General Discussion

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)

58. Not exactly

Reply to socialindependocrat (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 11:49 AM

Mar 2012

Many support politicians who advance gun rights, even if those same politicians support voter suppression, racism, birtherism, anti-choice legislation, union-busting, and so on. And they state in these forums that their only issue is gun rights. Which is their right, but they really don't belong in the Democratic Underground with such attitudes.

As I stated a few times, if a member were to announce, "I'm voting for Santorum because he's anti-choice", that member would be a former member very soon. But "I'm voting for Brewer because the Dem wants to ban 50cal weapons" is just fine. Strange disconnect.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The effects of the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida: [View all] Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 OP

With laws like these Politicalboi Mar 2012 #1

Except that that's not what it means at all. TheWraith Mar 2012 #38

17 states have 'Stand Your Ground' laws. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #45

It's been a month and he hasn't even been detained Doctor_J Mar 2012 #51

You might be right if "justified" entered into the equation at all Major Nikon Mar 2012 #72

If Zimmerman grabbed him, tried to detain him, or started the altercation, then it doesn't apply.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #74

Only one version of the story gets told Major Nikon Mar 2012 #75

As is always the case. Hence witness statements, 911 calls, forensics.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #76

I certainly hope all that stuff makes a difference. Major Nikon Mar 2012 #77

Even if there was a 'duty to retreat', he (or his cop buddies) would have changed the story.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #78

There should be some boundaries in the law... socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #2

Correct me if I a wrong, but the law was supposedly intended HockeyMom Mar 2012 #3

You are totally correct - you can't shoot someone in the back socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #5

yes, you CAN shoot someone in the back. provis99 Mar 2012 #42

Sounds like it would be hard to proove socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #49

No, it would go to trial, and a jury would say that the fear was unreasonable. X_Digger Mar 2012 #52

You obviously did not read the Florida law provis99 Mar 2012 #71

I actually have them handy.. shall I quote them? X_Digger Mar 2012 #73

Actually, duty to retreat wasn't forgotten, it was specifically removed. X_Digger Mar 2012 #10

Especially if that violent attacker is safeinOhio Mar 2012 #31

If a reasonable person would fear grievous bodily harm, it doesn't matter. X_Digger Mar 2012 #39

It's not easy being a (wannabe) police officer. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #41

And a can of iced tea... ellisonz Mar 2012 #47

Duty to Retreat does not negate protecting yourself! Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #46

Hell, you got a whole forum here full of pretend-liberals who routinely pimp for these kinds of laws apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #4

+1 xchrom Mar 2012 #6

Care to share some examples of what you mean? socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #7

There are plenty of examples over on the supposed "Right to Keep and Carry Arms" forum on DU. Hoyt Mar 2012 #11

That pesky Bill of Rights, Huh? OPOS Mar 2012 #13

Toting weaponry around in public spoiling for a shootout has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights" apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #14

And where do you see me agreeing that is good? OPOS Mar 2012 #25

Puhleeze - you're in this thread pimping for the right-wing point of view on guns. Your credibility apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #28

4/9ths of Supreme Court disagrees. And 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect Zimmerman. Hoyt Mar 2012 #15

I remember how in the Gungeon pre-Heller there was nothing but open contempt for the only applicable apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #18

Shooting people in the back of the head is not covered by the Bill of Rights Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #43

Not in Florida... Bandit Mar 2012 #57

Here you go Doctor_J Mar 2012 #50

We are Democrats who support gun rights - that's all socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #54

Not exactly Doctor_J Mar 2012 #58

Yes, it does seem like a disconnect... socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #61

No you are not. Democrats, that is. I have no doubt you support "gun rights" though. Which is to say apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #68

I've tried to reason with you but you want to argue socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #69

Yup. Hoyt Mar 2012 #8

Since when is this Liberal Underground? OPOS Mar 2012 #17

Since about forever. You really should take your phony act someplace else; few buy it. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #20

My phony act? OPOS Mar 2012 #23

My "position" is you're not fooling anyone. And you well know it. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #27

My Position is I am not trying to fool anyone, but you are labeling me OPOS Mar 2012 #32

Blah, blah, blah - cry me a river. You're still not fooling anyone. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #34

I support OPOS socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #60

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #66

ad Hominem insults safeinOhio Mar 2012 #36

We have a term for conservative democrats Hugabear Mar 2012 #21

So, DU does not accept DINOs socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #62

I read the rules and I am wrong socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #64

Can't you even be bothered to read the "about" page on DU? This is not a place for "conservatives" apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #22

And you ASSume I'm conservative because I own a firearm? OPOS Mar 2012 #24

Oh, lookey here: "OPOS" thinks he's just the cleverest little thing cuz he snuck the word "ASS" into apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #26

No Problem keeping track, what with you analysing every syllable I post. OPOS Mar 2012 #35

No, the issue was DU, not the Democratic party. You're the one that said DU welcomed conservatives apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #37

We are Democrats who support gun rights - that's all socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #55

No, you are not. That is quite clear, and not one of you is fooling anyone. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #65

Then report me to DU and let's have them decide socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #70

Now that I've read this I see I am wrong socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #63

+2 ellisonz Mar 2012 #48

-1 Elric Mar 2012 #79

Too bad nobody could have foreseen this gratuitous Mar 2012 #9

This case doesnt apply to stand your ground OPOS Mar 2012 #12

Lots of folks in Texas are ready to shoot an unarmed teenager running away after rummaging for food Hoyt Mar 2012 #16

The law has been interpreted very broadly. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #19

Maybe not, but the police chief of Sanford, Florida seems to think that it applies here. yardwork Mar 2012 #29

What I don't understand about guys like you, and this goes for your chums in the Gungeon, is why, apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #30

What I dont understand, is the Vitriol your spewing for no reason. OPOS Mar 2012 #40

You're still not fooling anybody, sport. Peddle it to someone who cares. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #67

Hahaha -- you said "chums" Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #44

Haven't seen the post where Skinner appointed you the Elric Mar 2012 #80

So you want to abolish Juries? Riftaxe Mar 2012 #33

Should SYG exonerate George Zimmerman? Hopefully not. Will he use it a defense? Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2012 #53

And it will fail, thanks to Section 776.041 X_Digger Mar 2012 #56

Defense against what? He hasn't even been arrested yet, much less charged Doctor_J Mar 2012 #59