Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The guy with the gun is not zimmerman

Posted 2 years ago on March 25, 2012, 1:43 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


He is every shmuck who voted for a legislator backed by the NRA and ALEC

who voted FOR the stand your ground law
AND who voted for the 31-bullet clips that decimated Gabby Giffords


If you REALLY want to do something about this
REALLY
vote against anyone who takes any NRA or ALEC money
If you REALLY want to do something about this

221 Comments

221 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

2 million people and counting have signed the petition for Trayvon Martin**

www.change.org




....................................WE DEMAND JUSTICE


NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOWNOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOWNOW

[-] -1 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Don't look now, Zimmerman is a registered Democrat and the thug life of poor little Trayvon is coming to light. Opps.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

So, this is how you operate Reason? Your part of this smear campaign. How does reason fit in with smearing people???

For you Reason is not the way obviously!

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Very funny. The smears are on your side. Everyone's a racist and Zimmermann is guilty. Libtards are just runing withd the stock narrative, even at first saying Zimmermann was white. Reuters news service even called him a "white hispanic". LOL

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

Story out of Chicago today with an 80 year old black guy brought up on charges for shooting perp in his house. That's the world the left wants one where they make you accept being victimized.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Reasonistheway (-13) 2 years ago

The last thing these people want is a people that has some capacity to take care of itself.

[-] -1 points by AlBundy (8) from Atlanta, GA 2 years ago

By some strange chance, are your parents cousins?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The American Legislative Executive Council

al·ec 1    [al-ik] Show IPA noun Obsolete . 1. a herring. 2. a sauce or relish made from small herring or anchovies.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a politically conservative [1] 501(c)(3) nonprofit policy organization, consisting of both state legislators and members of the private sector, mostly representing corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council



[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It is the goal of the 1% to cheapen life in America. For their agenda, nothing, besides money, can have any meaning.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I think you give the 1% too much credit
they don't care about money
they care about THEIR money

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The guy says he was in fear for his life even though in his 911 phone call he tells the police he's following Trayvon and the police told him not to do that. This guy had a gun and was chasing a kid all the while the kids is screaming for help and then Zimmerman murdered him in cold blood.

I hope someone will seek real justice for Trayvon if we can't depend on the police to do their job.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Stand your ground does not apply because that's not what Zimmerman was doing. He went looking for trouble. He was following an individual without authorization and in contravention of the 911 dispatchers instructions.

As for self defense. Who is to say that Trayvon Martin was not acting in self defense? When did Zimmerman pull his gun? What is a person supposed to do when he sees a stranger following him for no apparent reason? Was Trayvon not allowed to 'stand his ground' and challenge Zimmerman?

What this does is it sets a precedent. People out to buy groceries may now start carrying weapons for fear of running into someone like Zimmerman. It leads to more unnecessary death. Not less.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Thanks for injecting some sense into this

I know I wouldn't care for being followed by some nut with a gun and an agenda.

Ask yourself what authority does a neighborhood watch actually have to stop and question anyone?

It has no authority.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Absolutely right. Keyword 'watch.'

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The other important question is, was his watch even sanctioned?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Good comments toukarin and shooz. I had thought about Trayvon bei ng the person who had the right under this law to attack Zimmerman who was really acting in a threatening manner. Of course it is a little tough to shoot somebody with Skittles. Assuming that Trayvon had a gun (which is what the NRA and ALEC want) he could have shot Zimmerman under the law. But of course what really would happen is in this case and every similar one, the crime is dieing. If you die you are guilty. If you survive, you claim you felt threatened and you go free.

This is a little different than the old West. Then you had to draw last AND survive. Now you can draw first and still win, if you survive.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Han shot first.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I don't quite understand your comment?

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Just making a joke about the change to the Star Wars movies wherein the original version Han clearly shot Greedo first.

However, George Lucas thought it fit to change the scene to show Greedo as having shot first (and missed) in an attempt to make Hans character appear more... noble... or whatever... since he (now) fired in retaliation rather then preemption...

The point is, there was a time when people actually felt that they needed to show the 'bad guy' actually shoot first, even in this situation where Greedo was threatening Han with his own gun anyway (prompting Han to shoot first).

Things have changed.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Right you are. I had forgotten about that. Of course, Star Wars WAS a cowboy movie, and a WWII and air war movie and.... or a vignette of cliches, if you will.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Zimmerman pursued Treyvon. The law needed to be changed. If someone assaulted you in the state of Florida before the new law and you defended yourself, you would be treated the same and do the same time as your attacker. Zimmerman should not be helped by a law that allows me to defend myself and family. He should be hung in the public square because he pursued with gun in hand, then killed an unarmed child, after being told by an officer/deputy to stop pursuit before he pulled that trigger.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

From latest reports it sounds like the stand-your-ground law may not apply in this case. An eyewitness reports that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was beating him. There was no opportunity for Zimmerman to retreat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS55698227020120327

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

He should be hung in the public square because he pursued with gun in hand, then killed an unarmed child, after being told by an officer/deputy to stop pursuit before he pulled that trigger.

pur·sue/pərˈso͞o/

Verb:

1.Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.

2.Seek to form a sexual relationship with (someone) in a persistent way.

Synonyms: follow - chase - hunt - prosecute - track

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Suppose the grand jury fails to indict after hearing eyewitness testimony?

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Suppose making projections was useful?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Don't you ever plan ahead?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, I plan for my actions. Do you suppose either of us have the power to do more than that?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I try to plan before I post here.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

Paul Krugman outlines the contributions of corporations and ALEC to the implementation of legislation such as "Stand Your Ground" and the movement to privatize the government in this compelling op-ed piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx 'bw' for this extremely interesting and relevant link to which I also draw everyone else's attention. 'ALEC' is a highly organised attempt at rolling back and dismantling society in The U$A and rendering it a 'demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy' !!

caviat emptor ...

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The Florida law is clearly insane, and it has nothing to do with the second amendment. It's reminiscent of the wild west, and has no place in a modern, western, civilized society.

[-] 4 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

It has to do with not being obligated to be a victim. Self-defense is common sense and has a great place in a civilized society.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

If the shooter doesn't claim self defense, then what?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

This law has nothing to do with self defense. It's indicative of a broken society, a people who are so detached from enlightened notions of decency, that they actually believed such a primitive law was rational in today's world. Florida has become a national disgrace, and it's just that simple. The more you try to defend this insanity, the worse you look to rational people everywhere (there is just no redeeming factor in this crap).

[-] 2 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

Exactly because society is broken some times people have to defend against barbarity being coerced on them- until social movements can fix this society the only way possible, from the very core.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

is that the same florida where blacks murderd two british tourists for the " crime " of being in a black neighborhood?

[-] 2 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

That's the KKK-copycat mentality racialism leads to. When historically blacks were oppressed and taught that they are "different", sometimes they, instead of realising they're not (and thus are also equal), get into thinking themselves as antagonists fighting to survive against the "whites". We have to get racial thinking out of all, whether whites or blacks. Skin colour means nothing.

Social/economic class is the issue here. White workers and black workers have nothing to quarrel over- so do white and black bosses.

[-] 2 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

The law defends your right not to be a victim. You aren't obligated to run away, you aren't obligated to do as little as possible in your own self-defense, you aren't obligated to hide and to let someone clean out your house. You don't have to worry about being victimized by the law for defending yourself after you've already been victimized by some perp. We don't yet know what happened with this particular case. I'm just it'll be people not as rash as you that'll take a look.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

In NY state, one is fully within their right to defend their home. Furthermore, a crime victim can defend themselves. If they face deadly force, they can defend themselves using deadly force. One can also defend a third person who's a victim of a violent crime in progress. So don't tell me Floridians needed this bloodthirsty red neck lunacy to successfully defend themselves, that's just a crock of shit.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thats not true.. what about that guy in the subway that shot those thugs? he didnt get a pass..he was prosecuted for defending himself

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

He (I assume you're referring to Bernie Goetz) shot them in the back as they were running away (which is not self defense, it's a revenge shooting).

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

"Bernie Goetz) shot them in the back as they were running away (which is not self defense, it's a revenge shooting)."

You couldn't be more wrong.

[-] 1 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

Just northern bigotry. The point of the law is that you're able to stop what's happening and to clarify for people the common sense rule, not some lawyerly mess of retreat obligations. We don't want people already traumatized by crime to next be traumatized by some D.A. My advice, don't break into someone's house or steal their things in Texas or Florida. I imagine other places have adopted this clarifying reform by now as well.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

So, if I'm walking through my neighborhood at night in Florida or Texas and someone is following me. What is the best course of action for me? The idea that these "neighborhood watch groups" carry weapons would be enough to cause me to want to move to another home. Armed amatuer police aren't something I'd be too comfortable with.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

You don't get to be a bunch of racist sadistic ass wipes and cry bigotry.

[-] 0 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

And more bigotry. Set your hate aside and let the case play itself out.

[-] -1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Nope, I just call it like IT IS. That you guys can't discern objective reality, doesn't make it any less real.

[-] 2 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

I'll wait for the process and not just what i've seen on TV.

[-] 0 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

There have been a lot of protesters in the last year that have been victimized by the police. Should they respond in this way, it would lead to the horror of civil war, which such laws may lead to at some point anyway.

What this amounts to is the suspension of law and order as the basis for society - the loss of which we are already flirting with dangerously, and the police themselves shoulder a large part of the blame.

[-] 1 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

That's nut talk about a police state again. Defending yourself and your property is comon sense. Laws giving the bad guys a running start or forcing you to go and hide while they clean out your house are wrong.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Not only that, under the guise of self-defense, it enables the criminal to easily get away with murder. If you kill somebody, your not going to claim self defense? Get real. This a bandwagon for "justifiable homicides" to sky rocket everywhere this law exists which it has been. But now, it will escalate to new heights as many realize their new found right to shoot first and leave no witness,

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Yeah. In third world countries their "brutal" police always do something like "warning shot" in the air http://www.youtube.com/v/nVBo80hth0M?version=3&f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21299) 2 years ago

It is nothing short of a sick society that allowed these laws to be put in place. We are all to blame.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Now if this tragedy is to mean anything - VOTE against the NRA and ALEC

[-] 0 points by ReasonIsgood (9) 2 years ago

Yeah, people should be obligated to be victims. You can call the police and just do the paperwork after the crime. Grow up.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

if it makes you feel better, YOU blame yourself, i have nothing to blame myself for.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Being an avowed asshat is on that list po6059.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i did nothing wrong , i have no reason to apologize.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A 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. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And whose home was Trayvon invading?


776.012—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
or Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

"Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm"

These are the four circumstances which one is protected if use of deadly force is used properly under this law. It is not just about home invasion, hence the separations by semicolons and the use of the word "or" rather than "and". The latest witness statements say Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating on him. We have to wait and see if an investigation and ballistic tests can corroborate that.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Even if everything Zimmerman says is true, this tragedy clarifies more than any words what "stand your ground" laws can lead to. Self defense has always been a solid defense for killing an attacker, in your home or otherwise. But you were not immune from investigation. The way I understand these new laws, you are permitted to use force when you think you are threatened. If Zimmerman had stayed put as he was instructed, nothing would have happened. But instead he became a threat to Trayvon, who did exactly what the law says he can: fight back. Unfortunately, he apparently didn't know this weird guy stalking him had a gun. Media has pretty much ruined any chance for a fair trial, as they are wont to do. I know free speech allows anyone to say anything anywhere at any time, but every problem within our society is exacerbated -- if not actually created -- by the media. There ought to be a way to curb their influence, but I can't think of any besides not watching any of them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

About that massacre in Afghanistan and the evolving cover story

Posted 1 week ago on March 13, 2012, 2:39 p.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (227) This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Did he have a brain injury?

Did Brain Injury Play a Role in Afghan Massacre?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/about-that-massacre-in-afghanistan-and-the-evolvin/

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

All this handwringing, and now the shooter, George Zimmerman, says that Trayvon Martin physically attacked him before the shooting.

It looks as if Zimmerman is telling the truth according to this article: http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

To complicate matters further, Zimmerman appeared injured when the police arrived, which tended to confirm his side of the story. Plus, the testimony of a thirteen-year-old witness further corroborates Zimmerman's story.

More or less, all these tears and moaniing for the victim and the thirst for revenge against George Zimmerman,may be misguided. The man may have actually been defending himself.

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

A serious Rush to Judgement. Where Bensdad? He owes an apology to Zimmerman and America.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I will apologize when Zimmerman is brought to trial and acquitted.
Because of the stand your ground law. the evidence may never be put forward in a trial.


REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING
THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW IS GUILTY


[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

So what is the answer for someone beating another man's head into the pavement?

Just take it? Just let your head be crushed?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I believe Z needs to be arrested and tried -
let the JURY and the COURTS find the truth

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Nice evasion of the question. Hypothetically, if someone were beating your head against the pavement, trying to crush your skull, what is the correct response?

Or if someone was trying to march you into a gas chamber, how should one react?

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Did you happen to read the article in the Orlando Sentinel today?

If Zimmerman's account, which is apparently backed up by a witness and physical evidence, is true, the stand your ground law would not even apply. That shooting would be justified anywhere.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Is this supposed to mean anything? I mean other then He is going to stand up in his own defense and fabricate a story that no one can attest to? Look for that piece in the article = no one can attest to the 1st punch.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager


Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head 7:36 p.m. EST, March 26, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

    Comments
    927
    ShareNew

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

But the witness and the physical evidence confirm his story of being on the ground with Trayvon banging his head on the ground. The witness in fact claims he is positive that it was Zimmerman screaming on the calls.

The point is that the public has found this man guilty of murder based essentially on the account of Trayvon's family's lawyers. The police have been very quiet on this and are investigating this leak. We have essentially be told only one side of the story.

I just don't understand how so many people can find him guilty without essentially knowing anything about the case.

Assume that Zimmerman's version of the story, as corroborated by the witness and his injuries, is true. Isn't this a justified shooting?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope. He took the law into his own hands ignoring instruction to leave it to the police who were on the way, who he knew were on the way because he called them then ignored instruction and went ahead chased this kid down and forced a confrontation. Some of his last words on the phone was - They always get away.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I find it amazing that you can be so sure. As if you were there.

Perhaps the reason he has yet to be arrested is that the little evidence the police have actually confirms Zimmerman's account?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle we should all not be so quick to give up. Especially in a trial where the MSM is the prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge all in one.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The 1st I heard of this case was on the internet. So much for MSM coverage. Just now tonight was the 1st time I saw it mentioned. This after the over two million signature petition and federal involvement. Yeah the Guy sure is getting tried in the media alright.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Well it is certainly not in a court of law because they have no evidence to prove he did anything wrong, with or without a stand your ground law.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

First, ask yourself why Trayvon was in the gated neighborhood--has that been explained? Even if he was innocently crossing through the gated area, he was trespassing, so Zimmerman, as a member of the neighborhood watch, had a perfectly legitimate reason to follow Trayvon and even ask him about his business in the neighborhood.

Secondly, if you are attacked, even if the other person is unarmed, you may definitely feel endangered enough to respond with deadly force. Ask yourself, if someone considerably larger, younger, and more agile than you attacked you, and you were armed, how would you respond?

Though Zimmerman may have some complicity in the young man's death, I believe we should wait to get most of the facts before arresting him, let alone convicting him.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

"In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."

CAN YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS A CAPTAIN OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH?????????????
or was he a liar ?????????????????/

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I never wrote that he was captain of anything, only a member. You have not answered any of my questions. What was Trayvon Martin doing in a gated neighborhood? Why did he hit Zimmerman?

Instead of hanging the man or even arresting him, don't you believe the police should first gather the facts?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

What was Trayvon Martin doing in a gated neighborhood? He was going to his father's fiance's home - according to reports Why did he hit Zimmerman?
I cannot prove or disprove that , can you?


I believe a COMPETENT police force should gather the evidence and a grand jury should evaluate it

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

So do I; that's why I signed a petition to have the US Attorney General look into the matter.

[-] -1 points by whowhat (-3) 2 years ago

I do not care if Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch or not but evidence shows that Martin attacked him

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and what "evidence" was that?
and what kind of "evidence" do police and the courts hold to be the least reliable?
and why not try him in the courts in stead of the press?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Listen to the 911 calls.

Here you go. Large and in charge Zimmerman ignores the 911 directive not to approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MMPdL5PP0&feature=related

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

does the gated neighborhood have cameras ?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Good point, though the thirteen-year old, who witnessed part of the fracas, tends to confirm Zimmerman's story.

I don't know what happened, but I believe that hanging Zimmerman from the closest tree will accomplish nothing, except to gratify those yearning for some type of vengeance. Let the US Attorney General investigate, and we can see what comes to light.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here you go. Large and in charge Zimmerman ignores the 911 directive not to approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MMPdL5PP0&feature=related

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Listen to the 911 calls.

[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

So, suddenly you believe that we should all obey the instructions of the police without question. I think you're in the wrong movement.

Zimmerman, as a legal resident of the gated community, had a perfect right to follow Trayvon Martin and even ask him what business he had in the neighborhood, police instructions or not.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The police were on their way. The movements against corruption are not movements against sound judgement or advice. He decided to ignore the police and do this on his own, he forced a confrontation. Neighborhood watch groups denounce his actions and say it goes against watch-group training. What did he do after 1st spooking the kid with cruising along slowly behind him and then chasing him after he spooked him. What was his hello how are you this fine evening really like?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

As far as Zimmerman's actions up to the time of the shooting, they were legal. Zimmerman might have used poor judgement, but then again, if Martin hit him, so did Martin.

Let the US Attorney General sort it out, without any of us jumping to conclusions.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Lynch mobs form in an instant, and the thirst for revenge is great, especially when the scantiest of evidence fits our expectations.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

To the Left here:

What do you think about the Resistance against the nazis? They had guns.

The French Revolution? They had guns.

The armed strikers in the beginning of the 20th century? They had guns.

When the state (or big capital) uses coercion and the monopoly of force against the people (having already lost legitimacy) there is only one thing the people can do.

[-] 1 points by iamausername (119) 2 years ago

So did zimmerman. OWS is an example of changing things without violence. So was the american civil rights movement. A better still example was what Ghandi did. less guns=less shootings. Pretty simple

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

thats why the usa in conjuction with the un is trying to un-arm the people of the usa. that's what fast and furious was about. that's why there is the 2nd ammendment. and armed populace can ( AND WILL ) fight back against tyranny.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

And we must remember. The government supports the elite because they give campaign contributions etc to political parties. Thus it can't be trusted to equally and fairly enforce laws. As such, unfortunately under capitalism it would be better if certain laws- ie banning self-defence- simply didn't exist.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

Zimmermann is guilty as hell for harassment and assault-followed the kid while not having to, not being threatened, even told by the police explicitly to NOT FOLLOW. However that doesn't prove he planned to kill Treyvon- meybe he just wanted to rough him up/"arrest" him/harass him/beat him up. Zimmermann isn't guilty OF MURDER because of this.

However,if Treyvon just punched him afterwards that isn't the kind of force that justifies lethal response, he could of just beat back with his fists-actually, if Treyvon was being assaulted Treyvon's punch was self-defence itself. Therefore Zimmermann is guilty for murder FOR THIS.

However,that doesn't mean the Stand your Ground law is bad in itself. Why should we not be able to defend ourselves and our dignity instead of running away and letting the thugs gain the moral satisfaction? There are dumbasses like Zimmermann who take advantage of it, but then so can be said about neo nazis taking advantage of freedom of speech to spread hate. Should we ban freedom of speech? No, use it to counter by spreading tolerance instead of hate to counter their hate. So with gun rights- defend ourselves with the same means they use to attack us.

And about guns

Even if we banned guns completely, what would stop me from using say muay thai skills or huge muscle mass or a heavy object found in the street to do a lethal physical attack on someone and kill him in a split second?

In the 30s Pinkertons private agents attacked labour strikes with live guns. Shouldn't strikers have the right to stand their ground? Should they beg Roosevelt to save them from agents of the corporations that gave campaign contributions to him?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's the mentality and social values that have to change.

Even though i generally support Occupy and am an antiauthoritarian, exactly because i am antiauthoritarian i am against persons having to rely on government to defend them- the government has shown who is out to defend in Zuccoti Park and elsewhere our people get arrested again and again for resisting the elites. The govt cannot be trusted. Thus, people must rely on themselves for defence.

I support the Left, but i disagree on "gun control" for the reasons stated above.

Abou ALEC defending guns. Hitler was a male. Should we be against males? ALEC does some despicable things i agree- those things should be countered exactly because they are despicable, not because ALEC does them.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so hes guilty of murder for what? because he did rough him up/"arrest" him/harass him/beat him up. and when the kid defended himself zimmerman shot him. if the kid had shot zimmerman would it be murder or self defense,. as it makes sense to me that if some guy follows me , confronts me.. im being threatened and have the right to shoot him.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

One lesson we can all learn from this horrible tragedy,,,,Never take Skittles to a gunfight.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

And ALEC is:

Coke and Pepsi, Verizon, AT&T, Amazon, Comcast, Dell, Excel Communications, Frito Lay, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Kraft Food, McDonalds, Microsoft........and so on...

You boycotting all of those companies products?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

As many as I possible can.........:)

Do you support those lazy POS (R)epelican'ts that are so stupid they NEED ALEC to write legislation?

Do you really endorse such lazy thoughtlessness?

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

What I find "lazy" is when folks grab something like "ALEC" or the Koch brothers and use them to sum up all they think is evil as being laid at their feet without doing a bit of their own research.

Take Coke and Pepsi for a second....why would they want to influence legislation? In 2008 and 2009, they lobbied against a soda tax in the health care reform legislation. Who would that tax have hit the hardest? Lower income families don't you think? http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/the-cola-wars-in-washington.html

Or look at Amazon...why would they want to influence legislation? Let's see, they were interested in legislation regarding net neutrality, internet taxes, copyright and trademark issues, And even though it is a member of ALEC, 54% of its PAC donations went to federal candidates who were Democrats - so so much for their being "(R)epelicans". http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3191.html

I find it "lazy" to close ones mind to why members of ALEC would be concerned with legislation and define it as "evil" when the Apollo Alliance also writes and submits legislation but it and the Democrats THEY write legislation for are given a pass on it by those too lazy to look beyond the headlines of mediamatters and moveon.....

Good luck with boycotting the members of ALEC. You'd need to disconnect your internet service, throw away your cell phone, avoid buying cereal and fast food.....I guess you could always homestead somewhere and go off grid growing your own food.....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

All you're doing is proving how close we are to a total corporate takeover.

I've been warning about that for decades.

You, on the other hand, seem to be offering your full endorsement.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

This was straight murder and it is abhorrent that the police department didn't arrest the man on the spot, especially after reviewing the 911 phone calls.

Trayvon is screaming for help before he gets shot and a second shot is heard. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Lr3DOqaSE

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

The police are too busy right now arresting Occupy nonviolent protesters.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

sounds about right. If Trayvon was a white girl in a hoodie, Zimm would have been cuffed on the spot before questions were asked.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the person screaming is zimmerman. zimmermans nose was broken.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Mister misinformation himself has arrived.

You failed to include the fact that Zimmerman openly admitted on a recorded phone call that he was following Trayvon continually after the police told him not to.

Who was in fear of their life? The big guy with a gun or the kid with skittles running away and screaming for help?

Wake up Geraldo!

Listen to the 911 phone calls you fool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOyOvWrL7Zw&feature=related

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the "kid" was 17, over 6 feet tall , zimmerman a lot shorter.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

po6059, You are hopeless and pathetic.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

I am conservative, own guns, and belong to the NRA. However, the killervwas told he didnt need to continue surveillance.

In my mind he committed murder.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So what you are saying is - that Zimmerman was a fool to confront the kid for no reason instead of waiting for the police like he was told to. I agree.

Yep - Zimmerman = Bloody minded fool who provoked a confrontation then killed that other person when he got his ass handed to him.

All in all? Zimmerman is still guilty as sin.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 2 years ago

Do you work? or just post blah, blah, blah... all day...on these forums? I am sorry this guy has the same last name as bob dylan,

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

so, the rule of law means nothing to you? guilty until proven innocent means nothing? you want mob justice? mob rule? what does that say about you?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Really? You have a twisted sense of reality and what is right and what is wrong. The guy had no business approaching Trayvon, He had no reason to approach Trayvon. He certainly had no right to shoot him. All the shit head had to do was wait for the police, but no he was not going to do the right thing the smart thing and let the police interview the kid. Nope Mr. Busybody had a gun and felt all kinds of powerful large and in-charge. So he took the law into his own hands and killed someone.

WAKE-UP.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

How many of us knew these laws were in effect? I did not, and yet 20 plus states have them (including mine). Why does it take a tragedy to wake us up?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the "author" of these laws-
a year ago, I did not know what ALEC is
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection


.............................................BE AFRAID – VERY AFRAID


[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So what you are saying is that he was a typical Hispanic? Isn't that a little racist?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

From latest reports it sounds like the stand-your-ground law may not apply in this case. An eyewitness reports that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was beating him. There was no opportunity for Zimmerman to retreat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS55698227020120327

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

We are all guilty of this. Having been raised a Christian, I can't morally be in favor of any law that allows even the slightest misstep through morality to provide for legalized killings.

Having been raised a Christian, I know that violence is not an answer to violence. I think anyone who voted for this law is guilty; just like how us taxpayers must resign ourselves to the guilt of the dead soldiers and civilians in the Middle East on both sides of the conflict.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Are the people in the factory that made the bullets for the gun used by Zimmerman guilty? What about the maker of the lubricant used to clean the gun? And that gun holster worker?

Is no one responsible for their own actions anymore?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I do believe, you've just answered your own question......:)

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

The debate is not about guns; it is about laws that allow irrational people to act in a way that violates the rights of another without consequences.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

there will be consequences. this law hs nothing to do with this case. this was police stupidity only.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What does the stand-your-ground law in FL allow?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A 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.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Is this the part of the law that you object to?

(3) A 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.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

The "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary" is the problem. People have proven they are not reasonable, that they have fears that cause them to perceive danger when there is none, which leads to tragedy. Self defense has always been permitted under the law. To add this wide definition invites vigilantes to make themselves available for attack, perhaps even invite an attack, and then kill the attacker.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I think that law was enacted to prevent prosecution of individuals that failed to retreat in the face of a threat (the law prior to stand-your-ground).

Do you believe that a citizen should be subject to prosecution if they fail to retreat?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

If the threat is real and one chooses to stand and fight, then both parties risk ending up dead or badly hurt. If the threat is imagined, then the one imagining it becomes the aggressor, giving the other party the right to defend him/herself. Why on earth would one not wish to retreat (i.e., get away) if it is possible?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I can think of one case where retreat would not be an option: if the victim was your child.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Yep, we're all responsible for our own actions, whether that's firing the gun, making the gun, selling the bullet, or allowing the gunman to get away with murder.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So the guy that makes the gun bears equal guilt with the guy that pulls the trigger?

Is the guy that builds a car guilty for the murder committed by the hit-and-run driver?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Bearing responsibility is not the same as bearing "equal" guilt. And as you yourself said, "Is no one responsible for their own actions anymore?"

Gun manufacturers who fund the NRA, which in turn bullies legislators to removing the most common sense regulations on guns, all in the name of profit (while cynically cloaking themselves in the 2nd amendment) are responsible for their own actions. The are responsible for making this country a more dangerous place. They don't get a pass on responsibility. No one does.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The gun makers are getting a pass today.

Legally a person that bears responsibility for a crime must pay in proportion to their accountability.

Is the guy that builds a car guilty for the murder committed by the hit-and-run driver?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We are not talking merely about legal responsibility, but moral responsibility.

However, if that car maker intentionally built a car that was unsafe, that company does indeed bear a legal responsibility as well. And if a gun manufacturer makes hollow point bullets or 31 round rapid fire semi-automatic pistols, they, too should be held to account legally. They are intentionally making products less safe. And by pushing legislation that makes people less accountable for killing and wounding others, it has complete moral culpability in the death of that innocent kid in Florida.

But, as with so many other issues in this country, the well-funded NRA has paid off politicians to keep death merchants safe from prosecution while placing the people in harm's way, all for the sake of ever-greater profits. It's just one more example of the corruption of the process.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about the moral responsibility.

The car analogy is important because it is a defining case. Assuming that the car was free from defects, is the guy that builds a car guilty for the murder committed by the hit-and-run driver?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The analogy doesn't hold. Cars are to transport people. Guns are made specifically to take life. By making guns ever more lethal, combined with pushing for legislation to make them usable against unarmed people without consequence, they are culpable in this kid's death, (as well as the deaths of the two people shot to death by a neighbor in Texas) as are all the legislators who passed this series of laws. I could easily see a civil case (it really should be criminal, but I don't see how, unfortunately) that holds these gun makers and the NRA liable for this murder in much the same way as cigarette manufacturers were successfully sued. They both promote products that are a known threat to public health. And the gun makers and the NRA work to eliminate whatever can be done to keep the ownership of these weapons as safe as possible.

The NRA has gone far beyond its stated mission to protect the second amendment. They have gone on to being simple richly financed shills for the gun manufacturers who don't care how many people die as long as their profits are secure. "Stand Your Ground" laws must be repealed.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Guns as they are used by US citizens are specifically for hunting and protection. This is not conjecture as evidenced by the statistics. Each year only 0.01% of the guns (both legal ad illegal) in the US are used to take a human life. That means that the vast majority of guns owned by US citizens are not used specifically to take human life.

The statistics also indicate that cars are much more likely to kill and injure people than guns.

Auto Deaths: 44,000 Auto Injuries: 230,000

Gun Deaths: 31,000 Gun Injuries: 73,000

There are also many more guns in the US than there are cars.

It is legal to make and sell guns. Like the suits against the tobacco companies the fight against the NRA and gun companies would be long and expensive. It might be possible to put them out of business with a protracted fight, particularly if the Gov is behind the case. Also, Gov officials are normally immune from prosecution in such cases.

Do you think that in the absence of stand-your-ground it should be legal to prosecute a person who fails to retreat in the face of a threat?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

GUns are made for killing. That is their sole purpose. Whether it is for animals or people is not the issue. The whole point of a gun is that it is lethal.

When gun manufacturers work to make sure that the MOST lethal guns are put on the market and made legal, like semi-automatics, etc, that is not for the purpose of hunting. Not is it for the purpose of self defense. You don't need a fucking machine gun to defend against someone breaking into your house for your DVD player.

Yes, it is legal to make and sell guns. As currently interpreted by the courts, it will remain so. But what about rocket propelled grenades? What about lazer -guided missiles? What about 20mm rapid fire cannons? If the NRA and ALEC had its way, they would be as readily available to consumers as shaving cream. And the reasons given would be 2nd amendment rights and extreme hunting.

There is a point at which reason must hold sway, where death merchants should not be protected. And yes, if a person fails to retreat when he can in order to avoid taking a human life - and the option to take a human life should be the very last resort, not the first - then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

You statistics are car deaths and gun deaths are comparing apples to oranges. People in this country drive hundreds of millions of miles per year. Hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo are not fired each year. car companies are compelled by law to make their products as safe as guidelines permit. Gun makers are trying to get more and more unsafe weapons in to the hands of people, and are literally writing laws (along with ALEC) to allow their free use against people more likely.

Not is the sheer number of deaths the issue. Even a single wrongful death is punishable by law. It is still wrongful. And if a gun was PURPOSELY made easily available to a psychotic or a yahoo, was made, not for hunting, but for spraying bullets indiscriminately, as we have seen in other cases, if they manufacture and sell hollow point bullets, whose purpose is to kill instead of wound, they should go to jail for being accessories to murder.

You might find this article interesting. It is about who wrote the "Stand Your Ground" laws and their real purpose. And guess what: it has nothing to do wit self-defense.

I won't even link it: I will simply copy and paste in the next post.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

From the NY Times, op-ed by Dr Paul Krugman:

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future. Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal- industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The FL law reads:

(3) A 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.

I think that law was enacted to prevent prosecution of individuals that failed to retreat in the face of a threat (the law prior to stand-your-ground).

Do you believe that a citizen should be subject to prosecution if they fail to retreat?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Do you believe that a citizen should be subject to prosecution if they fail to retreat?"

Yes.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If a child is about to be killed in the next moment and you can stop the murder with force, what clear option to retreat could exist that would save the child's life?

In this case, as in all cases, an individual has the right to use the least force necessary, including lethal force, to prevent an unjust killing (which should be the standard in any killing of a human being, including capital punishment).

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

First, I have answered your question three times already. Obviously if there is no option to retreat the entire point is moot. And the law has always recognized that. "Stand Your Ground" laws have nothing whatsoever to do with that scenario.

In all cases, an individual is not simply permitted to use the least force necessary, but must be OBLIGATED to do so. But these new ALEC written laws make the GREATEST, MOST LETHAL use of force acceptable as a FIRST option. That is utterly unacceptable, and really really sick.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you believe that a citizen should be subject to prosecution if they fail to retreat if they are trying to protect their child?

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If a child is about to be killed in the next moment and you can stop the murder with force, what clear option to retreat could exist that would save the child's life?

In this case, as in all cases, an individual has the right to use the least force necessary, including lethal force, to prevent an unjust killing (which should be the standard in any killing of a human being, including capital punishment).

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If there is a clear option to retreat to save the child, yes.

No law should make "standing one's ground" permissible if there are other options. No law should make it an attractive "reasonable" first choice. No law should encourage vigilantism. No law should hold human life so cheaply as these do.

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

Leftists knee jerk!! Krudman is a complete idiot so you do have that in common with him.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Hardly worth a reply since you obviously don't have the capacity to understand the very real connections he is making. You right wing morons do seem to have IQs one can count on one hand, (but since you are too dumb to count, too, you likely don't understand that, either).

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree that some guns are optimized for killing, others to wound, and even stun. However, it is worthwhile to give credit to guns for their role in preserving the peace. They provide equal footing for women against a larger man, even the sides between the few against the many, and the put the peace in Peace Officer. (BTW. US consumers buy over 900 million rounds of ammo each year)

The bigger the weapon the more peaceful the effect. After the first use of atomic weapons in 1945 the % of the population killed in wars dropped for the first time in 1000+ years, and has remained at a low level ever since. We are currently enjoying one of the most peaceful periods in history; thanks in part to nukes.

http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9216583/nuclear-weapons-ironic-peace-comes-having-10616185.html

http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/metal/small-arms-ammunition

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nonsense.

The numbers of self-defense shootings in the US is miniscule. But the numbers of people getting shot (not criminal) who possess a gun goes p by a factor of 4. In other words one is four times MORE likely to get shot if carrying a gun than if not. That is the opposite of self defense.

Your nukes argument is also nonsense. And we are experiencing as many deaths worldwide due to wars since WWII as during it. The only difference is that the wars are multiple and regional instead of singular. And all it would take is a single nuclear incident to touch of world-wide destruction: and we have been on that brink a few times.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The point is not to shoot; it is to prevent attack through intimidation.

The number of crimes prevented by guns is not at all minuscule and numbers in the tens of thousands per year. This is the primary use of guns by US citizens; to kill.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/10971-guns-used-in-self-defense

The data on nukes is pretty compelling. The deterrent effect (similar to guns) has helped give us one of the most peaceful periods in history. The number war related deaths , worldwide as a percentage of the population, dropped after WWII , and has remained at a low level ever since. This is not conjecture, the data is surprising. It could be that modern communication and the 24/7 news cycle makes it seem worse but it is actually much better.

http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9216583/nuclear-weapons-ironic-peace-comes-having-10616185.html

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below:

Sorry, but 93 million dead through war and genocide does not indicate relative peace to me nor to any other sane human being. And you conveniently continue to ignore the other point: we have come within a hair's breath of global nuclear war at least once, and more likely two or three times. That does not make anyone safer, since all it would take is a single time, rather than a single bullet, the button is pushed and bye-bye human race. Billions would perish and civilization would end in a matter of a few hours. You might find that comforting technology: sane people consider it an unacceptable, terrifying threat to all of creation.

As to the SYG law, by allowing the first choice to be deadly force, by not mandating retreat from threat if possible, the law encourages deadly force. It SHOULD be the first duty to retreat. Deadly force must be reserved for situations in which there is no other reasonable option: where it is necessary rather than optional. That way has worked very well for decades; This law is completely unnecessary. It cheapens life. It is a reprehensible, immoral, obscene disgrace, created for the sole purpose of demagoguery (and as Krugman pointed out, profit) , based in large part on racist fears of undocumented immigrants and Blacks. . There has been no increase in crime to justify it, in fact, the trends have all been in the opposite direction for about 2 decades.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

War related deaths per 1000 of the world population

BC 3000-2500 = 15

BC 2500-2000 = 20

BC 2000-1500 = 21

BC 1500-1000 = 60

BC 1000-500 = 78

BC 500-0 = 2455

AD 0-500 = 1196

AD 500-1000 = 499

AD 1000-1500 = 1975

AD 1500-1945 = 145074

AD 1945-2010 = 4.6

We live in the most peaceful time in 5000 years; thanks to weapon technology.

Source:http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/22/4/437.citation

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to post below:

Since the end of the Second World War in 1945 there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.

Although those numbers are half of that of WWI casualties, it hardly speaks of a peaceful world. (And if you include genocide in the numbers, they are closer to 93 million, far more than all WWII deaths combined. That's hardly a testament to the deterrent power of nuclear weapons.) What's more, the the world was almost destroyed on more than one occasion by nuclear weapons, a threat nonexistent before their invention. What's more, the more local nature of those 250 post world war armed conflicts has little to do with nukes as deterrents, but more with the specific nature of each conflict, and the international mechanisms put in place since The War, that have prevented escalation into world-wide conflict. The different nature of those conflicts become clearer when looking at the percentage of civilian victims; In armed conflicts since 1945, 90 per cent of casualties have been civilians compared to 50 per cent in the Second World War and 10 per cent in the First.

The point is not "not to shoot", but to have a latent threat to shoot. Intimidation only works by the force to back it up. But all of that is beside the point. If someone feels the need to have a firearm at home to give themselves a (false, statistically) sense of security it's one thing. But to make the use of such a firearm the legally preferred method of defense is a crime against conscience and reason.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

War related deaths per 1000 of the word population

BC 3000-2500 15

BC 2500-2000 20

BC 2000-1500 21

BC 1500-1000 60

BC 1000-500 78

BC 500-0 2455

AD 0-500 1196

AD 500-1000 499

AD 1000-1500 1975

AD 1500-1945 145074

AD 1945-2010 4.6

We live in the most peaceful time in 5000 years; thanks to weapon technology.

Source:http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/22/4/437.citation

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Look at the trend from 1000 AD to the present of war casualties as a % of the world population. There was a steady increase until the end of WWII and then a sharp decline. It has remained low ever since. It is more peaceful today than it has been for 1000 years.

The threat of force has saved hundreds of millions of lives in the last 60 years. The evidence is overwhelming.

That is what technology has given us.

Consider this: In the future (30 - 70 years) everybody will be able to kill anybody, without detection. Will this make the world more or less peaceful?

http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9216583/nuclear-weapons-ironic-peace-comes-having-10616185.html

Also the FL stand your ground law does not require lethal force, it allows it.

The FL law reads: (3) A 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.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

http://necrometrics.com/gunsorxp.htm

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

You are a glittering Jewel of ignorance,pomposity,stupidity and arrogance. Do even know the difference between "semi-automatic" and "machine gun"? You should spare us all your ignorant opinions until you learn what the hell you're talking about.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Both are completely unnecessary for either hunting or self defense. You are an idiot if you think there is a distinction between them in that regard. Perhaps you should work -really really hard considering your cognitive disability - to actually try to understand the content of a post before trolling about it.

Idiot.

[-] -2 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

"Both are completely unnecessary for either hunting or self defense."

Spoken like an uniformed,inexperienced anti-gun Hack. Nothing's worse than an arrogant,uneducated buffoon that doesn't know when to shut up and go back to their kindergarten class and continue make believe games where they belong.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Not as much guilt, but there's a burden of responsibility. We are a society, and everything an individual does has impact on the society at large. Unless you withdraw from society, you hold responsibility for the failings of other individuals.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Unless you withdraw from society, you hold responsibility for the failings of other individuals.

I have not read or heard a statement like this before. Will you describe this theory a bit more? Do you believe that a hermit is responsible for the actions of others? How does this work?

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I believe that if you live in a society, you have responsibility to that society. It's in a way the same argument that the government uses for taxes--you benefit from our government by way of protection, education, and public roads, and so we tax you to use these things.

If you live in a society, you sign a contract saying that you will work toward the betterment of that society since you reap the benefits of the social system. Society becomes an extension of you, and you a patron of it. So if you actively create something destructive like a gun though are not firing it... well, think of it this way: if no one made a gun, then nobody would die by one. It's your moral responsibility as a human being to not create destructive forces (i.e. guns, racism, misogyny, fires, poisoned food).

The hermit opts out of society. He creates his own society much like Turkey and Turkmenistan are separate countries. Turkey may be aware of atrocities in Turkmenistan but is not expected to correct them. As long as Turkey isn't creating these atrocities, they are separate entities with separate identities and responsibilities.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think this is another way to say. Evil wins when good people do nothing.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

That is a little different than saying that the murder victim bears responsibility for their own killing.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

As in all things there are no absolutes. If you are minding your own business going to and from a store, taking a walk or whatever, you should not fear for your life from a vigilante.

If on the other hand you are living a life of crime? All bets are off you should have plenty to fear as those you prey upon should have reason to fear you.

That being said. Vigilantism should not be allowed nor should it ever be encouraged. Contact the police, keep an eye on the situation if you safely can. Do not engage unless there is clear and present danger to another. Not knowing the circumstance that you are walking into you have no right to use deadly force.

Defending you and your family in your home is a lot different than defending the public at large out on the streets.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

WHich innocents is my post punishing?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Any NRA member innocent of a crime and the legislators that support their constitutional rights.

Why is it that when someone commits a crime we give our government license to steal freedom from the innocent?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The "Stand Your Ground" law is not what the 2nd amendment was talking about.

Shooting a kid that is yelling for help is not what the 2nd amendment is about. This law is bullshit and the NRA needs to take responsibility for laws they represent.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Suppose that instead of a kid the person was a 6' - 2 ", 180 lb football player, and he broke your nose, and then smashed your head on the curb, and was about to smash your head again, would it be ok at that point to fear for your life?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I think Trayvon was the one defending his life by running and yelling help.

Listen to the 911 phone calls. Zimmerman is chasing after Trayvon even after the police told Zimmerman to not do that. He got out of his car while he was safe and in no danger. And when Trayvon started running why would Zimmerman chase after him? What crime was Trayvon committing before Zimmerman chased after him with a gun? Being black and walking? Zimmerman committed murder after chasing down a minor who was running in fear..

You are a fucking fool.

Listen to all the 911 calls - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOyOvWrL7Zw&feature=related

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Have you read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/25/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This story seems complicated. Is there a rush to judgement without facts?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The guy got out of his car and approached a teen for being a black kid walking and followed the kid, even when the police told him not to. He left his safe care to start a problem that resulted in him shooting a kid.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There are other reports that (see npr.org http://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/ ) Zimmerman was attacked after returning to his car. There are also eyewitness reports that the two were fighting.

Shouldn't we wait for the facts before we rush to judgement?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I blame the guy with the gun that was following an innocent minor and starting conflict.

Murder charges need to be filed. And then he can have his day in court.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you. This has to go before a jury.

What happens if the grand jury fails to return an indictment?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

SPECIFICALLY how am I punishing any NRA member or any legislator that supports constitutional rights?
And where did I say "steal freedom"

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

You want to exploit this tragedy to encourage people to vote against supporting the constitutional rights of others; consequently usurping their freedom.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

you logic is too convoluted I'll just say I support everyone constitutional rights and personal freedom and leave it at that.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with your reasoning.

Don't use offences committed by the few to steal freedom from the many.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Should it be legal to own a small nuclear weapon? Right to bear arms, eh?. Back when the second amendment was written, they didn't have handheld automatic weapons that could take out 50 people at once. They had musket rifles.

I support gun ownership rights, but at a certain point a gun is more than a self defense tool and a hunting tool... at a certain point it is a weapon for mass killing. The process to get one should be very intense as well as include a psych evaluation. Even then I don't like the idea of my racist neighbor having a bunch of Ak-47's. When it comes to fully automatic weapons, it's a tough issue and I have mixed feeling about it. But your claim in your comments here... I don't agree with at all.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What do you think the framers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd amendment?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I think the 2nd amendment is clear. The stand your ground law and a lot of what the NRA pushes for, is not what the second amendment is about.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What is the 2nd amendment about? Why did they put it so high on the list?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Are you familiar with the declaration of independence? Are you familiar with the heinous crimes of a distant land on their fellow man?

The stand your ground law and a lot of what the NRA pushes for, is not what the second amendment is about.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What does the FL stand your ground law allow? What does the law provide?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"It tells me that goosestepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them."

Use google to answer your questions. I know the answer but I'm done playing your question and answer game after reading your comment defending the actions of Zimmerman.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

The constitutional right to bear arms is not a right to bear guns, it's a right to bear "arms." If we interpret the Constitution strictly, we all have an individual right to arm ourselves with the most modern weapons of war, including nuclear missiles. If you believe that's a good idea, then by all means, stick to your guns. (see what I did there? huh? huh?) But if you think it's a bad idea to allow your neighbor to have a nuclear missile, then the debate is not whether or not rights are being violated but where the cut-off point is between a weapon that's reasonable for your neighbor to have and the one that isn't. That's the side of the argument the NRA never wants anyone to think about. And that's why they're not protecting our liberty, they're actually crushing it.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

Yes, don't allow a nuke- but allow him to amass an army of millions through rhetoric to use stones and sticks to kill everyone in their way.

Same result-millions of dead people.

It's not about the nuke- it's about using a nuclear explosion to kill millions, or in general killing millions.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you.

What do you think that the framers had in mind when they included RBA in the 2nd amendment?

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

They were thinking about the time the British marched to Concord to seize the cannon in the colonial arsenal. They were thinking of "arms." Which is why they included the clause on "well-regulated militia." They recognized that a monopoly of power by the state would lead to tyranny so they specifically thought of the army as a collective of regional militias, which was how the Revolution, and much of the Civil War, was fought. They didn't anticipate nuclear weapons but they figured whatever came along would be "well-regulated." The NRA totally ignores that part.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

So the framers wanted the people to retain the ability to over throw an oppressive government?

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I see what you're doing here and you're not 100% wrong. But I wouldn't go that far. I think the Framers wanted the government to be nervous enough that it COULD happen and behave themselves. But I think it's a stretch to think of military power in the hands of the citizenry as part of the "checks and balances" of government. Because there need not be a provision in law to allow for the citizenry to overthrow their government, it just sorta happens when people have had enough. They had just witnessed that personally so they were well experienced with the social dynamics involved.

I think they included "well-regulated militia" so that the citizenry would both have the arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, but also that they be involved in the civic process of maintaining a militia, which places them in communications with government and reduces the chances of the necessity of conflict. The point of the second amendment is not to empower the people to revolution, but to prevent its necessity.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree. The folks that wrote the bill of rights had just been through a bloody revolution and wanted to insure that the people had the power to, at the very least, pose a reasonable threat to the Gov. They needed to demonstrate that they were capable of defending them selves.

I don't have a dog in this fight but I expect some NRA members value the ability to demonstrate a reasonable deterrent to potential threats.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

One would hope.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

Exactly. If an oppressive government goes so far down the moral downfall road to having nukes and be willing to use them on its people, unfortunately the people have to follow or lose their freedom and thus their reason for existing.

Annihilation is (a bit?) better than slavery.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Actually the possession of nukes has produced one of the most peaceful eras in human history. We have since the first use of nukes and continuing up to today enjoyed of the lowest rate of war casualties per capita ever.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Great response pewestlake. I just made that same argument about nuclear weapons a second ago and now reading your comment. Back then they had musket rifles. Way different than today's weapons made for mass killing.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

True, but they also had cannon. They knew destructive power was increasing. I think they included "well-regulated militia" for exactly that reason.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Great point. What does your name mean? pewestlake?

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

LOL. It's actually just my name. My real name. Yeah, I know I'm crazy to comment on social media with my real name but I'm not hiding anything and I like to lend force to my opinions by not being anonymous.

And thanks!

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

Guns don't kill people,people kill people. Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman was defending himself.

You anti gun dumb shits are nothing more than Liberal activists who are clueless.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Guns don't kill people.....Killers do, and they do it more often with guns.

So how do we keep them separated?

Try and think beyond a bumper sticker.

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

People are killed by knives,physical violence,poisons etc,.......... So how do we keep them separated?

Try to at least think.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Still stuck in bumper sticker logic?

As I said, killers do it more often with guns.

Why do you think that is?

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

Why do think people kill people?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Answer my question first.

Your refusal to do so, is tiresome, and blurs the conversation.

Why do killers prefer to kill with guns?

[-] -2 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

Only God knows what is in the mind of a man. Tools are irrelevant,your question is meant to obfuscate and deflect from the blame that should be given to the perps not their tools. You seek only to attribute blame to tools not people and thus further your agenda of gun control and the purging of 2nd Amendment freedoms.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You just used the laziest obfuscation of all.

Defer it to God.

I just want to see fewer people dying by gun violence.

You want just the opposite, and that was never the purpose of the second amendment.

Now, would you please answer the question, without all the BS?

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

"I just want to see fewer people dying by gun violence. You want just the opposite".

You are assuming wrongly of course while my assertion of you is quite correct,you are against the right to bear arms. You are for "common sense" gun laws which as anybody knows is merely code for creeping incremental destruction of the 2nd Amendment.

You don't have the integrity or honesty to say really what you think so you cloak your words with propaganda.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You once again didn't answer the question.

You once again provided nothing but propaganda.

You once again filled your response with assumptions.

It's YOU who lacks integrity and honesty, or you would have at least attempted to answer the question..

All I did was ask you a simple question.

[-] -1 points by mikechex (-5) 2 years ago

You don't really read posts do you? You gloss over and selectively parse and ignore content. If you actually paid attention you would have read the answer. It is however not the answer you want. Oh well.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You never answered the question.

You lack that integrity. Or is it just cowardice?

You don't even seem to understand what you've posted.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

vulgarity is often the first sign of dementia or kochitis - please see your doctor

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 2 years ago

But in the name of "getting money out of (R only) politics", yeah right, vote for the (D's) no matter whose money they take.....

Focus on little sub issues and completely conflict the alleged agenda of OWS in the process.