Riddle me this NRA...

[Kelvin Mace]

I am sitting peacefully in the Waffle Shack, enjoying my morning coffee with my Spam Waffle ala Crisco Supreme™. I feel safe and secure, with .50 caliber firearm the size of a toaster holstered under my jacket, legally, since I have a concealed weapons permit. Also informing my sense of safety and well being, are my states "Stand Your Ground" laws which says that if anyone makes me feel my life is threatened, I may shoot that person deader than the Bill of Rights since the Patriot Act.

Coming in the door is a "suspicious" looking fellow carrying .50 caliber sniper rifle, which is his "god given" right under my states "open carry" law. I think he is here to rob the place, and draw my .50 Proctor Silex Automatic. The guy with the Corpse Maker 50 sees me and also decides I am about to rob the place..

We both fear for our lives.

His shot goes a bit wide blowing a hole the size of a basketball in the waitress, the waffle boy, and the toddler in a car seat, in a car, in the McDonalds a block away. Taking my time to take better aim, I cause the other Patriotic Gunamerican's head to do a reenactment of Scanners, but also manage to do an encore performance with the head of the policeman just getting out of his cruiser with visions of Deep Fried Cheese Cake Waffles™ dancing in his head, which are interrupted by the arrival of a small piece of lead at around 1400 feet per second.

Now, for some reason, people are upset. The police arrest me and want to charge me with murdering people. The families of waitresses, waffle boys and toddlers what to sue the estate of the guy with the rifle and want me charged with some form of murder.

We were both right. We were both obeying the law and I demand the NRA come in and protect all our rights against these people who wish to snatch our guns and imprison me for defending myself.

What do you do, NRA? What do you do?

[SummerSnow]

1. NRA's response...

"YOU both were exercising your 2nd Amendments rights. All is FAIR in love and war."

[dickthegrouch]

2. In war, combatants MUST wear uniforms

If the NRA wants to invoke war, they MUST wear a uniform, the Geneva Convention says so.

[IronLionZion]

4. NRA types always care what multinational foreign governments have agreed to.

because you know how much they always follow international laws, always. Ask them how they feel about the UN while you're schooling them on the Geneva convention.

These assholes think of themselves as patriotic revolutionary rebels resisting tyranny through guerrilla tactics.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. So, my question to those people

who believe they a protecting us from a "tyrannical government", where have they been for the last decade plus?

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th Amendments are null and void, as is the Great Writ. It seems that while they were masturbating cleaning all their guns, the police state stepped right in and took over.

If I am going to live in a police state (and I do), I would prefer one with a lot less guns.

[IronLionZion]

13. Speaking of police states

VICE had a very interesting episode highlighting the situation in Camden, NJ, where there are cameras and other surveillance equipment everywhere and people get arrested for being on the street without a good reason. I haven't seen any of the Bundy ranch folks load up the pickup truck with AR-15s and defend those Americans' essential constitutional liberties.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. They seem REALLY "gung ho"

about playing "patriot", unless the other side has guns as well. Then you don't hear a peep out of them.

[dickthegrouch]

44. You're missing the point

If the gun-toting asshole is not wearing a uniform, he can be deprived of his liberty as a spy.

Giving the gun-toting assholes a downside to their stupidity is the point here, not getting them to comply with another ridiculous (in their eyes) rule/law.

Getting the gun-toting assholes off the streets and into safe custody is my goal in trying to propagate this uniform meme.

[IronLionZion]

52. The mere thought that they may be deprived of their liberty for any reason

will have them running to the nearest gun show to buy more. That's how they think.

[IronLionZion]

3. If only the waitress and waffle boy and toddler had guns

you know the NRA's response will always be more guns. Congress must immediately appropriate the funds to station an armed guard at every waffle shack in America, and cut taxes and cut funding for social programs to pay for it of course.

The cop should know better than to attempt to go to a place serving Deep Fried Cheese Cake Waffles™ without guns blazing. The people buying that are probably not thinking sensibly.

[NM_Birder]

5. You assumed "he was there to rob the place"

welcome to involuntary manslaughter ..best case..... Murder 2 most likely.
next time, don't implicate yourself so early, at least give your defense attorney a chance to build a case.
Stand your ground is not " I'm allowed to kill anybody", I know you think it is,....but it isn't.
The NRA isn't going to send you stamps in prison, so ....what do you do ?

But I give you full marks for your creative writing.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Stand your ground is not " I'm allowed to kill anybody"

Gee, the law pretty much says I can, as long as I honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

Actually, it says PRECISELY that.

Here is the SYG law in Michigan

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

I am eating my waffle and drinking my coffee, dillgently NOT COMMITTING A CRIME. My possession of a firearm is quite legal, as is the weapon of the guy walking in.

We BOTH "honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual."

The language of the law is plain. Now the pinkos-Al Qaeda lovers at the police are going to argue about the word" "reasonably" in the law, but that is where I expect the NRA to fight to the death (someone's else's, of course).

Also, we are both white, all the dead bystanders were Black, and we are both FBI agents.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. Add to your scenario, the idiot, I mean Patriot, with the rifle has it in a ready position....

.... on his chest with his hand on the pistol grip and his finger on the trigger guard.

That's one of things that bugs me the most is how these open carry assholes are walking around in restaurants like they are ready to level the weapon and fire. As opposed to slung over the shoulder in back.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Well, to me,

that constitutes "brandishing a firearm" which used to be illegal.

Also, it constitutes a clear and compelling threat to my life and well being.

This scenario is lurking in the future.

[Lurks Often]

14. Not quite, a jury has to agree with your belief that you felt you were

"honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual."

If they don't agree, off you go to prison for whatever crime and penalty the DA and the judge decide is appropriate.

Based on your ridiculous premise, probably manslaughter for both of you, since both of you are legally responsible for your misses.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Jury verdicts are overturned all the time

That is *if* they convict.

Again, the question is not what the jury will do, the question is what will the NRA do? The NRA talks a lot about "responsible gun owners" but they never seem to want gun owners punished for anything, regardless of how irresponsibly they act.

Also, as I stated, we are FBI agents and ALL FBI shootings are deemed justified. So, the NRA must now protect "responsible gun owners" from any liability from the"legal" use of a firearm.

But, I can simplify the scenario if you wish. Only one person died. The guy with the CorpseMaker 50™. I killed him.

How can anyone claim I could not have "honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to myself or to another individual."? The guy walked into a restaurant brandishing a sniper rifle capable of killing a Mac truck. What am I supposed to do, wait until he actually shoots me or someone else before firing? Kind of late then. I am a "good guy with a gun" I have obligations to the 2nd Amendment.

Split second decisions must be made. Tic-Toc. Operators are standing by.

[Lurks Often]

17. Your entire premise is absurd

and you know it. You can play with the words all you want, but in the end the jury will decide if your actions are legal.

Bye now

[Kelvin Mace]

18. The facts are:

Since 1993 FBI agents shot 289 people, yet each shooting was deemed legally justified, requiring no actual discipline of any agent beyond a letter of censure. or two.

The odds of the FBI being justified 289 in 21 years is pretty astronomical, in fact, to use your word, "absurd".

Race plays a MAJOR roll in whether a person will be allowed to kill someone under a SYG statute without penalty.

The scenario I described is hardly "absurd".

Good day, sir.

[NM_Birder]

63. your senario is not "absurd"

it's opinion.

"The odds of the FBI being justified 289 in 21 years is pretty astronomical, in fact, to use your word, "absurd".
Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it incorrect.

"The facts are" cannot include quips like " the odds of", it day-lighted your ignorance in understanding the law.

I knew I was right, this is a creative writing, gun hater scenario,... with the goal of a "race is the reason" money shot.

[Hoyt]

27. Actually, you only have to convince one yahoo.

[hack89]

58. What was the law before 2006?

Michigan had a self defense law prior to 2006. I bet you will find that the reasonable fear part is not new.

[NM_Birder]

62. "Gee" ...I'm always in awe of that, both argumentative, and childish at the same time.

especially when followed up with "pretty much", proving you can't even convince yourself of what you say, but hope to brow beat people into agreeing with you. ....swing and a miss.

On a website yeah you are among sympathetic and the like minded and opinion counts as evidence.

In a courtroom, you wouldn't even be practice for even the most green prosecutor. You do have to "prove" you thought your life was in danger in order to Unleash your "corpse maker".

Just to avoid what I think is your baited hook,...... Zimmerman unjustifiably killed Martin. -and- If the prosecution had focused on THAT, instead of trying to prove he was a WHITE bigoted, black kid hating sort of hispanic ..... hunting innocent black kinds with tea and skittles, Zimmerman would be in jail for 25 minimum. Florida has an extremely unforgiving penalty for committing a crime with a firearm. Prosecution went for the media thriller, and a social injustice movie script, instead of the fact that Zimmerman unjustifiable killed him. I assume this is where you wanted to go with your "both white all the dead bystanders are black" thing.

[liberal N proud]

6. The NRA considers these peoples loss as a small price to pay for the gun nuts to carry and shoot

[underpants]

7. NRA Science Department response

You clearly aren't aware of the fact that atoms must contain both a positive and negative charge. This highly hypothetical scenario contains two positive charges (good guys) which makes it a scientific impossibility.

Also in this scenario the Corpse Maker 50 could accomplish what you describe because it is a BAD ASS WEAPON. If you knew more about guns you would know that but you probably don't even if you got lucky and mentioned it in your strange death fantasy example.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Hey!

Sounds like you are talking smack about my Proctor Silex 50 AutMag. I am starting to "honestly and reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to myself or to another individual." I mean you complimented his gun and not mine, so I feel inadequate and threatened.

[underpants]

15. NRA Science Department response

Oh no no no don't get us wrong their fine patriot the .50 Proctor Silex Automatic is an excellent weapon. Now if you would like the 2nd Amendment to thrive and pulse and inject its freedom into the American people (as manly men like you would appreciate) please visit our website and DONATE to keep our patriotic efforts throbbing.

[napkinz]

8. Jon Stewart ...

[jmowreader]

21. The NRA's real response

"It is apparent from the sensationalistic liberal media coverage of this tragedy that there simply weren't enough guns at the Waffle Shack. The only thing that stops a good guy with a gun from shooting a good guy with a gun who the first good guy with a gun thinks is a bad guy with a gun, is to arm everyone. If all the good guys at that Waffle Shack would have had guns, when the good guys with guns turned into bad guys with guns, the real good guys with guns could have used Second Amendment Remedies to stop the bad guys with guns."

'So, Mr. LaPierre...you're saying a firefight should have broken out in the restaurant for no reason at all?'

[Kelvin Mace]

22. I stand in awe...

[riderinthestorm]

23. Oh this needs a big fat kick!

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Yeah, not getting much love

and only a single NRA apologist.

[randys1]

26. Wait just a minute, you asked what should the NRA do, I will tell you.

the NRA should recommend the installation of drones equipped with automatic weapons and sensors able to read your intentions, kind of like RoboCop...

Now, granted, with such a device everyone in the restaurant will end up dead due to the massive firepower unleashed by the drone, but the bad guy will be dead so it will be all worth it.



___________________________________________________________________________________



Wait, oops, there wasnt really a bad guy there in the first place, right? Sure, the two guys carrying guns are really dumb, but not necessarily bad.

Oh well...Better safe than sorry...Good news is the drone is programmed not to harm unarmed waffle makers, so future waffle enjoyment wont be infringed upon.

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Well, the Freedom Drone

wouldn't harm the bystanders intentionally, but collateral damage is just the price ya pay for "liberty".

[ManiacJoe]

25. This is the kind of comedic writing that DU needs more of!

However, it would be more on topic for the Lounge.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Everybody who goes out in public

around people carrying weapons, openly or concealed, in states the SYG laws, face this potential situation.

One reason I do not carry a firearm is because I view anyone holding a gun in a restaurant as a threat. But then, that is how I was trained.

[ManiacJoe]

55. Potential situation, yes. Playout, no.

Your post suggests military training, which is often poor for civilian circumstances. That is easily fixed with updated civilian training.

The problem in the scenario as presented is that the handgunner's fear of the rifle carrier was not reasonable (ability, opportunity, jeopardy), and everything goes downhill from there snowballing from the inappropriate of force.

[Kelvin Mace]

60. A yahoo

walking around with a rifle and his finger on the trigger in a public place is a danger to himself and everyone around him.

I have enough training with a firearm to know that I do not want them around me and do not want to own one.

The reward-to-loss ratio is way too lopsided.

But what the hell, guns for everyone! And armed society is a polite society.

I mean, just look at how safe, clean and polite Somalia is.

[ManiacJoe]

66. Had that been the scenario, you might have be right.

However, that was not the fantasy as originally described.

[shenmue]

28. Sell more guns!

That's their answer to everything.

[aikoaiko]

29. So clever...

Merely carrying a firearm either holstered or slung is not enough to invoke a threatening situation.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Uh, I see photos all over the place of people

carrying firearms out of holsters and unslung. One person's "open carry" is another person's "brandishing". What matters, under the law, is what I and the other guy "honestly and reasonably" believe.

[aikoaiko]

39. And yet these shoutout don't happen except in the minds of anti gunners

I suppose someday you'll get your wish.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. It is not my "wish"

I leave the "wishing" for gun fetishists.

[Lee-Lee]

42. Luckily most gun owners and CCWers have better judgement than you

As evidenced by the fact that they haven't shot people in situations where you claim you would.

In fact I was carrying concealed a while ago and saw somebody come in with a holstered pistol. Didn't see if he had a badge clipped on his belt on the other side, didn't matter too much to me.

No shootout, no crime, nobody was affected at all. I finished my purchase and left, he went about his business.

It's a good thing many people who lack the maturity and judgement to carry don't. Your claims in what constitutes a threat wouldn't fly in the real world, period.

Of course if you expressed your opinion on what you say is a threat in one of my CCW classes when we went over scenarios and were steadfast in it I would remove you from the class and notify the sheriffs office in your county of your statements in case you tried to get a permit later.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. Again

a gun in a holster is NOT the same thing as a gun drawn and brandished. My scenario was VERY specific and is going to happen given the current atmosphere of fear being drummed up by the NRA and its ilk.

[riderinthestorm]

37. Au contraire. Man's pistol goes off in the checkout line at Walmart

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025120574

Seems reasonable to assume that most gun owners ARE a threat to those around them at this point...

[aikoaiko]

40. Not sure what that scenario has to do with OP or my reply

[Llewlladdwr]

30. This thread has made me realize...

Gun control advocates seem to spend a *lot* more time fantasizing about committing gun violence than any gun owner I know.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Yeah, but we never commit the violence

I have yet to pick up the newspaper and read about a "gun control advocate" in an armed standoff with police, or going on a shooting rampage.

Funny that.

How many people died in my "fantasy"? Five. I can't touch the reality of the slaughter happening weekly in this country thanks to unfettered access to firearms.

You are pondering a fantasy, I am pondering reality.

[aikoaiko]

41. Maybe not with guns

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Right, since we are discussion gun laws

that is kind of the point.

According to the CDC, of the 16,259 murders reported in 2010, 11,078 were killed using firearms. FBI stats show fairly consistently that 2/3 of murders are committed with firearms.

[beevul]

45. Barbara Lipscomb comes to mind.

And Chris Dorner the cop who shot those people in CA...

He was all about strict gun laws, and made it very clear in his manifesto.


I guess "never" means something different to you than to the rest of us.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. You are correct

I should not have used the word "never". I should have said "practically never".

Lipscomb killed ONE person, she did not go on a shooting spree.

[beevul]

56. Yes, but shes a special case, she was Million Mom March organizer.

Yes, but shes a special case, she was Million Mom March organizer.

And Dorner was an assault weapon ban proponent, as well as a strict gun control proponent.

This is a two way street.

And then there is Leland Yee.

Yeah, he didn't actually commit gun violence, but if we hold him to the same standards, and judge him on similar criteria as you pro-lots-more-control folks apply to the nra, then consider he was actually dealing with a true and real criminal element rather than average joe law abiding gun owner...

Or does that apply only in one direction too?

[Kelvin Mace]

59. Again, make a list of "left wing anti-gun advocates who commit murder with a firearm"

Now make a list of pro-gun advocates who commit murder.

Compare lists.

It ain't even close.

[beevul]

65. Who said that?

"left wing anti-gun advocates who commit murder with a firearm"

Who said that?

Those aren't my words. They're yours.

See, I don't particularly care whether those who are anti-gun are right left or middle.

I really don't.


Besides that, it really doesn't matter.


You said "never" then walked that back to "practically never" and now you want to play left vs right games.

Nope. Not having any.

[hack89]

31. Write to you in prison?

After you are convicted of manslaughter. Since you have plenty of time on your hands, maybe they will send you the reams of case law on self defense so you can educate yourself.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. As I pointed out in another post

This is the law in Michigan for example:

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

Pretty cut and dried. Folks might argue about "reasonably" but a good defense lawyer can run circles around that. A guy walked into a restaurant openly carrying a sniper rifle, so he is up to no good. From the other guy's perspective, he is walking into a restaurant and sees a guy drawing a weapon from his jacket, so he is up to no good.

Both parties "honestly and reasonably" believe.

We live in a country where the populace is willing to stand by and see little children slaughtered, so I really don't see them getting upset over 5 people dead at the local Waffle Shack.

[hack89]

43. Except courts have been adjudicating "reasonable"

For centuries. We are not starting all over again with SYG. SYG has been around for a long time.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. Yes, but the rules changed

Please do not try to claim they haven't. It used to apply to people breaking into your house. You now may hunt someone down, provoke a confrontation and legally murder them. See Trayvon Martin.

[hack89]

61. Nonsense

just like in the past you have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable fear for your life. People have been defending themselves in public for centuries - there are legal standards of reasonable fear that have not changed with SYG laws.

Zimmerman was not a SYG case - he never invoked the SYG law. He was acquitted because there were no eye witnesses to the shooting plus prosecution witnesses supported Zimmerman's story.

[sir pball]

64. Here's New York's relevant statues - please note we are NOT an "SYG" state.

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.15_35.15.html

The bar for using force is exactly the same as in Michigan, or for that matter, any other jurisdiction where forcible self-defense is legal. Yes, there is a codified "duty to retreat", but in my first CCW class many moons ago in CT, which also has DTR on the books, we were explicitly told, in the event of facing an armed assailant at least, to not give it the slightest thought. There is no such thing as retreating in "complete safety" from bullets. Bluntly, your theoretical scenario would be just as legal in a non-SYG state.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider acceptable legal guidelines for the use of lethal force, given that the reference above is one of the stricter sets in the country?

[napkinz]

32. toon ...

[SwankyXomb]

53. MOAR GUNZ!

That's the NRA response to any shooting. You could save them some money by training a parrot to say "MOAR GUNZ!" Then they could fire LaPierre and use his salary to buy off more elected officials.

[dilby]

54. Thankfully you don't own a firearm.