I've searched for this and didn't find it.  I hope it isn't a dupe.  

www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news05.txt

Commentary by Dave Frownfelder Have our legislators been watching too many John Wayne westerns lately? Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle. Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure. Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough without giving would-be Dirty Harrys the green light to start blasting away when somebody breaks a window in their home. That may be taking the idea to an extreme, but that's society today, one extreme or the other, with very little middle ground. What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable? Even Tombstone in the 1880s had laws on where guns could be used. Personal protection was always the most important consideration. However, the Michigan Legislature is almost making it mandatory to be packing heat when you go out. You never know who may be armed and ready to get John Wesley Hardin on you. The measures - House Bills 5142 and 5143 - were referred to the House Judiciary Committee Sept. 7, but no dates have been set for action. The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst. The Michigan bills are patterned after measures recently enacted in Florida. The Florida law takes effect Oct. 1 and gives residents the right to defend themselves in public places, including on the street or in a place of business. Apparently lawmakers want to see life imitate art, judging by the shoot-outs seen regularly on television and in movies. Noting that the 2001 law made it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Michigan, a spokesperson for the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out the obvious failing of this new effort. "This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort. It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date...than you are an intruder," said Carolynne Jarvis. How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law? Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either. An armed society is an angry society. It is also a paranoid one that doesn't trust anybody. Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments. Does the Legislature mean to make one commandment more important than another? Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. Have we forgotten that, or is the value of life now measured by degree? David Frownfelder is a staff writer for The Daily Telegram. He can be contacted at 265-5111, ext. 258, or via e-mail at [email protected].

Please email Mr. Frownfelder with your commets on his article.

The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.

Obviously if someone breaks into your house you should quickly find twelve people to sit as a jury so that they may determine if this person is in your house to do you harm, or merely trying to borrow a cup of sugar.  

Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...???

This is what I sent the asshat.

This email is in response to this article http://www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news05.txt I am honestly quite amazed at the amount of ignorance that was spewed out in your article.  It is quite obvious you have never been exposed to the bad element in society.  I’m sure you live in a nice white suburb, protected from any criminal element, where the police patrol regularly.  As hard as it may be for you to believe there are actually people out there that want to hurt, rape, and kill humans.  I know it’s probably a shock, but they exist.  I don’t understand how you think people shouldn’t be allowed to protect themselves.  It’s probably arrogance.   This line from you and I quote: “Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.” It’s priceless.  It is amazing that someone who is as sheltered and uncultured as you can have such a strong opinion on people with a need to protect themselves.  I think before you go and spew your obviously far left political banter, you should try doing some research on crime, gun crime, and other states with no-retreat laws to form an educated opinion.   Wait why am I wasting my time?  You’re a liberal, you’ll never let the facts get in the way. Sgt Derek Hoskins USMC

Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...???

This guy is a moron.

Mr Brownfield and the rest of the anti-gun libs out there need a reality check. With the way that society collapsed after the hurricanes hit, I cant see the reason  in not owning a gun to defend youre home with. And Ill be the first to say it "  a crackheads or a junkies life is not worth more than a TV especially if they are breaking into someones house to get it."

Oct 1 FL's version of that law will go into effect.

I don't know wether to laugh at his stupidy or to be sick at the fact that I share the earth with people as dumb as this guy, I guess I could try to laugh and puke at the same time

Wow, that guy just comes across as a big stinking pussy.  Completely emasculated.  I actually hope he finds himself the victim of some sort of violent robbery or confrontation.

Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...???

I consider dog shit to be more valuable than a crackhead-junk-thief.

Quoted: I don't know wether to laugh at his stupidy or to be sick at the fact that I share the earth with people as dumb as this guy, I guess I could try to laugh and puke at the same time

If you do, it will come out of your nose....and that burns!

.....that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

Not worth more than my television set!

Anyway, I doubt if the thief who is in the process of forcefully entering your home will announce " Don't sweat it, Dude.  I'm only here for the TV."

Quoted: Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...???

Maybe the old 15" black and white TV I've got in the garage but my 61" LCD TV is certainly worth more than the life of a crackhead-junkie-thief breaking into my house at 3am.  At 3am there are only 3 people on his jury - me, Smith and Wesson.

email sent - what a f'tard

replied:

Mr. Frownfelder,

In regards to a recent article published in the Daily Telegram, I had a few comments which I would like to relate.

Midway through the article you mention your idea of how our legal system works.

Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of  innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.

This is 100% true (or at least it should be). As such, and seeing as you seem to be such a staunch supporter of the idea, should you not then presuppose that the average gun-owning American will not just shoot someone who is only trespassing on their lawn?

Year after year many try to limit the ability of Americans to own and use firearms, passing legislation based on predictions of “blood running in the streets”. Yet year after year this terrible fate has not come to pass. Is this not a presupposition of guilt on the part of those who “do not believe in guns” (a quote I have often heard).

Are you not presupposing guilt when you say, “An armed society is an angry society ...a paranoid one that doesn’t trust anyone.”?

Another issue I would like to note is the fact that you indicate the legislature seems to be making one commandment more important than another.

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments. Does the Legislature mean to make one commandment more important than another?

Would taking away a person’s right to defend themselves not be doing the same, but in reverse order? You also seem to indicate that stealing, even if the perpetrator is a “crackhead-junky-thief” is somehow permissible.

Though I am not a religious man, I have read the Bible (along with many of the other books of religion). I’m assuming [since you have quoted it] that you have also. Therefore I leave you with two (of many) quotes which you should already be familiar with:

[Luke 11:21] When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.

[Exodus 22] "If he is caught breaking in and struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed…"

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

bullyforyou

Email sent also,

I asked him for directions to the frilly gated community he lives in where the alternate reality exists? What a POS

Actually the best way to respond to this guy is on his own level....

"nah nah nah nah.....I am rubber and you are glue!!!!"
or
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but my .40 will put a hole in you"

Ever notice how when a criminal kills a victim, it is "regretable," yet when a would-be victim defends him/herself and kills a criminal, somehow the would-be victim is now the "true criminal"? We're supposed to feel sorry for these fucks because they "can't help it" because mommy and daddy did not love them enough...

Here's the email I sent him:

"The life of a "crackhead-junkie-thief" may indeed be more valuable than my television set.  That's a decision he should make before he forcibly enters my house."

Reply sent

Quoted: But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

Not once the crackhead-junkie-thief decides to help himself to my television set and might very well prepared to keep me from getting in the way.

Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.

Wow, this guy is an absolute moron. Totally devoid of any sense of reason or logic whatsoever.

But let's just humor this "logic" for a second here. According to this quote here, someday if a criminal breaks into his home and starts raping his wife and daughter, instead of being a MAN and trying to defend them at all costs the right thing to do would be to sit back and say,

"Sorry honey. I really can't do anything. He hasn't been proven guilty of any crime by a  jury of his peers yet, so as far as I'm concerned he's doing nothing wrong."

Tapeworms have more brain power than this idiot.

Quoted: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but my .40 will put a hole in you"

awesome. I just might have to use that quote sometime.

I want to make sure I understand this moron's thought process.
He is making an argument against concealed carry by saying that you should not be allowed to shoot someone breaking and entering?

I'll post his email here... what a dork.

I sent this.  I'll let you know if he responds.

Dear Mr. Frownfelder,

It is difficult to me understand how you would allow the safety and well-being of you and your family to be placed in the hands of a third party that may or may not even be able to assist you in your time of need.  For your families sake I hope you will never be put into that situation.  You are clearly preparing and hoping for the best, and while I disagree with your attitude, you are entitled to your opinion.

Please understand that over 80 million Americans owning over 230 million firearms prevent literally thousands of crimes each and every year, and at the same time, represent the least likely group of people to be involved in a criminal act.

You are making presumtions that are not supported by fact, and your emotions are overriding logic.

Be that as it may, I would like to ask one question.  Have you realized yet that you have just advertised to an unknown amount of "bad guys" that you are unarmed, and willing to allow your home to be invaded by "crackhead-junkie-thieves" without preventing their entrance or egress?

Regards, (and hoping you will never need a gun)

Fish223
Surgeon, Responsible Citizen, & Gun Owner

Quoted: Have you realized yet that you have just advertised to an unknown amount of "bad guys" that you are unarmed, and willing to allow your home to be invaded by "crackhead-junkie-thieves" without preventing their entrance or egress?

 If he reads that, that will certainly get him thinking.

Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either.

Why? Because the truth hurts??

But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

You were taught wrong.

Quoted: I've searched for this and didn't find it.  I hope it isn't a dupe.   www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news05.txt Commentary by Dave Frownfelder Have our legislators been watching too many John Wayne westerns lately? Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle. Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure. <snip> Please email Mr. Frownfelder with your commets on his article.

I couldn't get past the above, he already discredited himself as a rational human being

Dear Mr. Frownfelder

 Before you wrote you article, did it occur to you that many people in states that have retreat first laws have been shot in the back or killed while running away?
 Did it ever occur to you that the police are not always there to protect our nation's citizens when an intruder breaks into their homes at night? On the same token, why would this country have such a high murder rate if the police were instantly there to protect someone who is threatened by death or great bodily harm.
 You claim we will go back to "Tombstone in the 1880", well sir, I am quite sure that while protected by criminal law, unless you had a very good excuse for shooting someone, you would be up to your neck in civil liabilities. Thanks to liberals like you, when a law abiding citizen shoots a criminal, some courts and juries believe they should have compensatory damages-for what? Coming into my house and trying to hurt me and my family?
 I hope that one day, when someone breaks into your house, you offer them a cup of tea, and a crumpet, because NO ONE that breaks into your liberal-unarmed household would want to do you any harm, because you are their(criminals) main constituent. But, if they do decide to do you harm, be sure to apologize for the way "the system" treated them and how you wish they could have had a better childhood.

Thanks for your time.

Good emails boys.

Here is what I sent.

Castle and other right to protection laws currently exist throughout the United States giving honest citizens the right to defend themselves in their own homes, vehicles or public property while conducting lawful business with out fear of retribution.  Mr. Frownfelder's commentary about the proposed Michigan Law twists reality to cause fear in the uninformed.

"The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant."

Mr. Frownfelder twists the above to someone cutting through a back yard turning Michigan into a wild west shootout.  When someone  forcibly breaks into a home or occupied vehicle or imposes force on you in public, they are not respecting citizen’s rights of security and life.  There are cases where homeowners have shot innocent persons by mistake.  But the number of these cases is very low.  In such cases grand juries are convened and the legal system will run its due course.

With concealed carry "shall issue laws" and right of self protection laws having been in existence and increasing with time there is an overabundance of data (i.e. FBI annual crime report) available to prove that these laws don't turn towns, cities or, states into the wild west.  Data is available to show that with these laws violent crime will decrease.  As a counter to more liberal gun laws look what has happened to England and Australia.  With more draconian gun laws and enforcement  violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

The right to bear arms like any of our other constitutional rights comes with great responsiblity.  Misuse any right and great harm can happen.  I live in a state that has encouraged the exercising of citizen’s rights to concealed carry since 1996 and it hasn’t turned into the wild west yet and is unlikely to with responsible citizens.

I would encourage Mr. Frownfelder to seek out the facts before making ridicules statements as in his latest commentary.  And I hope the people of Michigan continue to pursue their rights of self defense, after all, look what happened in New Orleans recently when thugs took advantage of a terrible situation.

xxxxx  xxxxx
Bay City, TX (the wild west)

Everyone needs to pile on that paper and Frownfelder.

'37yankee

Quoted: Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...??? I consider dog shit to be more valuable than a crackhead-junk-thief.

I'm a liberal, but I gotta agree with that - apparently the "crackhead-junkie-thief"s not valuing their own life - WTF should _I_ value it? I mean, get real writer boy!

Working on an e-mail will send later tonight.

Maybe the old 15" black and white TV I've got in the garage but my 61" LCD TV is certainly worth more than the life of a crackhead-junkie-thief breaking into my house at 3am. At 3am there are only 3 people on his jury - me, Smith and Wesson.

lol thats T-shirt material right there.

Quoted: Maybe the old 15" black and white TV I've got in the garage but my 61" LCD TV is certainly worth more than the life of a crackhead-junkie-thief breaking into my house at 3am. At 3am there are only 3 people on his jury - me, Smith and Wesson. lol thats T-shirt material right there.

I'd like him to answer these three questions:

Has there been a case where more stringent gun control laws has brought about a decrease in crime?

Has there been a case where CCW, or "shoot the carjacker", etc, laws has caused an increase in crime?

Why do you want to protect criminals, while putting good people at a disadvantage?  Why do you hate your fellow man so much as to deny him a chance to life and liberty?

here is what I sent him:

Dear Mr. Frownfelder,

I have just finished reading your article on how carrying a concealed weapon is just plain wrong.  May I please remind you of a 60 plus year old man that saved the life of a woman being stabbed in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Albuquerque?  Without his concealed weapon, this woman would be dead.  Annually there are over 2 million gun encounters where law abiding citizens use these tools to equalize / neutralize the threat.  

Good people do not break windows and crawl into your house.  Bad people do.  Especially crack heads as you have suggested in your article.  Now I am not sure how much time you have spent with junkies, but for the most part, they are harmless until they get low on money and drugs.  Then they become, obsessed with getting another fix of the drug.  So obsessed, that they do things far out of their normal character, such as murdering the homeowner because he happened to be home and witnessed the junkie breaking in.

I concur that a TV set is not worth taking a human life.  However, how long do you have to wait before the junkie is a threat to your life?  Do you have to wait until he takes one step towards you?  Or wait until the first stab wound?  The rule that professionals use is 21 feet.  Any closer and the junkie attacks, he wins as you will not be able to deploy your defense effectively enough to ensure you live.  The rule of 21 feet is for professionals whom defend themselves often in their line of work.  And even the pros are starting to rethink the 21 foot rule and say it should be 28.  But for the sake of argument, let’s go with 21 feet.  When you go home tonight, stand in the middle of your bedroom and measure off 21 feet.  Unless you have done very well for yourself, I doubt your bedroom is 21 feet across.  So, with an ill intentioned intruder, you are dead already.  I personally am not willing to trade my life, my families nor anyone in my immediate vicinity for the life of one junkie so he won’t have witnesses to his stealing a TV.  So the point of this mental exercise is to point out that as soon as the threat (read junkie) is identified, it must immediately be neutralized.  The threat must be identified correctly as no one wants to shoot their teenager as you pointed out and this is discussed at length in CCW training.

I don’t expect to change your mind on guns, just to make you feel a little guilt the next time you read in your paper how some law abiding good citizen life was taken at home by an intruder.  You should feel guilt, as your antigun articles fuel and influence the minds of those unable to form their own opinions. Unfortunately, these citizens whom are unable to make up their own minds are a larger portion of the voting public than one would hope.  But then, the human race turning into mental sheep and main stream media leading them down a path of destruction is another subject / discussion surrounding survival of the fittest.

Please, the next time you read about a home intrusion with a death, remember that you had a small part in getting this person killed.

First, the assclown makes an unfavorable comparison to Tombstone, AZ:

Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure.

THEN, he praises Tombstone:

Even Tombstone in the 1880s had laws on where guns could be used. Personal protection was always the most important consideration.

WTFO?

It finally went through:


Dave,

Referring to your commentary on Michigan's consideration of the Castle Doctrine, I have to ask: do you get paid to write stuff this stupid and idiotic?  No, I mean in addition to whatever the newspaper pays you?  

First off, your "Wild West" anology has been rendered moot by statistics from the 39 states that have liberalized concealed carry laws over 10 years.  Please, come up with something new!

The anti gun bedwetters all chanted that mantra before Florida became the first state to allow law ordinary law abiding citizens to carry if they choose w/o having to be rich, famous, or related to the state's Attorney General over a decade ago.  History shows us that crime actually went DOWN, not up.  No Ok Corral style shootouts happened, and the dire predictions that blood would run through the streets didn't come true. Seeing this, many other states followed suit, making it easier for average citizens to arm themselves if they so choose.  

From a philisophical standpoint, YOU may think it ok that if someone breaks into my house, place of work, or vehicle, I should just give them my property and money in the *hope* that they'll just go away, or even more bizarrely, that I should leave my own house so criminals can do what they want without any hindrance from me.  I'm sure you're ok turning your life and the lives of your wife and children, over to someone who may actually delight in torturing and murdering people...after all, you have no way of knowing exactly what the people who break into your house have in mind for you...maybe it's your TV set they want, or something much more sinister. Fair enough, that's up to you, but after the duct tape comes out, you're laying there on the floor, and your little girl starts to scream, maybe you'll feel differently.

You *might* get lucky, in the 5 or so minutes it takes local law enforcement to get to your house IF you can even get to the phone to dial 911, that your assailants don't cut you up with a chainsaw and feed you to your son's pet iquana. (insert smiley here). Once again, I guess you're ok betting the lives of your loved ones on the good nature of whoever breaks into your house.  That's a sucker bet where I come from.  

Thank God, though, people in the legislature with more common sense and experience in the real world than you seem to possess, have proposed that people have the RIGHT to protect their lives in their own house, free from the potential harassment from the family of some crack head, serial rapist or ax murderer who gets shot while committing a crime.

You have made no attempt to cite any statistics that support you argument that this proposal might be contrary to the public good; instead, you rely solely on emotion in a pathetically transparent attempt to help the VPC's agenda.  Now, you and I both know the reason for that...you don't HAVE any statistics that you can use...the data simply doesn't show what you and Ms. Jarvis want it to.  

Hey look, Tom Diaz and Mike Barnes need jobs as bad as the next guy, so why not help them out?  The only problem with your approach is that you lose any semblance of objectivity and unbiased reporting when you do so in the manner you've chosen.  Does being a shill for the VPC get you some additional income, or do you do it because you really *believe* this nonsense?    

I suppose "journalistic integrity" doesn't mean anything to you anymore...did it ever?

Sincerely

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...??? Maybe the old 15" black and white TV I've got in the garage but my 61" LCD TV is certainly worth more than the life of a crackhead-junkie-thief breaking into my house at 3am.  At 3am there are only 3 people on his jury - me, Smith and Wesson.Heckler and Koch

Fixed it for you

Quoted: It finally went through: (snip)do you do it because you really *believe* this nonsense?     I suppose "journalistic integrity" doesn't mean anything to you anymore...did it ever? Sincerely

"journalistic integrity" =

Right up there with "plastic glass", "genuine imitation" and "half-hour lunch hour"

Michigan is following Florida's example. This law will most likely pass because the politicians know that this is what the people of their state want. Dickless and the rest of the gun grabbers are obviously going to bitch, but in the end it will be meaningless.

The conservative pro-gun agenda is on the march!

I hope it passes

Anybody receive a reply yet?  I haven't gotten one.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. uh,...what kind of set are we talking about here,exactly...??? Maybe the old 15" black and white TV I've got in the garage but my 61" LCD TV is certainly worth more than the life of a crackhead-junkie-thief breaking into my house at 3am.  At 3am there are only 3 people on his jury - me, Smith and Wesson.Heckler and Koch Fixed it for you

I Like IT!

Quoted: I've searched for this and didn't find it.  I hope it isn't a dupe.   www.lenconnect.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news05.txt Commentary by Dave Frownfelder Have our legislators been watching too many John Wayne westerns lately? Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle. Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure. Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough without giving would-be Dirty Harrys the green light to start blasting away when somebody breaks a window in their home. That may be taking the idea to an extreme, but that's society today, one extreme or the other, with very little middle ground. What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable? Even Tombstone in the 1880s had laws on where guns could be used. Personal protection was always the most important consideration. However, the Michigan Legislature is almost making it mandatory to be packing heat when you go out. You never know who may be armed and ready to get John Wesley Hardin on you. The measures - House Bills 5142 and 5143 - were referred to the House Judiciary Committee Sept. 7, but no dates have been set for action. The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst. The Michigan bills are patterned after measures recently enacted in Florida. The Florida law takes effect Oct. 1 and gives residents the right to defend themselves in public places, including on the street or in a place of business. Apparently lawmakers want to see life imitate art, judging by the shoot-outs seen regularly on television and in movies. Noting that the 2001 law made it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Michigan, a spokesperson for the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out the obvious failing of this new effort. "This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort. It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date...than you are an intruder," said Carolynne Jarvis. How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law? Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either. An armed society is an angry society. It is also a paranoid one that doesn't trust anybody. Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments. Does the Legislature mean to make one commandment more important than another? Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set. Have we forgotten that, or is the value of life now measured by degree? David Frownfelder is a staff writer for The Daily Telegram. He can be contacted at 265-5111, ext. 258, or via e-mail at [email protected]. Please email Mr. Frownfelder with your commets on his article.

Doesn't wait long to start lying......and then keeps on lying....

Not sure if this guy's "noteworthy" as Elaine on Seinfield would say.

John Wesley Hardin was shot dead by a sheriff in Alabama when the sheriff objected to a remark Hardin had made.  Hardin was a lawyer at the time.  

Commentary by Dave Frownfelder

Have our legislators been watching too many John Wayne westerns lately? Under a measure introduced in the state House recently, Michigan residents, without facing prosecution, would be allowed to shoot and kill someone who breaks into their home or vehicle.

Who's to decide here what someone's intentions are when they break into your home.  Maybe all they wanted was that TV but ....when they saw that good looking young daughter of yours ....well, what the hell, so far no one's even saying stop,.......Nevertheless, this is the law in many states and as a reporter it would be your duty to check out the facts.

Did I step into a time machine and reappear in 1880s Tombstone, Ariz.? Paranoia and personal property overtook common sense and self-restraint in drafting this measure.

Certainly you seem unconcerned with the "self-restraint" of the criminal.  Even you say later in your piece that personal safety was the most important consideration, so maybe it's not really personal property and paranoia that are at the bottom of this but the "real" common sense of personal defense.

Michigan's concealed weapons law is menacing enough without giving would-be Dirty Harrys the green light to start blasting away when somebody breaks a window in their home. That may be taking the idea to an extreme, but that's society today, one extreme or the other, with very little middle ground.

You claim the CCW law of Michigan is "menacing enough".  I would say that was good if you referred to criminals or "would-be" criminals.  A broken window is a minor thing unless someone's crawling in afterwards.  Criminals avoid homes with dogs, homes with alarms, and homes where they "know" someone is armed.  The CCW law has nothing to do with being armed in your own house but I guess you knew that so I'm calling a non-sequitor on that claim.

What happens if someone simply takes a shortcut and trespasses across your lawn? Is a warning shot required or can you shoot to disable?

I think if you check the law you will see that this is a "strawman" charge you're making.  You'll also find that even police cannot fire warning shots or shoot to disable.  You're showing some incredible ignorance here.

Even Tombstone in the 1880s had laws on where guns could be used. Personal protection was always the most important consideration.

Like I said before, if we could read the minds of those that choose to break the law and enter our property with bad intentions we could maybe just sick the dog on them.  As you well know rape and murder can easily be part of home invasions.  Who's to know?  I'd rather the risk be on the perpetrator where it rightfully belongs.


However, the Michigan Legislature is almost making it mandatory to be packing heat when you go out. You never know who may be armed and ready to get John Wesley Hardin on you.

John Wesley Hardin was eventually killed by a sheriff in Alabama for saying something the sheriff didn't like.  Hardin was a lawyer at the time, having served his time.

The measures - House Bills 5142 and 5143 - were referred to the House Judiciary Committee Sept. 7, but no dates have been set for action. The two-bill package assumes that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant.

Isn't that the opposite of our judicial system, which operates on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty? This law presupposes the worst.

Pure genius, that a criminal now will be responsible for his actions, possibly with his life.  It's really not a lawful occupation that OSHA should be regulating.

The Michigan bills are patterned after measures recently enacted in Florida. The Florida law takes effect Oct. 1 and gives residents the right to defend themselves in public places, including on the street or in a place of business.

Lots of cities and towns have "Castle" doctrines.  Look it up.  This is not new.



Apparently lawmakers want to see life imitate art, judging by the shoot-outs seen regularly on television and in movies. Noting that the 2001 law made it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit in Michigan, a spokesperson for the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence pointed out the obvious failing of this new effort.

Casting aspersions on the character and intent of lawmakers here and non-sequitor again with the CCW connection.  We're talking about a home where ...you don't need a CCW.

"This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort. It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date...than you are an intruder," said Carolynne Jarvis.

Now you're bashing parents as irresponsible.  Personally I'd assume they'd be up waiting for their kids, wouldn't you?

How long before Michigan has a must-carry weapons law? Don't hand me the garbage about "An armed society is a polite society," either. An armed society is an angry society. It is also a paranoid one that doesn't trust anybody.

You are the angry person here although I'm not sure why.  I would suspect you're not a coward and would defend your family, you just are not comfortable with firearms.  That's OK, get a mean dog, maybe some pepper spray.  It might work better for you.  An armed person doesn't need to trust 911 or instantaneous police response.  Surely events of the recent weeks have shown that is possible.  My own niece went through it in New Orleans (and thankfully her group was armed and she came out safe)

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill are two of the Ten Commandments. Does the Legislature mean to make one commandment more important than another?

It's properly "thou shalt not murder", but you knew that.  Do you mean to equate murder with self-defense?

Our society has already made life one of the cheapest commodities going these days. But, I was taught that life - even that of a crackhead-junkie-thief - is worth more than a television set.

Crackheads certainly don't value their life or your's.  That we'd probably agree on.

Have we forgotten that, or is the value of life now measured by degree?

I think most people value their life and their family's very highly.  After that it's the real circumstances of life that take sway.

nightstalker
Huntington Beach CA

p.s.  Get a dog, one that sounds mean.