More Screaching About "No-Retreat" Bills

The link is to the "Gun Guys." Bloody losers. They seem to be synchronizing messages with the Brady bunch. Check out the post at SayUncle on the Brady Bunch's inability to use original postings. They seem to have a nearly identical posting for three different states.

These guys are just irritating in their complete lack of intelligence. But please, screach along with me:

You'’ve got to be kidding us. "“They won'’t have to fear any legal repercussions"”?? So there are no, we repeat no, legal repercussions to pulling out a weapon and firing it at someone? What if the shooter is near a playground, and kills a child? WeÂ’re all for self defense, and there are laws currently on the books in every state that protect people who choose to meet force with force when there are no other options, but letting people shoot away without "“any legal repercussions"”?? That is literally a license to murder. It'’s unnecessary, and it'’s just plain terribly dangerous.

I find it unlikely that they are all for self defense.

Get this line of argument on the Indiana bill.

-The bill has shown up in Indiana, tacked onto another NRA-sponsored bill that would allow possession of weapons in firearms. Does the NRA have something against Hoosiers? Road rage is a prime example of where "Shoot First"” could be used to let a killer go free! Imagine accidentally cutting someone else off on the highway– if they "feel threatened" by your actions (and "shoot first" puts the responsibility on the person "“threatening,"” not the shooter), they could legally jump out of their car and shoot you.

They seem to be missing that the law will still require an understanding that a "reasonable" person would feel that their life was threatened. Not just someone saying that they felt that way.
To prove that point, here is the relevant text of the bill.

Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. Specifies that a person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Looks to me that this isn't at all what the "Gun Guys" are characterizing. Being cutoff on the highway isn't a felony, nor is it unlawful entry. But why actually read the bill when you can flip-out nonsensically?

Too bad they don't have comments. I'd have liked to inform them of NH's bill so that they can make more moronic mis-statements on the facts of the legislation.

Oh and don't miss their piece on protecting children.

Here'’s the deal: it doesn'’t matter how you lock your guns away. You can keep them locked up, unloaded, keep the ammunition in a different place, lock up both ammunition and gun, even put your gun behind a big scary picture of John Lott (lots of kids run from that guy, but, surprisingly, not all of them). No matter how much you lock a gun up, it still represents a danger to anyone in the same house. Especially (and unfortunately) children. The only way to completely keep children safe from guns is to get rid of the gun entirely.

There is exceptional logic. But let's not forget that getting rid of the gun entirely will also protect the serial rapist and murder, or choose the violent felon of your choice.

Say it with me:

"Think of the CHILDREN!!!!!"

Unbelievable.