[westmichman]

Hey Hamm!! You don't speak for conservatives or the GOP. Go drink some more Hamms and leave us to the business of protecting ourselves.
This could be called anti-terrorist legislation.

[ncountylee]

And law abiding citizens in gun repressive states like mine (CA), will continue to rely on untraceable throw down pieces.

[Abundy]

He [Peter Hamm of the Brady Center] questioned the need for the "Stand Your Ground" bills, given that the law usually sides with people who shoot someone in self-defense.

Well-settled tort law hasn't stopped you j@ck@sses at the Brady Center from attempting to sue gun manufacturers out of existence for a criminal's misuse of a lawfully produced and federally regulated product, has it Mr. Hamm?

Moron.

[xcamel]

"The usual conservative doctrine is that we don't need new laws for everything," Hamm said. "This is a textbook case of an area where we don't need new laws."

Of course we don't.. especially after you've succeeded in getting 10,000 odd laws passed to restrict gun ownership and use.. Why would we need just "one more law" giving the "shall not be infringed" part of the constitution back to the people??

"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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

In Minnesota, we were damned lucky to have the "shall issue" law passed, twice. The DFL'ers in this blue state are still looking for ways to neuter the right to bear arms.

Not a chance in hell that a "stand your ground" law would pass here.

[Fido969]

Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ... questioned the need for the "Stand Your Ground" bills, given that the law usually sides with people who shoot someone in self-defense.

Not in the anti-gun states, they don't, Peter!

"The usual conservative doctrine is that we don't need new laws for everything," Hamm said. "This is a textbook case of an area where we don't need new laws."

Good Lord! What a lying hypocrite!

[kerryusama04]

The National Rifle Association for years has used Florida as a testing ground for gun-rights laws.

If this had a shred of truth to it, how the hell did Al "mental health" gore nearly take that state? This line looks like a desperate attempt to get Florida to stop proving the left wrong.

[Freedom4US]

Critics charge that such bills send the message that violence is OK.

As a matter of fact it is.

In the context of self-defense. And, who are these "critics", since they are apparently anonymous they have less than 0 (zero) credibility and can be safely ignored. In any case it's nice not to let our "representatives" criminalize self-defense. Years ago -get this - self-defense was considered an *obligation*.

[metmom]

Tell me NY is one. Please.

[Petronski]

Kopel doesn't sound like he's representing anything conservative in this hatchet-job.

[PeteB570]

"critics charge that such bills send the message that violence is OK"???????WTF

How about "such bills send the message that it's OK to defend yourself against violent criminals"

[DejaJude]

"I don't think too many people in office are particularly enthusiastic about this legislation," said Robert Batey, a professor at Stetson University's College of Law and a critic of the bills. "I think they simply don't want to cross the NRA."

Why would they be afraid of crossing the NRA? Could it possibly be that the members of the NRA are the people that the office holders are supposed to represent? Or are they afraid of losing campaign dollars?

[Supernatural]

PA is considering such a law. Yesterday there was a rally for the law at the state capitol building in Harrisburg. It was attended by some citizens for the law and by quite a few state representatives for the law. It was televised last night on the PCN channel (PA Channel Network). Larry Pratt was there, along with people from the Allegheny Sportsman's League, the PA Gun Owner's Association (PGOA) and several other pro-gun organizations.

[dirtboy]

Critics charge that such bills send the message that violence is OK.

No, the bills send the message to crooks that self-defense is now allowed. Liberal idiots nowadays find themselves unable to tell the difference between violence and self-defense, which is why they are always on the defensive politically.

[Ancesthntr]

I don't think that Texas has, or is even considering, such legislation. Someone tell me that I'm wrong.

...and no, there's no "he needed killin'" defense to shooting someone in Texas (though that isn't a bad idea).

[goldstategop]

Stand Your Ground Bump

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[looscnnn]

He questioned the need for the "Stand Your Ground" bills, given that the law usually sides with people who shoot someone in self-defense. ... "The usual conservative doctrine is that we don't need new laws for everything," Hamm said. "This is a textbook case of an area where we don't need new laws."

Here is a clue, it is to protect against anyone trying to pass a law that would say that you need to flee the area/house/etc. Call it a pre-emptive strike against you idiots. Here is a question to ask those that defend the fleeing laws, are parents supposed to flee the house and leave their kids in bed upstairs when someone breaks in?