Just don't travel to theses States!

[L'Etranger]

Florida, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina, and others ...

15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense (NYT) :http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Is this all still true?

[voilodian ghagnasdiak]

It will certainly cut down on government expenditures. Theres no need to waste money on uneccessary court costs considering that chances are there will be no surviving witnesses from lethal confrontations . The law enforcement agencies wouldnt require as many officers per capita, in a self policing state which in turn cuts down on all the consumables that follow suit. A judge, jury and executioner all concealed in some poor, defenseless, little, old ladies handbag would also cut down on prison populations. This law even doubles as a tool for population control.
Anything for a buck L'E.

[Mespheber]

Well, if americans begin to shoot each others, there is a high probability that natives will take back their lands before the next century.

[Reinart der Fuchs]

Well, if americans begin to shoot each others, there is a high probability that natives will take back their lands before the next century.

Any chance you'll be visiting to reclaim Louisiana?

[voilodian ghagnasdiak]

Too Late Mes its already started. The people of Six Nations have reclaimed the Douglas Creek Estates as a part of their original lands. This is 15 minutes from my house. I have a lot of friends and co-workers involved in this protest. The government doesnt know how to handle people standing up for their own rights.

......

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-sixnations.htm

[Madrigal Rose]

If y'all don't wanna come down heah for a visit, yer not hurtin' ma feelin'. Much.
I'd even hide ma shotgun.

Seriously, I'm not for gun control per se (don't own any or know how to use them), and trust me, I am watching as this new law gets tested.

[lemec]

Reply to what the newspaper (New York Times) wrote: Now, let's not make it sound like everyone in those states is out to shoot you.


I am not going to be afraid to go visit as a tourist or work there on a business trip.

The people ofThe United States, for the most part, are not walking around looking for other people to shoot. The idea is ridiculous. People are more interested in going about their lives in peace, they eat,drink,party,work,go to the gym,go to entertainment venues and everything else in their normal and daily lives.

People should not bring trouble on themselves, there is no reason to start arguments or get into a fight. It usually takes two. If people would avoid confrontations, they would not get hurt.

If someone is out to murder you, it is one thing, then they can use the appropriate amount of force.

If the person in the right can't save themself, then that is just the way of the world. It has always been that way. No court or laws are going to change that.

Society needs to stop sugercoating our reality. Any of us could die at any moment of any day. People are cruel,mean,sefish aggressive and have a number of other negative qualities. life is harsh, face the facts. We do not live in a romantic and chivalrous world. I would like the world to have honor, but it does not have it on a large scale. Only a handful of the population is decent. That said, even the ones with dishonorable intentions go about their daily lives too and are not out to kill another person every second of the day.

So, relax. lighten up. haha Before all these documents and rules were made by people, that are only good or only work if people obey what is written, there is nothing on this Earth, that says life is going to be easy and there will be no danger. We, as humans, have to work for it. We have to work for our survival. Yes, murder is wrong, but it has to be handled at the individual level.
If you stop an individual from helping and defending themselves, you take away any chance they may have to survive in this unfair and unbalanced world.


I myself, might,"Die By the Sword" for my views, but at least I tried to help myself and my family. No one else out there is going to help me.

If I get mugged and stabbed to death while getting my groceries, that does not do me or my relatives a whole lot of good to have those who enforce the law,such as the police, to find my corpse several hours later, or maybe the following week if they are lucky. Even if they track down and give the murderer their fair trial and imprison them, it is far too late, because I or whoever the victim is has already vanished from this world forever.


On another side of the coin, what happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt?


The next time that I go to Arizona, I will take the risk that some innocent civilian with a gun is going to shoot me in the head for no reason.

Laws will always be abused, like in the case of the taxi driver, but for the most part, it will allow those who feel they have a chance to defend their lives, to do just that, protect themselves and their family.

The police do not disarm the gangs and the drug dealers who have illegal firearms on their person at any time. Why should they take it away from sombody who obeys the laws and rights of mankind?

Laws are made to control people, not to allow them to live free, which is supposed to be the great ideal and morality of The United States and other free societies.

The less bureaucracy, the better.


About gun owners: I don't think they are more afraid to die than anyone else.
They just don't want some fool taking their life from them or taking a loved one from them. Especially when they have a chance to do something about it.


Thanks,


-Lemec

[cthulhu]

WOW!....just WOW!.....

so from now on if i get angery in those stats i can just kill the person and not even get arested, i am paking my bag as i type this....WOW

[opaloka]

Fifty years ago, if someone came into your house with bad intent, you could kill them, in any state in the union. You still can in about half the states. This is one of those things that will make conservatives feel good and continue to donate. Will it make me less safe? Probably not.

[Qweevox]

I support the right to bear arms.

I do own one gun. I’ve owned it for over 20 years, I bought it while in College because I got into going to a target range. The last time I fired that weapon was 15 years ago. With that said, I still support the right to bear arms. I tend to be a “radical” individualist because I think “individual” freedom is important. Oh, I know “freedom” makes society a little more dangerous. However, I think its worth it. I believe people should be allowed to say and think anything they want even if I don’t like it. They should also be allowed to own property and protect it from anyone, including the government. Some say that the problem with freedom is that it allows bad people to do bad things. I say that is false logic. Bad people will do bad things no matter what. If you outlaw guns bad people, will break the law and get guns or still do bad things with other weapons. If someone is going to kill you, would you rather be killed by a bullet or a machete…the answer is neither. Both the gun and machete will kill you. If you outlaw machetes then what about knives or clubs. My point is bad people will do bad things. We can’t put a safety cap on freedom. If you put restrictions on the bad people, you have to put restrictions on the good people.

Right now, I can’t tell the difference between those that call themselves conservative and those that call themselves liberal. Hell I don’t even know what those labels (Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat) mean anymore. I use to think that “liberal” and “Democrat” meant “socialist”, “Big Government”, or “collective”: “Conservative” and “Republican” meant capitalist”, “Small government" and "individualist"…but now…I don’t know. The Republican (Conservatives) has been in power since 1994 (The year they controlled Congress) and all I have seen is the erosion of individual freedom. The Democrats do the same. I wonder...maybe its time for another revolution. In which case guns will be important. <Grin>

(Before you get too serious....I typed this with a smile on my face...)

[opaloka]

I had a shotgun for a little while when I lived in a 'loft' (er... umm ... abandoned department store). There was a real chance of something awful happening.

My main reason now for supporting 'the right to bear arms' in it's modern sense is basically I just cant stand to see the cops amd feds have all the guns. If they take away our guns, you can bet they'd keep theirs, then they really would be able to do whatever they want without risking a fight.

I've always been kind of ambivalent about the issue. Not really a good 'liberal' but thinking the NRA is full of shit and I basically still do. Most of them are just guys who really like guns in the same way that some people really like Star Wars toys.

Not anymore. Bush's series of executive orders after 9/11 pushed me off the fence. In the last 6 years I've come to feel that if we weren't as well armed as we are, we would be all the way up shit creek without a paddle.

[Miqque]

Said article does not mention that Colorado has a "Make My Day" law. Yep, that's what it's called. Recently a guy tried to bust into a house in Boulder, smashing in a sliding glass door. The husband and wife, unarmed, managed to slow the guy by repeated hitting him with a baseball bat and a large stick. In their zeal they did kill him, but he kept coming at them until he was sufficiently stopped! Now, I see nothing wrong in their behavior. He attacked, they defended. Response time by police was some twenty-five minutes. No way they could have "prevented" nor "intervened" in yon crime. Without the couple defending themselves, likely it would have been yet another housebreaking and unsolved pair of murders.

On the flip side, down in Denver, we have a man sitting drinking a can of soda pop. Police raided his house (wrong address) and when they saw something shiny in his hands they shot him. A lot. Unfair house invasion by law enforcement is not an unheard-of circumstance. If the fellow had a gun and not a Dr. Pepper he would have had every right to open fire. But the police were so in the wrong by going to the wrong house and being quick on the trigger it was a tragedy.

Personally, I'm of the type to pounce on a burgler or home-breaker and fracture bones and otherwise cause a lot of mayhem. I don't keep a gun because I don't want the police to even think they have a reason to open fire. (I'm from Los Angeles, whee they shoot naked people and homeless women.) But i live with other people, one of whom has an anger problem and should not have access to a gun. When I obtain my own dwelling, I will have a firearm or five, and you damn skippy somebody comes in that I do know know nor approve of they're going to be hurtin' for certain. We do have problems with meth and crack around here.

As for the local police, they know me by now. They know I will not shoot somone unless they need to be shot. They will also know where I live when I move, and not do something silly like prowl around my back yard. (Caught one of them doing so after I moved here, the word spread about what a terribly bad ideas that was. Let Miqque handle his trespassers, we'll go clean up the mess after he's done.)

All this, and I still don't think most people should be trusted with something as dangerous as a spoon. There's some who handle responsibility well, and some who need a keeper. Actually, the USA is such a free country we allow many to handle dangerous things (like finances) when they really have no ability to do so. It's a price we pay.

But I like an armed citizenry, in general. I also think that abusers of power - in any sense - should be flagged and tagged so we can see them from a distance. I'm thinking of tattooing their heads orange, or something. If someone's an idiot, make them wear a sign or a yellow bathrobe or something. Warn the rest of us.

Besides, something in bright yellow makes an easy target.

[opaloka]

Yeah, L.A. will shape your worldview. I lived in L.A. for about a year. One day I was walking to the grocery store (always an adventure) and there was this cop standing in the street. He had about five guns and some grenades which I guess were tear gas. He saw me coming and drew his finger across his neck, then pointed back the way I came. I beat a pretty speedy retreat and ate ramen noodles that night.

[nalpak retrac]

Hmm. I've lived in The Bronx and Jersey City. But LA sounds really rough....

On the subject of LA, here's this:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...o/15260461.htm

And what some pople are doing in sunny CA:

www.privatepoliceforce.com

Problem is, this will lead to gated communities, private police forces, graft, extortion . . . we are following after the Latin American model.

And, yes, the NRA, who is lobbying for this legislation, is in the business of promoting gun owernship, and sales....

[opaloka]

And what some pople are doing in sunny CA:

www.privatepoliceforce.com

Problem is, this will lead to gated communities, private police forces, graft, extortion . . . we are following after the Latin American model.

Wow. That thing drips with racism. There's a lot of people making money by playing on fear.

Really, most violence in the US is amongst gangs and people who know each other. If one wants to look for a demographic tendency, poverty and population density more than anything else will go along with violence, just like it's always been.

Funny how empires suck so many resources out of the world but the more powerful they become the larger the gap between rich and poor.