Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law?

[iverglas]

55. really

I'm sure you missed the dozens of other times I've said the same thing, of course. Whatever. You were making shit up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=246027

Mon Aug-10-09 06:47 PM

Not all gun owners, even here in Canada, are right-wing scum, or gun militants, or Stephen Harper supporters. Or present any significantly elevated risk to themselves or anyone else. Some have farms with livestock and crops that need protecting, some live in remote areas with problematic wildlife (no more, percentage-wise, here than in the US, but some, and even in non-remote places there can be such problems), some work in the tourism industry and are employed as hunting outfitters and guides and whatnot (and some communities depend on that trade for their economic survival), some are First Nations members engaged in hunting as a way to practise and preserve their traditions and culture (as are some non-Aboriginal people), some people hunt for sustenance or just for recreation (as my mum put it the other day, that's fine: I just wouldn't want to live with one of them; hunting is a legitimate practice, but I have my druthers). And some people engage in sports shooting for recreation (also perfectly legitimate, just no reason to keep handguns, especially, in a home).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126427&mesg_id=126486

Thu Jul-13-06

I would like to live in a society where there were no firearms, but I recognize that as an absurd aspiration. I live in a society where people hunt for food, where people raise livestock and grow crops that are threatened by predators and pests, where people make a living taking tourists hunting, where people need firearms in order to enforce the law and protect the public and in some cases to help to ensure that they can go about lawful business safely. And even where people play with guns as a hobby, which there is nothing inherently objectionable in.

The fact that I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and that I oppose handgun possession by members of the public -- does not mean that I intend to try to keep whittling away at who may have firearms and what firearms they may have and what they may do with them.

Just some random googling. But oh dear, what does it find me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439998&mesg_id=441338

A reply to you dated July 2011, in which I linked to and quoted the very 2009 post quoted at the beginning of this post ...

How ever were you to know?

And in that post, I added:

And yet ... how many times have I been called a "bigot" in this place?

I'll distance myself from anybody who actually does propose "ban all guns", if there's some possibility the person is not just a gun militant troll. Ordinarily, I'll assume they're a person who doesn't have much of a clue.

I was looking to see whether anybody here wanted to distance themself from old lawodevolution ... by telling us how one could distinguish between him and them ...

I guess "zealot" is different from "bigot" ...