Catle doctrine bill, on its way to Governors Dayton's desk soon, in Minnesota.

[Oneka]

http://www.swcbulletin.com/event/article/id/20094/group/homepage/

The Personal Protection Act, has passed the Mn Senate, and will be sent to the Mn House, where a similar bill passed easily in 2011.

It is expected to pass through the house conference committee quickly, then on to one more open vote in both the House and Senate.

It is unclear if Governor Dayton will sign this legislation when it finally reaches his desk. I sincerely hope he signs it into law, as it contains many protections, for potential victims of violent crime.

Here is the text of the House version of this bill, which is slightly different than the senate version, as currently written.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.2.html&session=ls87

[ellisonz]

1. Telling...

“This says killing people shouldn’t be a last resort,” Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, a former St. Paul police officer and chief, said.

-----------

A number of state law enforcement and county attorney organizations opposed the bill.

Dave Kolb, Champlin police chief representing the Minnesota State Chiefs of Police Association, said Thursday the legislation would make law enforcement work more dangerous and could make it easier to defend murder.

“I don’t think that’s the intention of the bill, but that’s the loophole it creates,” he said.

I doubt this will pass with a Democrat in the governors seat.

[burf]

3. Back when Gov Dayton was a candidate,

while campaigning:


“I have two loaded .357 Magnum pistols in my home right now in a lock box,” DFL candidate Mark Dayton told a crowd gathered Saturday at Game Fair, a hunting and fishing expo in Anoka. “I have a 9mm pistol at home. I have a twelve-gauge shotgun at home.”

http://www.looktruenorth.com/39-liberty/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/18881-go-ahead-governor-dayton-i-dare-you.html

We will see most likely sometime next week.

[Oneka]

5. Sadly...

I agree with your last point.
Governor Mark Dayton, will most likely VETO this bill, to his own detriment.

This Veto and a ''no win Minnesota Vikings stadium deal" will likely see his departure in 2014 as our Governor.

Who will likely be his successor?




Yeah thanks for nuthin guvna!!!

I hope he sees the light in the next few days.

As for Dave Kolb, he has came out with this kind of hyperbole more than once before, and yet again he shows that he has no comprehension skills as he blathers on about a non existent "loophole".

No loophole exists in this bill, what this bill does however, in self defense cases, is put the burden of proof, on the state where it belongs, and removes the requirement of a defendant to admit to a crime before availing himself of the defense of "self defense".

Here is an article explaining his incredible wrongness:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/bruce-w-krafft/chief-dave-kolb-not-letting-facts-get-in-his-way/

[burf]

6. OMG!!

Bachmann as governor and Jesse back as Lt Gov !!!! One thing would be certain, there would never be a dull moment.

[burf]

7. This from MinnPost.......

Dayton veto looms over deadly force legislation


Gov. Mark Dayton won’t be too hasty with his veto pen for the so-called Castle bill that significantly broadens gun rights by expanding the justification for self-defense.

He told state Rep. Tony Cornish, the bill’s Republican author from Good Thunder, that he would not veto the bill immediately.

But Dayton also sent a clear signal he’s all but made up his mind to veto the legislation.

“I promised Representative Cornish I would wait three days,” he said. “But I give serious weight to the unanimous opposition from law enforcement.”

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/02/dayton-veto-looms-over-deadly-force-legislation


What's he trying to do, look as though he is thoughtfully considering the bill?

I agree, if he vetos this and the Vikings stadium issue will come back to bite him in the future. Notice how much Zygi is smiling lately at all the press conferences?

[ellisonz]

13. You think Michele Bachmann can win state-wide office?

Excuse me while I take my leave:

[Oneka]

44. my two word reply is:

Jesse Ventura................

[ellisonz]

45. Jesse Ventura was a different beast than Bachmann. n/t

[Oneka]

49. He was my Gov for 4 years.

he certainly is a different beast. i'm told that he may, have hunted man.....

Michelle Bachman is just power hungry, she just recently got moved out of her own congressional district, by a panel of 3 judges, she claims that she will run in the 6th district anyway.

when she doesn't get selected for VP in 2012, she will look to the governors mansion, to ease her lust for power.

No telling what MN voters will do with her in that race.

[PavePusher]

2. I fail to see how.....

"the legislation would make law enforcement work more dangerous and could make it easier to defend murder."

Since police almost by definition won't be on-scene when someone has to defend themselves, they won't be in any additional danger. Less actually, as the criminal may very well be effectively neutralized or driven off by the time they arrive.

Unless they fear the consequences should they be the ones breaking the law....

[Starboard Tack]

9. You often fail to see. It's no surprise.

Trying to bring killers to justice isn't easy when they have a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Makes police work more dangerous and more difficult, knowing these loonies are out there.

[PavePusher]

39. Nobody has this "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

Unless, of course, you can cite the parts of the laws that state that any killing claimed to be self-defense is not allowed to be investigated, or charges filed, if criminal action appears to have been done by the defendee.

We'll wait.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Sure they do. Investigated translates as "showed the card"

That's what these "Stand Your Ground" add-ons to Castle doctrines are. They legalize what would otherwise be murder. Ask Miss Nussbaumer. She got to perform a public execution after leading the guy out of her house and into the street.

[DonP]

54. Just keep saying it over and over

Maybe some total dumb fuck will come along, ignore the actual record of the incident and the testimony of the DA that handled the case and believe you instead.

[Starboard Tack]

55. What's to look at? The DA was correct. She was not charged.

Why should she be charged for doing something which is now legal in Florida?
I would not want anyone to ignore the record of the incident. It is a textbook example of state sanctioned homicide in a decadent society.

[ileus]

4. Good vibs going the way of our friends in Minnesota...

Hopefully this will pass, every state needs a strong castle doctrine law on the books.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Why do you mislabel this as a 'Castle Doctrine' bill?

The whole point about it is that it is explicitly not about a 'castle' - it's about letting people kill anywhere they are legally allowed to be, not just in their own home. Your own link tells you this, but you seem not to have bothered reading:

The Personal Protection Act – described by many opponents as the “shoot first” bill – extends the right to use deadly force for personal protection outside the home to any place where an individual lawfully can be, sponsor Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, said.
...
Minnesota already has the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” allowing people to use force to defend their homes. But it is not enough, bill proponents argued.

So, why the misleading spin?

[DonP]

10. Examples Muriel?

Perhaps you can give us a few examples of the bloodshed caused by this type of "shoot first" bill that's already in place in roughly 30 other states (IIRC)?

I'm sure there must be a trail of blood and gore and examples of law abiding citizens gunning down dozens of imaginary threats for no reason and getting away with it, right? How about even one example?

With the police so opposed, well to be accurate the political police chiefs, there must be a lot of cases of police being shot too, right?

We'll wait here for your examples.

[Starboard Tack]

11. We see examples daily of "legal" public executions in the guise of DGU.

Nussbaumer was cleared after shooting the naked neighbor nutter whom she led out to the street and executed. Yeah, it's line 'em up and shoot'em time if someone looks at you the wrong way in Amerika.
Fortunately most people don't carry guns around, so there won't be any rivers of blood in the streets. Just a lot of stupidity.

[rl6214]

12. "We see examples daily of "legal" public executions in the guise of DGU."

Bullshit, nothing more needs to be said, just bullshit.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Yep, it sure is bullshit when murder is legalized.

Glad I left Florida before they enacted that law.

[gejohnston]

36. can you name one country outside of the US

that has a duty to retreat out of your home? Even if you prove in criminal court that it was a true case of self defense, the criminal or his family can still sue you for wrongful death?
I have yet to find one.

[Starboard Tack]

53. What are you saying?

That there is a law saying you must leave your home when an intruder wants to move in? What law is that?

[Glassunion]

56. He specifically stated outside of the home.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Are you sure? He said "retreat out of your home"

Maybe a little ambiguous, but I read it as retreat from the home, rather than retreating while already outside. But I'll take your word for it.
So, if you were threatened outside your home by someone who was not actually pointing a gun at you, it would be OK to shoot them? Is that what you're saying?
eg. You find someone driving off in your car. You think it's OK to shoot them?

[Glassunion]

61. Every circumstance is different... No I am not saying that I would shoot anyone.

You are trying lump everything into a specific circumstance.

If someone was driving off with my car, I would not shoot them as I am not being threatened.

If someone was holding a pipe like a baseball bat and threatening to hit me with it while demanding my car keys, I would draw my gun.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Why not give him the keys?

He obviously needs the car more than you in that moment. Is it worth taking or losing a life for. I say, if you can't confidently handle the baseball bat, give him the keys and let the Lojack, cops and your insurance company do their jobs.

[rl6214]

70. Give him the keys, seriously? And what's to make you think he won't whack you anyway?

"he obviously needs the car more than you in that moment".

That's just nuts.

He threatens you with a bat or pipe, you pull your gun, he runs away and you still have your car and don't have to pay a deductable which many just don't have laying around to pay.

" I say, if you can't confidently handle the baseball bat, give him the keys and let the Lojack, cops and your insurance company do their jobs."

Not everyone has your ninja skills to handle the bat, not every car has Lojack and not everyone can afford to pay the deductable and buy a new car.

[Starboard Tack]

74. I'm sure the price of a gun would cover the deductible.

You can't afford the deductible, Lojack or some basic self defense lessons. I guess you'll have to rely on a public defender when you go to court.

What's nuts is shooting someone over a car. What's also nuts is pulling a gun on someone without being prepared to use it. Anyone who goes around stealing cars by threatening the owner with a bat or pipe is already majorly nuts and probably suicidal.

[gejohnston]

60. yes it is called duty to retreat law

As far as I can find, it is unique to the US. It is either or. Castle doctrine simply says that you do not have a duty to flee your home or get sued by the criminal's family. Not all duty to retreat laws are the same, so it is not always required, but AFAIK, it can be up to the DA or the state. The burden of proof should always be on the State/Crown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

From what I can find, unless it is specified in a castle doctrine law, it is up to the local DA.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Fascinating stuff. Especially the variations from state to state.

I still think that sound common sense is the best course of action. As you say, it is probably up to the local DA, who, regardless of the law, is only going to prosecute a case that he believes to be winnable.

3 recent cases come to mind.
First, the Nussbaumer shooting, which IMO went south the moment she removed the guy from her house. By the time she got her gun from her vehicle, he was naked and in the street. He was not a stranger, posed no immediate threat to her or her son. Her conduct up to that point was exemplary. Then, she lost it. But it was a popular outcome and the DA knew he'd have a tough time winning a conviction.

Second, the guy who left his keys in his SUV at the Detroit gas station and shot the kid who tried to drive it away. The owner was outside the vehicle, unthreatened. No justification for shooting the thief.

Third, the clerk who shot the would-be robber, chased his accomplice, then returned to the store and emptied his gun into a man who was already down.

[gejohnston]

71. Like the McDonald's coffee case (as I think Dantex once correctly pointed out)

What the media says, and the real facts found in the court room or investigation, may not be the same. If the facts are as you describe the last two, I don't picture them getting off.

[MicaelS]

14. I'll take the State Attorney's word over yours

State Attorney: Reserve Trooper Justified In Shooting Naked Armed Invader

The State Attorney says a reserve Florida Highway Patrol trooper was justified when she shot and killed her neighbor, who was naked and armed with a bow and arrow, after a home invasion in Escambia County.

A Medical Examiner’s report said the deceased man, Sean Thomas Harris had cocaine, cannabis, opiates, methadone and amphetamines in his blood at the time of the shooting.

Reserve Trooper Tabbatha Nussbaumer was in the shower in her upstairs bedroom in the Scenic Heights neighborhood area when her 9-year-old son ran in and told her a man he didn’t recognize was in the house. Nussbaumer exited her room and was confronted by Harris, who was at the bottom of the stairs holding a bow and arrow.

“Ms. Nussbaumer could and did stand her ground in accordance with applicable Florida law,” according to a State Attorney’s Office report.

[Starboard Tack]

32. The State Attorney was correct. The law is what is wrong.

Except for those who want murder to be legal. Nice progress, Florida.

[MicaelS]

37. Murder is unlawful killing...

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being.

Since the state defines what is, and what is not legal, if the state defines a killing of another human being as justifiable homicide, it can not be murder. You don't like the Castle Doctrine / Stand Your Ground Laws, that is clear, but they are not legalized murder.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Aren't you a bright boy? Thank you.

My whole point. These states that enact "stand your ground" laws are sanctioning murder. They are making it lawful, under certain circumstances in those states. The only difference is the word "lawful". It is still premeditated killing with malice aforethought, exactly like the death penalty. Find another country with such sick laws.

[gejohnston]

62. please explain

It is still premeditated killing with malice aforethought,

how is it premeditated killing with malice? Same with duty to retreat, running can put you in greater danger.

Find another country that does not. I guess you think Ontario is just as barbaric as Florida?

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2011/09/castle-doctrine-in-ontario-jury-is-not.html
http://mackscriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-notable-affirming-castle-doctrine.html

[DonP]

15. So, as usual you and Muriel got nothin'

There's a surprise.

So any DGU is actually murder that just can't be prosecuted? But cheer up there are more people getting permits all the time, just look at how fast the Wisconsin permits are being snatched up.

You know, you're sounding increasingly shrill and desperate on this, "line 'em up and shoot'em time if someone looks at you the wrong way in Amerika." makes you sound pretty weird.

If you actually believe that I'd assume you'd want to move to nice safe Chicago where we already have all the gun laws you want nationally, no CCW, an Assault Weapons Ban, no gun ranges. Why it's heaven on earth for people like you.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Muriel and I have integrity.

Do you honestly think we "sound pretty weird"? I think not. Funny how you guys who like to brag about carrying your guns around in your little fashionista fanny packs are just not really out there much and I can't say as I blame you. No, I don't need to move to Chicago. I'm not afraid of people with or without guns. All that fear will just eat you up and eventually shorten your life. You see, most of us "normal" people don't think about guns very much, if at all. It isn't guns that attracts me to this forum, but the stupidity of a few liberals who fall for all that crap about more guns on the street equaling more freedom.
Thank God most are just armchair cowboys and would never actually use a gun against another human. I don't take too many of you seriously. Lots of bluster. But you are all mouthpieces for the NRA, whether you intend to be or not.

[DonP]

25. "...the stupidity of a few liberals who fall for all that crap about more guns..."

That's not a very nice thing to say about a sizable group of your fellow DU members.

But Muriel does share your views about how many "stupid people are on DU".

But it seems the "Armchair Cowboys" are actually the gun control people that just sit around the local Starbuck's or mom's basement opining about how evil guns are but never actually get around to doing anything about it.

Again, on behalf of the other shooting sports fans here, we can count on people like you to keep up the apathetic job you've been doing.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I doubt that many DU members carry guns in public. Maybe 30 or 40 max.

As a fan of shooting sports myself, I am not a gun banner or controller. Those who want to control guns are fighting an impossible uphill battle. Same as trying to control drugs. The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals and what is better for society. That would be, using guns for sport and hunting, not for the illusion of self defense.

[beevul]

47. "The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals ..."

"The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals..."

And for those those that dont agree?

[Starboard Tack]

50. Nice half quote BeEvil

"The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals and what is better for society." There, I fixed it for you.

Now, as to your question "And for those those that don't agree?"
Not really sure what you mean by agree. I assume you mean those who don't care to be enlightened. Well, you should be able to answer that better than I ever could. I imagine they condemn themselves to play mindless video games for eternity.

[beevul]

63. There is a reason for that.

"The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals..."


The reason I quoted that? Because thats the part of the quote I was referring to. Of course it also applies to society, to some degree.

That quote demonstrates a disturbing level of smug superiority, and an astounding level of arrogance.

"I assume you mean those who don't care to be enlightened."

I refer to people who would't characterize your views on guns as as "enlightenment". Feel free to count me among them.

You, the poster of that nonsense, presume to know what is better for individuals, in the context of the gun issue, with absolutely no working knowledge of the particulars of the lives of any of the individuals to which you refer.

In other words, its a fancy way of saying that you want to attempt to bamboozle the ones u can into buying into the bullshit your selling, and force it down the throats of the ones you can't, through force of law.

At the point of a gun.

Because when its all said and done, laws are enforced, in the end, at the point of a gun.

What makes you so sure that YOU know whats best for individuals or society, as opposed to "this is what I want for individuals and society"?


Oh, and on this:

"As a fan of shooting sports myself, I am not a gun banner or controller."

I would rather say what guns I would permit, because I believe this would significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms to an "acceptable" level.
Shotguns, single or double barrel. Bolt action or lever action rifles. Winchester comes to mind.
Anything else would require very restrictive permit based on demonstrated need.

Those who want more than that are free to join the military, or just get over themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=458958

The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public

I could live with a total ban on all guns. Wouldn't bother me. But I'm not proposing that or advocating it. I don;t think they are necessary, but that's just my opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x399373#399796

No I would support banning the manufacture of all weapons designed solely for the killing of humans. I would also support legislation that would ban the carrying of same in public places. Shotguns I have no problem with. Rifles, depends on their mass killing capacity. Pretty much like the UK. Seems to work well there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387857&mesg_id=388795


And then theres this:

Yes, thank you. All of those should be banned along with all handguns. You can keep the Mossberg if you change barrels.

Which was in response to this:

My Yugoslav Mauser, designed specifically as a German military weapon? My SKS, designed as a Russian military weapon? My Mosin-Nagants, designed as Russian military weapons? My 1917 Eddystone, designed as an American military weapon? My AR-15, original ancestor designed as an American military weapon? My Mossberg 500-series shotgun, which is used by police and military forces throughout the world, but with the right barrels is also a bird or deer gun?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=469511&mesg_id=469845



And this:

Now there's an idea though I think 2 is more realistic.

in response to this:

Also, are you suggesting a ban on magazines larger than 1 round?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=393066&mesg_id=393300

I don't want widespread bans and I don't want proliferation of carrying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11728606#post52

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

[Starboard Tack]

64. Not trying to fool anyone BeEvil. Trying to make them think.

Just stating my mind. You have a problem with that? You react as if I make the laws and I'm coming to get your guns. Relax, won't be happening. I noticed you listed someone's porn collection, none of which interests me. Do you ever wonder what about them fascinates you, not to mention your need to list them?
You find me arrogant. Maybe you're right, but I'm not dangerous. I prefer to see it as sharing the good things in life, rather than arrogance. Suggesting that people behave in a more civilized way is hardly arrogant. Offering options to guns for dealing with conflict and problem solving is hardly arrogant. Encouraging people not to walk around with killing tools strapped to their bodies is hardly arrogant. Pointing out stupidity to those who confuse it with progress is hardly arrogant.

Now, to answer your question regarding how many rounds in a mag.. Shotguns, 2 barrels work just fine. No need for those pump jobbies (designed for wankers). Rifles, I think 15 rounds is plenty, but lever action only. Handguns, melt them all down. I could live with that. Could you?

Oh, and I want to thank you for keeping track of my posts. Something I've never figured out. I didn't bother clicking on any, but I'm impressed. Maybe you're learning something after all. You might be my only fan, but I've always said if I can make someone question their opinions, then it was all worthwhile. Thank you!

[gejohnston]

65. actually, claiming to be "civilized" is arrogant

Suggesting that people behave in a more civilized way is hardly arrogant.

It seems that the British Empire and the East India Company rationalized oppressing and ripping off much older civilizations in the name of empire and corporate greed all in the name of "civilizing the savages."
Those claiming to be moral or "civilized" often are not.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Very true, but the tea is excellent and we all love cricket.

So, we ended up learning civility from each other and ending up jolly good friends. Now it's America's turn.
The British were far from perfect, but were not the worst colonizers. India had a built in class system that put the English to shame. A system that still exploits it's own people, but is tempered by a system of government and law introduced by those same English.
There is a huge difference between claiming moral high ground and pointing out decidedly uncivilized behavior. If I see someone throw trash in the street and point out the stupidity of such behavior, am I being arrogant? I think not. I point out stupidity, because I care about the world I live in. I care about it much more than I care about my worldly possessions, because without a decent world to live in, what's the point?

[gejohnston]

75. sorry to only pick on the Brits

any imperialist uses the term "civilized" in their terms. My point is that it is a value judgement often made by those who could be described as being equally "uncivilized"

[beevul]

72. Uh huh.

Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2012, 05:27 AM - Edit history (2)

"Just stating my mind."

Except you keep painting a different picture with the things you say. I've seen this before, and I'm not the only one hereabouts who has.

"You react as if I make the laws and I'm coming to get your guns. Relax, won't be happening."

If you say so. I rather thought I was reacting to someone who can't seem to keep a consistent position on the gun issue. I attribute that to dishonesty. As I said, Its been seen before.


" I noticed you listed someone's porn collection, none of which interests me. Do you ever wonder what about them fascinates you, not to mention your need to list them?"

Did I ever say imply or otherwise indicate that I was "fascinated" by them? No, I don't think so. How nice of you to attribute this "fascination" to me in spite of that fact. Is this part of what you refer to when you say "Suggesting that people behave in a more civilized way" and "sharing the good things in life"?

How very interesting...


You meant this:

"My Yugoslav Mauser, designed specifically as a German military weapon? My SKS, designed as a Russian military weapon? My Mosin-Nagants, designed as Russian military weapons? My 1917 Eddystone, designed as an American military weapon? My AR-15, original ancestor designed as an American military weapon? My Mossberg 500-series shotgun, which is used by police and military forces throughout the world, but with the right barrels is also a bird or deer gun?"


To which you replied:

All of those should be banned along with all handguns.


I posted those to contrast these statements made by you:

"As a fan of shooting sports myself, I am not a gun banner or controller."

"The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public"

One of those positions is not like the others...hmmm...

"I prefer to see it as sharing the good things in life, rather than arrogance."

I seem to recall the borg queen making a similar argument, though she didn't weakly bother attempting to characterizing her arrogance as "sharing"...

"We gave them perfection."

Seven of Nine: 300,000 individuals have been transformed into drones. Should they be congratulated as well?

Borg Queen: They should be. They've left behind their trivial, selfish lives, and they've been reborn with a greater purpose. We've delivered them from chaos into order.

"We too are on a quest to better ourselves, evolving toward a state of perfection."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"Suggesting that people behave in a more civilized way is hardly arrogant."

Hah. When you presume to be the arbiter of what constitutes "civilized", its all that, and much worse.


"Now, to answer your question regarding how many rounds in a mag.. Shotguns, 2 barrels work just fine. No need for those pump jobbies (designed for wankers). Rifles, I think 15 rounds is plenty, but lever action only. Handguns, melt them all down. I could live with that. Could you?"


Gee wiz, thats consistant with "As a fan of shooting sports myself, I am not a gun banner or controller."

Not.

No, I don't think that will be happening any time soon.


"Oh, and I want to thank you for keeping track of my posts. Something I've never figured out. I didn't bother clicking on any, but I'm impressed. Maybe you're learning something after all. You might be my only fan, but I've always said if I can make someone question their opinions, then it was all worthwhile. Thank you!"

Its called the search window. Googlefu, some call it. Its a great defense against dishonesty on the part of others. In order to understand googlefu, you might try...getting some.

Make me question my own opinion? You solidify it. With each and every arrogant presumptive post you make in this forum. Your posts containing arrogance and presumptiveness serve to strengthen my resolve.

Maybe thats just something you grabber types never quite understood. Those of us who oppose the grabber agenda...we are...strengthened...solidified...empowered...by the things you say, and the way you say them.

[Starboard Tack]

73. "I rather thought I was reacting to someone who can't seem to keep a consistent position..."

So, you react to those who are flexible in their thinking. Back to your cyborgs or whatever rigid little world you live in.

[beevul]

76. Someone who can't seem to keep consistent with their own stated position, to put a finer point on it

Someone who can't seem to keep consistent with their own stated position, to put a finer point on it. That would be you.

"So, you react to those who are flexible in their thinking."

I didn't state anything about reacting to "those...anything. I stated how I was reacting to YOU.

"I'm not a gun grabber or controller"

"The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public"

Those statements made by you are completely at odds with this one, also made by you:

"All of those should be banned along with all handguns."

Like I said:




You aren't fooling anyone, and theres nothing new, or even remotely original about it.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Allow me to parse that for you

You conflate my objection to stupid and irrational behavior with being a banner/controller.

"I'm not a gun grabber or controller" - I stand by that and challenge you to show where I have ever advocated taking guns away from people. I encourage people to behave more rationally. I don't like it when the government is forced to step in and remove a right we should all have, because of the inane choices of a frightened few.

"The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public" - That is a behavior that I think should be illegal, solely because of the current out-of-control proliferation. Has nothing to do with banning ownership of guns.

As the madness continues, more folk will start to realize what is going on. I discuss this topic regularly with friends and acquaintances. You'd be amazed how few are aware of the loosening of gun laws. The irony is that I believe in the same individual rights as you, but I am far more realistic in my assessment. The gun nuts and compulsive carriers are ruining it for everyone else. The stupidity of these people is mind numbing. Like most societal excesses, there will be a breaking point, when government has no choice but to intervene. The writing is on the wall and you and those who think like you serve only to hasten the inevitable backlash.

It isn't about me, young man. I'm not the wolf in your cartoon. You may well be the lamb, and if so, you need to learn not to flirt with the wolf. You seem to be intelligent and I'm sure that eventually the penny will drop.

[beevul]

78. Priceless.

""I'm not a gun grabber or controller" - I stand by that and challenge you to show where I have ever advocated taking guns away from people."

Do you really not remember saying this:

"Yes, thank you. All of those should be banned along with all handguns. You can keep the Mossberg if you change barrels."

Of course, now, you're going to try to play the "it doesn't really mean what it says" game, with your own words, just as you do with the words of the framers.

I'd like to be proven wrong on that count, but I wont be holding my breath...

"That is a behavior that I think should be illegal, solely because of the current out-of-control proliferation. Has nothing to do with banning ownership of guns."

AKA Because people are doing it. LOL. Too many, in your view. And you can't be bothered to objectively show why this is a problem. I think I know why. It isn't.

You just don't like it being done.


"As the madness continues, more folk will start to realize what is going on. I discuss this topic regularly with friends and acquaintances. You'd be amazed how few are aware of the loosening of gun laws. The irony is that I believe in the same individual rights as you, but I am far more realistic in my assessment. The gun nuts and compulsive carriers are ruining it for everyone else. The stupidity of these people is mind numbing. Like most societal excesses, there will be a breaking point, when government has no choice but to intervene. The writing is on the wall and you and those who think like you serve only to hasten the inevitable backlash."

You believe in the same individual rights as me? Really? You believe that that the right to keep and bear arms is protected from the great majority of governmental interference by the second amendment?

Do I really need to search you quoting "a well regulated militia" to chuck that one out the window as the misleading garbage that it is?

"Compulsive carriers" again...

"Ruining it for everyone else"? Really? They're going to ruin your ability to carry a gun? Please.

Oh, the backlash. Now I see. Tell you what, look at todays posts for some of the backlash you speak of... Say in Maryland...and get back to me.


"It isn't about me, young man."

Rofl @ young man. You could have thrown a BeEvil in there for good measure, couldn't you?

"I'm not the wolf in your cartoon."

So you claim, yet, your statements paint a different picture. Not my fault, and not my problem, my pleasure to point it out, however.

"You may well be the lamb, and if so, you need to learn not to flirt with the wolf."

I don't even know wtf that means lol. Perhaps you can randomly string together sentences of jibberish to make the same point.

"You seem to be intelligent and I'm sure that eventually the penny will drop."

love the smell of patronizing in the morning, do you?



What I find funny - "funny haha" - about the gun rights debate, is that the grabber types feel they have to hide, conceal, or soften the "gabber type image", lest they be percieved as grabber types. If being such is so reasonable and mainstream, why not embrace it - openly and outwardly?

What I find funny - "funny strange" - is that they think nobody will notice them doing it.

I suggest you read back through the archives of the gun forum, clear back to 2001, before you proceed with this foolishness any farther.

[Starboard Tack]

79. We all make choices. Have fun. Enjoy. Stay safe.

[burf]

34. You got any instances of

braggards you reference in your post or you just pullin some out yer ass?

[Starboard Tack]

57. Maybe it's my ESP, but I think it's self evident.

Think about it. Most guys who swap porn, rarely get laid either. Like most guys who've actually seen combat rarely talk about it. There are certain things that insecure people like to cheer for and brag about to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. Grandiosity is the result. Over adaptation is the mechanism.

[burf]

59. So, the short

answer is you're pulling it outta yer ass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Examples? It doesn't need examples

It allows people to kill outside their homes when "the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony", such as burglary or robbery. I never said anything about 'imaginary threats'. It does include mistaken threats, though; and it means people may be killed when there was no chance they would kill someone else - just that it was thought they might injure someone.

What I object to is the mendacity in the OP of calling it a 'Castle Doctrine bill', when it is nothing of the sort. A conscious attempt to cause DUers to have false ideas about a bill must always be resisted.

[DonP]

17. It's called "self defense"

If you are eliminating "imaginary threats" the only thing left are real threats and as you phrased it "Mistaken threats".

For the "real threats" this protects you from being sued in civil court by the family or friends of the criminal that tried to rob, rape or kill you.

And if your version of "mistaken threats" were in any way real, you should be able to find all kinds of examples (or even one) since this same type of legislation exists in a couple of dozen other states and has for years.

Thy tried to play the "Not really a Castle Doctrine" semantics game in Florida a few years ago. The Brady group even put up two or three billboards along I-95, warning tourists that they can be shot by Florida residents, for no good reason at all if they feel threatened.

Nothing happened, and now it's roughly 5 years later. Do gun control supporters ever get tired of looking foolish, or do they just have a very selective memory?

Or maybe you just believe Minnesotans more stupid and violent than Kansas, Florida, Iowa or all those others states and really will start killing on the streets the minute this is signed?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. The 'semantics game' was started in the OP

because it falsely claims this is a 'Castle Doctrine' bill. It's wrong; you should be glad this attempt to mislead has been pointed out.

[DonP]

20. So you do think the people of Minnesota are just too stupid to understand the issue?

They are just too dumb to realize that this law; "Castle", "Stand Your Ground", "Arthur" whatever you want to call the damn thing, actually covers civil protection for lawful self defense outside the home.

Or do you think that's a bad idea for some substantive and supportable reason?

But congratulations, you've done your good deed for the day by pointing out the "misnomer" to all those poor stupid folk that were being misled. Would you like to add "the streets will run red with the blood of innocents" now? It is traditional.

In the meantime it appears the majority think the law, as it's written, is a pretty good idea and it's getting signed apparently.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. No, I think there are many people who hang out in this forum who are too stupid

to understand such issues. Oneka's OP was aimed at Duers, not Minnesotans.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. "Too stupid to understand such issues" as in "They don't see it *my* way"?

Why anyone would see it your way if they did not already agree with you frankly escapes me, as your reply when asked
for examples of bad results elsewhere was "No examples are needed".

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Too stupid to debate anything on DU other than guns (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Ever entertain the idea that some might actually know more about the subject...

..than you do?

[DonP]

27. OMG! We all bow before your towering intellect...

... and your rapier like wit and turn of pointless phrase.

But it's your rude behavior to fellow DU members and utter apathy on never actually doing anything about the gun control you so dearly believe in I really find interesting.

[burf]

28. As one who posts

only on the gungeon and is a Minnesotan, I fail to see how that would make me "too stupid" to understand HF 1467.

Please elaborate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. You are unable to talk about anything but guns

Why is that? There's a vast amount of politics to discuss, and yet all you can say on a Democratic site is about guns.

It's not as if anyone who never ventures outside the gungeon had managed to pick up the misleading thread title, is it? Or maybe they just were happy for it to be misleading.

[burf]

30. No, I just enjoy the gungeon.

I used to post elsewhere back in DU2 days.

As far as the title of the thread, I guess I was just familiar enough with the legislation in question or smart enough to figure it out.

BTW, would you elaborate as asked?

[PavePusher]

42. Dodge. Examples, please. n/t

[oneshooter]

35. Whatever happened to the civil discourse of DU3? It seems that the gun grabbers

are ignoring it. Too bad. It just makes their hoplophobia come to the top.

[DonP]

38. It does seem to be getting more shrill lately

In spite of articles telling us how impotent the NRA and gun rights organizatons in general are, how fewer people are buying guns, in spite of the massive increase in firearm sales and training classes and how incredibly popular gun control is, they do seem more shrill and desperate.

The wannabe gun grabbers seem to be getting almost frantic in their demands that we all agree with them.

You'd think they'd be sitting back all smug and satisfied and gloating ... if what they kept saying and posting were actually true.

But, as usual, all they seem to be doing is talking the issue to death. But they really testy when that's pointed out to them, so be advised they are really into "alerting" lately.

I think ... since they are losing the battle in the real world... they count on getting as many pro 2nd amendment types banned on DU as the only success they can actually achieve.

[PavePusher]

41. Dodge. Back to the examples, please. n/t

[DonP]

43. I'm gonna guess that s/he he is back to wherever in "triumph" in their success over the gun nuts

I could be wrong, but I'm thinkin' we're not going to see any examples from the poster ... because there are none.

Typical control head, no facts, a lot of feelings and a focus on some irrelevant point.

In this case, whether a new law is called a "stand your ground" or a "castle doctrine" law.

Substance doesn't seem to matter and there is a genuine, deep seated rude disdain for everyone that doesn't agree. We are all "stupid" for not agreeing with them and posting down here.

But why is she posting in the gungeon and complaining about people that post in the gungeon?

[PavePusher]

40. You have not yet cited any real-world examples.

But you are putting on a world-class dodging exhibition.

[Oneka]

48. There was no attempt to mislead,

and i resent the accusation, not that it matters.
As i stated above, this bill strengthens the current castle doctrine, it also adds protections from predatory police actions, during
states of emergency, it also adds an element , commonly referred to as " stand your ground" , this bill even forces the state
to honor other state's ccw permits.

I chose one element and ran with it.

The article claims that it is described by many opponents as a "shoot first" bill. anyone can characterize this bill in any way they see fit
,that is exactly what i have done.

[MicaelS]

18. Then call it "A Stand Your Ground Law"

Other states have passed similar laws, and called them just that.

Frankly I think one of the root cause of the opposition to the concept of armed self defense is the belief that criminals should not have to worry about being shot by civilians. On the grounds that the criminal is somehow getting his rights violated by the civilian, and thus the criminal's rights are more important the the victim of crime.

[Oneka]

46. The bill strengthens "castle doctrine"

If that is not enough of a connection for you, i can be of no further assistance.

[pipoman]

67. If I defend myself

either in my home or on the street, why should the person threatening me be allowed to continue to rob me by filing a civil suit for damages? So many who bitch about these types of laws are willfully ignorant to the cost of defense, even if the defense is ultimately successful, often the defendant is left broke or in debt. Granted, better to be broke or in debt than dead, but why should the victim loose their life's labor for the decision of someone unwilling to participate in society in favor of taking the blood, sweat and tears of others?

No, protecting the innocent and taking away from the criminal is right and just in my world.