General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Illegal To Protect Oneself From Harm?

Started by John Hanson · · Last activity · 2 posts · 230 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
6 April 2005
Last activity
7 April 2005
Original author
John Hanson
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
230
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:18:41 GMT, [email hidden] (Axel of the North!)
    wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

    Quoted message said:

    in regards to the Minnesota CCW breakthrough...

    Yeah yeah.. i know. they could issue ccw permits to individuals at
    their "discretion" before and could improve on that. but, in the big
    picture, i can imagine some people down the line may not be able to
    legally carry on their person this ultimate self-defense "accessory".

    Like here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363442/posts

    this bums me out. so, mr. hanson and whatever other pro-actively
    "healthy" Minnesotans may be lurking out there... how do you feel
    about this? seems like kind of an anti-fitness threat, if you ask
    me... heh heh.

    It certainly is. I think most reasonable people would agree that
    allowing a law abiding citizen to arm oneself is a good thing.
    Especially seeing as how we have over 23,000 permit holders in
    Minnesota and not one case of a holder going "postal" in the two years
    that we've had our permits.

    Quoted message said:


    I feel so safe knowing that the democrats have opposed protecting
    (immunity) the gun MANUFACTURER industry from lawsuits.

    What the Dems don't tell you is that this proposed law gives
    manufacturers immunity only from lawsuits where a user of a firearm
    uses it in an unlawful manner. I would give the same protection to
    the automotive industry in a case where a driver of a vehicle uses his
    car as a weapon to run someone over. I really don't understand why
    there is a controversy. Unless of course, the anti gunners want to
    use the courts to put gun manufacturers out of business through
    frivolous lawsuits.

    Quoted message said:


    i may not vote republican.. but i'm not so sure i like the liberal
    side of things, either. which i hope is not the same as democrat.

    this sucks. so, isn't it like there is now a window of opportunity
    (which may close very fast if worse comes to worse)?

    i hope the extreme minority doesn't ruin it for the majority. these
    moms up in... duluth don't know what it is like to live in the urban
    jungle. well, moms may think they are protecting their children but
    what about the children who are in the position of the lowly jungle
    rat? what about them? 'cuz i don't think the cops are capable of
    protecting everyone all the time. i know we ask a lot of our law
    enforcement but i really do think that is a bit much.

    One only needs to look at the shooting in Red Lake to understand that
    victim disarmament zones in schools (and everywhere else) are a bad
    idea and that even with the two minute response by the Red Lake
    Police, 10 people died.

    BTW, I like Jeffrey Dege's "Dozen Mom March" comment in response to
    that article.

  2. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Hanson said:

    On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:18:41 GMT, [email hidden] (Axel of the North!)
    wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

    Quoted message said:

    in regards to the Minnesota CCW breakthrough...

    Yeah yeah.. i know. they could issue ccw permits to individuals at
    their "discretion" before and could improve on that. but, in the big
    picture, i can imagine some people down the line may not be able to
    legally carry on their person this ultimate self-defense "accessory".

    Like here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363442/posts

    this bums me out. so, mr. hanson and whatever other pro-actively
    "healthy" Minnesotans may be lurking out there... how do you feel
    about this? seems like kind of an anti-fitness threat, if you ask
    me... heh heh.

    It certainly is. I think most reasonable people would agree that
    allowing a law abiding citizen to arm oneself is a good thing.

    I wish that were true John!

    Quoted message said:

    Especially seeing as how we have over 23,000 permit holders in
    Minnesota and not one case of a holder going "postal" in the two years
    that we've had our permits.

    As you know, the anti gun crowd does not care for facts, stats, or
    history itself, and then there is that damn Second Amend that keeps
    getting in their way....

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:


    I feel so safe knowing that the democrats have opposed protecting
    (immunity) the gun MANUFACTURER industry from lawsuits.

    What the Dems don't tell you is that this proposed law gives
    manufacturers immunity only from lawsuits where a user of a firearm
    uses it in an unlawful manner. I would give the same protection to
    the automotive industry in a case where a driver of a vehicle uses his
    car as a weapon to run someone over. I really don't understand why
    there is a controversy. Unless of course, the anti gunners want to
    use the courts to put gun manufacturers out of business through
    frivolous lawsuits.

    Bingo!

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.