HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Could the Tulsa shooters ...

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:30 PM

Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law?

If they claim they felt threatened by their victims???

http://elsiepeaforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=18735.0

<snip>

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

<more>

135 replies, 17391 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 135 replies Author Time Post
Reply Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law? (Original post)
jpak Apr 2012 OP
gejohnston Apr 2012 #1
jpak Apr 2012 #2
gejohnston Apr 2012 #3
jpak Apr 2012 #5
gejohnston Apr 2012 #8
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #15
gejohnston Apr 2012 #26
Riftaxe Apr 2012 #14
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #17
rl6214 Apr 2012 #29
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #32
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #36
Hoyt Apr 2012 #67
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #125
gejohnston Apr 2012 #54
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #119
spin Apr 2012 #25
one-eyed fat man Apr 2012 #110
teddy51 Apr 2012 #12
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #118
gejohnston Apr 2012 #120
rrneck Apr 2012 #4
provis99 Apr 2012 #6
rrneck Apr 2012 #9
Straw Man Apr 2012 #81
petronius Apr 2012 #7
CokeMachine Apr 2012 #10
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #18
Straw Man Apr 2012 #23
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #24
Straw Man Apr 2012 #79
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #124
Straw Man Apr 2012 #127
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #130
Straw Man Apr 2012 #134
jpak Apr 2012 #19
rl6214 Apr 2012 #31
Glassunion Apr 2012 #38
rl6214 Apr 2012 #30
ileus Apr 2012 #11
PavePusher Apr 2012 #13
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #16
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #39
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #52
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #53
Hoyt Apr 2012 #69
Straw Man Apr 2012 #99
Hoyt Apr 2012 #109
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #111
Hoyt Apr 2012 #113
Straw Man Apr 2012 #112
jpak Apr 2012 #21
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Apr 2012 #129
aikoaiko Apr 2012 #20
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #22
krispos42 Apr 2012 #27
rl6214 Apr 2012 #28
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #33
rl6214 Apr 2012 #34
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #41
rl6214 Apr 2012 #78
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #90
rl6214 Apr 2012 #115
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #116
rl6214 Apr 2012 #132
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #135
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #42
gejohnston Apr 2012 #43
iverglas Apr 2012 #45
gejohnston Apr 2012 #50
iverglas Apr 2012 #55
gejohnston Apr 2012 #56
ellisonz Apr 2012 #46
gejohnston Apr 2012 #49
DanTex Apr 2012 #47
gejohnston Apr 2012 #48
DanTex Apr 2012 #59
gejohnston Apr 2012 #60
DanTex Apr 2012 #62
gejohnston Apr 2012 #65
DanTex Apr 2012 #68
gejohnston Apr 2012 #74
DanTex Apr 2012 #75
gejohnston Apr 2012 #77
DanTex Apr 2012 #82
DanTex Apr 2012 #76
gejohnston Apr 2012 #80
DanTex Apr 2012 #84
gejohnston Apr 2012 #85
DanTex Apr 2012 #89
gejohnston Apr 2012 #92
DanTex Apr 2012 #87
gejohnston Apr 2012 #91
DanTex Apr 2012 #93
gejohnston Apr 2012 #94
DanTex Apr 2012 #95
gejohnston Apr 2012 #96
DanTex Apr 2012 #97
gejohnston Apr 2012 #100
DanTex Apr 2012 #101
gejohnston Apr 2012 #103
DanTex Apr 2012 #104
gejohnston Apr 2012 #106
Straw Man Apr 2012 #117
Straw Man Apr 2012 #98
DanTex Apr 2012 #102
gejohnston Apr 2012 #105
Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #123
Straw Man Apr 2012 #114
DanTex Apr 2012 #121
Straw Man Apr 2012 #126
DanTex Apr 2012 #128
Straw Man Apr 2012 #131
Simo 1939_1940 Apr 2012 #122
rl6214 Apr 2012 #83
hack89 Apr 2012 #133
Hoyt Apr 2012 #70
gejohnston Apr 2012 #71
Hoyt Apr 2012 #72
gejohnston Apr 2012 #73
rl6214 Apr 2012 #86
ileus Apr 2012 #51
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #64
gejohnston Apr 2012 #57
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #63
gejohnston Apr 2012 #66
gejohnston Apr 2012 #61
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #107
Callisto32 Apr 2012 #35
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #44
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2012 #37
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #58
slackmaster Apr 2012 #88
OneTenthofOnePercent Apr 2012 #108

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:35 PM

1. Castle Doctrine is inside the home

I am guessing this is not the case. So, I'm saying no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:36 PM

2. Nope - includes cars in OK

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or place of business;

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:40 PM

3. It would apply if

the dead guys tried to car jack the car. Since the shooter fled the scene instead of calling the cops, I doubt it.
Are you asking for a reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:42 PM

5. It's their word against the black vicitims

In FL, it allowed Zimmerman hunt his victim down - and walk.

In TX, it allowed Joe Horn to gun Latinos down in his neighbors yard - and walk.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:56 PM

8. that is not how it works

the police investigation will show evidence, it is not "he said, he said". We really don't know the truth about Zimmerman, only conventional wisdom. He is not "walking". Since we know NBC edited one of the 911 calls, what else are we missing?
The only thing about Zimmerman that would have anything to do with the castle doctrine, is if something happened to one of the lynch mobs that Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr sent.
Guilty or not Zimmerman is going to prison. This still has noting to do with Castle Doctrine.

OK's law has nothing to do with Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:02 PM

15. LOL

You write 'Guilty or not Zimmerman is going to prison. This still has noting to do with Castle Doctrine.'

How exactly does that work......you're not guilty and you go to jail?

This has nothing to do with logic.

By the way...is fraud a crime? LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 10:26 PM

26. Zimmerman has nothing to do with the castle doctrine

because SYG has nothing to do with the castle doctrine. Does not change the fact that he is not going to get a fair trial.

Only if it is in the legal sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 06:22 PM

14. But where would you find 12 people with

as peculiar an interpretation of castle doctrine as yours that would agree.

It seems highly unlikely that reasonable people could retain that level of ignorance after having the law explained to them, if they took their role as jurors seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riftaxe (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:09 PM

17. Uhmmmmm

....you do realize it only takes one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:01 AM

29. Uhmmmmmmm, no, it takes 12 to convict, not one.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:18 AM

32. I think that's his point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:01 AM

36. Exactly




.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:15 PM

67. And the pro-gun crowd just smiles, knowing that one of their own will likely not be convicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #29)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

125. Uhmmmmmmmmm

....and only one not too. Get it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:54 PM

54. one for a mistrial

all 12 to acquit or convict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riftaxe (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:49 PM

119. Here is part of that law that has nothing to do with your CASTLE

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 10:14 PM

25. In Florida the investigation of the Martin shooting is continuing...

mainly because of the attention the incident received. It does appear that the initial investigation was at the best, flawed. Some reports do say that the local investigator at the scene wanted to charge Zimmerman but was overruled.

Some experts on the law have stated that Zimmerman would not qualify for a stand your ground defense. The law was not written to allow a person to chase and confront another person, refuse to back off from the encounter and to then shoot him if the other person grew angry enough to fight or stood his own ground. The concept was to remove the duty to retreat when a person was attacked or just about to be attacked by another individual who had the intention and the capacity to inflict serious injury or death. Retreating in such a situation is often a viable tactic but may be foolish in others.

A person should always have the right to defend himself against a truly serious attack that he had no role in causing. However if he started the confrontation or argument, he also has an obligation to back off if the encounter threatens to turn violent. Obviously it is smart for a person who legally carries a concealed weapon to be calm and polite. It is a very poor idea to be aggressive, to be a cop wannabe or to play the role of a vigilante when you are "packing heat".

All the details on the Martin shooting are not in. It's fun but foolish to speculate on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence at this time. Therefore I may be a fool but in my opinion if Zimmerman left his vehicle after receiving instructions from a dispatcher to not follow Martin and instead chased and confronted him, any claim of self defense should be rejected. If that is exactly what happened, his actions were responsible for the tragedy and he should be arrested and have his day in court.

The concept of the law is valid but the wording has obviously caused confusion and created ambiguities that might allow a person who murdered another individual to walk especially if there were no witnesses. Of course under the old law the exact same thing could and did happen. All the murderer had to say was, "I did retreat and he continued his attack." If the evidence failed to prove his statement to be a lie, the murderer could escape justice.

I do expect the wording of the "Stand Your Ground" law will be rewritten so as to better clarify those incidents in which such a defense is applicable. I also expect that Zimmerman will be arrested and prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:40 AM

110. You are wrong on both counts.

In Florida, the grand jury has not yet had its say, so Zimmerman has not walked. He just hasn't been strung up on the nearest tree like you and Spike Lee want.

In Texas, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop a felony. The "Castle Law" had nothing to do with it except in your mind. They were breaking into a neighbor's house. All the 911 tapes, all the evidence collected by the police were presented to a Texas grand jury and they returned a a "no bill."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:10 PM

12. Yep and I wasn't even aware that my State had it!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:46 PM

118. Did you read the whole thing? Like section D

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Sounds like the same crap as in Fla's SYG law. Take the word of the shooter over that of the dead guy. Sheer madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #118)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 06:36 PM

120. no, just puts the

burden of proof on the State, where it belongs. The old law, to use your term, took the word of the dead skin head with long violent felony record over the gay person minding thier own business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:41 PM

4. Is there evidence the tulsa shooters were attacked? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:44 PM

6. there's a lot of evidence they were afeared of the black man.

 

sounds like that's covered under the Stand Your Ground laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:57 PM

9. The statute quoted in the Op

specifies that the defender be attacked I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to provis99 (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:50 PM

81. Wrong.

there's a lot of evidence they were afeared of the black man.

sounds like that's covered under the Stand Your Ground laws.

Not even close to reality. Read the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:46 PM

7. This is nonsensical flamebait, and an obvious attempt to disrupt the Gun Control & RKBA Group...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:59 PM

10. Your Sig Line

 

Your sig line describes the OP to a tee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:15 PM

18. And still absolutely NOTHING to dispute his claim.













.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 09:31 PM

23. I'll dispute his claim.

The Oklahoma statute says a person may use deadly force if he or she "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

If someone tells you that "reasonably believes" can be subjectively determined by the whim of the shooter, that person is a fool or a shameless propagandist. The circumstances of the shooting will be examined by some or all of the following: the investigating officers, the DA, a grand jury, a judge, and a trial jury. You don't get to just say "I was scared so I shot him," and walk away. It isn't over for Zimmerman.

At any point in the process, the determination may be made that the shooting was justified or is impossible to successfully prosecute. That is the case even in states with "duty to retreat" laws. Sometimes the "he said/he said" knot is impossible to untie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #23)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 09:39 PM

24. Question

You write : At any point in the process, the determination may be made that the shooting was justified or is impossible to successfully prosecute. That is the case even in states with "duty to retreat" laws. Sometimes the "he said/he said" knot is impossible to untie."

In this case who are the two 'HE's and what exactly was said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:48 PM

79. Who?

In this case who are the two 'HE's and what exactly was said?

Are you talking about the Tulsa case, or Zimmerman? The cases are very different. In any case, I was speaking hypothetically about cases where the actual circumstances of the shooting are difficult or impossible to ascertain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #79)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:44 PM

124. You referenced 'he said, he said'

Who might the two people you referenced as making statements to the police?

How did they do that when one is dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #124)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:01 PM

127. Again, who?

Who might the two people you referenced as making statements to the police?

How did they do that when one is dead?

I already told you that I was speaking hypothetically about all cases where the facts aren't clear.

If you're talking about Zimmerman, there are reports from people in the neighborhood that don't square with what Zimmerman has said.

What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #127)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:34 PM

130. That a Dead Man Can't Speak

There is no 'he said, he said'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #130)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:08 PM

134. There were other witnesses.

Not eyewitnesses, but people who heard the altercation, not to mention the 911 operators and the police who responded to the call. All the available information is pertinent and will be collected.

That doesn't mean that the truth will be conclusively determined.

What is it that you don't understand? I'm think I'm being perfectly clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:27 PM

19. Legitimate question of stupid GOP/NRA/ALEC vigilante laws

Sorry if such questions frighten you.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:06 AM

31. So now you've added ALEC to your shtick

 

Who did you copy that from?

Now you've got an evil trio instead of an evil duo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:03 AM

38. An Axis of Evil® ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:03 AM

30. That's all the OP has

 

but of course you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:05 PM

11. Were they being attacked before the shootings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:39 PM

13. Could jpak claim immunity under ignorance?

 

By posting claims that laws mean something they don't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:04 PM

16. No foundation

No facts.

No statements by legal experts to dispute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:22 AM

39. Actually there are less restriction on the first amendment than the second.

 

No facts are required to abuse the first amendment. No civility. Propaganda and lies are perfectly legal under the first amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:16 PM

52. Not True

You yell 'fire' in a theater and see what happens.
You yell 'you have a bomb' and see what happens.
Lying about a publically traded company's financial health is illegal.

All rights come with responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:29 PM

53. Probably wouldn't be a good idea to yell "fire" in a gun store either.

 

I stand corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:19 PM

69. Especially not with the people I see walking around in gun stores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:49 PM

99. Why do you go to gun stores, Hoyt?

Aren't you afraid that you'll be defiled?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #99)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:15 AM

109. Not afraid of folks who can't leave home without a gun.

I do go to places like Bass Pro Shop. And, I was in an actual gun store set up to cater to gun culture -- after the 2008 elections -- to get some hiking stuff. The number of bozos drooling over assault weapons and such was astounding. I guess they were preparing to take their country back, or to join neighborhood watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:08 AM

111. Ha BASS PRO, that explains everything.

 

We always wondered how you became such a master baiter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #111)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:27 PM

113. Posting to those like Zimmerman who carry routinely will make one like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:05 PM

112. I didn't mean the people.

I meant that you might get some of that slime on you -- you know, the stuff the pollutes society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 08:06 PM

21. Well then, was this an example of a Second Amendment Solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:23 AM

40. Some people should try a 5th amendment solution.

 

The right to free duct tape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:23 PM

129. Nah

And yet all you can do is talk about his ignorance rather than the law......the irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:58 PM

20. No. Feelings have nothing to do with the section you cited?




What the fuck do feelings have to do with anything? Is that what you think "reasonably believes" means? No wonder you're on the anti-rkba side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 09:15 PM

22. No.

There is a strong difference between what you said: "If they claim they felt threatened by their victims???

and what the law says: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The Tulsa shooters weren't attacked, so the SYG law doesn't apply, nor does Castle Doctrine apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 10:38 PM

27. You can't be serious.

Do you read what you write? Do you write the body of the post and have somebody else blindly write the subject line?

Because you can't write the body, then seriously write the subject line. And if you do, then in the interest of public safety you should be prevented from driving a car or owning a gun because you've just proven you can't understand cause-and-effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:58 AM

28. Only you would think such a thing or ask such a question.

 

Well, maybe you and a few other anti-gun zealots here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:30 AM

33. "anti-gun zealots"? I haven't noticed too many, if any.

I think most people are OK with gun ownership, but have problems with carrying in public and permission to murder laws like SYG. Lots of pro-gun zealots like yourself who believe in carrying pretty much wherever to protect some junk you carry around or to nobly stop women from being attacked.
It actually isn't that crazy of a question, in light of recent events. The pendulum may well have swung. Better hunker down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:38 AM

34. But there are a number here that have embraced the term and admit to being anti-gun zealots

 

I guess you weren't looking.

"Lots of pro-gun zealots like yourself who believe in carrying pretty much wherever to protect some junk you carry around or to nobly stop women from being attacked. "

I don't carry to protect some junk I carry around, stuff can be replaced although many cannot even afford the insurance to do so or the deductable if they do have the insurance, I carry to protect my life and that of my family.

"permission to murder laws like SYG"

Not even close to being anywhere accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:26 AM

41. So, you carry to protect your family.

Does that mean they never leave your sight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:47 PM

78. Does your family ever leave your sight?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #78)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:23 PM

90. Yes

and when they don't I've never known an occasion when a gun might have contributed to anyone's safety

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #90)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:27 PM

115. Neither have I but you never know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #115)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:33 PM

116. "you never know" - So true.

Interesting way to run one's life, constantly being prepared for the most unlikely of disastrous occurrences and prepared in such a way as to be just as likely to exacerbate the disaster factor for all concerned and others not concerned. Rock on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #116)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 06:45 PM

132. Well I'm glad we agree on "you never know" but

 

why don't you agree with being prepared, regardless of what the situation might be?

The US government says one should have a three day supply of food and water in case of anything that may come up. I live in far west Texas. We don't have earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, ice storms, tsunamis or any other sort of disasters. Other than hot summers , the occasional dust storm in the spring and the extreme violence across the Mexican border in Juarez, Mexico it's a pretty calm place to live but I still keep food and water in the house for about a week. No extreme prepping, just a weeks worth. Do you think that's wrong to be prepared like that?

"constantly being prepared for the most unlikely of disastrous occurrences and prepared in such a way as to be just as likely to exacerbate the disaster factor for all concerned and others not concerned."

Your opinion, not mine. I was a Boy Scout. In fact my co-workers used to tell me "you're such a Boy Scout". In part because I was always so prepared when going to meetings and in doing my job but also because they said I was almost honest to a fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #132)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 11:46 AM

135. I do believe in being prepared. Very much so.

I wouldn't survive very long if I were not of that mindset. I spend most of my time on the ocean and most nights attached to the planet by an anchor chain. I can think of no other environment where one needs to be more prepared. I always have at least a month's supply of food and keep a fishing pole handy. I make my own water and electricity. I've survived tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, droughts, riots and revolutions. Never seen the slightest need for a gun. It would just get in the way. Too much life going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:45 AM

42. How about naming one or two who embrace the name.

Wanna play the "Zealot Game"? I'll name you 5 pro-gun "zealots" for every "anti". I'll go first - here are 10 pro-gun zealots. Give me 2 antis.

rl6214
Oneshooter
Pave Pusher
Remmah2
Clames
Ileus
X-Digger
GreenStormCloud
pipoman
DonP

You might want to check the definition of "zealot", which is kind of absurd when applied to those who favor gun control.

ZEALOT
Synonyms: crusader, fanatic, ideologue (also idealogue), militant, partisan (also partizan), red hot, true believer
Antonyms: nonmilitant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:23 PM

43. easy

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Hoyt
Jpak
Chorophyll
DanTex
BongBong
Baldguy
ellisonz
mikeb302000
hockeymom

Replaced Iverglas with Chorophyll, but give Iverglas half credit for coining the term "gun militant"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:52 PM

45. oh fer fuck's sake

 

And here just 6 weeks ago I was saying ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002362016

Response to iverglas (Reply #56)
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:23 PM
Star Member Chorophyll

67. Actually, I'm suggesting firearms should be banned.

...


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #67)
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:35 PM
Star Member iverglas

69. well, I'm sure that all the people

who depend to some extent on firearms for their livelihood -- farmers whose crops and livestock are vulnerable to pests and predators, communities where hunting is an important tourist-dollar attraction, people who actually hunt for sustenance -- will take issue with your proposal, as I would. ...


as I've said I couldn't count the times over the last 10 years in this place ...


If one is going to say silly things about other people, shouldn't one let them know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:08 PM

50. I belive I missed that one

OK I'll replace your name with Chorophyll. I'll give you half credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 05:00 PM

55. really

 

I'm sure you missed the dozens of other times I've said the same thing, of course. Whatever. You were making shit up.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=246027

Mon Aug-10-09 06:47 PM

Not all gun owners, even here in Canada, are right-wing scum, or gun militants, or Stephen Harper supporters. Or present any significantly elevated risk to themselves or anyone else. Some have farms with livestock and crops that need protecting, some live in remote areas with problematic wildlife (no more, percentage-wise, here than in the US, but some, and even in non-remote places there can be such problems), some work in the tourism industry and are employed as hunting outfitters and guides and whatnot (and some communities depend on that trade for their economic survival), some are First Nations members engaged in hunting as a way to practise and preserve their traditions and culture (as are some non-Aboriginal people), some people hunt for sustenance or just for recreation (as my mum put it the other day, that's fine: I just wouldn't want to live with one of them; hunting is a legitimate practice, but I have my druthers). And some people engage in sports shooting for recreation (also perfectly legitimate, just no reason to keep handguns, especially, in a home).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126427&mesg_id=126486

Thu Jul-13-06

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms, but I recognize that as an absurd aspiration. I live in a society where people hunt for food, where people raise livestock and grow crops that are threatened by predators and pests, where people make a living taking tourists hunting, where people need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public and in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely. And even where people play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public -- does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them.


Just some random googling. But oh dear, what does it find me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439998&mesg_id=441338

A reply to you dated July 2011, in which I linked to and quoted the very 2009 post quoted at the beginning of this post ...

How ever were you to know?

And in that post, I added:

And yet ... how many times have I been called a "bigot" in this place?

I'll distance myself from anybody who actually does propose "ban all guns", if there's some possibility the person is not just a gun militant troll. Ordinarily, I'll assume they're a person who doesn't have much of a clue.

I was looking to see whether anybody here wanted to distance themself from old lawodevolution ... by telling us how one could distinguish between him and them ...


I guess "zealot" is different from "bigot" ...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 05:22 PM

56. zealot is different than bigot

but it was a list off the top of my head who would seem to fit my definition of zealot based on recent posts I remember. I did not do a detailed search going back five to six years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:00 PM

46. I'm not a zealot.

I think it's just a weak attempt at labeling that is occurring primarily because the gun nut crowd has gone so far off the deep end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:06 PM

49. how does he ST define "pro gun zealot"?

no one is forcing anyone to own a gun. Besides, he asked for a list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:59 PM

47. What ellisonz said.

The gungeon is easily the most right-wing corner of DU, a place where Democrats are routinely demonized and Republicans are routinely praised as saviors of "liberty", where FOX News and the Washington Times are considered reliable sources, while Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell (and most every other prominent liberal voice) are dismissed as "biased". Where professional global warming deniers are hailed as truth-tellers, and the loony ramblings of right-wing gun bloggers are given more credibility than scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.

I would guess that most of the pro-control people on this forum have views that are actually more gun-friendly than the average DUer. Most DUers don't even bother to come in here because of all the trolling and the right-wing propaganda. And I don't really blame them.

But those of us that do post here from time to time, we understand that we're taking a dip in the crazy pool. Being labelled an "anti-gun zealot" by the NRA crowd is a bit like being called a communist by the Ayn Rand nuts. As ellisonz pointed out, it's all relative -- once as we step out of DU Guns and back into the reality-based community, the term for someone who supports reasonable restrictions on gun ownership is "a sane human being".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:05 PM

48. you stay on the list

this rant is over the top.
Besides, Rachel's "plastic gun" and "cop killer bullets" rant was demonstrably false. Her ideology does not change that.
Besides, she is a closet gunner, she rents guns at a Manhattan range.
I have not seen O'Donnell's rants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 05:47 PM

59. I'm also a "closet gunner". Go figure.

Like I said in my last post, the pro-gun-control people here are probably more gun-friendly than the average DUer. Iverglas is another example of someone that you called an "anti-gun zealot", but whose views are also fairly gun-friendly as far as rational progressives go. And so on down the list. It is the pro-gunners here who are way off the chart, which is why, as I have pointed out many times, the only people that y'all can find to support your point of view are loony gun bloggers or right-wing media outlets.

The thing is, if you spend some time in, let's say Texas, you start to see that there is a big difference between people who own guns and enjoying target shooting, versus the people who stash loaded guns in every nook of their homes, who spend their lives in "condition yellow", who can't sit down to eat without running through a half dozen DGU scenarios in their mind. It doesn't take long to realize that this has nothing to do with personal safety or self-defense, it is all about the "gun culture" and the sense of empowerment. Combine that with a loony anti-government ideology, and some nonsensical blather about "freedom" and "the constitution", and there you have your typical gun nut.

Does any of this sound familiar?


Oh, and regarding Rachel's supposedly false statements, as usual you provide no evidence here: neither a link to what she said nor any evidence that it was false. It is of course possible that Rachel made a mistake on some technicality (I'm not sure exactly what she said that has you so upset), but since almost nothing you say on this board is ever true, my guess is that this is just another piece of fiction you picked up on a gun blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:10 PM

60. I only know about you guys

what you post. For all I know, you might have a bigger gun collection than any of us. You might have a class 3 dealership on the side. I don't do background checks. Or, you could be as off the deep end as you seem most of the time. Many of the "antis" are less rational than any of the pro gunners around here. Ranting about "WND, Fox, gun blogs, etc." when none of those are used, does not help your cause.

No, I don't know anything about those crazy people. They are a stereotype, but never actually met any. Never met them in Florida, Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, South Carolina, or Texas.
My time in Texas includes:
basic training
visiting in laws that moved there
driving through there
visited El Paso a couple of times because it is larger than Alamogordo, NM.

Oh, and regarding Rachel's supposedly false statements, as usual you provide no evidence here: neither a link to what she said nor any evidence that it was false. It is of course possible that Rachel made a mistake on some technicality (I'm not sure exactly what she said that has you so upset), but since almost nothing you say on this board is ever true, my guess is that this is just another piece of fiction you picked up on a gun blog.

Nothing that upset me, maybe amusing, but not upsetting. Basically it was a reference to the "plastic guns" urban legend. I actually saw the episode.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/#.T4NbjFTtZwA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:36 PM

62. So now you're claiming you've never met a single gun nut... Riiiiight...

Actually, you've met plenty, right here on DU Guns! Of course, a lot of them have gotten TSed...

About Rachel... so what exactly did she say about plastic guns that you disagree with, and where is your evidence to the contrary? Why is it so hard for you to be specific? Hmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:52 PM

65. define gun nut

How is that different than "gun buff" or "gun geek" I never met anyone in DU in person. A lot of "antis" have been TSed as well.
I actually don't care about labels. Others don't form my opinions for me. My ideology does not define my opinions, my opinions define my ideology.

You never heard the "gun that can get passed metal detectors and x ray" urban legend?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x413419

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:18 PM

68. You don't like labels? Labels like "anti-gun zealot"?

Apparently you don't like consistency either...

About Rachel. What is it going to take to get you to actually quote the sentence(s) that Rachel said that you disagree with, and then actually present some evidence that she was lying? Not a cryptic reference to some urban legend. Not a link to a gungeon post a pro-gunner who has since been TSed, who himself is linking to a pro-gun propaganda website even though just one post ago you claimed that y'all didn't actually use those kinds of sources...

Specifics. Evidence. C'mon ge, it's not that complicated!

You know, I was thinking maybe this "plastic gun" thing might be the one time you finally said something true, but it's really looking like I was right from the beginning:
Oh, and regarding Rachel's supposedly false statements, as usual you provide no evidence here: neither a link to what she said nor any evidence that it was false. It is of course possible that Rachel made a mistake on some technicality (I'm not sure exactly what she said that has you so upset), but since almost nothing you say on this board is ever true, my guess is that this is just another piece of fiction you picked up on a gun blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:56 PM

74. if you must.

ST wanted a list, I gave him a list. I based it on posting I read. You know what they say about stone throwers and glass houses.
Here is Rachel making the claim. I watched it on TV back when I had cable, which was over a year ago.

I don't label myself because my ideology, for the lack of a better word, is the sum of my experiences and observations. By labeling myself would imply I let others define my opinions and views.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/#.T4N0m1TtZwA

So one is Field and Stream. It is a technical subject, they would be the experts on the subject.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1202/is-it-possible-to-make-an-undetectable-nonmetal-gun

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2011/08/tales-told-fools-why-media-cant-get-anything-right-about-guns

One more thing, armor piercing rounds have never been available to the general public since their introduction in the 1930s. They were sold to police departments for shooting engine blocks and car doors (back when cars were made of thick steel). The steel jackets would destroy a barrel after a few rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:17 PM

75. One more time...

Here is Rachel making the claim.

Again what claim is Rachel making that you think is a lie?

Simply saying the words "plastic gun" isn't lying. Rachel didn't say that all-plastic guns exist. She just said the technology exists to make them, and also that they are banned by law, as they should be. Neither of those links of yours disprove this.

And by the way, one of those links is, yet again, from a gun blogger. For someone who claims not to use gun blogs as sources, you sure seem to be linking to them a lot. And this particular gun blogger goes on to complain that "it's almost impossible for the NRA to get a fair hearing in the media". Do you really expect anyone outside the NRA bubble to really take a gun-blogger with such an obvious pro-NRA bias (he's probably an NRA member...) as credible evidence that Rachel Maddow is lying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:43 PM

77. the technology does not exist

to make them. The technology does not exist today, it did not exist in 1986. Do I need to make it a bigger font?
If the technology did exist, some company would make it but not export it to the US. There are a lot of guns sold in Europe but not exported to the US. The Glock 25 for example. I could buy one in Europe, but not in the US (unless someone made it here under license like Interarms did with the Walther TPH and and Smith & Wesson does the PPK.) German made Walther PPK, TPH since 1968.

Since we are talking about a technical subject, a gun blog, if that is what you want to call Field and Stream, is the logical place to look. Would a gun blogger lie about a technology then try to sell one? Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #77)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:50 PM

82. Sorry, you aren't a credible source either.

Not only are you a pro-gunner posting on a gun forum, but you are actually one of the people involved in this conversation! Talk about a biased source! LOL.

No, you need to find some credible source other than you that backs up your claim that Rachel is lying. You can't just say "Rachel Maddow is lying. gejohnston said so!" Doesn't work like that.

Besides, your own source said that
In 1986 Congress's Office of Technology Assessment reported that a 99 percent nonmetallic gun might someday be made using composite plastics, with metal used only for springs.

Let's see, should I believe the Office of Technology Assessment, or gejohnston? Hmm, who do you think is more knowledgable and honest about this topic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:31 PM

76. So one of your sources is a pro-gun blogger with a clear NRA bias, we can toss him out.

The other one, the straight dope, seems to be at least trying to give an honest answer. And the honest answer is... he doesn't know.

...
Are all-plastic weapons feasible? Some think it's only a matter of time. In 1986 Congress's Office of Technology Assessment reported that a 99 percent nonmetallic gun might someday be made using composite plastics, with metal used only for springs. In 1988 a small Florida company called Red Eye Arms claimed it was going to have a prototype plastic grenade launcher ready in 18 to 24 months. Congress got so spooked by the publicity about plastic weapons, even theoretical ones, that it banned their production in the U.S. Whether that scared off Red Eye or they were just hustling the gun industry equivalent of vaporware I don't know, but I can't locate the company now.
...
So who knows? Maybe there really is a nonmetallic gun.


Doesn't really seem to be contradicting anything that Rachel Maddow said. Actually, it seems to support her. There was concern that technology to build a plastic gun existed, and that's what prompted the action by congress.

So once again, you are wrong. Your accusations against Rachel Maddow are empty. When asked for specifics and for evidence backing your claims, you pull the usual pro-gunner moves: hide behind vague generalities, cite a gun blog, and ultimately come up empty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:49 PM

80. not really

Are all-plastic weapons feasible? Some think it's only a matter of time. In 1986 Congress's Office of Technology Assessment reported that a 99 percent nonmetallic gun might someday be made using composite plastics, with metal used only for springs.

as in the technology did not exist in 1986, and did not exist in 2011. If it were, some European company like FN or Glock would be selling it, just not here. Norinco would be making it and selling it to Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:56 PM

84. Yes, really.

Nowhere does that article say the technology doesn't exists. The author of that article readily admits that he doesn't know the answer. He says that, as far as he knows, an all-plastic gun hasn't been built, but that some people think it's feasible based on composites.

Nothing he says comes even close to proving that Rachel Maddow was lying.

Sorry. You're wrong again. Keep fishing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #84)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:04 PM

85. I never said she was lying

lying means knowingly telling a falsehood. If she believed a falsehood to be true, she is not lying. More likely her staff let her down. The whole controversy started over a fictional pistol a Mel Gibson movie.
I am saying if it was possible to make one, you would see them in European and Canadian gun shops because companies like FN and Norinco would be making them.

Not that it really matters because even if they were feasible, they would still show up in an x ray machine. The ammo would still set off the metal detector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:14 PM

89. You claimed what she said was "demonstrably false".

Turns out, though, that actually it was demonstrably true, backed by a congressional study in 1986.

And the reason why Rachel is right and you are wrong is that Rachel has an actual staff of actual reporters that do actual research, whereas you just believe whatever it says on gun blogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:36 PM

92. Yeah, about that report

read below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:12 PM

87. Why do I always end up having to do your research for you?

So here's an AP article from 1986 that actually directly quotes that Office of Technology Assessment report.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19860409&id=ovAaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XEcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3359,1958894

"From our investigations, it appears that the materials technology does exist to produce non-metallic firearms whose only metal components may be some small springs," the study said.

Those guns "would be difficult to detect with metal detectors and X-ray machines now in operation at most airports," the report said.


So there it is. You are totally and completely wrong. A congressional study in 1986 concluded that "the materials technology does exist".

But there is a lesson in all this. There's a reason the same pattern keeps coming up. You make a claim, I ask you to back it up with evidence, you come up with some gun blog, and then I finally go and find some real evidence that proves you wrong.

It's because there is so much misinformation out there about guns that people like you can really live in a bubble fantasy world. There are enough gun blogs that you never really have to confront the truth. You just find one gun blog that cites another gun blog that cites another gun blog and so on. The propaganda perpetuates itself, to the point where even people like you, who aren't nearly as clueless as most pro-gunners, and really should know better, can remain fully convinced of every loony NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:35 PM

91. the aricle does not say that

The study simply said how would would be made, but not that the technology existed. Is the congressional study based on information from Red Eye Arms?

Here is the one company that claimed that it could make one.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1988_540430/theoretical-plastic-gun-triggers-sharp-reaction.html

Despite its offices in remodeled railroad boxcars, and the fact that the arms company has yet to produce anything more advanced than a computer drawing, the military takes Red Eye seriously. The idea of a lighter, rustproof weapon is heady stuff indeed. Another Red Eye executive, Dwight Brunoehler, calls the guns "dishwasher safe." They would be "rinse and fire" weapons, he says.


It looks like one could get a really fat military contract or two if they had one. So, it looks like DoD got ripped off again.

If it does, exist why isn't FN, IMI, HK, Colt, Norinco, etc all over it? Are any of these people making it and selling it to any military?

But there is a lesson in all this. There's a reason the same pattern keeps coming up. You make a claim, I ask you to back it up with evidence, you come up with some gun blog, and then I finally go and find some real evidence that proves you wrong.

This is the first time I used a gun blog, which is appropriate since it is a technical matter. As usual, you find some flimsy reference, and I find real evidence that proves you wrong.

It's because there is so much misinformation out there about guns that people like you can really live in a bubble fantasy world.

Projecting again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:44 PM

93. What part of "the materials technology does exist" don't you understand?

The study simply said how would would be made, but not that the technology existed.

Wrong. The study said, and I quote: "the materials technology does exist".

It's funny, you were the one who claimed that Maddow said something "demonstrably false". That means the burden is on you to demonstrate that she was wrong. But not only were you unable to back this claim with any evidence, the evidence you came up with, on closer inspection, actually demonstrated that what Maddow said was true!

On edit:
If it does, exist why isn't FN, IMI, HK, Colt, Norinco, etc all over it? Are any of these people making it and selling it to any military?

I have no idea. Ask a gun company executive. There could be any number of reasons. Maybe the market research indicates it wouldn't be profitable. Maybe they think once the guns are manufactured they'd get banned all over the world. Maybe the military doesn't care about beating X-rays or metal detectors because they're not trying to hijack airplanes. Who knows. Who cares. What matters here is that "the materials technology does exist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:35 PM

94. what part of

"where is it" don't you get?
But not only were you unable to back this claim with any evidence, the evidence you came up with, on closer inspection, actually demonstrated that what Maddow said was true!

Really? Where is this gun? Where is Red Eye Arms now? (seriously, would you buy anything from a company named Red Eye?) The fact that no one is making them and raking in military contracts demonstrates that the technology does not exist, and certainly did not exist almost 30 years ago.
Couple of other things the movie got wrong, Glock is in Austria, not Germany. They don't have a model 7.


If a company as sleazy as Norinco had it, drug gangs in the US and Mexico would have them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:50 PM

95. You do understand the difference between

"the technology to manufacture a plastic gun exists" (what Maddow said, and what the Congressional study concluded)
versus
"a plastic gun has been manufactured by Red Eye Arms" (what you are arguing against).

Right?

I mean, you do see that these are two different statements, don't you? Or have I overestimated your capacity for logic...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #95)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:14 PM

96. Yes I do

I also know that it has not been done, the study actually said "it might some day", which is a long way from saying "the technology exists". You do understand the difference don't you?
I have been looking for a copy of the study to see what they based their information on.
I totally understand the difference between "the technology to manufacture a plastic gun exists" what Maddow said

The "technology might some day exist" according to the Straight Dope version (as opposed to a Maine newspaper)

and there is one on the market, which there is not. If it did exist, it would be only banned from US commercial market, not military or law enforcement (read the bill), which has nothing to do with the Canadian, Swiss, New Zealand, et al commercial markets.

I have a very good capacity for logic, so good I am capable of going to the next step to ask, where is it?
There is no danger of me overestimating yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:30 PM

97. Again, the study literally said "the materials technology exists".

That's a direct quote, from the AP article, not a paraphrase.

The facts are in, Rachel Maddow is right, and you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #97)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:11 AM

100. what facts are those?

The quote is actually "it appears that the technology exists", which means what?
Did OTA get their information from Red Eye?
Greg Eyring, a chemist with the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, said that even if Red Eye does not come up with a plastic gun, he believes eventually someone else will.
'Probably Inevitable'

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-26/news/mn-1594_1_plastic-gun
This one names a chemist by name, not saying quite the same thing.

In January 2011, Rachel said that Glock claimed that they made and perfected such a all plastic gun. Glock made no such claim. Glock made no such gun.

by metal detectors? That means that everyone that is protected by metal detectors from the Capitol building to an airport to an event to see the president, you‘d be able to get your gun in there, scot-free. You could walk right through a metal detector with your gun and nobody would know you had that gun.
Should it be legal to carry an all-plastic gun?
These things can be manufactured. Glock, the company that made the gun that was used in the Arizona shooting this weekend, Glock announced back in the 1980s that they had perfected manufacturing techniques that would allow them to do this.
Should an undetectable gun like that be legal to buy in the United States? No. That should not be legal. At least, that was the decision that our country made when the issue came up. Congress voted on whether plastic guns should be legal to sell in this country back in 1988. The measure passed the House by a vote of 413 to four. There were only four votes against it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/#.T4Ox7FTtZwB

Rachel was wrong. Need I repeat Glock made no such claim, Glock made no such gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #100)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:23 AM

101. Evidence please.

Glock made no such claim

Evidence please. Blog posts by ignorant gun nuts don't count. You keep insisting that Glock never claimed to have the technology, but the total amount of evidence you have presented is nothing.

Even your fellow pro-gunner Straw Man has conceded this point:
Glock has claimed to have the the materials technology necessary to produce such a weapon.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #101)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:30 AM

103. I have not found any evidence that

Glock made such a claim. Since you can not prove a negative, I have to go with my version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #103)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:44 AM

104. LOL. "I have to go with my version"

My, we've sure come a long way from "Rachel's rant was demonstrably false".

LOL. Can't actually demonstrate anything, but according to "gejohnston's version of the world", Rachel Maddow is wrong. That's proof enough for me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #104)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:48 AM

106. no, she said Glock made the claim

there is no evidence Glock made any such claim, and they certainly do not make any such gun. Her lead in was dishonest in that she painted this picture of a "clear and present danger"

But in your bubble, black is white, and newspeak is all the rage if it serves your purpose.
Maybe a better choice of words would have been "Rachel was full of shit that day".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #101)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:45 PM

117. Can't prove a negative.

Even your fellow pro-gunner Straw Man has conceded this point:

Glock has claimed to have the the materials technology necessary to produce such a weapon.

I'm going to amend that to say that "Rachel Maddow has claimed that Glock has claimed to have the the materials technology necessary to produce such a weapon." I have been unable to find any evidence of Glock having made such a claim: only secondhand references to said claim. Nowhere is the "claim" quoted, so it's impossible to determine what kind of statement, if any, was made.

I would suggest contacting Glock for clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #95)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:46 PM

98. A load.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/

Here's an excerpt, in which Rachel employs almost every trick in the journalist's book to suggest that this unicorn of firearms is a clear and present danger.

We begin tonight with a question: what if you had a gun that was entirely made of plastic, where all the components of the gun were high strength enough so the gun would function as a gun, but none of it was metal, so it wouldn‘t be detected by metal detectors? That means that everyone that is protected by metal detectors from the Capitol building to an airport to an event to see the president, you‘d be able to get your gun in there, scot-free. You could walk right through a metal detector with your gun and nobody would know you had that gun.

Should it be legal to carry an all-plastic gun?

These things can be manufactured. Glock, the company that made the gun that was used in the Arizona shooting this weekend, Glock announced back in the 1980s that they had perfected manufacturing techniques that would allow them to do this.

Should an undetectable gun like that be legal to buy in the United States? No. That should not be legal. At least, that was the decision that our country made when the issue came up. Congress voted on whether plastic guns should be legal to sell in this country back in 1988. The measure passed the House by a vote of 413 to four. There were only four votes against it.

Glock has claimed to have the the materials technology necessary to produce such a weapon. So far, no working model of such a gun has ever been presented. The US, this hotbed of rampant and unrestricted access to firearms, would appear to be the only nation in the world that currently bans a class of firearms that does not exist.

She goes on to use this law to castigate Dick Cheney as one of the four who voted against it. He's got plenty of bad karma hanging over him. Couldn't she find a better stick to beat him with? Apparently in the wake of the Loughner/Giffords shooting, she thought this one was appropriate.

It gets worse with Russert, who refers to "a vote on plastic guns that terrorists use to hijack planes to get them undetectable through security," as if these guns did exist and had been put to use. They don't, and needless to say, they haven't.

The whole thing is, as they used to say in journalism school, a load of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #98)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:25 AM

102. Well, at least you recognize that she didn't actually say anything that was incorrect.

Though I'm still a little confused about what issues you have with that segment. The right time to ban plastic guns is before they are manufactured. As a preventative measure. Which is exactly what happened.

Congress investigated, found out that the technology necessary to produce a plastic gun did exist, realized that this posed a security threat, and voted to ban them. Outside the NRA bubble, there was and is virtually unanimous agreement that this is the right thing to do -- there were only four dissenters, one of which was noted gun enthusiast and hunting safety expert Dick Cheney.

So why exactly do you object to this? Do you think plastic guns should not be banned?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #102)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:45 AM

105. I don't think anyone said it was the wrong thing to do

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

just that it was kind of pointless, kind of like establishing speed limits for jet packs. Of course the all plastic but a few springs would be an unloaded gun. The ammo is still metal. Can someone get 6-15 rounds of 9mm or .45 ACP past a metal detector? I'm guessing the ammo would set off the detector.

The overwhelming vote is a no brainer. Vote for it, looks like you are taking a stand and doing something even when you are not.
I'm guessing Cheney had stock in Red Eye Arms. The other three probably said "this is too stupid vote for."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #105)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:12 PM

123. "The overwhelming vote is a no brainer."


Yup.

And isn't it comforting to know that truly dedicated criminals will either be thwarted from their evil plans because this law is on the books, or they'll suffer more serious prison time as a result?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #102)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 03:58 PM

114. I see you like to play the same games.

Though I'm still a little confused about what issues you have with that segment. The right time to ban plastic guns is before they are manufactured. As a preventative measure. Which is exactly what happened.

Oh, let's just say that I have an issue with someone deliberately fostering an impression that there is an imminent danger that must be addressed when that is in fact far from the truth. Such guns do not exist, and in all probability never will exist: metal does the job far better at far less cost. The stresses that are imposed on the actual working parts of a gun (as opposed to the frame) are such that it would take a super-plastic to sustain them for even a very few firings. Were such a gun to be produced, it would be extremely expensive and have a very short working life. But what the hell -- let's ban them preemptively, but while we're at it, let's ban disintegrator rays and phased plasma guns.

Congress investigated, found out that the technology necessary to produce a plastic gun did exist, realized that this posed a security threat, and voted to ban them. Outside the NRA bubble, there was and is virtually unanimous agreement that this is the right thing to do -- there were only four dissenters, one of which was noted gun enthusiast and hunting safety expert Dick Cheney.

According to the New York Times, "The bill passed under a special procedure allowing only limited debate and requiring a two-thirds majority, a process normally reserved for noncontroversial legislation." It appears that they rammed it through. The initial hysteria over the "all plastic Glock" was fueled in part by the movie Die Hard, in which there are references to the mythical "Glock 7," which is purportedly all plastic and undetectable by airport screening machines. This gun is a fictional entity. Nevertheless, there were calls to ban Glock handguns altogether. Rachel plays on this residual antipathy by mentioning Glock in conjunction with the Loughner/Giffords shooting, despite that case having nothing to do with this legislation. For the record, a standard Glock 17, with magazine, weighs about 25 ounces, 20 of which are made up of metal parts. Add about 8 more ounces of pure metal for the ammunition, and you're talking about close to two pounds of metal in this "plastic" gun.

Politically, though, it was a no-brainer, in more ways than one. The version of the bill that ultimately passed allowed politicians to appear to be tough on crime without actually impacting anyone or anything.

So why exactly do you object to this? Do you think plastic guns should not be banned?

Really?

Actually, I have no practical objections to the legislation. It doesn't affect me or anyone in any way. It does make politicians look like hysterical jackasses; the sky wasn't falling. But that's nothing new. I do object when a piece of meaningless tripe like this is used as some sort of political litmus test. That undermines the credibility of all involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #114)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:25 PM

121. Here's my take.

I recall one point that Rachel made -- I don't know if it was in this particular segment -- was that the gun issue is "ungoogleable", due to the amount of misinformation that is out there on gun blogs and gun propaganda websites. Her point is that in order to get to the facts, you need to do old-school non-google research -- for example, to figure out what happened in the "plastic guns" episode, you need to actually go back to news articles and reports written at the time, because the version of the story that you get from the gun blogs (the version that you have just repeated) is utterly unreliable.

For example, in the course of disproving some NRA talking points that gejohnston was repeating, I happened upon an AP article from 1986 that discussed a report from the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment about plastic guns:
"From our investigations, it appears that the materials technology does exist to produce non-metallic firearms whose only metal components may be some small springs," the study said.

Those guns "would be difficult to detect with metal detectors and X-ray machines now in operation at most airports," the report said.

Now, I bet you never heard of this particular report. And why would you have? The gun blogs where you get your information have no interest in presenting an even-handed or factual account of this issue.

To be honest, I didn't know about this report either. I was ready to accept the possibility that Rachel was mistaken. But it didn't seem likely. On one hand, it has been my experience that almost nothing that pro-gunners claim turns out to actually be true. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow is an intelligent, skilled journalist, who I have found to be very trustworthy on a variety of issues, who has a reputation to protect and thus a vested interest in being accurate, and who has access to a professional staff and also a lot of sources of information besides just google.


Oh, and, by the way, if you read the whole transcript, you will see that the point here was not to show that plastic guns pose an "imminent danger which must be addressed". As she pointed out very clearly, this issue already has been addressed several decades ago. And it was also not to conflate the Glock that Loughner used with the "Glock 7" from Die Hard.

No, the point was to show that, despite the fact that the Republican party is wholly in the pocket of the gun lobby, and that the NRA will oppose just about any restriction on guns, no matter how slight the imposition on gun owners or how great the potential for saving lives, despite all that, the conventional wisdom that any form of gun control is a political non-starter is mistaken:
None of those things, the anti-aircraft weapons or the machine gun or the plastic guns, the cop killer bullets, none of these things are the type of weapons or ammunition that were used in the shootings this weekend in Arizona. There was nothing unusual about that alleged killer‘s choice of a $500 pistol.

But the idea that in the wake of this shooting, in the wake of this national convulsion of grief and anger and a desire to respond to this shooting, the belief that despite how the country feels right now, that any form of gun control, any form of public policy to try to curtail gun massacres in America is impossible, the idea that it‘s impossible to pass any legislation regarding guns in America, I believe that idea is not true.

You might disagree with her. Maybe you think that the gun lobby is too powerful. Fair enough. But don't misrepresent her argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #121)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

126. Your take ...

... is tantamount to "Anything the anti-gun side says is right and anything the pro-gun side says is wrong."

Oh, and, by the way, if you read the whole transcript, you will see that the point here was not to show that plastic guns pose an "imminent danger which must be addressed". As she pointed out very clearly, this issue already has been addressed several decades ago. And it was also not to conflate the Glock that Loughner used with the "Glock 7" from Die Hard.

Why, then, were "plastic guns" the core of her piece?

OK, let's make that "was an imminent danger that had to be addressed." That's the impression her piece gives. The notion was as ludicrous in 1986 as it is today.

"From our investigations, it appears that the materials technology does exist to produce non-metallic firearms whose only metal components may be some small springs," the study said.

Can a non-metallic gun be made? Possibly. That's the extent of the investigation. "Some small springs"? Let's talk about a recoil spring, which for a Glock 17 is over 3 inches long and stiff enough to require 18 pounds of compression force. I seriously doubt that it can be made of plastic, so we're probably talking about trigger and hammer springs only, which means we're talking about a single-shot handgun. Essentially we're talking James Bond, a gun that would never have been made anyway because there is no market for it outside of CIA assassins, who, for all we know, may already have it.

Now, I bet you never heard of this particular report. And why would you have? The gun blogs where you get your information have no interest in presenting an even-handed or factual account of this issue.

And you believe Rachel Maddow is even-handed and factual on gun issues? The very report we're discussing is a textbook case of disinformation. A lot of the information we're talking about is technical, and my source for it is not gun blogs.

But the idea that in the wake of this shooting, in the wake of this national convulsion of grief and anger and a desire to respond to this shooting, the belief that despite how the country feels right now, that any form of gun control, any form of public policy to try to curtail gun massacres in America is impossible, the idea that it‘s impossible to pass any legislation regarding guns in America, I believe that idea is not true.

If that's supposed to be a rallying cry for the anti-gun base, it's a pretty sad one. "We succeeded in banning a gun that doesn't exist." Marvelous. I feel so much safer.

Find me the claim from Glock that they possess this technological capability. Then we'll talk about Rachel's credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #126)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:12 PM

128. Whether you admit it or not...

...there is a big difference between reporting from by a journalist like Rachel Maddow and the junk that shows up on gun blogs.

I have found Rachel Maddow to be very reliable and accurate on a wide range of issues, and I have no reason to believe that she is not factual on gun issues. gejohnston claimed that she said things that were "demonstrably false", but he provided no evidence, and the few minutes of googling I did backed up her claims. You made some claims about how "extreme stresses that would require a 'super-plastic'" but you also provided no evidence, and that 1986 study seems to contradict you by indicating that the technology was already available back then. Would it be prohibitively expensive? Maybe, but I'm not going to take your word for it, first because you seem to be just making things up as you go, and second because you have a severe ideological bias and dislike for Maddow.

I'm not a materials scientist, and I've never spoken to Glock about what they may have claimed in the 80s, nor do I intend to. But based on what I know about Rachel Maddow, and given the lack of evidence that you, gejohnston, and every other pro-gunner trying to demonize her has been able to come up with, I have no reason to doubt her. If she reported that Glock made a certain claim, my guess is that this report is based on something -- a staffer found a Glock press release, or a news article from the 80s quoting a Glock representative, etc. There's almost no chance that she would just make something like that up out of thin air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #128)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 12:06 AM

131. Admit what?

Whether you admit it or not...

...there is a big difference between reporting from by a journalist like Rachel Maddow and the junk that shows up on gun blogs.

Not really -- both are ideologically driven. I'm not talking about information from blogs. I'm talking about technical data from firsthand experience and from reading technical writers on firearms subjects. The problem is that your worldview denies the viability of gun information from anyone who knows anything about guns. In that regard it's somewhat akin to creationism and climate change denial.

You made some claims about how "extreme stresses that would require a 'super-plastic'" but you also provided no evidence, and that 1986 study seems to contradict you by indicating that the technology was already available back then. Would it be prohibitively expensive? Maybe, but I'm not going to take your word for it, first because you seem to be just making things up as you go, and second because you have a severe ideological bias and dislike for Maddow.

False, false, false, and false. First, read a little of this refreshingly non-ideological exploration of the subject (not from a gun blog) to get an idea of some of the issues involved:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9788764&postcount=16

Any high-performing synthetic material that is not in mass production is going to be extremely expensive. But don't take my word for it -- ask some mechanical engineers. Furthermore, there would be absolutely no commercial impetus to produce and market such a weapon. What's the pitch? "The Right Gun For Your Next Hijacking"? "Use It Twice and Throw It Away"?

I've been following Rachel Maddow since her days on AirAmerica. I don't dislike her, but I am disappointed that she seems to drink the anti-gun Kool-Aid so eagerly. Do I have a "severe ideological bias"? That's funny -- I was just thinking the same thing about you.

I'm not a materials scientist, and I've never spoken to Glock about what they may have claimed in the 80s, nor do I intend to.

I can understand that. Why would you want to expose yourself to any facts that may threaten your ideology?

If she reported that Glock made a certain claim, my guess is that this report is based on something -- a staffer found a Glock press release, or a news article from the 80s quoting a Glock representative, etc. There's almost no chance that she would just make something like that up out of thin air.

And that's what it is: a guess. I didn't say she made it up out of thin air -- I said I'd like to see exactly what claim was made. The existence of materials that may be serviceable is a far cry from a functioning product. That's Technology 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #98)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 09:06 PM

122. Spot-on. And why (in this instance) Rachel is even sleazier than a liar.


At least in the case of the liar, the guilty party faces the possibility of suffering consequences upon called out on their lie. Rachel and her equally deceitful apologists can always play the "Show me where I/she lied" card -- knowing full well that her loyal viewers will assume that plastic guns were/are an actual threat. It's a tactic pulled directly from the Michael Moore playbook: (emphasis added - from Dave Kopel's disection of "Bowling for Columbine"

"After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners.

We are taken to the North County Bank in Michigan, which — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. (The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years.)

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

The genius of Bowling for Columbine is that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists. This theme is developed throughout the film."

Full destruction of Moore's "work" here:

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm

(Waiting for the genetic fallacy to be used to dismiss Kopel's accurate expose: 3......2......1......)

Did Michael Moore lie.....and tell his viewers that it was easy for criminals to get their hands on some of the promotional guns? No - he carefully crafted his film footage and narrative to deceitfully lead his pliable audience to that conclusion. Just as Rachel knew damn well that her audience would assume that "plastic guns" were/are an actual threat. Stephen Colbert applied the same tactic just last week on his program --- leading viewers to the conclusion that national gun violence was on the rise without explicitly stating such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:54 PM

83. "Does any of this sound familiar? "

 

No, actually it sounds like you are making shit up as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 06:55 PM

133. Iverglas wants to ban private ownership of handguns. That is not "gun-friendly". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:25 PM

70. Proud to be included in the group. Like others, I'm against public toting. I also would like

to see restrictions on the number and type of guns people can keep at home. If they limit the amount of decongestants one can buy, they dang sure ought to limit the lethal weapons people hide in their houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:29 PM

71. why do you need to buy so many

decongestants at once? Don't blame me, blame the meth cooks. Meth cooks are a greater danger to public safety than gun collectors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:34 PM

72. Maybe collectors who don't carry. Don't see many like that around here though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:43 PM

73. meth cooks are still

a greater danger to the public than "toters".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:05 PM

86. Yeah but, your side is losing and losing badly

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:11 PM

51. I'm anti and a pro, depending on how I feel from day to day.

I post from all sides of the 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:40 PM

64. And there I was thinking you just left out the "sarcasm" thingy

So what is your true position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 05:27 PM

57. I'll whine

about not being on the list. I am a partisan. I don't know any pro gun fanatics or militants.
Although some of the anti crusaders and true believers don't want to be identified as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:39 PM

63. I wouldn't describe you as a zealot

Definitely partisan and you enjoy a lively debate, but you do not come across as a wingnut.
Those who "crusade" against lax gun laws are hardly zealots. Antis are nonmilitant, the opposite of crusading fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:02 PM

66. thanks but

you can be left wing and pro gun, just ask Diane Feinstein. I'm closer to Bernie Sanders and Brian Schweitzer than these guys. The only Rush I listen to is the band.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

Many gun control groups have more in common with alcohol prohibition groups in the 19th century, and anti pot groups in the 1920s-30s than anything I would describe as nonmilitant. The MMM was pretty militant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:25 PM

61. out of the nine I listed

only three objected. Ok, the rest have not seen it yet. But if you are not a "true believer", does that make you a mercenary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 02:46 AM

107. Proud to make your list. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:13 AM

35. Blatant, mornic flamebait.

*Writes 'Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings'*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:08 PM

44. aka SSDD nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 10:50 AM

37. Yes, absolutely, they can claim immunity

And I can claim to be young, fit, thin, and good-looking.

But, it strains credulity to claim serial castle-doctrine scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 05:47 PM

58. Sure.

They can "claim" anything. Anyone can claim anything. I can claim that I won the powerball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:12 PM

88. jpak, you have put a lot of energy into posting ridiculous crap in this forum

 

This is one of your best efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 06:09 AM

108. I suppose. They could also claim innocence under an insanity plea...

 

or ay other hair-brained defense. If they claim self-defense (where OK Castle Law would apply) there will have to be evidence that they were attacked or had otherwise legitimate concerns as to their immediate safety. That's not what the castle doctrine law was created for... it doesnt legalize murder. I doubt ANY department or prosecuter will even consider castle doctrine protections covering 5 different slayings of black men where the shooters fled the scene.

I think it's more likely that this is merely another instance of the jpak ameteur-hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread