News Stories

[andyjay729]

"While state and federal investigations are under way, the shooting has put a focus on so-called "Stand your Ground" laws, adopted first in Florida in 2005 and in at least 16 other states since.

Opponents call them "Shoot First" laws that put the burden on prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, called on Sunday for a Justice Department investigation into "Stand your Ground" laws to determine if they increase violence and prevent prosecutions of crimes.

"They're all new. They've been passed very, very quickly and I think the states who passed them, if they find out the real facts, they may decide to repeal them," Schumer said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"I have a lot of faith in our police and in our sheriffs and I don't like a move to vigilantism," Schumer said."

Whatever you say about entrenched racism or hate crime laws, I think this is the heart of the matter at stake, and I think this is where the focus of any investigations into this horrible event should lie.

I have about as much respect for vigilantism as Mr. Schumer; hell, I think it's part of the slippery slope everyone's worried about. But of course most of these "Stand Your Ground" laws were passed in areas of the country where they think Obamacare is the problem, yet vigilantism has a lot of sex appeal.

[sa547]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

On a happier note...James Cameron just made only the second voyage in history to travel to the Mariana Trench, after more than 50 years.

Yeah, I guess you could say he literally outdid "Titanic" there; that's about three times further down than the ship. (And this is just days after the latest National Geographic came out with a 100-year article on the Titanic sinking, including details about Cameron's plans to visit the trench.) Talk about the world's eccentric rich uncle.

And outdoing Branson at the same time. This is better than winning a boatload of Oscars.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

Whatever you say about entrenched racism or hate crime laws, I think this is the heart of the matter at stake, and I think this is where the focus of any investigations into this horrible event should lie.

I have about as much respect for vigilantism as Mr. Schumer; hell, I think it's part of the slippery slope everyone's worried about. But of course most of these "Stand Your Ground" laws were passed in areas of the country where they think Obamacare is the problem, yet vigilantism has a lot of sex appeal.

I wonder how many of the states with those kinds of laws are red states (I figure at least most of them are because of how republican states view gun rights and gun laws and because those "stand your ground" laws seem to align with gun rights).

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

"While state and federal investigations are under way, the shooting has put a focus on so-called "Stand your Ground" laws, adopted first in Florida in 2005 and in at least 16 other states since.

Opponents call them "Shoot First" laws that put the burden on prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, called on Sunday for a Justice Department investigation into "Stand your Ground" laws to determine if they increase violence and prevent prosecutions of crimes.

"They're all new. They've been passed very, very quickly and I think the states who passed them, if they find out the real facts, they may decide to repeal them," Schumer said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"I have a lot of faith in our police and in our sheriffs and I don't like a move to vigilantism," Schumer said."

Whatever you say about entrenched racism or hate crime laws, I think this is the heart of the matter at stake, and I think this is where the focus of any investigations into this horrible event should lie.

I have about as much respect for vigilantism as Mr. Schumer; hell, I think it's part of the slippery slope everyone's worried about. But of course most of these "Stand Your Ground" laws were passed in areas of the country where they think Obamacare is the problem, yet vigilantism has a lot of sex appeal.

Charles Schumer is clearly trying to use this incident as a means of furthering the agenda of gun control.
He is also dead wrong on this issue.
Colorado has had its "Make My Day Law" since 1985.
That's hardly recent and it was NOT passed "very, very, quickly."
The problem in this case IS NOT the "Stand Your Ground" law.
I already posted this in the US Elections thread and I'll repost it here for sake of argument:

Specifically the law states:

...person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

F.S. §776.013(3)

Zimmerman claims that he was the one that was attacked and the police have coroborated his claim in their report (warning PDF).
Now it's up to the FBI and Florida attorney general to determine if the Sanford police were right or wrong in their decision.

Also, you should probably read this article on the subject.

George Zimmerman Unprotected By Self-Defense Law in Trayvon Martin Killing, Florida Lawmakers Say

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1371171.html

Zimmerman MAY NOT be eligible under Florida's law unless it is proven that Treyvon was actually doing physical harm to him.
If it is proven that Martin was attacking Zimmerman and Zimmerman could not flee, he has the right to defend himself.
I however, feel that Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 operator that told him not to pursue this 17 year old football player.
If Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher, he would not have put himself into this situation.

Also, this trying of Zimmerman by the media and others who have no knowledge of what actually happened are behaving like a vigilante mob and there is now a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman's head.

Two wrongs are not going to make a right, nor is it justice.

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I wonder how many of the states with those kinds of laws are red states (I figure at least most of them are because of how republican states view gun rights and gun laws and because those "stand your ground" laws seem to align with gun rights).

"Red state" or "Blue State" have nothing to do with it.
Even California and New York have castle doctrine laws.

Even "Liberal" Massachusetts has a "Stand Your Ground Law."

The problem in this situation is that we do not have all the facts since the investigation isn't over yet.
Personally, I think the police did not do their job, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
There may be circumstances that none of us knows about yet.

I really wish people would wait and see the outcome of this legally before passing judgement via emotion rather than fact.

[Vexx]

Gundam makes some very good points... its just unfortunate we probably won't ever get a good idea of what led up to the shooting because all we have is Zimmerman's version. What makes it ring a bit hollow is what we know so far about Martin.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The problem in this situation is that we do not have all the facts since the investigation isn't over yet.
Personally, I think the police did not do their job, but that doesn't mean I'm right.
There may be circumstances that none of us knows about yet.

I really wish people would wait and see the outcome of this legally before passing judgement via emotion rather than fact.

Zimmerman made some mistakes that we do know about (like pursuing Trayvon when he was told to stay in his car and not pursue Trayvon). I think it is clear that the Sanford police department screwed up badly, and I saw some black people on a CNN special say that the Sanford PD doesn't do its job well when investigating crimes involving black victims (most of the Sanford PD is white). It was over a dozen black people from the community who said this about the police department there. One woman showed a picture of her deceased son. He was murdered in November of last year and she said that police department has done very little in the way of investigating. I believe those black people. I'm sure that police department is not a well operated department.

I can understand why some people are getting really emotional about this. There are a lot of things that indicate things weren't done right, or fairly, or properly, or all of the above.

I hate the New Black Panther Movement in all of this. Offering a bounty for Zimmerman? Yeah, not helping at all. Only making this into a bigger mess.

When Zimmerman goes to trial, I won't trust Zimmerman. Zimmerman says that he was the one crying for help, not Trayvon. It was Trayvon who was calling for help. How are we to believe other claims he makes when he gives his side of the story?

[Vexx]

Voice analysis of 911 tapes might be useful to resolve that --- and make a huge difference. If it turns out not to be Zimmerman's voice crying out, he's probably toast to a jury.

I guess I just know of far too many little towns where the police are, at best, not up to handling major crimes - and at worst, are disasters for anyone "not of the Body" to encounter.

I've even read conflicting reports on whether Zimmerman was *actually* part of a neighborhood watch group or simply a "self-appointed watch captain" as several reports called him.

[Urzu 7]

I've heard the people who really are members of the neighborhood watch found him to be overzealous and wanted nothing to do with him.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Gundam makes some very good points... its just unfortunate we probably won't ever get a good idea of what led up to the shooting because all we have is Zimmerman's version. What makes it ring a bit hollow is what we know so far about Martin.

Thank you Vexx.
I hope that sane head prevail in this and that the FBI gets to the bottom of it.
I also agree that Zimmerman's account stinks and smells of deceit to me...but I could be completely wrong in saying that.
Only the investigation will tell.
Huffpost reports that a grand jury will convene on April 10th.

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Zimmerman made some mistakes that we do know about (like pursuing Trayvon when he was told to stay in his car and not pursue Trayvon). I think it is clear that the Sanford police department screwed up badly, and I saw some black people on a CNN special say that the Sanford PD doesn't do its job well when investigating crimes involving black victims (most of the Sanford PD is white). It was over a dozen black people from the community who said this about the police department there. One woman showed a picture of her deceased son. He was murdered in November of last year and she said that police department has done very little in the way of investigating. I believe those black people. I'm sure that police department is not a well operated department.

I can understand why some people are getting really emotional about this. There are a lot of things that indicate things weren't done right, or fairly, or properly, or all of the above.

I hate the New Black Panther Movement in all of this. Offering a bounty for Zimmerman? Yeah, not helping at all. Only making this into a bigger mess.

When Zimmerman goes to trial, I won't trust Zimmerman. Zimmerman says that he was the one crying for help, not Trayvon. It was Trayvon who was calling for help. How are we to believe other claims he makes when he gives his side of the story?

Honestly I think the fact that Zimmerman chose to pursue Treyvon rather than wait for the police to arrive shows at the very least incompetence.
He should be charged with involuntary manslaughter and sued for wrongful death.
Here in Colorado we have a program for volunteer police officers.
I was a volunteer for the Weld County Sheriff's Posse back in the late 1990s.
The sheriff's department made it absolutely clear to us that we were NOT to pursue suspects unless we were instructed to by dispatch, even though we were all usually armed when on patrol.
What Zimmerman did infuriates me on a level that I cannot describe, and am finding very difficult to contain.
It's idiots like this George Zimmerman that undermines the individual freedoms of everyone who isn't a friggin yahoo with a gun.
Okay, I'll stop now before I start ranting....

[Urzu 7]

I know there are plenty of people who love their gun rights who are not yahoos, and are level-headed people who can be trusted to own guns. But apparently, there are too many yahoos and just plain dangerous people who get a hold of guns in America. I'm not talking about gangsters and drug dealers and such. I'm talking about the people who should be the average joe citizen. I think there are too many common citizens in America who just can't be trusted to have guns (and then there are those that can't keep their guns inaccessible to their kids).

I wish there was hardly any guns in the hands of Americans. I try to see the point of view of those who are advocates of gun rights and gun availability, but I just really dislike the amount of stories and accounts that emerge that tell about gun related violence and death caused by the common citizen.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I know there are plenty of people who love their gun rights who are not yahoos, and are level-headed people who can be trusted to own guns. But apparently, there are too many yahoos and just plain dangerous people who get a hold of guns in America. I'm not talking about gangsters and drug dealers and such. I'm talking about the people who should be the average joe citizen. I think there are too many common citizens in America who just can't be trusted to have guns (and then there are those that can't keep their guns inaccessible to their kids).

I wish there was hardly any guns in the hands of Americans. I try to see the point of view of those who are advocates of gun rights and gun availability, but I just really dislike the amount of stories and accounts that emerge that tell about gun related violence and death caused by the common citizen.

That's because we do not have training requirements.
Banning guns has proven to be totally useless.
Even in countries like China and India, so access is a moot issue at this point.

Education on the proper use of firearms is key to at least eliminating yahoos from society at large.
As the population gets dumber, their failure to respect firearms gets worse.
I'd like to see mandatory training requirements through the Civilian Marksmanship Program in the manner that Theodore Roosevelt had intended.
At least to own civilian militia rifles/weapons.
It would also help if the police did their damn job and prosecuted yahoos when they screw up.
If a good law isn't enforced properly, it cannot do what it was intended to do.
That's the problem here, just as Federal Law prohibits selling firearms to unauthorized persons, you know like drug cartels *cough* Fast and Furious *cough*, laws that allow citizens to defend themselves must be enforced properly or else tragedy can strike.
Like when border agents get shot with guns sold by BATFE to gang-bangers, or a young man gets gunned down by an idiot playing Neighborhood cop.

This is why I know more gun control will not solve these problems, and if the goal is to lesson the number of people who are killed each year, then we need to look at other issues first before we single out gunowners.

Statistically, more people are killed by cars, and drugs then guns, and alcohol related deaths come in a close second.
There are many leading causes of death including Obesity and bad diet.

How much of society are we willing to have policed and/or controlled by others in government?
Firearms are singled out for political reasons and for the simple fact that there are those in power who fear an armed population.
That sentiment is as old as civilization itself.
As Aristotle once wrote: "Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)

[Vexx]

When I grew up just a few years ago (at least in geologic terms), we had firearms teams at high school, it was not unusual to have guns in your trunk for afterschool range practice, the boy and girl scouts taught shooting and firearms safety... and this was in a large metropolitan city.

Strangely, very few people got hurt "cleaning their gun" (one of the most stupid noises that can come out of a mouth), no one shot up schools, accidental shootings, etc. Once in a while someone would be stupid climbing over a barbed wire fence while deer hunting and accidentally shoot self or buddy.

Something changed, and I'll tag parental dis-involvement ('boomer' parents), demonizing and mystification of guns, and the dissolving of firearms education as key factors. It certainly wasn't "access to guns" as they've always been there and readily available.

This kind of ties in with an uneducated population is deadly to democracy but its also deadly to everyone individually.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Firearms are singled out for political reasons and for the simple fact that there are those in power who fear an armed population.
That sentiment is as old as civilization itself.
As Aristotle once wrote: "Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)

I personally consider this argument "libertarian BS". Let's face it, it's people's (often misguided) mistrust in government that makes this argument come alive, while using actual dictatorships in straw man arguments.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Firearms are singled out for political reasons and for the simple fact that there are those in power who fear an armed population.
That sentiment is as old as civilization itself.
As Aristotle once wrote: "Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)

Yes, I'm sure that if someone owns a rifle, it'll come in real handy when the military carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

When I grew up just a few years ago (at least in geologic terms), we had firearms teams at high school, it was not unusual to have guns in your trunk for afterschool range practice, the boy and girl scouts taught shooting and firearms safety... and this was in a large metropolitan city.

Strangely, very few people got hurt "cleaning their gun" (one of the most stupid noises that can come out of a mouth), no one shot up schools, accidental shootings, etc. Once in a while someone would be stupid climbing over a barbed wire fence while deer hunting and accidentally shoot self or buddy.

Something changed, and I'll tag parental dis-involvement ('boomer' parents), demonizing and mystification of guns, and the dissolving of firearms education as key factors. It certainly wasn't "access to guns" as they've always been there.

This kind of ties in with an uneducated population is deadly to democracy but its also deadly to everyone individually.

I agree Vexx, even as recently as the 1980s, in Massachusetts, there were people that had gun racks with rifles and shotguns, and no one gave it much mind.
It seems that during the 80s (and perhaps a little before that) something changed.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I personally consider this argument "libertarian BS". Let's face it, it's people's (often misguided) mistrust in government that makes this argument come alive, while using actual dictatorships in straw man arguments.

It's only a straw man if it misrepresents a position in an argument.
When US politicians and media types say things of this nature it is no BS argument:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking
up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could
not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"...When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical
Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that
the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly....[However, now] there's a lot of
irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's
being abused, you have to move to limit it."
President Bill Clinton on MTV "Enough is Enough" 3/22/94

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat
guns into submission!"
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) on NBC, 12/8/93

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on
personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban
is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to
reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their
ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

20th Century democide should be enough to give anyone pause when it comes to gun control.
Governments kill more people than any other factor in human life, and are the most dangerous threat to the lives of their citizens.

@Urzu 7

Yes, I'm sure that if someone owns a rifle, it'll come in real handy when the military carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

That depends on the rifle.

Mwahahahahaha!

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking
up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could
not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"...When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical
Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that
the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly....[However, now] there's a lot of
irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's
being abused, you have to move to limit it."
President Bill Clinton on MTV "Enough is Enough" 3/22/94

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat
guns into submission!"
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) on NBC, 12/8/93

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on
personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban
is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to
reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their
ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

20th Century democide should be enough to give anyone pause when it comes to gun control.
Governments kill more people than any other factor in human life, and are the most dangerous threat to the lives of their citizens.

Wait, are you implying that democrats might be pushing for banning guns because then they'd be able to put America in a police state with no hassle? Sure they are bad, but I dunno if they are that bad. I don't know what angle you are taking.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Yes, I'm sure that if someone owns a rifle, it'll come in real handy when the military carpet bombs their cul-de-sac.

Its much more likely to be needed in the event of a Large Event .... like a super-Katrina or the Big One on the West Coast when civil order falls apart and the national guard can't respond because, oh darn we used them all up in those unfunded wars

I just think a properly informed/trained population is a good idea for a lot of reasons.

Wait, are you implying that democrats might be pushing for banning guns because then they'd be able to put America in a police state with no hassle?

No, he's simply saying Democrats were pretty open about wanting to ban all guns in the 80s and early 90s... and it basically cost them the House of Representatives in '94. They've mostly learned their lesson since then. But for them to remember their lesson, there needs to be a viable opposition party instead of these "men who stare at goats" we have that make up the GOP today.

I'm actually more concerned about the Democrat coziness with the "IP, copyright mutation" cabal of the MPAA and their ilk. Two parties, two kinds of problems. To keep either one from running nuts, you play them against each other. I'd rather have 3 or 4 parties, then they'd HAVE to find some common ground instead of "my way or highway" -- and it'd be tougher for the multi-national corporations to buy out all sides.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It's only a straw man if it misrepresents a position in an argument.

Using examples of murderous regimes that have no application to a modern democratic society to argue against gun control IS misrepresenting a position. Regardless of the stupidity that the US pro-gun control idiots say,

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

20th Century democide should be enough to give anyone pause when it comes to gun control.
Governments kill more people than any other factor in human life, and are the most dangerous threat to the lives of their citizens.

Let's see, so to prevent famines you need guns? Never mind that at least half of those deaths are from wars rather than one-sided massacres? Again, wrong use of examples to misrepresent a position.


I can understand saying that education is crucial in making guns less dangerous, but the fallacious examples above don't help any arguments.

[Ithekro]

20mm rifle? That must hurt like a sonofabitch.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Wait, are you implying that democrats might be pushing for banning guns because then they'd be able to put America in a police state with no hassle?

You know, I noticed while searching for those quotes that George Bush Senior's quotes about his assault weapon ban of 1989 are hard to find.

I was simply posting the politicians who are most vocal about gun control.

I added Charles Krauthammer because he's a Republican, but it would seem the Republicans don't open their mouths about gun control.
I know the Neo-Cons do support banning guns, but they apparently do not talk about it much.

I'll add this short article from 2009 to balance the perception:

Pro-gun Democrats oppose new assault weapon ban
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press, March 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sixty-five House Democrats said Wednesday that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994 and President George W. Bush let expire.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder that they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law."

They urged the administration to avoid a "long and divisive fight over a gun control issue" at a time when Washington needs to concentrate on the economic crisis.

The House letter came a day after Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, wrote a similar letter to Holder saying the Justice Department should enforce existing laws before considering new gun ownership restrictions. "We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners," they said.

The letters came after Holder, during a news conference to announce the arrest of Mexican drug dealers, said the drug cartels were obtaining high-powered weapons like the AK-47 from U.S. gun stores and said the Obama administration supported reinstituting the ban on the sale of assault-style weapons.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she plans to introduce legislation to bring back the weapons ban. Feinstein was an author of the 1994 bill, which banned 19 types of semiautomatic, military-style guns. The law expired under the Bush administration in 2004. Another long-term goal is requiring that all gun shows conduct background checks before selling firearms.

The National Rifle Association has said it is mobilizing to stop any assault weapons ban, and the opposition of 65 House Democrats, many from rural or conservative districts with strong pro-gun sentiments, probably would doom any legislative drive to restrict gun ownership.

Already this year, Republicans have stalled legislation that would give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House by linking the bill to a measure significantly weakening D.C.'s gun laws.

House Democratic leaders have put off a vote on the voting rights bill out of concern that pro-gun Democrats would oppose it if it is separated from the gun measure.

There are many Democrats who not only understand, but support the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear.
However, the elitists in Washington (from both parties) would very much like a disarmed population.