Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun...

Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support

There are 1996 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Sep 10, 2013, titled Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

Colorado voters ousted two state lawmakers Tuesday in first-ever recall elections that came in reaction to the Democrats' support for tougher gun laws in the aftermath of last year's mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1369 Nov 15, 2013
INFIDEL wrote:
Trayvon Martin was an angry, aggressive wannabe thug.
zimmerman started raping his cousin when she was six yeasrs old.

The only person who had been arrested in this case was the pedophile.

And we can see the pedophile even after being released has problems with his temper.

We all know short runt butterballs like this polished turd cop wannabe: he couldn't make it through life on his own devices so he got a gun and appointed himself sheriff of the cul de sac.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1370 Nov 15, 2013
INFIDEL wrote:
<quoted text>
A nineteen year old female who was drunk off her a** was trying to get into a man's house
It isn't unlawful to knock on the door.

Nor is it lawful to kill someone who is drunk.

Or you would have been dead a long time ago.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1371 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What of this case, Shug:
Here you go:
<quoted text>
Funny how whenever you get nailed for being full of [email protected], you move the goalposts... when I proved your "quote" was false, you moved from Plummer case to Bad Elk, and then- hilariously- insisted that *I* brought up Plummer even though YOU HAVE BEEN COPY & PASTING Plummer for years and years and years!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

So then, as everyone can see it is YOU that had it jammed up YOUR treasonous sycophant tailpipe. "Plummer" means absolutely NOTHING of relevance to the issue at hand PERIOD. Take a hike, pathetic troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1372 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't unlawful to knock on the door.
Nor is it lawful to kill someone who is drunk.
Or you would have been dead a long time ago.
Spouted the pathetic treasonous troll that has been SLAMMED DOWN with facts so many times that its head is flat.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1374 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:
Internet meme and myths

The case has also been cited as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest on various internet sites, normally in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.[43] The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[44]

In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[45]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1375 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Spouted the pathetic treasonous troll that has been SLAMMED DOWN with facts so many times that its head is flat.
Internet meme and myths

The case has also been cited as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest on various internet sites, normally in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.[43] The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[44]

In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[45]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1376 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest on various internet sites, normally in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.[43] The most commonly quoted version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."[44]
In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[45]
Not quite troll:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37.

>>>>>If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."<<<< <

--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1377 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite troll:
Quite, troll.

**********The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court.********* In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383 (1997)(noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1378 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite, troll.
**********The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court.********* In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.
Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383 (1997)(noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests.
THIS is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to state on the subject:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...

So then, as everyone can see it is YOU that had it jammed up YOUR treasonous sycophant tailpipe. "Plummer" means absolutely NOTHING of relevance to the issue at hand PERIOD. Take a hike, pathetic troll.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1385 Nov 16, 2013
"if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

-- Joe Biden, Vice President and Administration "expert" on firearm safety.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1387 Nov 16, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
From the NY Times:
"The latest woeful lesson in gun mayhem is playing out in Michigan, where a 54-year-old man in Dearborn Heights was charged Friday with second-degree murder in the shotgun slaying of a 19-year-old woman presumed to have knocked on his door in the middle of the night, seeking help after a traffic accident.
The Wayne County prosecutor, Kym Worthy, discounted claims that the man, Theodore Wafer, was within the bounds of the self-defense law, which requires his sensing a grave and imminent threat. There was no sign of forced entry and the victim, Renisha McBride, stood on the porch when she was hit in the face by a shot fired through the locked screen door of Mr. Wafer’s house, the prosecutor said."
WHEN DO WE STOP THE GUN NUTS?
[Not so] Funny how you LIEberals like to dance in blood.

Bar owner tried CPR after shooting man in self-defense
http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/news/Bar-owner-tried-...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1388 Nov 16, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
@ INFIDEL (Mensa candidate)
Looser [sic] is spelled loser.
He won't know what [sic] means.

He will think you are insulting him...

Remember: gun gnutters don't understand what "quote" means.

You have to (for example) add "exact" in front of "quote" to qualify it from the paraphrases they are fond of.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1389 Nov 16, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
"if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."
-- Joe Biden, Vice President and Administration "expert" on firearm safety.
But not through the door into the face of an unarmed woman.

I hope you gun gnutters pick up this murderer and run with him.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1390 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
But not through the door into the face of an unarmed woman.
I hope you gun gnutters pick up this murderer and run with him.
The Democratic National Convention which gathered at Chicago on the 29th of August[1864], and presented the names of GEORGE B. McCLELLAN for President, and GEORGE H. PENDLETON for Vice-President, agreed on and adopted the following PLATFORM.

Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired; and they hereby declare that they consider the Administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution, the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection, the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the denial of the right of asylum, the open and avowed disregard of State rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

New "Democratic" Doctrine.

Slavery not to be confined to the Negro race, but to be made the universal condition of the laboring classes of society.

The line of defense, however, is now changed. The South now maintains that Slavery is right, natural, and necessary, and does not depend upon difference of COMPLEXION. The laws of the Slave States justify the holding of WHITE MEN in bondage.

Another Buchanan paper, the leading one in South Carolina, says:

"Slavery is the natural and normal condition of the laboring man, whether WHITE or black.--The great evil of Northern frne Society is, that it is burdened with a servile class of MECHANICS and LABORERS, unfit for self-government, and yet clothed with the attributes and powers of citizens. Master and Slave, is a relation in Society as natural as that of parent and child; and the Northern States will yet have to introduce it. Their theory of free government is a delueion."

There's "Democratic" doctrine for you, with a vengeance; "our theory of free government a delusion,"--"laborin g men, whether white or black, to be slaves,"--Verily, matters are coming to a pretty pass with us.

The Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, Mr. Buchanan's confidential organ, and considered by the "Democratic" party as the ablest paper in the South, speaks as follows in a recent number:

"Repeatedly have we asked the North 'Has not the experiment of universal liberty, FAILED? Are not the evils of FREE SOCIETY INSUFFERABLE? And do not most thinking men among you propose to subvert and reconstruct it?' Still no answer. This gloomy silence is another conclusive proof, added to many other conclusive evidences we have furnished, that free society in the long run is an impracticable form of society; it is everywhere starving, demoralized and insurrectionary.

We repeat, then, that policy and humanity alike forbid the extension of the evils of free society to new people and coming generations.

Washington, 1850.
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbpe.20304000

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1392 Nov 16, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
1850
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1393 Nov 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Yeah, that's you alright - spam.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1395 Nov 17, 2013
PrinceofDarkness wrote:
<quoted text>nah.. pretty sure your mom's suck jobs paid for your Densa college educaton....
Really

That means you must know my name......

Tell us why you can't post it then??

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1396 Nov 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>So your boyfriend just tapped you on the top of your head and told you your were done, eh, SweetHeart?
More gay sex fantasies proving you were caught telling another lie

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1397 Nov 17, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
"HOUSTON — A small meeting of a group seeking tougher gun laws was interrupted Saturday at a suburban Dallas restaurant when the woman who helped organize it saw something outside that startled her: at least two dozen men and women in the parking lot with shotguns, hunting rifles, AR-15s and AK-47s."

Can you imagine threatening women with assault rifles? I REST MY CASE.
Please show us where anyone was threatened..........

Oops
Caught in another lie

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1398 Nov 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>:1 You're a liar
:2 I've proved you to be a liar
:3 GayDavy is a liar
:4 GayDavy has had MANY alias
:5 I don't care
:6 Alexander Hamilton is dead
:7 GayDavy is a WELCHER
:8 GOTO 1

Do you lie as much as GayDavy?
Caught in a handful of lies in one post

Gay sex fantasies to follow

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News McRgo E'News: National Reciprocity & December C... Fri Jim Wildrick Jr 1
News Pelosi's claim the House GOP is 'inviting' viol... Thu Say What 8
News Florida: Another Mass Murder Stopped by Armed C... Dec 12 im not a doctor 9
News Lancaster County's congressmen vote opposite wa... Dec 11 jimwildrickjr 1
News Supreme Court turns away challenge to Md. assau... Dec 6 im not a doctor 6
News Florida Church Warns Visitors That Members Are ... Dec 5 im not a doctor 2
A Breakdown of Reloading at Home Nov 27 SummerBB8 1
More from around the web