"GUN NUTS"

[theo]

From todays Daily News. The last three lines are the best of the whole article. And the idiot Bryan Miller is back.


http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news.../70444777.html


"GUN NUTS" and "gun-hating zealots" will be taking aim at each other before the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee today in Harrisburg (check your weapons at the door, please.)
It's a public hearing for House Bill 40, which will "eliminate the duty to retreat" if you are confronted by an attacker, according to Dave McGlaughlin, deputy counsel to the committee, and a former Philadelphia defense attorney.

As another chapter in our society's clash of cultures, HB40 will drive most Philadelphians batty and be catnip to Pennsylvanians up north and out west.

The bill expands what's called the Castle Doctrine - the idea that a man's home is his castle and can be defended by any means necessary, up to and including lethal force. (In the 21st century, add "woman" to that description. The Castle Doctrine also applies to businesses.)

HB40 says that a citizen confronted by an attacker and fearing serious bodily harm, death, kidnapping or rape can draw and blast away without fear of prosecution. This is known as the Stand Your Ground Doctrine. Current law requires the victim to first attempt to safely retreat before shooting.

Realistically, it's rare for a district attorney to prosecute an honest citizen even without HB40.

This presents two questions:

1. Why is the law needed, if the above is true?

2. If the above is true, why not make it law?






Here's why not, according to anti-gun advocate Bryan Miller, co-founder of Heeding God's Call, and scheduled to testify today.

It's an unwelcome expansion of the Castle Doctrine, he says, "to everywhere - to churches, schools, malls, everywhere, so that someone can claim they were threatened and use lethal force against the person who they claim [threatened them.]

"Our name for it is Judge, Jury and Executioner," he says. Other critics have called it "Shoot now, ask questions later."

The right of self-protection already exists, Miller says, but he sees it as limited.

"Walking on a street or going through a shopping mall," he says, "we are protected by law and by law-enforcement officers," and that's preferable to giving lethal force to individuals.

The other side is expressed by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a co-sponsor of the bill who hails from Butler County, about 20 miles north of Pittsburgh.

He sees HB40 as merely reinstating "the common-sense right of a citizen" to defend himself against a threat to his life, kidnapping or rape without fear of being prosecuted or sued.

Metcalfe points to lawsuits that, outrageously, have been filed by perpetrators against "law-abiding citizens trying to defend themselves."

Miller is correct in saying that we have police to protect us, but the crime rate tells us that police aren't omnipresent.

HB40 "restores rights that have been eroded away by the current judicial system that's been giving preferential treatment to criminals," says John Hohenwarter, the National Rifle Association's director of government affairs for Pennsylvania.

In this state, the strongest opposition to guns comes from Philadelphia. Anything to limit or reduce guns in anyone's hands gets immediate applause.

HB40 aims to give the honest citizen added legal protection, and while I can see that a few villains might try to use the law for lethal, "legal" revenge, I can also see that district attorneys are not dense as cheesecake.

"This is not an open-door, green-light to shoot," says the NRA's Hohenwarter. "It still must be a justified self-defense case."

If HB40 passes, critics fear wild gunfire on the streets.

Don't we have that in Philly now?

We need criminal control more than gun control.

[anonymouse]

"Walking on a street or going through a shopping mall," he says, "we are protected by law and by law-enforcement officers," and that's preferable to giving lethal force to individuals.

If we're protected by law and law enforcement officers, why do people get killed by criminals? Why are there shootings in shopping malls?

[R.Thompson]

"Walking on a street or going through a shopping mall," he says, "we are protected by law and by law-enforcement officers," and that's preferable to giving lethal force to individuals.

The Law is my shield, I shall not want.

Oh wait...

Someone has a severe misunderstanding. The Law does not protect us. It provides us with recourse when someone breaks it. The only "protection" it provides is that law abiding people don't break it in the first place.

As for being protected by law-enforcement, the Supreme Court has had much to say on that, and basically they have no such responsibility to individuals.

[dc dalton]

Here's why not, according to anti-gun advocate Bryan Miller, co-founder of Heeding God's Call, and scheduled to testify today.

"Our name for it is Judge, Jury and Executioner," he says. Other critics have called it "Shoot now, ask questions later."

Oh you mean like the criminals have it now?

Where the hell do these fucking assholes come from? I mean seriously maybe every one of these sniveling, whining anti-gun assholes need to look down the barrel of a gun held by some crack head just once and they might fucking get it (after they clean out their pants and throw their shoes and socks out). Or maybe they need to have a woman THEY care about be beaten, raped and left for dead before they get it ... but then again that would probably tell these assholes we need more gun laws.

Just once I'd like to meet one of these assholes that feel my welfare, the welfare of my family is less important than the rights of some piece of shit criminal ... Hey Mr. Miller, go fuck yourself.

[fingers80002]

Oh you mean like the criminals have it now?

Where the hell do these fucking assholes come from? I mean seriously maybe every one of these sniveling, whining anti-gun assholes need to look down the barrel of a gun held by some crack head just once and they might fucking get it (after they clean out their pants and throw their shoes and socks out). Or maybe they need to have a woman THEY care about be beaten, raped and left for dead before they get it ... but then again that would probably tell these assholes we need more gun laws.

Just once I'd like to meet one of these assholes that feel my welfare, the welfare of my family is less important than the rights of some piece of shit criminal ... Hey Mr. Miller, go fuck yourself.

They come from NYC and PRNJ, and Kommiefornia....

[unloved]

I am wishing ass cancer on Bryan Miller. Why can't he stay in his own horrible state? Ass cancer! I want him to experience a pain in his ass so that he'll understand what he is to me. Ass cancer!

[biggs88]

I am wishing ass cancer on Bryan Miller. Why can't he stay in his own horrible state? Ass cancer! I want him to experience a pain in his ass so that he'll understand what he is to me. Ass cancer!

Yes. A nice steamy case of quality cancer of the ass!!!

[SierraPapa]

well....it's nice to see that there's some hope even in the philadelphia media..
if a writer from philly's own Daily News can put a positive spin (aka: common sense) on our cause...I think that is a small victory...

[dc dalton]

They come from NYC and PRNJ, and Kommiefornia....

Yeah and I am getting sick and fucking tired of assholes from one state coming to other states to meddle in our politics .... times to say "fuck you, get out". Who the hell gives ANY moron from one state the right to stick their nose in another state's business, especially if that business doesn't effect them and their state.

[CG1492]

HB40 says that a citizen confronted by an attacker and fearing serious bodily harm, death, kidnapping or rape can draw and blast away without fear of prosecution. [/B]

Ya I may get excused from inital charge, but then I lose my house that I defended because the family of the attacker files a civil suit. Why can't they add something in there for civil suits? Now I live life on edge in a place I should feel safe and some random dick is buying $500,00 worth of cloths and crack rocks.