Thank god for the NRA

[johnsonma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/justice-department-opens-inquiry-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=1&hpw

 

[riser]

Thank god for the NRA. They do some really good things and some not so appealing things.

The Stand Your Ground law has been exceptionally helpful in Florida and far more people's lives have been saved than killed by this law. Instead of having a higher number of innocent deaths without the law, we have a smaller number of innocent deaths with the law.

 

[musical marv]

"a white Hispanic crime watch volunteer"

Huh?

Solid reporting there. No opinion injected into that journalism.

The facts aren't known as of yet, but it is not looking good for Mr. Zimmerman. Not really a Hispanic name, but okay.

I think after some days of investigation/questioning the truth will come out, or at least a good picture of what really happened will come out.

Are you a Racist? It appears this way talking about this garbage Zimmerman thinking he is another Charles Bronson.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Theres mthat word again
Every time I hear it, it gets diminished, as mostly its misapplied, and for many reasons, most of which arent the true meaning of the word, or has anything to do with it

 

[johnsonma]

Thank god for the NRA. They do some really good things and some not so appealing things.

The Stand Your Ground law has been exceptionally helpful in Florida and far more people's lives have been saved than killed by this law. Instead of having a higher number of innocent deaths without the law, we have a smaller number of innocent deaths with the law.

Its pathetic that a civilized society can have laws in place that allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they feel threatened. You can't possibly know whether more innocent lives have been spared by the law than without it.

 

[riser]

Its pathetic that a civilized society can have laws in place that allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they feel threatened. You can't possibly know whether more innocent lives have been spared by the law than without it.

Actually, you can. Look at the murder/rape rates. Wow, a decline.

It is sad that we have laws that protect the the guilty and make the innocent a victim.

 

[johnsonma]

Actually, you can. Look at the murder/rape rates. Wow, a decline.

It is sad that we have laws that protect the the guilty and make the innocent a victim.

The law protects everybody until they are proven guilty, perhaps you would like it if we adopted Iran's legal system? Murder/rape rates have been in decline throughout the nation. Who the hell told you the information your presenting? Was it fox news? Those bastards!

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

How you can defend this pathetic excuse for legislation is mind boggling, by the way I'm not anti 2nd amendment, but this is just primitive thinking at best.

 

[riser]

Self defense deaths. People are able to fight back against someone wanting to cause serious harm to them. I noticed the article didn't mention how many innocent lives were saved.

Criminals are getting killed more now, as opposed to more innocent people getting killed.

One questionable death happens and they want the law rebuked. Yet, getting the law was tough even though we saw plenty of murders from people who were afraid to defend themselves.

How can you defend removing people's ability to legally defend themselves? Without this law people were not able to defend themselves until it was clear they were going to be seriously hurt or killed.. and often it was too late.

10 out 10 times I would put the choice in the hands of a law abiding citizen over a criminal. I do not, cannot, will never understand how you can be against that statement.

 

[johnsonma]

Self defense deaths. People are able to fight back against someone wanting to cause serious harm to them. I noticed the article didn't mention how many innocent lives were saved.

Criminals are getting killed more now, as opposed to more innocent people getting killed.

One questionable death happens and they want the law rebuked. Yet, getting the law was tough even though we saw plenty of murders from people who were afraid to defend themselves.

How can you defend removing people's ability to legally defend themselves? Without this law people were not able to defend themselves until it was clear they were going to be seriously hurt or killed.. and often it was too late.

10 out 10 times I would put the choice in the hands of a law abiding citizen over a criminal. I do not, cannot, will never understand how you can be against that statement.

Typical mindless jargon, give citizens the power to kill anyone they deem as a threat, how can you not see the issue here? A guy walks up to me and then pushes me out of his way, I turn and shoot him and claim self defense and its all gravy, you gotta be kidding, we are devolving our democracy to misguided vigilante justice, pathetic.

Criminals are getting killed more now, without a trial, without evidence, this is a complete disgrace to any developed country.

 

[wanamingo]

Let me know how that worked out for Trayvon Martin.

Or that Frenchman that killed 3 soldiers and a couple of kids.

 

[riser]

What stops a criminal from shooting you dead in the streets?

 

[johnsonma]

What stops a criminal from shooting you dead in the streets?

Not going to be drawn into your flawed logic.

 

[riser]

I have a friend who went to jail in Ohio. Someone broke into her house and came into her bedroom. She was afraid to shoot at the guy because she wasn't sure of the law. Her boyfriend was a police officer and had a gun in the nightstand for her. She fired the shot into an outside wall.

She was arrested and taken to jail for negligent discharge of a firearm. The criminal was not harmed and fled when the shot was fired. He was never arrested and charged.

She went to jail until she could post bond. This law in Florida provides people like her a clear conscience to pull the trigger. The law is there to prosecute them if they do so in a wrongful manner. This individual will be tried by his peers and he will face their judgement. This is our court system, this is our justice system.

You have no idea how many people have truly been saved by this law. Yet, you have one example of a single person who many have been a victim of this law. Looking at the crime reports, you can easily find a countless number of people who were victims because this law did not exist. You can find countless numbers of people who were not victim because this law exists.

This law gives power to the innocent and not the criminal. Too many laws provide too much protection to the criminals. As a society we need to move forward and take the power from criminals and give it to the innocent. You suggest moving backwards by relying on government agencies. When you rely on the government, you lose.

 

[johnsonma]

What a copout!

You won't answer because it will expose your agenda and flawed logic.

There it is with the hidden agenda comment again and come up with your own rebukes, using mine are just lame. OMG read this article and help yourself bro.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028160.200-a-field-guide-to-bullshit.html

I didn't want to answer it because it is a broad statement with no real answer, what stops someone from breaking your windows in your car, what stops someone from jaywalking, what stops someone from doing anything they want. The obvious answer is to give every citizen the power to shoot someone else when they feel threatened, of course!!!!! How did I not realize this?!?!?! Its a breakthrough in our societal structure! Hell, lets just execute anybody who we don't like, screw the trial and evidence, they deserve to die because I said so.

 

[johnsonma]

I have a friend who went to jail in Ohio. Someone broke into her house and came into her bedroom. She was afraid to shoot at the guy because she wasn't sure of the law. Her boyfriend was a police officer and had a gun in the nightstand for her. She fired the shot into an outside wall.

She was arrested and taken to jail for negligent discharge of a firearm. The criminal was not harmed and fled when the shot was fired. He was never arrested and charged.

She went to jail until she could post bond. This law in Florida provides people like her a clear conscience to pull the trigger. The law is there to prosecute them if they do so in a wrongful manner. This individual will be tried by his peers and he will face their judgement. This is our court system, this is our justice system.

You have no idea how many people have truly been saved by this law. Yet, you have one example of a single person who many have been a victim of this law. Looking at the crime reports, you can easily find a countless number of people who were victims because this law did not exist. You can find countless numbers of people who were not victim because this law exists.

This law gives power to the innocent and not the criminal. Too many laws provide too much protection to the criminals. As a society we need to move forward and take the power from criminals and give it to the innocent. You suggest moving backwards by relying on government agencies. When you rely on the government, you lose.

Your example is completely unrelated, people have always had the right to shoot intruders in their property and homes. This law would not change a thing, GREAT example though!

No single person should be able to take the life of another person without impunity. To say otherwise is backwards thinking, something we already have too much of in this country. How you can think that giving the power to kill to every citizen is the right thing to do? Your hate of the government makes you think that this is somehow a good idea and I feel sorry for you.

 

[riser]

The law provides the right to stand your ground when confronted.

As this individual confronted another person and then shot him, he broke the law. The law is fine, the person who used it was ill-informed of the law or knowingly broke it and is lying to protect themselves. It is very likely they are a criminal and would have probably done it even if the law had not existed.

This law provides insight to people on how they can defend themselves. Previously, you had to retreat until you were cornered and still couldn't do anything until the person harmed you. That is a stupid law. Providing people the ability to defend themselves and not have to retreat is very reasonable. Again, this individual broke the law and killed this kid. The law will not protect him.

 

[johnsonma]

The law provides the right to stand your ground when confronted.

As this individual confronted another person and then shot him, he broke the law. The law is fine, the person who used it was ill-informed of the law or knowingly broke it and is lying to protect themselves. It is very likely they are a criminal and would have probably done it even if the law had not existed.

This law provides insight to people on how they can defend themselves. Previously, you had to retreat until you were cornered and still couldn't do anything until the person harmed you. That is a stupid law. Providing people the ability to defend themselves and not have to retreat is very reasonable. Again, this individual broke the law and killed this kid. The law will not protect him.

I see you in a an alley, and shoot you, then claim it was self defense. I just killed you with impunity, do you understand? I stood my ground and murdered you and now have a law that will protect me, its a pathetic and simple minded law.

 

[riser]

Your example is completely unrelated, people have always had the right to shoot intruders in their property and homes. This law would not change a thing, GREAT example though!

No single person should be able to take the life of another person without impunity. To say otherwise is backwards thinking, something we already have too much of in this country. How you can think that giving the power to kill to every citizen is the right thing to do? Your hate of the government makes you think that this is somehow a good idea and I feel sorry for you.

I cannot understand your backwards thinking.

The law states that if you force someone into self defense, the consequence is that the person can fully defend themself, up to and including death to the attacker. This cannot be made any more clear. Everyone is well aware of the consequences.

Regarding this individual, he was out patroling and looking for a fight. The law will not protect him. He shot someone much smaller than him who was on a phone at the time of the attack. The facts are stacked against the shooer. The law will not protect him. He broke the law. He will be judged. The stand your ground law is not the problem.

 

[riser]

I see you in a an alley, and shoot you, then claim it was self defense. I just killed you with impunity, do you understand?

Did you know that you can do that with or without the law? The law gives clear conscience to those who are threatened.

Your example could work in any State in the US with or without this law. I could stab you to death and claim it was self defense. The law does not say you can kill someone, it says you can protect yourself, even if that means killing the other person.

How can you understand that this law is the not the issue?

 

[johnsonma]

Did you know that you can do that with or without the law? The law gives clear conscience to those who are threatened.

Your example could work in any State in the US with or without this law. I could stab you to death and claim it was self defense. The law does not say you can kill someone, it says you can protect yourself, even if that means killing the other person.

How can you understand that this law is the not the issue?

You have to prove you were threatened, with this law the burden of proof is lessened, in other words taking someones life is that much easier. The law is the issue, deny it all you want and use zimmerman as a scapegoat. If the victim was not on the phone he would get off without a second thought, its like our societal thinking is degenerating back to the wild west.

 

[riser]

Proving self defense is not hard. I could say you threatened me, you threw a rock at me, you said you had a gun and were going to shoot me. That's my proof. The alley was dark, or you were hiding, or you came up behind me.

This law did not provide the person with adequate cause to shoot the victim. The individual broke the law and killed the person. They broke the law; the law did not give him permission to do what he did.

The "law" does not prevent nor encourage anything. It is the individual's choice. The Law is there for guidance after the fact.

I will repeat. The individual broke the law. He can claim what he wants but the proof is stacked against him.

 

[johnsonma]

Proving self defense is not hard. I could say you threatened me, you threw a rock at me, you said you had a gun and were going to shoot me. That's my proof. The alley was dark, or you were hiding, or you came up behind me.

This law did not provide the person with adequate cause to shoot the victim. The individual broke the law and killed the person. They broke the law; the law did not give him permission to do what he did.

The "law" does not prevent nor encourage anything. It is the individual's choice. The Law is there for guidance after the fact.

I will repeat. The individual broke the law. He can claim what he wants but the proof is stacked against him.

Where is the rock? Did it have blood on it and where is the gun? Does gun have fingerprints on it? These things don't matter as much with this new law in place.

You just proved my argument, proving self defense is not hard so lets make it even easier to use it as a defense to murder, lets make it known to everyone that if shooting someone in self defense is easier to pull of now. Do you see the flaw in the logic yet?

You are naive if you think that law does not encourage anything, do you think zimmerman would of been following that guy with a gun and shot him had he not heard of the law? Here is another example for you,

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/311679/28/Widow-says-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-law-is-free-pass-for-murder

 

[musical marv]

I was quoting the article. It describes Mr. Zimmerman as a white hispanic. Do they mean caucasian hispanic. It's confusing to say the least.

Yes I'm a racist. I hate all of the human race equally. <--- that's a joke.

I think Zimmerman is a racist and should be arrested asap before there is a riot down there in Sanford .He is a vigilante!

 

[Reynod]

What stops a criminal from shooting you dead in the streets?

Our Government's laws restricting firearms to the extent that most of them are locked up and under control is what stops criminals from shooting us on the streets here.

Not many people shot here ... just the cops mainly do the shooting ... which is ok with me.

You guys shouldn't complain ... I think it is still more dangerous in South Africa to live now.

It is probably too late to get rid of the guns there as removal of them would seriously impact on your already fragile economy.

 

[amdfangirl]

I like our country. I like our gun laws. I've realised it's pointless to fight over something that doesn't affect me in Australia.

I'm happy with however you decide advance your laws.

As long as you intend not to aim your military at us.

I'm happy.