeling is it's protecting future victims from those criminals. Once you break into my house, as far as I'm concerned you've abandoned the rule of law and adopted the rule of the jungle.
My feeling is it's protecting future victims from those criminals. Once you break into my house, as far as I'm concerned you've abandoned the rule of law and adopted the rule of the jungle.
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
More lies from the pro crime lobby
That website is full of lies, a typical tactic of gun control advocates. Do not trust the individual, trust your government because they know what's best.
I wonder how many of these supposed victims were engaged in criminal activity?? Of course they don't tell you that! The castle doctrine is null and void if you are engaged in criminal activity!! They try to say the castle doctrine protects criminals, this is false!! Someone needs to take these people to task on these blatant lies!:banghead:
That website is full of lies, a typical tactic of gun control advocates. Do not trust the individual, trust your government because they know what's best.
I wonder how many of these supposed victims were engaged in criminal activity?? Of course they don't tell you that! The castle doctrine is null and void if you are engaged in criminal activity!! They try to say the castle doctrine protects criminals, this is false!! Someone needs to take these people to task on these blatant lies!:banghead:
mljdeckard
Member
It is propoganda, but not very effective. This kind of flagrantly biased inflammatory isn't going to convince anyone new.
Republicans like McCain and Guiliani who have been anti-gun, when they get the presidential nomination, I think will become suddenly silent on the issue. Why? FOR THE SAME REASON Democrats AVOID IT. None of them want people like us remembering their gun record. Just because Guiliani was anti in NY, doesn't mean he will automatically be anti in the nationwide scope.
I think a lot of it depends on the mid-term elections. If an iffy candidate makes it to the white house, it will be tempered by a pro-gun congress. They don't have to take any positions on guns if they know that they will never see any gun-related bills. I would rather have 4 or 8 years of beneign Guiliani neutrality than Hilary-style activism on the issue.
Republicans like McCain and Guiliani who have been anti-gun, when they get the presidential nomination, I think will become suddenly silent on the issue. Why? FOR THE SAME REASON Democrats AVOID IT. None of them want people like us remembering their gun record. Just because Guiliani was anti in NY, doesn't mean he will automatically be anti in the nationwide scope.
I think a lot of it depends on the mid-term elections. If an iffy candidate makes it to the white house, it will be tempered by a pro-gun congress. They don't have to take any positions on guns if they know that they will never see any gun-related bills. I would rather have 4 or 8 years of beneign Guiliani neutrality than Hilary-style activism on the issue.
the pistolero
Member
Me too, but if it did come down to Hillary vs. Rudy, I wouldn't want to wager my rights on Giuliani being neutral on something like gun control. From where I sit that's like playing Russian roulette with five chambers of the six-shooter loaded as opposed to just one.
As for shooting people who break into your house, better to shoot them there in the house, before they're in the car getting away. Anything else, and we're heading down a dangerous road. It's at the end of THAT road at which the law of the jungle lies.
ServiceSoon
Member
What did I learn from that www?
mljdeckard: I couldnt agree more! I see this sort of tactic used on both sides of the argument, especially at THR. Speaking your opinion in that manner, it doesnt matter for which side, makes you look like an extremist. Very few people are willing to actually listen to a radical or extremist. I imagine that the majority of people who could be considered on the fence for this issue, will dismiss that website and the information presented there. Now that we have seen how crazy the opposing side looks when using that sort of demeanor, we as a group need to become more aware of how the average person perceives us so that they listen to the information presented to them.
mljdeckard: I couldnt agree more! I see this sort of tactic used on both sides of the argument, especially at THR. Speaking your opinion in that manner, it doesnt matter for which side, makes you look like an extremist. Very few people are willing to actually listen to a radical or extremist. I imagine that the majority of people who could be considered on the fence for this issue, will dismiss that website and the information presented there. Now that we have seen how crazy the opposing side looks when using that sort of demeanor, we as a group need to become more aware of how the average person perceives us so that they listen to the information presented to them.
Sinsaba
Member
I noticed that Virginia is only YELLOW!!
What can I do to make it RED??
What can I do to make it RED??
arthurcw
Member
TEXAS IS GREEN!!!! OH MY SHAME!!!!!!
Rumble
Member
The authors of the site are banking on the idea that the readers will never realize that the "no duty to retreat" laws hold people to exactly the same standard to determine if deadly force is necessary (the "reasonable belief" language) that existing self-defense laws do; it just allows for the chance that ugly nasty naughty self-defense stuff might happen out in public where the softbellies could become agitated and go off their feed. 
By the way--just for clarity: I thought "castle doctrine" referred specifically to the theory that one has no duty to retreat when attacked inside one's home. That is, a state that lets you defend your home (and in some places, your work), already has a "castle doctrine" law.
These newer laws just extend that concept of "no duty to retreat" to public places where you have every right to be, correct? Sometimes known as "stand your ground" laws?
By the way--just for clarity: I thought "castle doctrine" referred specifically to the theory that one has no duty to retreat when attacked inside one's home. That is, a state that lets you defend your home (and in some places, your work), already has a "castle doctrine" law.
These newer laws just extend that concept of "no duty to retreat" to public places where you have every right to be, correct? Sometimes known as "stand your ground" laws?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Carl N. Brown
Member
I would refuse to bump the hit count on some of those sites
but.... the idea of getting the Joyce Foundation to pour $$$$
down a black hole by making them think their BS site is
actually drawing people in by folks inflating their hit count by
just dropping in to gawk at their cyberspace train wreck
is a little tempting.
If someone actually took their license-to-kill rhetoric serious
and ended up in prison as a result of believing that {compost}
could they sue for bad legal advice?
but.... the idea of getting the Joyce Foundation to pour $$$$
down a black hole by making them think their BS site is
actually drawing people in by folks inflating their hit count by
just dropping in to gawk at their cyberspace train wreck
is a little tempting.
If someone actually took their license-to-kill rhetoric serious
and ended up in prison as a result of believing that {compost}
could they sue for bad legal advice?
- Status