SIGN THE WHITE HOUSE PETITION TO PERSUADE WHITE HOUSE TO REMEDY FLAWED “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS

Please sign and share the petition on the White House website.

It needs roughly 20,000 more signatures to require a White House response.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!

Rich,

I've been waiting for this, but I thought they were going to work at the State level to repeal the law.

I am for this law being repealed, of course.

Unfortunately the petition could have been more accurate. As an example, security guards are often armed, and are private citizens. Same with armored car personnel. I don't believe Federal law only allows self defense in one's home.

I will research it.

Thanks for posting the petition.

Thank you, Irma.

I intend to keep on posting the story and the petition until it reaches 25,000 signatures required for the White House to respond.

If BIA can't support legislation banning STand Your Ground Kill at Will laws, who will?

It is a general principle that deadly force, whether by law enforcement or private citizens, is only justified if there is no other option. In other words, if you can run, you need to run.

Steve--

The petition isn't legislation itself. It is jsut a request for the White House to address the issue.

And if 25,000 people sign, they will.

So I hope you sign it and share it.

If it is accurate I will surely sign it. But if it is not, the White House may look at it, but may not be able to act on it. I will find out.

Title 10: Energy

CHAPTER X: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (GENERAL PROVISIONS)

PART 1047: LIMITED ARREST AUTHORITY AND USE OF FORCE BY PROTECTIVE FORCE OFFICERS

: General Provisions

1047.7 - Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1

of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/1047-7-use-deadly-...

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
A Message from Commissioner Adam Putnam
to Concealed Weapon License Holders

To carry a concealed firearm is to take on an immense responsibility. It is very important to understand that a license to carry a concealed weapon does not give the license holder discretionary authority to use that weapon. It is my sincere hope that you will never find it necessary to use your weapon in self-defense; however, if circumstances require you to do so, you should know that the law will protect you only if your actions in using deadly force have been consistent with the law.

The background and links provided below are intended to inform you what the law says concerning the use of deadly force in lawful self-defense. I hope that you will read the law carefully and that you will use caution in carrying your concealed weapon and in using it to defend yourself.

Adam H. Putnam
Commissioner

Chapter 776, Florida Statutes

Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, is Florida law pertaining to the justifiable use of force.

Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005. The changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the provisions of what is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is not authorized to provide specific guidance concerning the use of deadly force to concealed weapon license holders. The department is charged by statute with administering the provisions of the concealed weapon licensing program in accordance with section 790.06, Florida Statutes. However, that is the limit of the department’s authority.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/s...

The links to the actual law are on that page.

Irma,

I'm not finding a U.S. law on this at the moment. I'll go back to the U.S. Constitution in a minute. But I did find this about California. I'll be looking into it as well.

"Although expanding Stand Your Ground laws has suddenly become part of the culture war, the existence of such laws traditionally depended on geography, not politics. Older states generally inherited the duty to retreat from English common law. As the United States expanded westward, the retreat requirement usually did not follow. Instead, Western states followed the "true man" doctrine, named because "true men" do not retreat when faced with danger. California became a Stand Your Ground state more than 150 years before Florida."

http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/15406....

To date, Democrat governors who have either signed a stand your ground bill into law or at least refused to veto it include, “Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona.”

And here’s the kicker folks—California, one of the most staunchly liberal states in the union, is a stand your ground state. This is truly bad news for the Democrats who’ve been shouting down guns rights in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, because they’ve so wanted us to believe such laws could only be found in those red, “hayseed states” like Florida. Yet the ugly truth is Florida’s stand your ground law only dates back to 2005, while California’s dates back to the 19th century.

To be clear, the California legislature has not officially passed a stand your ground law, nor have they had to. Instead, California’s stand your ground law rests on more than a century of judicial rulings in “state courts [that] are reflected in judges’ instructions to juries in cases involving claims of self-defense.” Talk about beating the Democrats at their own game: here we have an example of a court making law, as they’ve been wont to do in so many cases regarding leftist causes, only this time the law they’ve made is conservative in principle and is recognized as the law of the land in the Golden State.

In light of this judicial feat, before juries hear testimony in cases where the defendant claims to have acted in self defense, the jury is instructed according to California Criminal Code 3470:

[The defendant] is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

It’s hard to find a clearer annunciation of what a stand your ground law should say. And while it no doubt urks the Democrats and demagogues who want to pin the blame for such laws on the red states, the simple truth is that the existence of this law is good news for Californians.


Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/16/stand-y...

Due Process and Deadly Force
John Hall, J.D.
Reprinted from the IUPA Website
Article reprinted from the February 1999 edition of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Please Note: Law enforcement officers of other than federal jurisdiction who are interested in this article should consult their legal advisors. Some police procedures ruled permissible under federal constitutional law are of questionable legality understate law or are not permitted at all.

There are three provisions in the U.S. Constitution that are relevant to the use of force by government officials: the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause. By its explicit terms, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that within the context of arrests or other seizures of persons, the use of deadly force by police officers must be "objectively reasonable, in light of the facts and circumstances confronting [the officers] . . . judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene . . . rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."1 The Eighth Amendment explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Because of this explicit text, the Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment governs the use of force appropriate for maintaining control of convicted prisoners and has framed the issue as "whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."2 But while the texts of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments have assisted the courts in deciding the scope of their applications, the same cannot be said of the Due Process Clause.

As stated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Due Process Clause prohibits the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently noted the generalized nature of the due process guarantee, and in a recent decision, cautioned that the "guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended."3 Accordingly, the Court’s decisions have limited its application to those circumstances where there is no other "explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of intrusive governmental conduct . . ."4

The critical nature of law enforcement decisions regarding the use of deadly force demands the clearest possible guidance with respect to the legal standards controlling the officers’ actions. A lack of clarity, particularly in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving, fraught with danger, can lead to excesses of caution or zeal—to the detriment of an officer’s legitimate concerns for safety or of the citizen’s right to be free from an unconstitutional use of force by the police. Recent court decisions provide significantly more guidance not only as to when the Due Process Clause is applicable, but also as to what kinds of government conduct are likely to rise to the level of a due process violation. This article focuses on those two issues.

The Supreme Court historically has held that the concept of due process embodies both procedural and substantive rights. Simply described, procedural due process protects against "government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised."5 As used in this article, the term "due process" refers to the substantive protections.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/force...

Here's my take. The title of the petition is wrong.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO DECLARE “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS ILLEGAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW.

There is no Federal Law, as far as I've been able to determine, that the Obama Administration could use to declare the Stand Your Ground laws illegal.

There are a few other possibilities I can think of.

a) Repeal the Second Amendment.
b) Get one of these cases before a U.S. Court.
c) U.S. Congress and President enact a law to make the State laws illegal.
d) Florida legislation amends the existing law.

The last is what I thought the parents of Jordan Davis were going to do, and I was ready to help them in any way I could (not being a resident of Florida).

But to send this to the White House? I can't see it. As you have often said Irma, the President is not a dictator.

As far as the law of survival, that would be my first resort. But I chose not to carry a gun to accomplish this.

The use of deadly force by police officers is defined at the State level and by U.S. Court rulings.

Irma, I agree with you we need to work at all levels, local, state, and federal. This particular issue I think is at the state level, just like criminal law, prisons, law enforcement etc.

I think we need to change the country's mindset to thou shalt not kill.

Irma, I just finished watching the President's speech. I would only go one step further and say all the world's children are our children.

Irma, I will try to see if I can find the SN&R article about how the federal government is supplying these types of weapons to the Sacramento police department. It was a while ago and I've only read the hardcopy.

@STEVE HAVE TO GOTHAT FAR... ALL YOUHAVE TO DO IS SAY ENFORCE, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" AND BUCK THE GUN LLOBBY CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (SMILE)

@STEVE, THERE IS TOO MUSH DANGER PASSING THIS AT THE SATATELEVEL. example,

I just heard this rational for our accepting this shooting as just a blim in the road and how we should blame the mother not the automatic rifle for this...the sataement was,

TAHT MOTHER KNEW WHEN SHE WAS TRAINING HIM TO SHOOT SHE WAS TRAINING A KILLER...NOW TO FARTHER EXPLAIN THE DANGERS OF THE STATE LEVEL...

STATE LAWS SAYS WE CAN USE A HUNTING ID TO VOTE BUT WE CANNOT USE A COLLEGE STUDENT ID TOVOTE...LETS NOT MENTION TEH STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS OR THE PRIVATE PRISONS THE MUST BE KEPT ALIVE AND WELL IF THE LOBBY MONEY COMES IN...

AND MOST OF ALLIT MUST BE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BECAUSE OUR FEDERAL LAWS OF THE PAST DON'T WORK IN 2012 THUSE MAKING IT POSSIBLE FO R US TOPROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM HARM LIKE THIS REQUIRE OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE CHANGE AND WHY IT IS A 'LIVING DOCUMENT"

AND, BECAUSE STEVE WE ARE UP AGAINST THE PARY OF CHRISTIAN, FAMILY VALUE THAT MAKES THE 5TH OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS..."THOU SHALL NOT KILL" M-O-O-T ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE GOVERNORS IN THE STATES LIKE THIS PROMOTING OUR PRESIDENT IS THE ANT-CHRIST AND WE MUST GO AGAINST HIM IF WE WANT TO SAVE AMERICA FROM HIM...YOUHAV HERD OF THE TEAPARTY HAVE YOU NOT...

AND, IF I MAY THIS IS WHY I SENT OUR A PLEA TO HVE TEHT VIDEO OR THE ANTI-CHRIST ON THE SITE...WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET TO BE ABLE TOPROTECT OUR CHILDREN WITHLAWS PASED WEHN THEY USED MUSKETS AND NOT AUTOMATIC RIFILES...

AND MAY I ALSO ADD ON THE ARESST OF ANOTHER PLANNED SHOOTING PROMISED TO BE MUCH WORST TAHN THESANDY SCHOOL'S SHOOTING...TAHT ARREST WAS RIGHT HERE IN CA. AND OF A MAN WITHNO MENTAL OR POLICE RECORD!!!


TAHNKS RICH AND THANKS STEVE BECAUSE DIALOGUE IS SO NEEDED IN AMERICA NOT SHUTING OUT THE OTHERSIDE (SMILE)

@STEVE, PLEASE WEHAVE GOT TO GET OVER THE 'STAND YOU GORUND' WORDINGS, example,

steve, you have grandcildren ,right? SO LETS PUT THIS STAND YOUR GORUND BULL INTO THE CORRECT PLACE IT NEEDS TO BE...GIVING THE RIGHTS TOKILL ANOTHER PERSON...NOW TINK ON THIS AS STAND YOUR GROUND AND WHY I ASKED IF YOU HAD GRANDCHILDER OR WE CAN USE OUR CHILDREN OR EVEN A WIFE OR HUSBAND...

IF YOU SAW SOMEONE ABOUT TO SHOOT YOUR CHILD, BUT NOT YOU...ARE YOU NOT GOING TO USE YOU NATUAL INSTICTS BECAUSE YOU AE GOING TO STAND AND WATCH YOU CHILD BE SHOT AND KILLED ,BECAUSE OF A STAND YOUR GROUND LAW AND TEH ATTACKWAS NOT ON YOU DIRECTLY SO WHAT EXCUSE SO YOUHAVE FOR KILLING TAHT PERSON ABOUT TO KILL YOU OWN...

SELF DEFENSE

YOU FELT THREATENED OR WHAT EXCUSE WILLYOUUSE TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY OF MURDER????????????? (NUP/ SMILE)

OR KILLING OSMEONE WHO IS HICKING YOUR CARE AND TEHY HAVE NO GUN OR HAS EVEN UTTERED A THREAT AGAINST YOU...DO YOUJUST SAY OK TAKE IT BECAUSE, IMAY BE VIOLATING TAHT PERSON'S RIGHT SINCE THIS IS A POLICEMATTER ANDNOT A CIVIL MATTER TAKING YOU CAR???


I TAKE BEING THE ANTI-CHRIST VERY SERIOUS WHEN IT COMES TO ME USING EVERYDAY COMMON SENSE NOT TOMENTION THE FIRST LAW OF SURVIVAL.THESE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS AE SURE USING THIS TO KEEP THAT LOBBY MONIES COMING IN. ME, I SAY I AM THE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERALGOVERNMENT AND I DON'T WAIT FOR ANYONE IN DC TO HELP PROTECT MY 7 YEAR OLD GRAND SON NOR MY TWO GRANDCILDREN IN COLLEGE...I AM INTOTHESE PETITIONS AND MY MAKING SURE THE PERSON I VOTED FOR WORKS FOR ME AS TEHY MUST ANSWER TOME ON A REGULAR BASIC NOT JUST EVEY CAMPAIGN ERA!!!(SMILE)

...NOW STEVE, BACK TO CA. MUCH LIKE OUR PRESIDENT CA. POLITICIANS CAN AND DO GET HELD UP BY THEWAY LAWS GET PASSED BECAUSE OF FILIBUSTER OR NEEDING A CERTAINAMOUNT OF VOTES...OF HOW TEH TERRITORYIS CREATD...SEE RACHEL'S PROGRAMON HOW THE STATES VOTING OVERWHELMINLY FOR DEMOCRATS GOT NO DEMOCRATS VOTES TOCOUNT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STATES HAVE BEEN GERMANDED...

WELL NOW CA. HAS DUE TO GERMANDING IN REALITY A REPUBLICNA OR TEAPARY DOES NOT EVEN EXIST IN CA. ANY MORE...CA. INNOW A O-N-E POLITICAL PARTY STATE JUST LIKE TOSE STATES YOUJUST MENTIONED ON BEING IN THE SOUTH AND WHILE I MA ATA IT IS THE REALSON JIM CROW IS BACK AND OUR VOTING RIGHTS CAN BE VIOLATEA LIKE THEY WERE IN NOV.


AND WHY I KEEP ALING ABOUT BVBOE, AND ITS GOING Bck to tejhsupremecourt...if bvboe still worked we would have no stand your gorund laws or long lines voting like in nov...

we have got to start getting reeducated dispite being called anti-chirst for doing so...we are onlyjust following all of the 10 commandments (smile)

...OOPS I ALSO FOLLOW WHAT SHE DOES IN CA. AS WELL AN D SHE HAS DONE TINGS I AM AGAINST LIKE A FEW WEEKS AGO ON NATURAL LANDS BEING RETURNED TO OUR STATE NOT TO MENTION THE CASANOS IN MY AREA A FEW MONTHS AGO. (SMILE)

STEVE REMEMBE IN NOV. MY TELLING YOU I NO LONGER VOTE FO RDIANE FIENSTEIN BECAUSE SHE NEVER RESPONDS LIKE BOXER DOES TO ME IN COMMUNICATING WITH ER OFFICE..."I" TAKE MY VOTE AS IT MAKES ME THE GOVERNMENT VERY SERIOUS (SMILE) AM, I PAYING DF ANY ATTENTION ON HER SOUND BITES ON TV TODAY...NOPE, HER HISTORY OF OPPOSING OUR PRESIDENT IS TOO GREAT FO RME AS I GO ON FACTSNOT EMOTIONS SINCE THEYCAHNGE LIKE THIE WIND. (SMILE)

@SETEVE NOW LETS TRY THIS ONE ON ABOUT OUR CONSTUTITION TAHT WE NEVER EVEN CONSIDER BECAUSE WE ARE TOO BUSY HAVING THE SKIN COLOR/ THIS IS A CHRISTAINANTION BLINDERS ON...

AS ED SAID ON HIS PROGRAM THE OTHER DAY...THOSE WHO WROTE OUR CONSTUTITION WERE SLAVE OWNERS...I WAS SO MOVED SEEING TAHT SANDY SCHOOL SHHOOTING MEMORAL LAST NIGHT...AND MAINLY BECAUSE IT WENT AGAINST " WE LIVE IN A CHIRISTAIN ANTION , WE LIVE IN ANATIOAN OF FREEDOM OF RELIGIONS...WE NEED TO REALIZE THINGS LIKE THIS IN ONE ROOM ALL RELIGIONS IN AMERICA WERE REPRESENTED...STEVE THIS IS THE SAME AS DIALOGUE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT RELIGONS NOT SHUTTING EACH OTHER OUT, BUT ION UNITY LISTENING AND SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER....

AND, TODAY WE ARE RIGHT BACK IN OUR NORM AS A SOCIETY...ON ONE SIDE...LIFE IS PRICELESS...ON TH EOTHER, FOR THE PRICE OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, ONE MORE ARREST IN CA.


AND, TOMORROW??????????WELL WE WILL SERTAINLY BERIGHT BACK TO...... (NUp)

STEVE THE SAME WAY THESE TWO THINGS CAN NOT EXIST IN ONE SPOT AND WHY WE HAVE A DEMOCARCY...JIM CROW, PPREJUDJUDICE(PEJUDGING WITHOUT FACTS) AND BVBOE...THAT SAYS ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST BE TREATED THE SAME, BECAUSE SEPARATE IS NO TEQUAL...( AND WH YI WAS SO MOVED LAST NIGHT TO SEE ALL OF HTOSE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS TREATING EACH OTHER AS 'EQUAL'...BUT AGAIN TIS IS ANTI-CHRIST AS WE KNOW IT'S ACCEPTED THINKINGS AS OUR SOCIALNORM, STEVE (NUP)

...AND,I SHALL LEAVE ON THIS NOTE...THE AVERAGE POLICE IN AMERICA CAN'T EVEN 'STAND THERI GOURND' AND WOULD BE PURE BRAIN DEAD TO EVEN TRY...YOUSEE HEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY NOR USE THESE KINDS OF WEAPONS IN A CROWDED ROOM NOR STREET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (N....U...P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

...OH BY THE WAY STEVE, OUR PRISONS IN CA. ARE NOT HANDLED ON THE STATE LEVEL AS FAR AS HEALTHCARE AND ARE BEING SUED ENDLSSY FOR THIS...YEARS AGO AND THANKS TO THE MONIES PORED INT BUILDING PRIVE PRISONS... OUR PRISONS WERE DECLARED A VIOLATION OF OUR CONSTUTITION AND PLACED INTO FEDERAL HANDS...AND, WHY OUR STATE JUST LAST YEAR WERE TAKEN TO COURT AND FORCED TO PAY THE WAGES EARNED BY FARM WORKERS AFIRMATIVE ACTIONS WAS USED TO KEEP STUDENTS OUT OF COLLEGE NOT GET THEMINTOCOLLEGE...WE HAVE GO TO EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!! BECAUSE STATE LAWS AREMOSTLY PASSED AND ENFORCED ON POLITICAL PARTY EMOTIONAL FULLFILLMENT OF BIAS OF HEAMAJORITY AT THE TIME...AND RIGHT BACK TO AS LONG AS YOU CAN CONVINCE TI TI BEING DONE IN GOD'SNAME YOU WILL GET IT DONE DISPITE THIES LAWS LIKE MAKING ASSAULT WEAPONS GOING FROMBEING ILLEGAL TOLEAGAL GET INTO PLACE WHILE W E SAY OUR CHILDREN'S LIFE IS PRICELESS AND TURN RIGHT AROUND AND MAKE SURE FOR THE PRICE OF A GUN OUR CHILDREN'SLIFE IS WORTHLESS...AT LEAST TO THOSE WHO WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(NUP)

@STEVE, I KNOW YOU TOO WELL(I HOPE) TO EVEN TRY TO BELIEVE YOUARE SAYING TAHT IF YOU CAN'T OUT RUN BULLETS COMING FROM AN SUTOMATIC RIFLE THEN THESE CHILDREN DESERVE TO BE DEAD!!!

YOU SEE IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WHAT THESE PEOPLE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUE IS TEACHING ONLY PROMOTES THE BIBLE CARRYING KKK AND THE ONLY THING MISSING ARE THOSE HOODS AND AS LONG AS THEYWORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF GREED THEY WILL NOT TAKE A CHANCE THAT THOSE LIKEME WILL ONCE AGAIN BANKRUPT THEM IF THEY START WEARING THEM AGAIN IN OPEN PUBLIC..

.AND, I DO SO MAINLY BECAUSE OF MY BELIEF IN TH NATURAL LAW OF SURVIVAL...example,,


NATURAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR DICTATES THAT NOT ONE OF THESE BIBLE THUMPERS ARE GOING TO SEE SOMEONE COMING WITH AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOOTING AND SAY, "HOW BLESSED I AM THIS PERSON IS GOING TO SEND ME TO MEET GOD" NOR IS THE PASTOR IN THEIR CHURCH GOING TO SAY AT THEIR FURNEAL WORDS LIKE THIS...

"LET US ALL GIVE PRAISE AND THANKS THAT SOMEONE CAME INTO OUR SCHOOL AND SENT ONE OF OUR PRESIOUS 3 YEAR OLDS BACK TO GOD"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES, ME I AM MORE PROUD AND HONORED TO BE CLASSIFIED AS ," THE ANTI-CHRIST IN A CHRISTAIN NATION FOR ACCEPTING AS FACT WHAT I SEE AND HEAR WITH MYOWN EYES AND EARS OVER THE DEATHS OF THESE PRECIOUS CHILDREN AS RELATED TO NATURAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR THE CANNOT BE SOCIALLY REGULATED BY RELIGIONS BELIEFS NOT OUR LAWS AS I BELIEVE BOTH THE BIBLE AND OUR CONSTUTION WEREWRITEN BY MAN...OUR CONSTUTITION JUST AS OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS MUST BE CAHANGE WITH THE TIMES AS WELL AS THEENVIRONMENT IF THE HUMAN RACE EXPECT TOSURVIVE THE DISTRUCTIONS OF OURNEXT GENERATION AS WELL AS OUR PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (SMILE)

@RICH, THANK YOU AND BLESS YOU FOR POSTING THESE PETITIONS...

IT WAS SO COMFORTING TO COME ON THE SITE AND SEEING THIS BLOG OF YOURSAS iHAD JUST HEARD THIS BEING REPORTED ON ' YOUR WORLD WITH SHEPARD SMITH@FOX...

THE PRESIDENT SAYS WE MUST HELP PREVENT THESE SHOOTINGS, AND THE CONGRESS IS SAYING WE MUST PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT.... AND WENT ON TO EXPALIN ON THE RIGHTS OF HUNTERS BY ONE OF THE RIGHT-WING POLITICIANS WE HAVE VOTED TO REPRESENT OUR CHILDREN'S INTREST AS HE HELPS TO PASS LAWS AS OUR CONGRESSMAN...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

ANGAIN THANK YOU RICH AND BLESS YOU FOR THESE TEACING MOMENT, WAKE UP CALLS...(S-M-I-L-E)