Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: "License to Murder"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sand Springs, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    “License to Murder” In Oklahoma Promotes Violence, Not Safety

    More outcry against the NRA’s legislation that would grant a “License to Murder” to almost anyone holding a gun (the bill is also called “Shoot First,” “Stand Your Ground,” or “Deadly Force”). This time, it’s in Oklahoma, and lots of people are worried it could turn “OK” into the “OK Corral.”


    In the Old West, it wasn’t uncommon for cowboys and rovers to check their guns at the local sheriff’s office to cut down on gunplay that sent many men to their graves.

    Gun violence prevention advocates say they fear that lesson is being forgotten in a measure before the Oklahoma Legislature - with similar bills pending in Georgia - that would expand where firearms can be taken and when they can be used with deadly force.

    Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” bill, similar to legislation pending in four other states, would give greater legal protections to people who shoot or use other deadly force when threatened or attacked.

    The measure clarifies existing law on self defense and expands the right to protect yourself against attack in your own home to other places, including someone else’s home, a vehicle or a street corner.

    “It continues to add shame to shame,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. The center is named for Jim Brady, former press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was shot in the head and seriously wounded during an assassination attempt in 1981.

    “It’s a violence issue, it’s not a firearms issue,” Hamm said. “It’s a potentially dangerous solution to a non-existent problem.”
    The problem is completely non-existent, because the NRA is claiming this bill will protect your right to self-defense. But there isn’t one single person in jail right now because they had to shoot someone attacking them– you already have a right to self defense! Every American does, and for the NRA to imply that you don’t have one without this bill is just plain wrong.

    What this bill does is let gun owners shoot first and ask questions later. It effectively removes any responsibility from the person behind the trigger. And it all but asks for bloodshed in even the most tame of arguments.


    Calvey said he does not believe the measure will lead to a surge in gun violence but will give gun owners peace of mind.

    “Guns in the hands of lawful, law-abiding gun owners do a lot more to protect human life than any problems associated with that,” he said.

    Hamm said Oklahomans and residents of other states already have the right to defend themselves from attack. He said no one in Oklahoma or anywhere else has been imprisoned for using force in a legitimate case of self defense.

    Calvey said he knows of no documented case in Oklahoma in which a legitimate case of self defense has led to a jail sentence.
    So the sponsor of this bill agrees that there’s no legal need for it. The question then is– if this bill is passed, who will it help?

    The answer: the trigger-happy. Anyone needing any excuse to open fire can use this bill as a shield. And, according to the bill, it doesn’t matter who gets hurt. This bill simply removes all responsibility from the person behind the trigger. And that’s why we call it
    a license to murder. In Oklahoma, Colorado, Michigan or Florida, this bill is wrong for American citizens. Any lawmaker that supports it is showing clear bias for the NRA and against their constituents.

    If you want to see what ignorant people print/post online go to http://www.gunguys.com , I came across this doing research for the open carry movement I am trying to get rolling here in Oklahoma. LMAO at the lack of common sense in this article, seeing as how the law is not about going to jail, it is about not getting sued by your would be attacker/burglar/criminal's family for protecting yourself against their scumbag (is scumbag supposed to be hyphenated?) family member.

    -Klemmt- aka your German friend with a gun



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sand Springs, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Sorry I forgot about these:

    [*]http://www.4condi.com/
    [*]http://www.rice2008.com/
    [*]http://www.condoleezzaforpresident.com/ Check 'em out, I say this woman is our best hope to make this country the sanctuary for freedoms it was intended to be.

    Let's convince her to run!!!

    -Klemmt-

    2 quotes that sum up all the debates about gun rights.

    "Give me liberty or give me death." = pro-gun (I personally would rather die than live w/o my rights)

    "take away my liberties so I can BELIEVE that I will live forever" = anti-gun

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    This is a serious issue. During the "Firearms Law and the Second Amendment" symposium last fall at George Mason University, Dave Kopel addressed the UN position that humans have "no basic right to self-defense".

    See his position at: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/UN-To-World.htm

    I've excerpted two pieces here:
    THE U.N. HAS appointed University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey as its “Special Rapporteur on http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf.)
    On July 27, Frey issued her final report, declaring that there is no human right to self-defense and that insufficient gun control is a violation of human rights. (The report, “Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons,” is available on IANSA’s website, www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf.)

    On Aug. 21, the U.N. Human Rights Council's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights endorsed the Frey report in total and recommended that the full Human Rights Council (HRC) do so.
    (Edited to add the second part of the citation - the one that somehow didn't get included the first time-tba)


    It's gotten to the point where I'm tempted to say I'll support any candidate who gets us OUT of the UN. I realize that's an emotional and overbroad response, but I haven't seen anything good out of the UN in about 30 years.




    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Faber, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    It's gotten to the point where I'm tempted to say I'll support any candidate who gets us OUT of the UN. I realize that's an emotional and overbroad response, but I haven't seen anything good out of the UN in about 30 years.

    I will agree with you 110% Tess. The UN is worse then useless, it threatens the freedoms our freedoms.



    Goliath

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote
    It's gotten to the point where I'm tempted to say I'll support any candidate who gets us OUT of the UN. I realize that's an emotional and overbroad response, but I haven't seen anything good out of the UN in about 30 years.
    I don't think that's an overboard response. I believe that they are definitely a threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms. Not to mention a big waste of money. Every time they do something stupid I e-mail my congressman and senators and ask them to get the U.S. out of the U.N.!!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sand Springs, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    I don't think that's an overboard response. I believe that they are definitely a threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms. Not to mention a big waste of money. Every time they do something stupid I e-mail my congressman and senators and ask them to get the U.S. out of the U.N.!!!

    THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A NON-ISSUE FOR THE U.N., THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA AND THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY LIVES THEY PUT IN JEOPARDY WITH THEIR UN-THOUGHT-OUT PLANS. GET US OUT SO WE CAN LIVE OUR LIVES FREE AND WITHOUT OPPRESSION AS GOD AND OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED (THAT'S MY MOTTO... WELL... NOT SO MUCH A MOTTO AS IT IS A CATCH PHRASE... ER, SOMETHING )

    -KLEMMT-

    BY THE WAY I AM NOT YELLING CAPS LOCK IS ALWAYS ON ON MY COMPUTER HERE AT THE P.D.


  7. #7
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    KLEMMTHAMM wrote:
    TEX1N wrote:
    I don't think that's an overboard response. I believe that they are definitely a threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms. Not to mention a big waste of money. Every time they do something stupid I e-mail my congressman and senators and ask them to get the U.S. out of the U.N.!!!

    THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A NON-ISSUE FOR THE U.N., THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA AND THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY LIVES THEY PUT IN JEOPARDY WITH THEIR UN-THOUGHT-OUT PLANS. GET US OUT SO WE CAN LIVE OUR LIVES FREE AND WITHOUT OPPRESSION AS GOD AND OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED (THAT'S MY MOTTO... WELL... NOT SO MUCH A MOTTO AS IT IS A CATCH PHRASE... ER, SOMETHING )

    -KLEMMT-

    BY THE WAY I AM NOT YELLING CAPS LOCK IS ALWAYS ON ON MY COMPUTER HERE AT THE P.D.
    I do not think the plans are "un-thought-out". The UN has bunches of dictators and terrorist as members that we "reconize" has a nation because they currently hold the power/resources in the country. The best way for these people to stay in power is to disarm the oppressed people.

    How do you get acceptance for this? Disarm everyone!


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    possumboy, THANK YOU!!!!!! Your analysis of the UN is what I've been trying to convey to many people on this forum and so many other forums!!!! The "powers" that be that control our resources, media and government are slowly but surely eroding our rights!! Call me crazy but it happened in Russia 1917, Germany in 1935 and it's happening right here in America!!! It's so simple!!! This "power" has completely destroyed EVERY country it has "invaded". See, once the citizens are defanged, they can't revolt when the transfer of wealth is initiated (I.E.-Stock market crash, housing crash, etc.)

    Jersey





  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Libia (sp?) in on the group for human rights. I think they even head it

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sand Springs, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    KLEMMTHAMM wrote:


    THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A NON-ISSUE FOR THE U.N., THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA AND THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY LIVES THEY PUT IN JEOPARDY WITH THEIR UN-THOUGHT-OUT PLANS. GET US OUT SO WE CAN LIVE OUR LIVES FREE AND WITHOUT OPPRESSION AS GOD AND OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED (THAT'S MY MOTTO... WELL... NOT SO MUCH A MOTTO AS IT IS A CATCH PHRASE... ER, SOMETHING )

    -KLEMMT-

    BY THE WAY I AM NOT YELLING CAPS LOCK IS ALWAYS ON ON MY COMPUTER HERE AT THE P.D.


    I do not think the plans are "un-thought-out". The UN has bunches of dictators and terrorist as members that we "reconize" has a nation because they currently hold the power/resources in the country. The best way for these people to stay in power is to disarm the oppressed people.

    How do you get acceptance for this? Disarm everyone!
    possum, thank you for correcting me, their plans are thought out, it just seems to defy everything they are SUPPOSED to stand for, ya know... peace, civilized people living w/o fear of their "government" and so on. At least that's what I thought they were supposed to stand for originally. (So much for thinking )

    -Klemmt-

    "Im der Tag du bist mein Sonn, Im die Nacht mein Sterne." -Wolfgang Hamm

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    UN protects our fredoms just like the ACLU supports the ENTIRE Bill of Rights and PETA protects animals!

  12. #12
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Condi for President.... Thats too funny! Real freedom is not that Patriot Act!

    Real Americans support: http://www.libertarianparty.org

    Here is their stance on gun control:

    6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

    The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

    Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

    Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.


    Quote from the LP website:

    Andrew P. Napolitano

    George W. Bush, with a rubber-stamp Congress, has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln. At the very least, with divided government in the next two years, we should expect more constitutional government.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    I'd have to respectfully disagree with you, vermonter.

    I believe there are several 'third parties' that this country would be better suited with. Personally, I support the Constitution Party, mainly because there are a number of things on the Libertarian's platform I don't agree with.

    However, I do encourage others to think outside of the elephants and asses for this upcoming election. If everyone is so fed up with the democrat/republican status-quo, but still vote red and blue, what good does that do us?

    If more individuals were exposed to the Libertarian, Constitution, or even the Green party, then the current political powerhouses would tumble. It would be more representative of the U.S. culture to have elected officials representing several different parties and platforms than only two.

    Real compromises would be able to take effect if there was a significant number of seats at the State and Federal level occupied by people representing several different platforms.

    Imagine having a democrat, republican, libertarian, green, and a constitutionalist trying to work out a current issue such as illegal immigration. No one would have a leg to stand on without some form of compromise or collaboration.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sand Springs, Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    Condi for President.... Thats too funny! Real freedom is not that Patriot Act!

    Real Americans support: http://www.libertarianparty.org

    Here is their stance on gun control:

    6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

    The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

    Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

    Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.


    Quote from the LP website:

    Andrew P. Napolitano

    George W. Bush, with a rubber-stamp Congress, has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln. At the very least, with divided government in the next two years, we should expect more constitutional government.

    OK, I can see what you mean about the 3rd parties... but we must be realistic, people are afraid of change and therefore they will vote with what they know, while alot of us here would vote 3rd party I'm sure, but our numbers our limited. The Patriot Act is NOT good by any means but Condi is a hell of a lot better than some of our options at this point. We are going to have big problems for a while no matter who gets in office. The PA will be the least of our problems if Hilary gets in.



    -Klemmt-


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    KLEMMTHAMM wrote:
    OK, I can see what you mean about the 3rd parties... but we must be realistic, people are afraid of change and therefore they will vote with what they know, while alot of us here would vote 3rd party I'm sure, but our numbers our limited. The Patriot Act is NOT good by any means but Condi is a hell of a lot better than some of our options at this point. We are going to have big problems for a while no matter who gets in office. The PA will be the least of our problems if Hilary gets in.



    -Klemmt-
    Amen. It always comes down to the lesser of two (or three) evils for me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    OK, I can see what you mean about the 3rd parties... but we must be realistic, people are afraid of change and therefore they will vote with what they know, while alot of us here would vote 3rd party I'm sure, but our numbers our limited. The Patriot Act is NOT good by any means but Condi is a hell of a lot better than some of our options at this point. We are going to have big problems for a while no matter who gets in office. The PA will be the least of our problems if Hilary gets in.
    Essentially, you won't vote third party because you know they won't win. How would you expect any party other than Democrat or Republican to gain any following otherwise? If you vote for what you actually support, be that Dem/Rep or third party, then our government might stand a chance of functioning properly. If you can convince just one other person that they should take a look at the alternatives to voting Democrat or Republican, and they do so, you just started an exponential increase in following for third parties.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    mitchd wrote:
    Essentially, you won't vote third party because you know they won't win. How would you expect any party other than Democrat or Republican to gain any following otherwise? If you vote for what you actually support, be that Dem/Rep or third party, then our government might stand a chance of functioning properly. If you can convince just one other person that they should take a look at the alternatives to voting Democrat or Republican, and they do so, you just started an exponential increase in following for third parties.

    While you've got a point, it is incumbant upon the party seeking my vote to convince me that it's worth my while to vote for them. If they cannot sell themselves as having a shot at winning, then they cannot expect support from more than a handful of hardcore supporters. This isn't fair, especially in this world of 2-party rigging, but it's law of the jungle in politics.

    That said, I sometimes vote for Libertarians, because despite the fact that they have no shot I simply cannot stomach voting for either of the two major party candidates. Bush (2004)vs. Kerry for example. No way could I go to my maker and explain my helping one of those two bozos trample on freedom.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Bush (2004)vs. Kerry for example. No way could I go to my maker and explain my helping one of those two bozos trample on freedom.
    OMG you voted for Charles Jay and Marilyn Chambers Taylor? :P

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •