Never before have I seen so much kneejerking and factless emotion in political debate then with the veto override on the caste doctrine bill.
With the passage of SB 88 if someone pulls a weapon on you and puts you or your families lives in danger you can respond by shooting the criminal dead and no longer have to fear you'll be charged for defending yourself and your family as a result.
Leading up to the vote there were letters such as the one found HERE that claimed if citizens had the right to defend themselves the letter writer would be worried about going to the movies "that some lunatic might pull out a gun and start shooting because someone has cut in front of him in the ticket line and maybe spoken to him rudely" and that passing this law would turn NH into the "Wild West". Of course if you read the bill you'd know that any lunatic pulling a gun out in a theater because someone spoke rude to them would be considered a criminal just as they are today, nothing changes in that aspect so if the writer is in fear of something like that this bill/ now law wont make them any safer.
Another article criticises Republicans (justly I might ad) for not making it publicly known they would be voting on the veto override that day, however the first letter above is evident that the public was aware such a vote was coming and the bill in question was public for anyone to read... even though it's clear that first letter writer never took the time to do so. While I do believe Republicans should have been more open in the fact they were voting that day I will take that behavior over this:
'We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it'- Pelosi March 10th, 2010
As I stated, everyone knew what was in SB 88 prior to its vote. Can't say the same for Obama and Pelosi's health care plan.
Comments made like the one about the theater and the wild west are somewhat excusable because they are members of the public but when elected officials and even the governor himself make equally uninformed or misleading comments there's no excuse.
“This bill is going to empower the wrong people,” said state Rep. David Campbell, D-Nashua. “What if we have a gang member from Lowell (Mass.) who comes to Nashua and decides that this park bench is what he’s going to defend?”
Rep. David Campbell either never read the bill or he's clearly making things up to make it sound worse. I would recommend people actually read the bill found HERE before continuing.
In the bill it states:
If a person is convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession, use or attempted use of a deadly weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm, such person may be sentenced to a maximum term of 20 years' imprisonment in lieu of any other sentence prescribed for the crime.
So that "gang member" would most likely not be legally allowed to have a gun in the first place, much less use it to defend a park bench.
The bill also states that you cannot use deadly force if:
with complete safety... Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling [or], its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor
So again Rep. Campbell's example falls apart because in his example the gang member would be the initial aggressor.
And to continue...
nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the [actor] person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter
One more hole in Rep. Campbell's example, if the gang member draws first the law doesn't protect them nor does it justify their behavior.
And then there's Lynch's comment.
Lynch pointed to Florida, which has seen justifiable homicides triple in that state since it adopted a similar law in 2005.
Bolding added by me.
This statement is intentionally misleading and quite honestly if you cannot justify your position using the whole truth then it shows how weak it is.
The fact is that yes, justifiable homicides in FL went up as a result of passing a similar bill however homicides overall dropped by double digit percents and the states over all crime rate dropped to a 30 year low. The fact that Lynch leaves those details out shows how weak his argument really is and how far he's willing to go to lie by omission to get his way politically instead of debating on honesty and the whole truth.
I guess that's just the way with Democrats, they rule by emotion and how they feel and have little care in the truth and facts.