Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns NRA tests a pet theory

Very useful links, thanks Cousin It!

And obviously "overheaded " you as well !

By far the vast majority of homicides involving blacks are "black on black" crimes, ( to delineate it terms of race), to the tune of over 17/day in 2010 per the UCR !
Where is the "moral outrage" on the part of the "usual prevaricators" on this statistic ? The "Martin case" isn't even a "bump" on the statistical graph of white on black statistics because they are so few per the same source ! So why the "hoopla" ? Except that it plays to the Obama racist meme ! And the the 2012 DNP election scheme ! >Mech

SG,
I ain't "defending -nor vilifying - Zimmerman ! I'm content to wait for the Sanford PD to do their job and the Grand Jury to do its job !

Pity so many are4n't equally concerned/ aroused over the other sixteen deaths of black youths at the hands of black assailants that same day, (per UCR stats) ! >Mech

Can't provide a link from my non-computer, but there is now a video of Zimmerman's arrival at the station. Make of of it what you will.

Perhaps you'd like to take a run at answering your question? I believe I asked for links a number of days ago but you didn't provide any. If you don't understand how to post a link, I'm sure somebody could help you out with that.

Also, this thread is about the Stand Your Ground laws, so if the other issues that you keep referencing don't relate to that, then this is not the thread for discussing them. You can start a thread of your own on the subject and maybe you will get some discussion on the lack of moral outrage, et cetera.

What's UCR?

NRA guy makes a very convincing case that the SYG law is innocent, and uses lethal force defending it by throwing Florida law enforcement folks under the bus.

NRA guy

He does add a little bit of language to the law that isn't there, like it doesn't apply if you are stalking someone and it only applies if someone is threatening to kill you. Such minor details that should be so obvious as to have no need for repeating within the law itself. I think the interview just ran short on time, but he never got around to saying how those minor things that aren't included in the law could be ascertained after one of the players was dead (the one without a gun). I think it was a ploy on the part of CNN to make the NRA look stupid.

Why would they need any help in that arena?

LT, Mech cannot respond to your request, as he is no longer a participant in the forum.

I find it ... ironic does not seem sufficient... that the people who are most adamant in defense of this law (and I am not talking about here in the forum), say that it is not the law, but how it is being interpreted that is wrong, and not what it actually says, are the same people who are as vociferous in their attacks on judges who... wait for it... are activist judges for interpreting the Constitution, when we should be limited to what it actually says. At the same time, however, insisting that the Supreme Court ignore that bit of the Second Amendment that doesn't coincide with their interpretation. So, we should imply language that isn't there with regard to the Florida law, but ignore language that is there in the Constitution. Either way, blame the judge.

Glad I am not in either of those categories NWP.
I DO blame the law, the way it was written.

Logtroll sez:

When it comes to something like excercising the right to use deadly force on an attacker I do not think laws should leave even the least or most obvious things to chance, or interpretation.

In fact for something that serious, I am adamant that the law should make itself crystal clear to even the most toothless knuckle dragging imbecile imaginable, if only because so many in that social strata seem to have some predisposition to settling their problems, real or perceived, with deadly force.

In the perfect world this law is supposed to take the threat of a heavy prison term off the innocent law abiding citizen minding their own business who gets brutally accosted by a criminal and responds by blowing him away.

It's not supposed to protect self appointed Marshall Dillons, over-excited bouncers, overzealous property owners who camp out behind their NO TRESPASSING signs with itchy trigger fingers and convicted felons who manage to slip under the radar and purchase guns when they know full well they shouldn't be able to.

It's not supposed to protect stalkers who see things that aren't there, those who suffer paranoid delusions that an entire race of humans is out to attack them, tea baggers who strut around at political rallies shrieking about watering the tree of liberty or just plain stupid people who don't understand the difference between starting a confrontation and dealing with one that someone else started.

And all of that, and more, does need to be put into the wording of any kind of law that intends to give a very limited set of permissions to end a human life under a strict set of circumstances where there is no other remedy short of the law abiding citizen giving up their own life instead.

I realize that we cannot idiot proof every law or anticipate every single possibility. And I also recognize the fact that no law can offer a guarantee of 100 percent infallibility or a 100 percent guarantee of safety.

But not only can we not leave the law sporting an "anything goes" loophole, we also must make a reasonable effort to impart the serious consequences due anyone who uses the law as a short path to stardom and glory, the way our amateur lawman George Zimmerman seems to have done.

We already do that much for lots of laws that pertain to a wide range of human activities.
Vehicle laws, driving laws, laws that pertain to educating our children, laws that define the moment of conception, laws that deal with interstate commerce; laws of all kinds have reams of admonitions directing their proper use and interpretation.
We're even going to the wall with laws that permit the use of something as harmless as MARIJUANA, fer Chrissakes.

So that's the least we can do with a law that permits the excercise of one of the most powerful and deadly rights any society can have.