http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... un-Control
Hard Left takes a hit
Re: Hard Left takes a hit
Connecticut Politicans Inch Closer to War on Gun Owners
http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2014/ ... 13844.html
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/ ... lzhenitsyn
No, I don’t mean some place in the Ukraine. For some of you who went to public school, Connecticut is in the north-eastern corner of the US, but barely.
I understand your confusion since Connecticut is closer to New York City than to the US. Let’s see how Connecticut politicians constructed a situation where honest gun owners could get shot by police. We can also prescribe a peaceful solution.
How did they get themselves into this mess? There was a huge outcry of public anguish and frustration after a crazy man murdered children at a public school in Connecticut. The media used that emotional reaction to sell its anti-gun bigotry. The media falsely claimed that mass murder by honest gun owners was increasing. Yes, it is bigotry. Bigotry is blaming the innocent, and a hundred million honest gun owners are innocent. They don’t shoot school children, but that didn’t stop the media from blaming them. The media blamed people like me. Maybe they blamed you.
-Politicians used a public tragedy for political gain. In an equally crazy reaction, politicians said they would do something, do anything, even if it made us less safe. They outlawed common firearms. Connecticut politicians ignored the rights of the voters in doing so. They also ignored the facts about mass violence. The reason is simple.
Connecticut politicians put their political careers ahead of public safety.
•Connecticut gun owners protested as the anti-gun bill went through the legislature, but they were ignored by the Democrat majority. After the Democrat politicians outlawed common firearms, the citizens returned the favor. Connecticut gun owners largely ignored the new laws.
•Politicians exposed their ill will. Some gun owners registered their guns as dictated. Others ignored the new regulations. Those who registered their firearms late were rejected and ordered to sell their firearms out of state or surrender them to police. That proves gun registration was never the point of the anti-gun legislation.
http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2014/ ... 13844.html
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/ ... lzhenitsyn
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Re: Hard Left takes a hit
The scary part comes when the Conn. police kick down some non compliants door and there's a shootout with fatalities. At that point both sides are across the Rubicon, very hard to go back.
CHoff
Re: Hard Left takes a hit
One nation, under no duty to retreat
Florida's notoriety as the "shoot first" state grows by the day. As its citizens pull guns on one another at gas stations and on basketball courts, at birthday parties and in movie theaters, the perception grows that the state's 2005 "stand your ground" law made it a safe haven for killers. • But like many caricatures of the Sunshine State, this one is too simple. The truth is that Florida did not pioneer the controversial rules of justifiable homicide it adopted nine years ago — though the rules' effects here might serve as a warning for other states. • The debate over "stand your ground" laws has never been more urgent than in the last eight months, a period in which Florida juries have twice delivered verdicts in heavily publicized murder trials that ignited the scorn of gun control and civil rights activists.
The idea that "reasonable belief" in a threat justifies homicide prevails throughout the country, according to legal experts. It is not, as some observers have claimed, carte blanche for killers to act on ungrounded fears, but a test of what an ordinary, rational person would do in the same circumstances.
"It's one of the most invoked terms in the law," said Saul Cornell, a professor of American legal history at Fordham University. "The original notion of 'reasonable' often gets lost. 'Reasonable' is actually a pretty high standard."
Unlike states where similar changes were achieved through high-profile legislative battles, those in which "stand your ground"-style rights were enshrined by case law have mostly escaped the attention of reporters and activists.
California, for example — the most populous American state, with the nation's strictest gun laws — is rarely mentioned in the debate over self-defense law.
But the California Supreme Court empowered its citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force in public places about 120 years ago, a precedent reflected to this day in the state's jury instructions. One instruction states not only that "a defendant is not required to retreat" and "is entitled to stand his or her ground," but that she is allowed, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant."
Perhaps the strongest articulation of "no duty to retreat" came not from a state judge but from one of the foremost jurists in U.S. Supreme Court history: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
In 1921, the high court overturned the conviction of Robert Brown of Texas. While working on a construction site, a co-worker threatened Brown during an argument about whether a pile of dirt should be moved. Brown ripped a handgun from his coat and shot the man four times.
Holmes did not disapprove.
"Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground," Holmes wrote in his opinion for the majority. He memorably affirmed the "reasonable belief" standard in justifiable homicide, writing that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspectiv ... ee/2169112
Florida's notoriety as the "shoot first" state grows by the day. As its citizens pull guns on one another at gas stations and on basketball courts, at birthday parties and in movie theaters, the perception grows that the state's 2005 "stand your ground" law made it a safe haven for killers. • But like many caricatures of the Sunshine State, this one is too simple. The truth is that Florida did not pioneer the controversial rules of justifiable homicide it adopted nine years ago — though the rules' effects here might serve as a warning for other states. • The debate over "stand your ground" laws has never been more urgent than in the last eight months, a period in which Florida juries have twice delivered verdicts in heavily publicized murder trials that ignited the scorn of gun control and civil rights activists.
The idea that "reasonable belief" in a threat justifies homicide prevails throughout the country, according to legal experts. It is not, as some observers have claimed, carte blanche for killers to act on ungrounded fears, but a test of what an ordinary, rational person would do in the same circumstances.
"It's one of the most invoked terms in the law," said Saul Cornell, a professor of American legal history at Fordham University. "The original notion of 'reasonable' often gets lost. 'Reasonable' is actually a pretty high standard."
Unlike states where similar changes were achieved through high-profile legislative battles, those in which "stand your ground"-style rights were enshrined by case law have mostly escaped the attention of reporters and activists.
California, for example — the most populous American state, with the nation's strictest gun laws — is rarely mentioned in the debate over self-defense law.
But the California Supreme Court empowered its citizens to stand their ground and use deadly force in public places about 120 years ago, a precedent reflected to this day in the state's jury instructions. One instruction states not only that "a defendant is not required to retreat" and "is entitled to stand his or her ground," but that she is allowed, "if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant."
Perhaps the strongest articulation of "no duty to retreat" came not from a state judge but from one of the foremost jurists in U.S. Supreme Court history: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
In 1921, the high court overturned the conviction of Robert Brown of Texas. While working on a construction site, a co-worker threatened Brown during an argument about whether a pile of dirt should be moved. Brown ripped a handgun from his coat and shot the man four times.
Holmes did not disapprove.
"Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground," Holmes wrote in his opinion for the majority. He memorably affirmed the "reasonable belief" standard in justifiable homicide, writing that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspectiv ... ee/2169112