@LegalEagle tweets this flyer from the National Rifle Association, sent in support of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:
"Governor Scott Walker believes your life is worth protecting and Tom Barrett does not."
The ad specifically mentions Walker's signing the state's "Castle Law" last year, expanding homeowners' right to shoot when they feel threatened on their own property.
Facing a recall election on June 5, Governor Walker has been leading steadily in the polls. Still, the race is close enough that an outdoor shop decided to ask the NRA to find somewhere else for its recall meetings. The shop passed a new rule saying they wouldn't host political events. Nearly a third of Wisconsinites in one survey say they've stopped talking politics with someone because of disagreements over Walker.
Leave a Comment:
Gosh golly geewhiz Walker cares about your right to kill but not to unionize.
Get lost you bum. Tell your Koch sponsors to drop dead as you exit stage right.
Walker is rated "F" by the people of Wisconsin. NRA if ever their was a corrupt organization it is the NRA or New Republican Association.
Are there no union members in the NRA,if there are do'nt renew your memberships!
This will be the proving ground for Stupid + Unlimited Cash VS Democracy
I think we all know how its going to turn out .
Be sure and duck the flying turds as we enter into the general election.
It would seem to me that all Obama needs to do is let the right yap their way into oblivion. Then I suddenly realize that we have many who do not care if you are as dumb as a rock or greedy as a pig as long as you know how to be arrogant in your ignorance.
Why are the first 3 words of the 2nd Amendment always ignored by the gun nuts?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
That said, I have a bad feeling about this election. Barrett is being outspent 25-to-1 because all the anti-union, right-to-work for less billionaires all over the country are stuffing his coffers at an alarming rate.
FYI - The US Supreme Court ruled the phrase "A well regulated militia..." as being irrelevant, staunching the hope that it would help to keep the insane unarmed; appearing for regular training would be a wise safe guard implemented by the community.
I sure hope Walker doesn't survive the recall election, because if he does he'll vengefully go after unions and the working class 3x as hard as he did before.
And kudos to Gander Mountain for taking a neutral position and not allowing the NRA to convene there. Of course the extremists in the NRA see it as a "radical lib'rul" decision on Gander's part because "if you ain't wid us, yer ag'inst us." Really it's just a good business decision - and I'll give them a bit more of my business for having the nads to say so.
Barrett should, if he hasn't already, run a add spoofing the Motel 6 comercials. Find 5 or 6 other "Tom Bardet" people with similar names (and maybe one completely different) and have them endorseing Tom Barrett. It would be a "nice change", pure positive fluff add, especially if you can find those "Tom Bardet Similar Last Name"'s people with really nice smiles...
A really nice smile is such a gift,,, god gave me great legs and a wonderful ass,, but I'd trade them all for a great smile.. My smile looks like I'm being tazzed. Will F. Buckley's smile comes to mind,,, what's up with his book God and Man at Yale? He points out a few liberal hypocracies, doesn't substantiate anything conservative,, and that's the bedrock book of conservatism??? But I digress......
The DNC made a fatal mistake by not becoming involved in this race early on. It's much too late now. The Dems' natural tendency to avoid controversy over anything but environmental issues has set not only Wisconsin, but also many other states, for years of contentious, partisan attacks on the party's core constituencies.
mpguy, you know that this race is lost, how? "Dems' natural tendency to avoid controversy over anything but environmental issues" - standing up to fight the war on women was avoiding? standing up for passing the good jobs bills was avoiding? Quit generalizing like the Repubs and give your evidence. Don't make cynical, negative statements that three weeks away is "too late" to matter. Sheesh!
If Walker actually wins this recall ... the mind boggles. How can it be possible that after all the heartache and the hard work done by the good people of Wisconsin to make this corporate shill atone for his destructive policies, it can all be for naught? That this cretin will actually WIN?
The very thought of it literally makes me feel sick.
Money can buy anything. It makes us all sick. This is why we cannot relax.
Stand your Offense:
Self-Offense:
Legal reasoning behind law where a person is murdered and the only witness is the perpetrator who then claims self-defense?
Murder and Walk:
Self-defense is worthy defense, in so far as at least a jury has to agree with the evidence, and we already have a justice system that favors the defendant of the most heinous crimes, and have the lowest conviction rate in the world.
Revisit Duel Engagements:
This law is a version of the long outlawed practice of Dueling, where standing your ground, was a point of honor. You didn’t have to attend, but would suffer from your practical choice. Stand your ground laws; resurrect the dueling engagements, with matched weapons and according to agreed rules. Having a disagreement, and the satisfaction of defending honor with your life. This may have been acceptable then, with rules fairly witnessed for the occasion, were not prosecuted or if so not convicted.
Capital Crimes:
Homicide is the highest form of prejudice is always a crime that needs adjudication. Since laws are passed by unsuccessful lawyers rising to legislative positions they surely missed the medieval and biblical implications.
The alleged application of some reason for this law escapes us. Saying much does not seem worthwhile, to guess futile and the lack of involvement of impassioned minds, and egregious poor and neglectful educators. This law is the murder of the mind.
Life is sacred, defense of one’s life unquestioned, defense of other no less so. So said, how is that this law or any law awards the right, the duty, the obligation, the instigation, or the necessity to seek out and to preemptively a murder a person? What law could say this, how could we explain a law that says this, and how could be have any civilization if the capital crime that is murder is to be carried out at the whim of a law. What law says that a murder is preapproved, legislatively legal terminations, such a law would transcend the oldest document of civilization. This does not say the anything about after the fact of a conviction, where a sentence is duly arrived out, and then carried out by remote means.
The law nowhere says that if you suspect the worst, and have no witness, that the act of murder is due, proper and exempt from judicial review. The law does not and cannot legalize murder for any reason, except the due process after the fact. This law has already cause unnecessary death, that would not have occurred, if that death were found to be self-defense, and cases acquitted while not remotely following the instruction of the authorities.
If one were to see purse snatcher, take a purse and harm the person in the process, and you only means of stopping that person were their death, affected by your concealed weapon, you still needs to face an accounting of your actions. If the possibility by your judgment or lack thereof that you saw someone who might in the next few minutes were to become a purse snatcher, you cannot reasonable expect favorable treatment after you had killed the potential criminal, who happen to remain innocent. This sorry law apparently emboldens more than simple prejudice and acts of inhumanity, it enables you to preempt the right of individuals whom you dislike by killing them before they actually do the harm you are imagining.
Those who promulgated these stand your ground laws, would have to be laughing out loud, at the number of legislators, governors numbering in the thousands who were completely fooled, by law that reduces capital crime to the level of plucking damaging insects from a rose bush.
Keep this one law "stand your ground", and repeal all others, might as well let the gun solve problems the civilization does not seem worthy of solving?
Rewriting the Constitution four Freedoms:
If a person can be freed for murder on any claim of self-defense, then any claim of self-defense is legal right to murder, some clarification needed.
With the power of "any" it should be simpler to murder at will, and hold those making 911 calls pay the cost of a police response, the bodies collected held for parking or littering fines, and the family members paying the fine.
This "any" idea suggests that only four rules if a simpler Constitution: Freedom to murder, Freedom of speech, Freedom of arms, and Freedom to keep quiet, shall not be abridged, as those with the arms may hold speech accountable by murder, and murder unaccountable and not to saying a word.
There is several loopholes, if you do keep quiet about murder, fine no problem, but if use freedom of speech to argue about these four freedoms, then those who disagree with you, who are armed, may murder you for speaking against the Constitution, and ensuring you keep quiet about it.
The four articles of this Constitution are finely tuned, to make some articles seem redundant. Keeping quiet reduces freedom of speech by making the consequences known. Being held accountable is voluntary, since someone trying to fine you has to contend with the possibility of being murdered. Freedom of speech and the freedom to be quiet about it cancel each other out. There are a few things about freedom of arms, having to do with the choice not have arms; this would imply that you don't support the Constitution and being murdered eliminates that problem.
Freedom of arms is also about commerce, as gun sales rise to the mandate level the economy could perk up the sales, but then as murder progressed, the commerce would plunge. The freedom of arms then easily trumps murder, having one encourages it, but having gun trumps having to mention murder in the Constitution. This makes the constitution even simpler, and easier to pass without the murder clause, and is fully implied by freedom of arms. To encourage adoption, we have address the commerce problem, by advocating new products that enable staying armed at all times, in bed, in the shower, on the commode, eating with bayonet forks, knives and spoons, the water adaptions for pool side applications, skiing, gymnastics, typing on the PC with the non-gun hand. These would make freedom of arms pervasive, but there will be the need to adapt protective clothing, vehicles, and some private activities that might need to remain bullet proof, and educational needs such as making sure one hand is free while the other holds the gun, the economy will boom.
As what is left of the population dwindles, some implications remain, if you are alone and might sense an impending attack, it is important to have a range of weaponry, to repel an ardent attacker, who's murder has not previously deterred them, so some survival rules are needed. A goodly supply of fresh arms, constant fire contributes heat, wear and cleaning demands. The other side is have ample ammunition, some as fresh as possible, but really just one shot more than the enemy, should keep the expense down.
Note this constitutional frame work, carefully uses the word murder, and not more general case killing. There has been enough controversy with the Ten Commandments, but we exclude the permissive meaning of killing, because it seems redundant to the whole premise of Freedom of arms.
Freedom of Arms alone will get you to where you want to be, sooner that a natural death would, and can be effective at eliminating any unnecessary expense. Safety is assured because after a rough start it will be soon hard to meet anyone who might want to murder you. Oh and the last one standing your ground, may shoot themselves, I'll keep quiet.
If we have come so far so fast that we need laws like this to remind us of biblical laws or prehistoric times. Then we will need more than one weapon, but we will need to find out how if the first club was an improvement over the first stone, to commit the first murder.