This is not good at all....

sequoias

Active Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
22,242
Reaction score
19
Here's my response to this....they're talking about shooting people in the public that they feel threatened BUT they can still shoot someone that they judged wrong, that goes to the inoccent people who has done nothing. Florida is repeating the same thing as it happened in the 1960's...lot of mobs, riots, etc. I don't want that happen again! I hope it doesn't spread over the US! It's not a junk e-mail, it's real! I got it from a friend.

FLORIDA: THE LAND OF SUNSHINE, ORANGES, AND DEADLY FORCE

Contribute
Help us distribute educational materials to Florida travelers

Dear friends,

October is here and the scariest thing is not Halloween, but the Shoot First law that has taken effect in Florida.

The law, which is another example of the craziness of the NRA, allows people in Florida to use deadly force in public places as a first resort to counter perceived threats. The law, which is being marketed by the NRA as allowing people to protect themselves, is so overly broad and expansive that everyday occurrences such as road rage incidents or a fistfight in a bar during spring break could have deadly consequences for the people involved and innocent bystanders.

By allowing the use of deadly force as a first resort, the law has removed the time-honored duty of citizens to walk away, call the police, or find a safe refuge. Finally innocent bystanders and their families have no civil recourse against the shooter if they are injured or killed in the crossfire even if the shooter initiated the confrontation and fired recklessly on a crowded street. To learn more about this law, go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org.

The NRA, with its usual arrogance, has annnounced plans to bring this law to all 50 states.

We have launched an aggressive campaign to educate tourists and others who may be considering traveling to Florida, about this law. We have placed ads, created billboards and are leafleting tourists arriving in Florida with flyers urging them to be careful.

Governor Jeb Bush has called our campaign "ridiculous" and a "gimmick." But the largest newspaper in Florida, the Miami Herald, has said this about our campaign and the law:

"Florida's new shoot-first law was a bad idea from the start - and state lawmakers should revoke the law at their first opportunity. So don't blame the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for warning visitors to stay calm if they become involved in a public confrontation after the law takes effect on Saturday."
They went on to say that our campaign "is a timely reminder to change this dangerous and unnecessary law."

That is what we intend to do. For the safety of all Floridians and unsuspecting tourists, this law must be changed. This is where you come in. We need you to:

1. Contribute to our campaign to repeal this dangerous law and stop the NRA from exporting it across the country.

2. Call Governor Bush at (850) 488-4441 and demand that he "make Florida safe again and repeal the shoot first law."

3. Send this email to family and friends, especially if they are thinking about visiting Florida.

4. Go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org and sign our petition to help keep this law out of your state.

We must work together to get this law repealed in Florida, and make sure it doesn't come to other states.


Sincerely,
Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com
 
well flordia sounds scary i think i'll cross that state off to buy a nice winter home in the future.
 
I am sure Reba will be back to fix the link. You should know by now that when she posts something, there must be a good reason. Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual. Wait for the other side of the story.
 
:gpost: I hope there is another side to this story Tousi, I would hate to see innocent people, especially, children being hurt or killed for nothing. I never heard of such a thing in my life that would allow a person to shoot first if they were confronted. Most states, would have that person who shot first in jail. Here in R.I. several years ago, an elderly couple's home was broken into while they were sleeping. It was a young man in his 20's who broke into the house according to the newspaper article. Well, the elderly man got his shotgun and shot at the burglar, getting him in the leg. The burglar pressed charges against the elderly man, and the burglar won!!! Even though he broke into someone else's home, he was trespassing, stealing. He still managed to beat this and win because he was shot at, and there was no evidence that the burglar was armed. Boy, talk about keeping your own home safe huh?
 
*goose pump* It's very scare for the poor innoncent people...
 
Good morning, CodaChild and thanks for the response. Umm, about the elderly couple you mentioned in your post, truly responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would not have gotten into trouble in that scenario. At best, the case probably turned on a technicality.....most likely what happened was that the man shot the burgular as he was RETREATING. Beyond that point (the retreating), the need to pull the trigger vanishes, legally, because there's no longer the presence of danger. It's a real difficult thing, tho, I imagine because, in a situation like that, one's just woken up, confusion reigns, emotions inflamed and all that........still, the law compels one to take great care or suffer the consequences. That's why I always say that people, if they want to have firearms for recreational purposes but in times like your scenario, that they get some training and be familiar with the laws governing same.....
 
Sorry, I don't know why the link didn't "hold". I'll try this one; it's a little different but the same general idea:

http://www.packing.org/oldnews/article/?article=10119

If that doesn't work, I'll find a different source or do a copy and paste.

I am not always "tech-savvy" enough on this link stuff.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
*goose pump* It's very scare for the poor innoncent people...
The concept of the law is to protect innocent people from rapists, muggers, car jackers, etc.

Most of my friends who have conceal carry permits actually very rarely have their guns on them in public places. Hubby and I rarely carry ours. Part of the reason is the law restricts where we can carry. The other reason is we just don't feel it is always necessary. So the image of hoards of gun-toting, blood-thirsty hotheads roaming city streets is not accurate. Even if I have my gun on me, if I am confronted with a dangerous situation, if I can escape without shooting, I will choose that option. But the beauty of the new law is, I would have an option!
 
Tousi said:
I am sure Reba will be back to fix the link. You should know by now that when she posts something, there must be a good reason. Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual. Wait for the other side of the story.

it's not all about politics! It's MY response and views. Look at the society today, think about it...If you go to St. Louis (which already has very high crime), and if that law allows it and you could end up dead!

Oh I forgot to add...they would think it's okay to have guns in the public because they're not too smart to understand the law. They could have a scary shooting rampage and end up killing a innocent bystander.
 
CODAchild said:
... I would hate to see innocent people, especially, children being hurt or killed for nothing.
Innocent people, especially children, don't attack other innocent people, so gun-carrying citizens won't shoot them.


I never heard of such a thing in my life that would allow a person to shoot first if they were confronted.
Hmmm...If you, as a woman, were alone in a parking garage, and a large strange man threatened you, when should you shoot? After he rapes you? After he kidnaps you? After he stabs, chokes, or shoots you?

Here in R.I. several years ago, an elderly couple's home was broken into while they were sleeping. It was a young man in his 20's who broke into the house according to the newspaper article. Well, the elderly man got his shotgun and shot at the burglar, getting him in the leg. The burglar pressed charges against the elderly man, and the burglar won!!! Even though he broke into someone else's home, he was trespassing, stealing. He still managed to beat this and win because he was shot at, and there was no evidence that the burglar was armed. Boy, talk about keeping your own home safe huh?
That is exactly why the laws need to be changed. In South Carolina, if you try to break into someone's home and are shot, TOO BAD! The homeowner is legally protected. It doesn't matter if the bad guy was armed or not. The residents in the house are still in danger. Guns aren't the only way to kill someone.
 
sequoias said:
...If you go to St. Louis (which already has very high crime), and if that law allows it and you could end up dead!
Laws don't prevent the bad guys from carrying guns; I think the good guys should have an equal chance at defense.

Maybe if St. Louis had a "stand your ground" law, the criminals would think twice about attacking citizens.
 
I heard a similar story where someone broke into a man's house and he got out his gun and slowly walked downstairs and seen him stealing the silverware, he shot him in the head! so he's obviously dead so I don't think he was pressed charges with what he did to the theif as long as he's a legal citizen who got legal rights to protect himself and his house.
 
I change my mind after what was happened to my son and his girlfriend two weeks. I dont want guns in hand of people at all now even law biding citizens. Too many people are so screw up and cloud their judgement. I do not trust them at all. I consider them dangerous people.
 
jazzy said:
I change my mind after what was happened to my son and his girlfriend two weeks. I dont want guns in hand of people at all now even law biding citizens. Too many people are so screw up and cloud their judgement. I do not trust them at all. I consider them dangerous people.
The problem is, laws only stop law-abiding honest citizens from having guns. Laws don't stop the criminals from having and using guns.

Yes, there are many "screwed up" people in this world. That doesn't mean I have to give up my rights for them. Besides, "screwed up" people can do a lot of damage in other ways, without guns.

When one of those "screwed up" people bangs on my door, I want to be ready to defend myself.
 
Tousi said:
Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual.
And Reba's links are not?

Right :roll:

sequoias, they will change this stupid law or retract it in the future when they realize their grave mistakes (that IF they have any common sense). I can understand that they need guns to protect theirselves but in THEIR houses or private properties. NOT in public places.

I never thought that it is possible for retards to be more 'retarder' but Jeb Bush & certain politicans just proved me otherwise. To think that I joined NRA *shudder*. I have this thought to not renew my membership...

Cookie Monster said:
Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Yep but which is more easier to kill more than one person with gun or knife when s/he gets out of control in the public?

Indeedy.
 
Cookie Monster said:
Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

(This is Chris)

I caught a guy wore this t-shirt
GunsdontOLIVEGREEN.jpg
 
Back
Top