General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm gonna say it and I don't care what gun nuts think...
Stand Your Ground laws are basically a free pass to go human hunting.
These laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with 2nd amendment rights.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)At least we have some sane people running our government.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)would make all the laws in a NE state moot.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just like driver's license reciprocity doesn't mean that a person with an NY license doesn't have to follow FL's traffic laws when in FL, this law wouldn't affect what's legal and what's not in the NE.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)especially in NYC, and there were a couple of instances recently with people with out of state CCW. Most landmarks in NYC installed metal dectectors after 9/11. You are not allowed to carry at these places. One woman tried to and was arrested. Courts, DMV, and many office buildings installed metal detectors after 9/11. I can just imagine what is going to happen if this law goes into effect. I can see these people trying to fight the strict local laws, or at the very least, claiming ignorance.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just like you can't use ignorance of NY's traffic laws when you drive there.
In those specific cases, I have to wonder if they were 'real' and not some kind of plant. I mean, c'mon, who doesn't know that NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the US?!?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)"2nd amendment" mythology down the throats of every city and town in America.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)any gun laws anywhere in the country. As Heller clearly showed, the current hyper-conservative, activist SCOTUS will not allow any local or state gun control to stand.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Makes an interesting read, if you have a couple hours to burn.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Have you not heard the name Paul LiarPage from Maine, T'Bagger and Koch brothers wet dream? Seriously though I am all for open carry, if your manhood is that much smaller than the others, and you have to resort to carrying then open carry is the only sane way. If you can see the threat you can sometimes avoid it. Sign me gun nut but reasonable LOL!
DippyDem
(659 posts)Check this out and the dumbass comments that follow.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/massachusetts_weighs_bill_to_e.html
I'm a Masshole and hate this. My brother is a paranoid conspiracy freak and has been trying to obtain firearm permit and so far he hasn't due to past domestic violence. I pray he never succeeds.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If so, it is a federal crime for him to possess one.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)It is that important to face the truth.
Tikki
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Some gun nuts are not criminals. Don't worry about them.
Seems Zimmerman was a criminal, tho. Had a record, and still had a gun. What will the nuts say 'bout that?
movonne
(9,623 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)People who enjoy guns and hunting would never in a million years do something like this. My stepfather enjoys hunting and has a collection of guns and rifles. Yet he keeps those things under lock & key and makes sure they are not loaded.
You can be a gun enthusiast and recognize that 'Stand Your Ground' is just wrong. Gun Nuts live, breath and die by the gun. Probably men with super tiny dicks
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)absolutely.
You can spot them by the fervency they show every time they appear to defend the killing tool. They'll twist themselves into the most blatant logical overpasses, underpasses, cul-de-sacs and clover-leafs just to come to the rescue of their one true love.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I own firearms and I enjoy target practice. But I dread the prospect of ever possibly having to use one of my guns for anything other than target practice. There is nothing "exciting" or alluring about the prospect of having to take a life. For that reason my house has the "protected by ADT" signs everywhere, hopefully keeping any would-be criminals OUTSIDE.
What Zimmerman did is truly unconscionable on so many levels. In my view it's clear that he targeted Trayvon because of his race, and racism is of course despicable, stupid, and offensive. He also hunted the kid, arming himself to go play cop and then has the balls to say it was self defense. I've had military training and taken the CCW class. In neither of those training environments was I ever taught that provoking a situation could ever result in the provoker righteously "defending" him or herself. Most of us were taught by our fathers that if you start a fight you get what's coming to you, so don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash. This Zimmerman is the kind of guy who fancies himself a tough guy, but he packs a gun because he knows down deep he's not very brave or terribly tough, so the gun is the equalizer which allows him to pretend to be brave and not have to actually cash that check. He's a pathetic racist coward, and he deserves to be judged in a court of law for that and his crime.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)he used a rifle, not a handgun.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Guess not...
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I can't help you. Rambling about handgun hunting in a time like this is just beyond the pale
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Are you kidding us? Did you forget the sarcasm thingee? I live in hunting territory and not one single person hunts with a handgun. Obviously, you have no idea what you are saying.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Hunting with handguns is quite popular.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)http://www.handgunhunt.com/
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm
http://www.biggamehunt.net/articles/beginners-guide-big-game-handgun-hunting
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting-gear/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made
Etc.
Ever hear of handguns like the single-shot Thomson-Center Contender and Encore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson-Center_Contender#The_Contender
With interchangeable barrels, they can shoots cartridges as powerful as .416 Rigby. Handguns have been used by hunters to take just about every game species on Earth, up to and including elephants.
For that matter, there are now revolvers more than powerful enough to hunt virtually any big game:
I suggest you educate yourself on this subject before spouting off.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)While I am more of a rifleman hunter ('03 Springfield sporter chambered in the original .30-06), I see more and more of a generation of handgun hunters using the above calibers and more, usually while hunting deer and wild hogs in the blackwater Cyprus swamps and timberlands that run along the coastal plain of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. Just to have one, I purchased a used, but like new, brushed stainless steel .44 magnum Interarms Virginian Dragoon with 7 1/2" barrel. Even the old .44 mag bullet has a great velocity and carries a lot of kinetic energy at 75 yards or more -- which is about as far as one can see down here. Of course, good shot placement is essential with any weapon. I haven't hunted in a number of years, but my 13 year old -- who is an avid range and competition shooter is about to end my down time from hunting . I might have to give the .44 Virginian Dragoon a try.
spin
(17,493 posts)If you wish, take a little while to read this article.
Field & Stream Picks the 25 Best Handguns for Hunters
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting-gear/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)holy shit!
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)lol
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Um....yay?
NBachers
(17,136 posts)Don't bother to reply . . .
This is just a drive-by
Bye-bye
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Far be it from me to criticize someone's lifestyle!
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)People have guns and we don't know if they have the experience or training to handle these weapons.
You said it right.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)It's obviously not as rigorous as the training the military or law enforcement receives, but it is more training than the average gun owner is required to have.
When I was younger I had a CCW. We had to show that we were at least proficient with the firearm we were licensed to conceal, firing from a multitude of stances and being required to achieve a minimum score in terms of shots on-target and also several written exams on the law and reasonable defense scenarios. I'm not suggesting it to be rigorous, all-inclusive training, but it does at least show proficiency with the gun.
I gave my CCW up because I realized I didn't need it. Actually I always felt more scared with it because I kept thinking "Oh God please don't put me in a situation where I need to use this thing." It didn't take tremendously long to figure out that I was putting myself in more jeopardy (at least mentally) by carrying it than without it. I've been without my CCW for 10 years now and I'm much more at peace than I ever was with it.
That said, there are people who are better served carrying a concealed weapon such as diamond brokers, undercover security agents, and people who live in dangerous areas. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of concealing a weapon if you're appropriately licensed to do so. As is always the case, the nutjobs who have no business near weapons - the Rambo types - are the ones who ruin it for the responsible folks. Zimmerman clearly did not possess the character to responsibly conceal a firearm (let alone own one), but he isn't the majority of gun owners or CCW holders.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)I know the responsibility that goes along with carrying one. It was drilled into our heads during basic training. We have my dad's hunting rifle in the house and I absolutely do not want another gun in the house.
I hope you're right, but there are states where people are able to freely get handguns with little to no training. It disturbs me.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)You're right that guns are far too available. We've all seen the exposes on TV about how easy it is to pick up a gun at a gun show. But don't confuse that with LEGALLY concealing a weapon: getting a CCW is a process in which an FBI background check is run (including fingerprinting), and in most states one must prove themselves to be at least reasonably proficient with the gun to be licensed to conceal it.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)they still may have the gun. A family member who had successfully hidden his drinking problem had a legal gun in his home for "protection" against intruders but ended up using it to kill his step-granddaughter on an evening's drinking/anger binge .
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)because some day someone might get drunk and drive!!!
The solution to criminal problems isn't to take people's rights away. The solution is to punish criminals. Zimmerman needs to be punished because in no way was he acting within the rights afforded him by the 2nd Amendment. It says you can own a gun. It doesn't say you can own one and then go hunt a kid and kill him. So by taking away 2nd Amendment rights you're seeking to punish me for something this idiot did. That doesn't seem fair.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)"right" to a gun?
Why don't you enumerate the ways that this kid's life could have been saved? Should HE have been carrying? (could he, at age 17?) After all, more people need to drive to live their daily lives than anyone needs a gun.
I thought I'd ask, since you seem to know a lot. I'm sure you have the answer for Travon's family who might be asking the same question I am asking.
What do you say to that family?
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)since I have nothing to do with their son's death. I didn't pull the trigger - nor would I have done so. You're attempting to make my gun ownership relevant to Trayvon Martin's death when the fact is I live thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime, so of course my gun ownership literally has nothing to do with it. I am not responsible for his death, thus I don't have to explain anything to his parents - although I would offer them my condolences for their loss.
At age 17 my best friend was murdered with a handgun. The killer was caught with an unregistered 9mm Glock. Your solution is to outlaw Glocks whereas mine is to punish the person who used it to kill someone. That's what we do in this country: Punish the guilty but not the innocent. And interestingly, my best friend's parents are avid gun owners/enthusiasts who say it would be ridiculous to strip gun owners of that right simply because some people misuse them.
It's just like cars: They can be used as get away vehicles, operated by drunks, and in extreme cases as battering rams intentionally wielded to kill someone else. Should we ban them too?
Or how about hammers? I've read stories where people have used hammers to kill others. My God, let's get the FBI to arrest everyone at Home Depot!!!
The sad reality of any society is that not everyone could have always been saved by some measure of law. For example drunken driving: It's already illegal, yet people are inexplicably still doing it. While it does have the effect of limiting the amount of deaths caused by drunken driving, it's still not 100% effective; simply making something illegal doesn't always mean you're safer. And in fact when criminals know that a given target is unarmed, I'd submit to you that your abolition of 2nd Amendment rights just made that household less safe. It's a balance, unfortunately: Sometimes it gives a killer an easy tool, but sometimes it helps a law abiding citizen protect themselves.
Trayvon Martin was a victim of a racist creep who abused his gun rights. He wasn't within his rights to do what he did, so banning everyone's rights to have them is the wrong answer to the problem. In my view psychological evaluations should be a part of the background screening process to own a firearm, but I'm realistic and admit that not even that would work 100% of the time. Yet banning guns altogether wouldn't suit that goal either because guns can be purchased on the black market, and given that most hard drugs are already illegal but still flooding into this country, I suggest to you that the cartels would simply step in to fill the demand in much the same way as bootleggers avoided prohibition.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Oh, have I ever heard this before, even including the hammers.
At some point, I would hope, our society will evolve. It hasn't yet, much to my sorrow.
Having said that, what is your solution again? You didn't address that? How do we get to prevention here with these gun related deaths?
If you advocate people carrying these guns, I think you have a responsibility to offer some solution to curtain the slaughter that has ensued from your advocacy position.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)What happened to Trayvon Martin was horrific and, in my view, illegal. But neither I nor any responsible gun owner have any responsibility for the actions of others. I'm responsible for me, not George Zimmerman. That is something HE - not WE - did. I have never in any way, shape, or form contributed to gun violence because I have never murdered anyone, nor - outside of military service - have I ever used a gun in a violent way. I am not the problem. George Zimmerman - and anyone like him - is.
That you keep trying to put the responsibility on me - ME, of all people, someone thousands of miles away who wasn't even there nor even met any of the parties involved in the situation - just shows the flimsiness of your argument. I have no more responsibility to "curtail the slaughter" than General Motors has responsibility for drunk drivers. It's a silly argument.
The responsibility in this case and cases like it lies with the shooter.
In terms of prevention, I'm not sure there exists a universe in which all bad outcomes can be prevented. You can do background checks, I'd like to see mental/psychological evaluations as a part of that, but I'm not sure you ever arrive at a place in which nothing bad ever happens. The proof of that of course is evident in the many laws we have which are unfortunately violated routinely: things like drunk driving still occur, as do overdoses owing to both legal and illegal drugs, etc. That you seem to think we can ban our way out of the problem I think shows a rather naive understanding of both the problem and how human behavior works, for bans typically don't actually or fully ban the targeted problem. And at times they create other problems, witness the explosion of organized crime syndicates after prohibition as one of those unintended consequences. In this case I suspect you'd see an explosion of violent home invasion-style robberies if guns were outlawed, and I also suspect the drug cartels would diversify into gun running as one of their fields of endeavor.
By banning guns you cannot promise me any erosion in gun-related deaths because you simply can't show me how you'd get ALL of the guns off the street. You also cannot show me how my right to defend myself would sustain after I lose one of the best tools known to do that. Nor can you show me why I should pay the price for what some people do - none of those people being me. As such your ban is necessarily fraught with at least as many problems as it pretends to resolve.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The gun lobby will keep people buying them because "with a gun you can stand your ground."
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I sure don't. I think as a human being you have a duty to retreat until you physically can't retreat any more and if you're still threatened with mortal danger then and only then may you use lethal force. That's my view. And I suspect it's a commonly held view amongst gun owners; I don't think a terribly high percentage buy guns to "stand their ground" but instead as tools with which to legitimately defend themselves.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't think we need fuckers carrying guns - particularly in populated areas.
If the revolution comes, people can carry them and shoot each other if that is what they want.
But there are too many guns being snapped up. And a lot of pro-gunners make money off the manufacturing, sales, and trafficking of the silly things.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)As long as the laws and promotional BS make you money by boosting sales, you don't care. You market to yahoos who are into stopping power and such. You call your weapons "tactical," "assault," whatever as long as it makes some yahoo drool -- and guns do.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)and making a profit?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)polluters, wall street thieves, etc.
And, those who drool over these weapons -- in today's society -- need to be examined by themselves or professionals.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Are you asserting that it's simply a good idea for those who drool over weapons (guilty!) to be examined by professionals, or are you asserting that there should be a public policy mandating it?
You complain that gun manufacturers are advertising their wares and making money. Is this just a rant, or are you asserting that there should be a public policy prohibiting them from doing so?
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)IMHO a "well regulated militia" is NOT every Tom, Dick, and Harry walking around with a piece. Well regulated would imply something like the national guard. Let's compare murder rates with the UK where guns are banned generally. There is no comparison. Ban guns, period.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Jamaica blows the U.S. away in homicides yet they have very strict gun control laws. And Mexico, another country whose gun laws are often said to be some of the strictest in the world has nearly 4 times the amount of homicides that the U.S. does. Another is Brazil. And so on and so forth.
Gun control simply controls guns, not murders.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)How about picking countries that don't have huge populations of desperate people living without hope and with corrupt, undermanned and badly trained police forces. Comparing their statistics to the U.S.A. is part of the Gun Nut mythology.
I have seen the web sites that defend your position and all of the talking points are like this. Ridiculous!
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Look, what you argued was that comparisons between countries with and without gun control for murder rates would tell us that we should ban guns. That was your argument. You picked Great Britain out of a hat because it happens to suit your position, but now you conveniently want to ignore that within that comparison group there are countries which cut wholly against your position; you want to simply throw them out of the group for the only reason that you don't like the result.
If banning guns will reduce murder rates, how do you explain countries with stricter gun laws having higher murder rates than we do? Poverty? Poverty murders people? No sir, people murder people, and what those statistics show - the result you're straining to close your eyes to - is that if people want to kill each other they will find a way to do it.
South Africa is an interesting example. Not incredibly poor, not incredibly rich, somewhere near the median world income. They are currently trying to regulate the guns and are finding that criminals are now using weapons which have never been available to their public - banned weapons. That of course is because you can't ban your way around problems, much in the same way banning marijuana here certainly hasn't stopped its use.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Is it exactly the same? Has it increased? How successful are they at actually regulating guns?
It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife that with a gun. I doubt I could use a knife to kill but I could easily kill several people in a few minutes with a gun.
You can never really find a good comparison but you can keep throwing out NRA talking points.
You accuse me of cherry picking by choosing a country like ours to compare the you pick South Africa? That's just sad.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Is it because you're engaging in an ad hominem attack in a desperate effort to shore up your side of the argument? I suspect so given that I've never had any contact whatsoever with the NRA, and don't get any information from them whatsoever. I instead get the numbers from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
With respect to the movement of the numbers over time, I haven't seen statistics on that - so unlike you I don't presume to know things I couldn't possibly divine. With respect to actual regulation, I can tell you from having lived there that getting a gun in South America and Mexico is not very difficult (although illegally). But I suspect you're missing what your own question entails: How effective would an actual ban be here? If it's anything like prohibition - in which not only alcohol but guns flowed like wine - I'd suspect not very well, much like our prohibition of drugs hasn't really gotten us very far, or how our ban on automatic weapons hasn't stopped their usage in drug shootings and gang wars.
The comparison is good, as are the others, because in the end a gun is either regulated or not, and they either wind up killing people or they don't. You can try and spin your way around that all you like, but the fact is that murder rates are variable in any given environment - regulated or not. The simple fact is that people will always find a way to kill others. That's just a fact, one evinced by a rather long history existing entirely BEFORE guns were ever invented.
I didn't cherry pick South Africa, I included it in a list I presented to you. You know, the one you dismissed out of hand simply because you couldn't refute it ... speaking of sad.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)They won't be on the street, mind you...and if they were I wish someone would tell me where, so I could add some free guns to my collection.
Gun control remains the third rail of politics. No serious effort to curb gun ownership will made for the foreseeable future.
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
You've lost.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh Christ! The car = gun insanity.
Try to get it straight, if you can:
Car: purpose is to get from point A to point B. Not a weapon.
Gun, purpose is to shoot something. a weapon.
Think you can remember that? Try hard.
"Zimmerman needs to be punished because in no way was he acting within the rights afforded him by the 2nd Amendment. "
No... he wasn't in a well regulated militia.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)in the terms that they need to think of similarities instead of being spoonfed the argument itself, but the point is rather clear in this case: My guns are much like my cars inasmuch as I use neither of them to commit crimes. It's a fairly obvious point, one I suspect it took some doing to feign such obtuseness to ignore.
I'm lucky enough to not use my guns as weapons. I use them for sport. That you don't like the sport doesn't automatically make it an unacceptable or illegal one. It just means you don't like it, much in the same way as I think NASCAR is silly and dangerous but if people like it and want to do it - given that it's not illegal - I say more power to them. You on the other hand want to ban things you don't like because you're too simple to see that sometimes it's not only how you think it is. You seem to think guns can only be used as weapons whereas I have the benefit of knowing that they're not always used to kill. When they are misused like that the user should be prosecuted and jailed accordingly. But telling me that a sport I enjoy - and one which has the side benefit of protecting my house, should that situation arise - is authoritarian and not in keeping with the current laws of this country.
The Supreme Court has recently ruled on the subject, that the 2nd Amendment DOES give individuals the right to possess firearms. If you disagree with that decision that's your right. But it just so happens to be the law of this country. So let's not forget that fact since - living in a nation of laws - it tends to be rather important.
An interesting analogy is a baseball bat. People are beaten with them a lot, and of course a bat is a violent instrument: It's meant to strike another object. Well, my guns are intended to strike another object as well (in my case paper targets), but provided I'm responsible and also not driven by a motivation to want to strike a human target, my hobby hurts literally no one. Much like a baseball bat: Provided the batter doesn't take offense at a pitcher throwing inside to him and carry it out to the mound to beat the pitcher, it's a peaceful object with a violent potential; it only becomes violent when used that way. A gun isn't an inherently violent object: they have peaceful uses for millions of us. I've never been so much as tempted to use it in a violent way. Yet you want to take it away from me because you don't enjoy my hobby, and because some people misuse guns. Then I guess you're also going to be banning baseball bats, knives of any kind, and of course the internet because sometimes unscrupulous individuals use it to scam others.
Yours is a terribly simplistic argument, one teetering on the wrong idea that guns have literally only one purpose. The reality is that millions of us use them for entirely peaceful purposes having as little to do with violent crime as a baseball bat was intended to have (until misused). I have the legal right to my guns, the Supreme Court has just reaffirmed it. So if you don't like it that's your problem, not mine.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Guns have literally one purpose.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Other than the fact that both guns and cars are dangerous to operate the analogy falls apart. Very few people actually need a gun in order to function in society. A huge number of people need to operate cars as part of their daily life.
The supreme court is frequently full of shit.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)The fact is that both can be used for good or bad entirely depending upon the intentions of the user. And of course accidents can and do happen with both things. So they are analogous although an analogy is of course just that: an analogy. I didn't say they're exactly the same thing; no one uses an analogy to compare two similar items to argue they're exactly the same thing. Otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be a statement that "these 2 are exactly the same item."
What I find strange is that some liberals talk about "nation of laws" and such - rightfully berating Bush's pre-Patriot Act warrant-less wiretapping program as unconstitutional, railing against people like Rick Santorum for wanting religion to control the public laws - but then dismissing a major part of our constitutional lawmaking process when it doesn't suit their agenda. I don't like every decision the court makes, but I do recognize that they have the power to do so and that it is the law of the land; e.g. it's not "shit" to me, it's the law. If I don't like a law that is made judicially I as a voter choose people for the office of president who will appoint different types of justices, but I don't walk around saying that they're "full of shit" given that I respect the constitutional process of making and enforcing law - much in the same way that I didn't respect Bush as a decent person, but I did maintain respect for the presidency itself and found myself disgusted when that Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at him.
I'm a proud liberal and proud American. That we have different takes on a given position doesn't mean one or both of us is/are full of shit, rather that we as human beings see an issue differently. I think there are reasonable arguments on both side of the gun control debate, and I don't think gun control advocates are just making it up, nor do I wholly dismiss their position simply because I don't agree. It's sad that some in America have absolutely no regard for an opposing side, instead feeling as though they alone have the license to the truth. It's things like that which create the hyperpartisan problems in Washington; it's literally why things don't get done. Right now that's mostly the teabags doing it, but there's a growing element of recalcitrant liberals seeming to think they should fight that fire with fire, not realizing that fighting with fire causes everything to burn.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)You also face stiff penalties should you kill someone with a car while driving. There is no reason that they can't have these same requirements for owning a gun considering how dangerous they are.
All across the country there are shoot first and ask question later laws. That's basically what this one in Florida is.
Also, people have been punished for the wrongdoings of others for a while now. Not saying it's right, but that's just the way it is.
I don't support taking guns away, but I sure would like to see it more difficult to get a gun and the laws made so that discourages what happened to Trayvon.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)You're perfectly within your rights to buy a car without having a license or insurance. The difference is using one, much in the same way carrying a weapon might be considered "using" it. If you conceal your weapon you must be licensed and have taken a class to do so. And simply owning a gun requires that you register it with your police department.
When and where people are punished for WRONGDOINGS of others I think you'll often find that they don't enjoy it, much as we gun owners don't want to be painted with the same brush as Zimmerman. The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't do anything like what he did, so the assertion that we deserve our rights to be curtailed is specious and wrongheaded: It seeks to strip a right away from everyone because a statistical few act poorly.
People unfortunately commit all sorts of crimes in this country. That's just a fact. You can take steps such as classes and psychological evaluations to determine weapons handling suitability, and I think most of us would agree that guns are too easy to obtain. But when one wants to punish the many for the actions of a few I think that person isn't altogether aware of the problem or how disputes are resolved.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Guns exist for 2 reasons....for killing and for self-defense. Owning and operating cars has more requirements than own and operating a gun. I find that pretty screwed up.
For as dangerous as these things are, there should be more regulation and limits on them. The same goes for the owners who think they have to have a gun for whatever reason.
This should be a no-brainer.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)so I don't agree that they're intrinsically more dangerous. Obviously they can be deadly, but so can a lot of things that are right now not illegal.
With respect to guns' purpose I don't agree they exist only for those 2 reasons. I own them as a hobby and for self defense, a hobby in terms of target practice which is fun and relaxing to me. That some think they only have 2 violent uses is part of the problem: That lack of understanding of and appreciation for our sport causes a lot of us to feel as though we have to defend something which shouldn't really need a defense. Granted the guns themselves CAN be used for bad. But so can a lot of things. So we see it as hypocritical and naive to say we need to ban guns because they supposedly only have 2 violent uses when there are tons of potentially dangerous items that no one's trying to ban, and of course that ours do have a different, peaceful use.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Don't pretend they are a toy to have fun with. There is no getting around what they are and what they are supposed to do.
There is no reason why a car should have more regulation than a gun. None.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I never said they're toys. Far from it. What I said is that they're used in a hobby, not all hobbies being as safe as stamp collecting. They can be dangerous, no doubt about that. But not all of their uses are for killing. Actually most owners have never used it for that reason, and most hope to never use them in that way. I certainly hope I never have to use any of my guns for that reason. But of course I will if it becomes absolutely and unavoidably necessary.
We can agree that they should be equally regulated, cars and guns. But where we'll never agree would be on saying that guns should either be banned or so de facto limited by way of regulation that they're effectively banned for most users. That's a lot like what the Republicans are doing with abortions, regulating it and its dispensaries to such an extent that they don't even need to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's death by regulation, and it ain't any prettier or better than simply taking someone's rights away the old fashioned way.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I see no 2nd amendment problem there. You can bear your arms all around your house and property. Actually firing the thing is regulated. So should taking the weapon out in public. Even better, regulate ammunition. Require a license to purchase, manufacture or possess ammunition.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Which is why my weapons are registered as they're supposed to be. When I transport them to a gun range I always do so unloaded with the ammunition far away from the weapons, although in my state that's not actually required by law. I do that to show any police officer who might pull me over that I had no intent to be packing an arsenal, so that he or she will view it as credible that I'm simply headed to the range.
I wouldn't object to "licenses" to buy ammunition if it served a purpose. If the police can trace bullets used in the commission of some crime back to a certain batch of rounds sold in a certain area, and through investigation can then prove who ultimately bought them, I think that would be a good thing. I'm not an FBI forensic analyst so I don't know if that's possible or not. But if it isn't it would seem like just another layer of regulation which doesn't serve much of a tangible aim other than to inconvenience usually legal gun owners. But like I say, maybe that is possible, and if it is I'd support it.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"Which is why my weapons are registered as they're supposed to be." There are only 2-3 states that require registration of firearms, and there are laws against the feds. haveing any type of registration.
The yellow form(4473) that you fill out when purchising a firearm remains in the possesion of the dealer, if BATFE wants to see them then they must have a warrent to do so. And if they want to copy one they must bring a copy machine to the shop, they can not, by law, be removed from the dealers possesion.
At one time you were required to sign a purchase form when buying ammunition. This form recorded your name, address, TDL, and ammo bought by caliber. That was stopped 30 or so years ago as being unneeded.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I haven't bought one in a while, and I know the federal laws changed a bit. But last time I bought a handgun in a store (a different process than buying one from a classified ad, for example) I had to wait 3 days to pick it up, and in that time it had been automatically registered with the police department (the gun store did that after I'd filled out and signed a form which they presented to the police department on my behalf).
If you're caught in possession of a handgun here which isn't registered you will be arrested for possession of an unregistered handgun. Shotguns and (non-FFL) rifles are not subject to our local registration laws.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"When driving a car, you are required to attend a class, have a license and insurance"
No, you really aren't.
Those things are required ONLY for use on public roads. You can drive on private property to your hearts content without them.
The key there being USE ON PUBLIC ROADS.
As for ownership? None of the above are required.
"There is no reason that they can't have these same requirements for owning a gun considering how dangerous they are."
See how you're equating ownership of a gun with USAGE IN PUBLIC of a motor vehicle?
Apples and oranges.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Beyond that, feel completely free to point out which part of the post you were replying to, is not factual or truth.
I won't hold my breath.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)it only makes sense to gun nuts. Guns aren't cars. You can't drive your kids to school in a car.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Second, I'm not a "nut" simply because I like millions of other Americans use my 2nd Amendment rights. I resent being labeled as if my free exercise of constitutional rights makes me a nut. You've never seen how I handle and safeguard my weapons; you're merely tarring me with a broad brush because you don't like guns and their owners. It's childish, friend.
I see some of you don't understand how an analogy works. Allow me to correct that. You see, an analogy isn't saying thing A and thing B are so exactly similar that they're actually the same exact thing. That, instead, would be a statement that "thing A and thing B are exactly the same thing." Instead, an analogy suggests that the two things share similar characteristics, and that in some limited cases it's useful to consider how you might treat one to know how to treat another. For example, just like a car, you wouldn't want to handle your gun while drunk. Those are similarities. But what you're wanting to do is say "well, my car has electronic fuel injection, and I can't seem to find that same unit on this 9mm, therefore they're entirely dissimilar and any discussion about them in analogical form is entirely useless." It would be if we were talking about fuel injection, but that's not what we're discussing - until someone feigning obtuseness makes some ridiculous exaggeration clearly far beyond the bounds of the analogy itself.
You needn't persist offending everyone with whom you disagree, labeling us all "nuts" and essentially suggesting that we were brainwashed by the NRA. Many of us hate the NRA and nearly all of what they stand for, and as such your implication that we're simply regurgitating something they "taught" us is childish, wrong, and pathetic. And by the way, you most certainly CAN "drive your kids to school in a car."
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)Fabulous.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)There is certainly nothing wrong with training and ... "a little more training" ... as we used to say at the academy where I once taught.
In our state, getting a concealed weapons permit includes almost a week of use-of-force and safety training in the classroom with one day on the range leading up to qualification. The range is only seven yards which is about as far as anybody needs to shoot in a defensive situation. The classroom instruction is actually what a law enforcement officer receives, while LEOs receive several other weeks of training covering report writing, legal codes, radio communications skills, defensive driving and pursuit, CPR/first aid, chemical munitions, baton, mechanical restraints, etc, and finally, firearms training in the last week and a half on a 25 yard range. Basic course officers have to show proficiency in their department issue sidearm and the 12 gauge riot shotgun only. More advanced tactical officers and instructors with experience in the field are trained in various rifles, rifle marksmanship at greater ranges, and forced entry, barricade, and hostage procedures.
That said, private citizens who complete the CPW class and who conceal carry seem to have better safety and engagement records than basic certified law enforcement officers. I think the reason for that is that armed citizens tend to look at bearing arms as a martial art that requires ongoing training in order to remain honed, ready and proficient, while most officers often view guns as a job related nuisance.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)I always answer, "Great! Every time they issue one of those, It gets a little bit more dangerous to be an innocent bystander."
treestar
(82,383 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)You got that so right!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm going to sign on to your statement and co-endorse it, if I may.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)monmouth
(21,078 posts)veganlush
(2,049 posts)who believes in the second amendment. No one. It's antiquated, period.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)I figure it will be antiquated about time humans are immortal or indestructible or extinct.
As long as there are those who can use deadly force, there will be a need for ample ability to defend one's self.
What other Civil Liberties do you feel are past their time? I think we need them all and on steroids including the 2nd Amendment which should be broadened to at least making any weapons systems sold to non-NATO nations available to law abiding citizens, which probably puts me further out than the NRA.
Gun control is authoritarian not liberal and I have no idea how the two got conflated.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)I vote and donate accordingly & I'm not alone.
You & yours have the upper hand for the moment.
Owning a firearm is not a civil right from the way I think about it.
You're not discriminated against in any way for having or not having a firearm.
Who could know such a thing?
2a fundies have made a bunch of hysterical arguments re: gun ownership & you're winning. For now.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)nanabugg
(2,198 posts)grant the right to individuals to bear arms for the hell of it.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)and is more along the lines of evil (if willful) regardless of politics.
Sometimes the only way to keep the innocent out of a grave (or from being raped) is for the innocent to defend themselves with everything they can muster.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)the world's emerging democracies. It seems that the U.S. Constitution is losing its lustre as the premier model of constitutions. These democracies looking for a country's constitution to model are less likely to consider ours than in the past. They consider it outdated and unworkable for the modern world. They didn't specifically name the 2nd amendment as one of their points of contention but I do wonder if that wasn't one, if not the only, objection they had to it.
Our U.S. Constitution, far from being indestructible to or "antiquated about time humans are immortal or indestructible or extinct" is already past prime time.
Here is a link to this food for thought: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html
Feast upon it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And like anything, writing constitutions gets better with practice.
I think the main area where ours is less popular is the enormous number of veto points in our system. It's really, really hard to get anything done. Which is fine when it's the Republicans trying to do something insane, but not so fine when it's not someting insane.
The 2nd amendment really doesn't enter into the debate, in the situations I'm familiar with. It's the fact that parliamentary systems have worked much more smoothly than ours.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)When I see other constitutional democracies getting things done efficiently and I see the LIES that are promoted about our own constitution, I wonder what kind of a world we live in here in the U.S.A.
I, too, think that the parliamentary systems have worked better than our own. I don't see the insanity of one side completely overwhelming the public conversation and inflaming passions for the sake of extreme religious or racial views...
veganlush
(2,049 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)
...shall not be infringed. Are you telling me that you don't think restrictions are infringements? It doesn't say "shall be infringed" it's says shall NOT be infringed, yet I'm sure you don't think all of the many infringements should be removed. You can't have it both ways. Do you believe it it or not? One of the reasons for the amendment that I have heard, is to make sure citizens are armed against a "tyrannical" government. At the time, arms brandished by the "government" were the same as arms available to everyone. There is nothing in the amendment that implies that they intended for the citizens to be out gunned by the "government". Arms back then were rifles or whatever you want tho call them. If they intended parity between the people and the government of, by and for the people, then you must believe that a modern interpretation of the amendment requires that flame throwers, drones, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, hell- air craft and aircraft carriers, lasers, whatever, be available to every-damn-body because after all, every-damn-body is what they meant by "well regulated militia". And this should be without all the current infringements that prevent minors, mentally ill, criminals, etc...from owning AND carrying them everywhere.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But FIRST it says something about well regulated militias. There's a reason you must read that first before you get to the part about owning a flintlock.
Gun nuts... like all fanatical religionists, pick and choose to try to make their antiquated "religion" relevant.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)and the absence of "infringements" is explained by the presence of "a well regulated militia". I don't know ANYONE who believes in the second amendment. Think about that.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)I still haven't met anyone who believes in the second amendment without amending it themselves.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)going to be in for a nasty surprise: the day is coming when we are going to have sensible gun control laws in this country, particularly when it comes to handguns. Concealed carry laws will be repealed; registration will be required to own an handgun. Heller and its subsequent improper judicial decisions will be overturned the second an 5-4 liberal USSC court hears a gun nut case.
You see, civilized, progressive countries don't have collective national fetishes regarding firearms. As this country increasingly trends Blue, it will also increasingly become more civilized and decent. Hence, the days of the unfettered distribution of guns everywhere at all times to about anyone who wants one will soon be coming to and end. It may take twenty years; it may take a generation. But those who support this notion of "gun rights" are on the wrong side of history. Fifty years from now there will no more be a "right" for a private citizen vigilante like Zimmerman to prowl around his neighborhood with an legally concealed handgun than there is now for a restaurant to refuse to serve minority customers: such barbaric notions will be just as much a thing of the past as legal segregation is.
That day is coming, mark my words. And when it does, folks who support "gun rights" will just have to get over it.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)But as dinky little polling such as this one is, I would still say "I DISSENT!"
At one time in our U.S. history, I'll bet lots of folks would have not believed in civil rights for black people, or the right of a women to vote...
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)given statistical sampling techniques.
I don't buy into an ad populum argument for just the reason you pointed out, but if you look at how this thread developed I responded to someone else who used just such an argument in an effort to suggest that support for 2nd Amendment gun rights was very low, something to which this poll obviously speaks pretty well.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)And then there's this
Perhaps you agree with that finding in this poll. You tell me.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)[Quote] In general, the public opposes sweeping bans on handguns. In the most recent Gallup Crime Poll, conducted last October, Americans opposed a law that would ban possession of handguns except by police and other authorized persons by 68% to 30%. [/Quote]
The figures "68% v. 38%" are what this administration has painted on the wall to remind them that many -- if not most of that 68% are gun owners and/or among the 10 million (and rising) concealed carry permit holders who are both Democrats and Republicans in 49 out of 50 states. Gun control was a chronic failure. This country will never go back to it in light of successful concealed carry reforms that swept this country.
Further, the administration and the Congress have a lot of time and money in years of research. According to the U.S. Department of Justice studies through their own National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report, every year for the last two decades, there are fewer and declining violent crimes and fewer and declining gun accidents where law abiding citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms -- both in and out of the home. Essentially, according to NIJ/BJS and the FBI, more guns = less crime.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)of the NRA (who orchestrated ALEC's model syg legislation) and the propaganda that you spout here about how safe it is to have more people toting guns, it would be no wonder that many people are swayed in your NRA, and Republican, direction.
And please don't flash your "data" to me. I've seen it before, same charts over and over again, "proving" that gun crime is down due to a direct correlation of "more guns." And when I check those "factual" charts out, well, surprise, surprise, it is another very different story.
What strikes me about this debate the most, however, is the intellectual vacuity of the pro-gun arguments. It seems that there hasn't been any fresh arguments, or data, or charts that the gunners have any more. The NRA strongarmed and/or gave heaps of money to legislators to get your way. But your side keeps going with those same old charts and frankly, I find it boring. It kind of reminds me a those leather faced carnival barkers going around backwater towns out west, where their costumes have worn thin and look kinda greasy and down at the heels.
You guys have an old act. The American people, hopefully, will say "enough." Too bad it will be at the cost of other lives in addition to Travon Martin, or horrendous injuries, as with Gabby Giffords, before your cause is over and done with. Until then, tho, the U.S.A. is a very dangerous place to live.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)It says so right on that page.
In terms of stricter laws, yes, I think access shouldn't be as easy as it is now. But I don't want to see it become one of those "rights" where it's nearly impossible to exercise either. I would like to see a much more thorough mental/psychological test battery included as part of the background check, some sort of "suitability" test for firearms in terms of that individual's propensity for violent behavior. I'd also like to see something done about gun shows in terms of somehow ensuring that guns don't fall into the hands of people they shouldn't.
Don't assume that because I believe that I have the right to own a gun that I also believe in wide-open access or ridiculous "stand your ground" laws. I believe in neither of those things.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Giving people the ability to carry their guns anywhere they like and shoot whomever they don't like and then screen SELF-DEFENSE is nothing short of human hunting.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)That's including the only other 2 liberals I know around here.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's about the militia, which is long antiquated.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)KG
(28,752 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I don't worry about my fellow citizen with a gun (I don't buy the whole 'everyone is a terrorist, watch out' meme) I worry about the people in power having them (the only people some want to be able to have guns).
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)that will necessarily occur as terraists are ferreted out and targeted where ever on the globe they may be. Since it is our sole, but inherent, right to go after terraists at any time and at any place on the face of the earth, every one will just have to accept the unavoidable, but unintended collateral damage, no matter how great that collateral damage might be in relation to the value of the target. Remember, in his book on the CIA, Bob Woodward recounts one Casey (as I recall) operation in which the target was missed but the collateral damage included 80 dead innocents. Hint, a emoticon can always be assumed in any of my posts screaming for its use, i.e., posts oozing with sarcasm, ridicule, outrage, and/or the like.
got root
(425 posts)did the gun NUTs hear then, hell no.
hopefully they are all ears now.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Yakima had, and still has, a serious gang-violence problem.
Almost every day since the early 1980's (when gangs began growing in Yakima due to the black tar heroin explosion) we saw victims of gang violence.
It could be assault victims. shooting victims on weekends were a regular occurrence. If you stood outside the hospital after dark, you'd begin to hear the random gunfire throughout the town.
I broke up dozens of fights in the ER between gang members. My partner and I had a group try to ambush us one night. We won that one.
I've had people threaten to kill me. I've had them say they will find out where I live and kill my family.
I NEVER FELT THE NEED TO CARRY A FIREARM WALKING AROUND TOWN!
I ran into three people who actually saw me on the street when I wasn't working.
#1; The Bar bouncer took my hint and tossed the asshole into the street.
#2 the psychotic confronted me on the street but was unsure if he knew me or not..I told him he was mistaken and walked away with my wife and 3 kids in tow.
#3 the once-psychotic male who spent 3 months in a psych facility after attacking me with an edged weapon came up to me after getting out and sincerely apologized and thanked me for helping him when he needed it.
Any one of these incidents may have driven one to believe they NEEDED to carry for their protection.
I chose to believe the world is not that bad yet. AND, the old-west mentality is sooooo stupid.
crim son
(27,464 posts)Thank for saying it.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)sikorsky
(96 posts)...
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Kennah
(14,315 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Kennah
(14,315 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Kennah
(14,315 posts)And I would add that he is unindicted, thus far.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)murderer in my book.
Kennah
(14,315 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Kennah
(14,315 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)He disrupted poorly...
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)over 50% say they do. I'm sure that only a small minority of them have a CWP. I would hardly call them gun nuts and doing so could be taken as attacking a whole group of DU members. Wouldn't it be more rational to attack just the people who miss use guns and or laws? After all we just had some soldier kill 16 Afgans and another Floridian died as a result of getting beat up and tazered by the police. IMO Zim miss used the law at best. Of course Zim should have been arrested like anyone else would have been in Florida for using deadly force. The cops are to blame for that. After 911 I just have a problem with knee jerk reactions to just about anything.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)got root
(425 posts)FYI
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Also, damned if I'm going to let the conservatives be the only ones armed in this country. One day they're going to decide that Jeezus or whoever has ordered the death of all the liberals, gays, atheists, and minorities. When that day comes, you're going to want a little more protection than just your cel phone and 911.
Response to LynneSin (Original post)
Post removed
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)Signed,
A. N. Archist
jannyk
(4,810 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)jpak
(41,759 posts)Gun nuts can't take the heat.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Neither does the "take concealed weapons anywhere you want" laws.
Or the "no background check" laws
Or the "shorter waiting period" laws.
In fact, the current state of gun ownership in the USA has little to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with the paranoid gun worshiping cult.
glinda
(14,807 posts)angry ultra conservative zombies because at the moment, their political leaders reveal angry hostile speak against many people, gender, anti-environmet, etc.....
johnnie
(23,616 posts)But are there a lot of these types of murder happening because of this "law".
TNLib
(1,819 posts)a kid was just standing on a guys porch and he was shot and killed no questions asked. Apperantly in that state a person can even murder an EMT or fireman if they feel threatened by them entering their house.
piedmont
(3,462 posts)If Ed Schultz presented it as you said he did then he was lying.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)It was an armed young man that left a party that had underage drinking. The man ran to this porch so he wouldn't get arrested for underage drinking after the police broke up the party.
Yeah the kid was dumb bet he didn't deserve to be shot!
Kids and young people do dumb shit all the time. It's not grounds to be killed without question!
piedmont
(3,462 posts)"...in more detail in the 27 page report, The Washington County District Attorney's Office has determined that the homeowner who shot Mr. Morrison on March 3, 2012, when Mr. Morrison was inside the homeowner's residence, acted lawfully in self defense."
Under a reasonable view of the evidence the homeowner acted reasonably in his use of force based on the facts and circumstances of which he was aware when he encountered an unknown intruder."
This was not a case of a homeowner saying the magic phrase "Castle Doctrine" and the authorities saying "oh, alright then, no investigation!"
"The man ran to this porch so he wouldn't get arrested for underage drinking after the police broke up the party. "
He ran to an enclosed back porch and entered it, hiding in the dark at 2 am, waking the homeowner and making him think there might be a robber in the house. Young people do some stupid things and sometimes they get badly hurt by their stupid actions.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)this shoot first and ask questions later laws are basically bullshit and causing allot of unnessecary deaths.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)piedmont
(3,462 posts)People like Nancy Strait, killed not 2 weeks after this incident by another 20 year old "kid":
http://www.4029tv.com/r/30691573/detail.html
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...they are a license to murder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)someone who did not even read or understand the Florida law? Get real.
One can equally claim that under Duty to Retreat laws, home invaders have the force of law behind them and you can't resist if you have a back door.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You think he doesn't know the Florida law?
piedmont
(3,462 posts)The homeowner has no way to know the invader is unarmed or that he's alone. The presence of the intruder in his home is all he has to go on.
Whether the intruder made a move that could be considered threatening or not would have been the question that any trial would turn on, and would be impossible to prove by the prosecution. The DA said that this wouldn't have gone to court even without the Castle Doctrine law.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He'd not have to suspect anyone was armed if THERE WEREN'T A BUNCH OF DUMB LAWS ALLOWING ANY DUMBFUCK TO GET AND CONCEAL A GUN.
It used to be you assumed people weren't playing wild west.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)You're right: The homeowner has no way to know whether or not an INVADER (your word) is armed or if he's alone. That's exactly the point. When it comes to my family I can't assume an INVADER is there to do anything peaceful, and if indeed he's inside my house I must instead assume the opposite, for breaking into an occupied home isn't a peaceful act.
With respect to gun laws giving a homeowner peace of mind, I suggest you peddle that line to someone who's lived in a third world country (me, for example) with strict gun control laws and who's been robbed inside of their own home - by armed individuals. I made it out ok just by the lucky graces of "merely" being robbed by guys who simply wanted tangible things, but many times the story doesn't wind up that neat - there or here. I perhaps don't "need" my guns as badly here as I would have in South America (I lived in several countries there and, under their laws, I could not own one without paying hefty bribes), but because the "need" isn't statistically as high doesn't mean I don't want to be protected.
The law doesn't create a homeowner's suspicion that a burglar is carrying a gun. Rather that impression is created simply by way of this person breaking in to an occupied structure where the homeowner's family resides. You might call it an overreaction that he assumes ill intent, but until you've been robbed inside your own home by people carrying guns I'm not sure you've got the credibility to say what the natural assumption should be. Provided the burglar has made it inside my house and does not seem to instantly flee at the sound of my voice/shotgun cocking, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If he's outside or fleeing I'll simply call the police and let them handle it.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)think like you...worship like you, etc.
A teabagger vigilantes wet dream!
And yeah I own a gun but I don't go hunting for kids with hoodies in the neighborhood.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)It puts emt's and firefighters at serious risk.
I remember when I was a teenager being hispanic I was stopped and questioned by the police. Back then it was pretty scary. But today now kids have to not only be worried about racial profiling by law enforcement but being hunted down and killed by racist gun nuts.
These truly are scary times.
Zanzoobar
(894 posts)This might be worth a go.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)at least when I was a lad.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)There are probably more than a few "gun nuts" who agree you.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)kind of laws.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)varelse
(4,062 posts)because it is true.
James48
(4,440 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Lasher
(27,637 posts)The police are not correctly applying the Florida law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002435156#post39
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
It's not the law, it's the racist lack of enforcement at work here.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)Agreed and well said. Unless there is some overriding and mysterious detail still floating around out there, Zimmerman is going to be hard pressed to escape section (2) of the above that you posted. The law is clear. It was the police and the state who dropped the ball and chose to not even do the timely investigation that 26 other SYG states routinely do by policy. Even the authors of the "stand your ground" provision are put out by the lack of action by authorities.
Estevan
(70 posts)what they did to ACORN and what they are trying to do to Planned Parenthood.
belcffub
(595 posts)defunding them from a federal level... I do not think they get federal funds...
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Joseph8th
(228 posts)... not our most important constitutional right. It's crazy to give it such prominence, as if it's comparable to the 1st Amendment. It's the nasty little brother of the 1st Amendment. Maybe it's family, but we don't have to like him.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)K&R times a million.
Pakid
(478 posts)that the nuts right to own and carry a gun supersedes mine and your right to live! And just for the record I do own guns but I don't believe that laws like stand your ground or the right to carry your gun into bars etc are right! In 58 years of life I have never want to or felt the need to carry a gun in public.
aquart
(69,014 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Not true. But why let that fact let in your way?
You're letting the attitudes of the people that we, DUers, deal with from the right-wing side of politics on a daily, intimate basis prejudice you about rank-and-file gun owners.
The mess of hardcore conservatives that we challenge every day on all sorts of issues isn't mainstream. For every gun-toting, liberal-hunting-license-carrying idiot that likes to proclaim how quick he'll shoot an intruder, there are a hundred low-key people that keep a gun ready in case shit happens while fervently hoping to never have to stare down those sights at another human being.
Since SYG law passed in Florida, self-defense shootings have tripled... from one every 10 days to one every 3 days.
In a state of over 10 million people.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)There's a huge difference between gun OWNERS (such as myself) and gun MILITANTS (the overwhelming majority of Gun Control/RKBA participants)---but then, you're well aware of that, aren't you? The only firearms that count with DU's resident militants are semi-auto pistols and military-styled rifles, i.e., the sort of guns designed for killing human beings. The sick, predictable fantasies which accompany such guns are on constant display for all to see.....
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Regarding the usage of firearms, the forum is for discussions of self-defense only. So of COURSE the discussion is going to be around guns optimized for "killing human beings". AND, shockingly, the circumstances where these kinds of guns are likely to be used.
Person 1: We need to ban handguns nationwide.
Person 2: I don't want to give up a vital tool to defend myself.
Person 1: Use a registered, non-assault weapon long gun.
Person 2: Here's why I prefer or require a handgun: _________
Person 1: Why do you fantasize about shooting people all the time in this forum? That's all anybody in this forum does!
Paladin
(28,272 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...is without a doubt one of the saddest things I have seen on this forum today.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Oh I know guns. I also know that intelligent gun owners would prefer keeping their guns someplace safe where they can't do any harm, not on their persons while they go trolling for trouble.
One of the saddest things I've seen today is the idea that you assume I'm anti-gun or that anyone who rec'd this thread is anti-guns.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One would think you would know what the law says, and how the police department in question has blatantly mis-applied the law.
If all the witness accounts are accurate, if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman, HE would have been shielded by the law. Zimmerman has no standing under this law, and the PD is totally wrong (as is the DA) in their application of the law.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So, what you think is ignorant or sad doesn't matter.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Your making assumptions, and you know what people say about that.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And you what people say about people like you.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)Herlong
(649 posts)Laws and voters. The end. A perfect world is where the informed American voters have their say.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)applegrove
(118,778 posts)flvegan
(64,414 posts)For them. I remember when broad-brush closed minded-ness was frowned upon here.
Ah...good days.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Timbuk3
(872 posts)B) It doesn't matter what you or I think.
C) I've taken an oath to defend and uphold the constitution. Whether you or I agree with it, or not. I will honor my oath.
D) A woman's right to health care stands or falls on EXACTLY the same legal reasoning as the right to bear arms.
Now that I've said that, given the subject line of my post, I don't believe you're here to defend the constitution. I am.
What I find hilarious is that I agree with the body of your post, 100%.
"Stand Your Ground laws are basically a free pass to go human hunting.
These laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with 2nd amendment rights."
Another thing I find hilarious is how many "liberals" would secretly applaud a "liberal" going off the rails and gunning down a teabagger, but let's not go there.
I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You may not like it. The Koch brothers may not like it. I don't care. I reserve my rights; to freedom of religion and assembly, speech, to keep and bear arms, to not quarter soldiers, to my privacy, including the right to shoot a cop who claims a right to search my property without a warrant, to not testify against myself or my spouse, to a speedy public trial should I choose to shoot that cop that violated my civil rights, by jury, to not suffer a cruel and unusual punishment should I lose that trial, and to retain my rights as a citizen should the local police force decide to pass a law that violates the constitution.
Holding onto our rights is hard. Calling for an end to them is easy. And irreversible.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)she is talking about gun nuts-not gun owners.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"including the right to shoot a cop who claims a right to search my property without a warrant".
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)...am I talking about everybody who believes in God?
Same thing.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)I'm ready to defend stricter gun laws at this point. These crazy wingnuts have been arming themselves to the HILT ever since Obama was elected. Don't tell me there isn't a coorelation. I've heard too many RW obamaphobes with guns talking about it. They think "we're coming for them". They really do. So they're stockpiling guns, bullets and paranoia.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)+a million
I always wondered what the gun nuts/NRA would have done back a few years, if every single
person who marched in the "Million man march" was armed, and stroked their guns like the tea party members did last year.
Ever notice that the NRA is NEVER (it seems) involved in minority shootings (except to fully
watch and make sure no control happens to be).
Politicians get blackmailed and scared, and the few like Carolyne McCarthy NY (D) are a small
minority in office.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I always wondered what the gun nuts/NRA would have done back a few years, if every single
person who marched in the "Million man march" was armed, and stroked their guns like the tea party members did last year."
Probably watch...as they were all arrrested. Carrying a gun in DC is grounds for arrest.
"Politicians get blackmailed and scared, and the few like Carolyne McCarthy NY (D) are a small
minority in office."
People, particularly politicians, should not be pushing to ban things, if they don't even know what those things they want banned actually are.
McCarthy being a prime example of this.
If you really need evidence...somehow I doubt you do, but if you really need it, I'd be more than happy to provide it.
polichick
(37,152 posts)The Wizard
(12,547 posts)has looser gun regulations and laws. Any reason for this?
hack89
(39,171 posts)how else were they going to keep guns out of the hands of black men?
one of the side benefits of the civil rights movement was African Americans in the South gaining their 2A rights.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)Agreed. The post-Civil War Reconstruction period saw hundreds of thousands of African-American Union Army veterans returning to the South. Seasoned African-American combat veterans who knew how to shoot and "with guns in their hands" was the last scenerio that Southern whites wanted. It took about a decade, but ultimately the Southern Democrat power brokers who owned the big mills, had the big money, and dominated the state houses and state courts managed to get their "Jim Crow" laws on the books. One of those laws was to keep "colored folks" segregated and unarmed. The latter seems to be the case even today, except the old Democrats are now the "progresive" Democrats when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. The Brady Campaign, Bloomberg's MAIG, and the Joyce Foundation's oddly named Violence Policy Center tried to create an "industry" of gun control, but it deflated fast in the wake of successful concealed carry reforms that parelleled the same period of fewer and declining violent crimes and fewer and declining gun accidents -- that according to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice /Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Gun control is almost dead and dying fast. Don't expect a return to it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)until the 1960s, the Confederacy had stricter gun laws than most of the US. North Carolina's handgun licencing and South Carolina's 1902-1965 handgun ban are examples.
Vermont and the mountain west has the laxest.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)A dead person can't press charges or testify.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)It's Past Time to Protect Children Not Guns
by Marian Wright Edelman
... The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009:
Would fill more than 229 public school classrooms of 25 students each;
Was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan (5,013).
The number of preschoolers killed by guns in 2008 (88) and 2009 (85) was nearly double the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2008 (41) and 2009 (48).
Black children and teens accounted for 45 percent of all child and teen gun deaths in 2008 and 2009 but were only 15 percent of the total child population.
The leading cause of death among black teens ages 15 to 19 in 2008 and 2009 was gun homicide. For white teens 15 to 19 it was motor vehicle accidents followed by gun homicide (2008) and gun suicide (2009).
Of the 116,385 children and teens killed by a gun since 1979 when gun data was first collected by age, 44,038 were black -- nearly 13 times more than the number of recorded lynchings of black people of all ages in the 86 years from 1882 to 1968.
But more white than black children and teens have died from gun violence which threatens all in America everywhere.
Analysis of the most recent data from 23 high-income countries reported that 87 percent of all firearm deaths of children under 15 were in the United States. The rate of U.S. gun homicides for teens and young adults 15 to 24 was 42.7 times higher than the overall gun homicide rate for that same age group in the other countries.
Why are common-sense gun regulations so shockingly absent in our country?
... why indeed?
but we'll keep hearing even here about how "guns don't kill people..." and cars are just the same as guns and blah blah blah ... while the carnage continues.
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)And you're right -- it makes it open season on everybody.
Anyone can make an excuse to doing anything to anybody else -- especially when it comes to using a gun.
Welcome to the Wild West.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)Without the "stand your ground" laws, essentially an extension of a modified Castle Doctrine outside of the confines of the home, there could never be effective concealed carry reforms in almost all of the country -- so yes, it has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment. When applied as specified in the original intent of the bill in Florida and elsewhere, it is a very good law. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, the shooter stepped "outside" of the protections of the SYG law, pursued an innocent man on perceived probability, and gunned him down after initiating a confrontation. "Stand your ground" was nowhere to be seen in that scenerio. Zimmerman left any SYG protections back in his vehicle before he approached on foot. That is what will be seen following the grand jury investigation. In the end, there will be some modification of the post- use-of-force procedures, certainly to include a timely investigation, but the SYG law will remain in place.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)law that is what's driving this case: the legal presumption that the shooter acted with just cause to protect property or life. Thus, the state is obliged to prove that he didn't - a complete reversal of the traditional burden of proof in self defense cases, and why this bastard is liable to slip out of prosecution.
Nanjing03
(12 posts)Yes, the state is indeed obliged to prove that he didn't act with just cause. However, they have to investigate to do that. That is where the state -- not the law -- dropped the ball by choosing to get out of the business of investigating. I served as an investigator for our department's office of general counsel. Sadly, if you give counsel generals and their "generally" overworked staffs a reason to not pursue a case, they'll seize the opportunity and run away from it every time. I think that is what happened here. It became common to assume that the law was sufficient in itself and the bar was lowered sufficiently over time that the practice of inaction became accepted.
In our state, "every shooting incident -- regardless of the situation and regardless of whether the participants are private citizens, law enforcement officers, private security personnel, whatever -- a timely investigation is always conducted. The weapon must be kept as evidence throughout the investigation and the person who used deadly force must be available for questioning at any time. If the timely investigation reveals criminal wrongdoing, then the shooter is arrested and held until trial. If not, then s/he is released.
Finally, prior to 1995, Florida may have painted themselves into a corner by dragging out their investigations, which usually translates into "doing them when they feel like it" while armed citizens who had used justifiable deadly force were forced to wait, ponder and worry about the outcome and their fate in the far distant future -- usually at the cost of the person's career, finances, family and personal health. I believe that there was a case to that effect that led to this law in Florida. Unlike the rest of the 25 or so states that also have "stand your ground" provisions, Florida officials took it a step too far to imply that no investigation was necessary. That can be fixed -- and probably will when all is said and done.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)about the overworked assistant prosecutors who will often tend to let a case just "go away", but I don't think that's what happened here. In any event, the way the law is currently written lets a bad cop or a lazy Assistant Prosecutor shield him/herself from accusations since it creates a very high hurdle for the State. It will be fixed now, because the resulting firestorm of criticim forced Skeletor Scott to appoint a Special Prosecutor. But you can be assured that there will be a bunch of other cases that just don't get the publicity this one did that will just as easily fall through the cracks because the law enforcement officials, both Police and Prosecutors have an easy out.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Nanjing03
(12 posts)Apparently America did not cope too well without it. 26 states have SYG provisions to accompany their concealed carry reforms and more states are working on similar legislation. You might remember that Florida implimented this provision when an innocent man who had used deadly force waited years to be cleared of wrongdoing. Since then however, Florida went too far the other way and chose to get out of the investigation business altogether -- not a smart move. That can be corrected without repealing an otherwise good law -- and it will be.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)trueblue2007
(17,238 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)evidence for me that they should not own a firearm.
marshall gaines
(347 posts)remember our "wild" west? America's wild west mentality helped along by fear of the BLACK MALE helped create this state "law". Limbaughs, Oklahoma republicans, along with all the others that are fearful. I hope love, tolerance and justice prevail before something horrible happens.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and a duty to retreat outside one's home would still be reasonable.
The Wild West should be left to the 19th century.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002459977
This got so little attention.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)I hate looking at them, discussing them, giving them attention that they seek. I'd like to just say they are dead to me, but the problem is, they do not really go away, and they only get over it when they get too old to do any harm.
jillan
(39,451 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)in his movie, Bowling for Columbine, that the US's culture of violence and fear makes gun ownership stats very different than other gun owning countries like Canada.
Our violent culture--supported by fear based news media, propaganda and entertainment is enabling the public to behave in dysfunctional ways--and this behavior THREATENS our rights.
Our Constitutional rights, including the 2nd amendment was created for a self governing, sane, EDUCATED and informed public. Our Constitutional rights were meant for a public that has enough food and healthcare. This country is being REEDUCATED, and dumbed down to such an extent that people think they need a 'stand your ground' law--since they never took high school civics.
Remember after 911 when people 'consented to having their civil rights taken away for the safety of the nation'?? We were full of fear and (although I suspect this 'poll') too ready to give up what our wise founding fathers thought were insurances that our country wouldn't turn into another Imperial Britain.
An uneducated and brainwashed public threatens our rights--the RW has created a monster that threatens the foundation this country was based on.
Bowling for Columbine clip with discussion about Canada's gun stats:
jpak
(41,759 posts)nutter fail.
yup
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Even if it is temporarily, it is their call to make.
jpak
(41,759 posts)yup
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And yet it is basketball season.
jpak
(41,759 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There is no one more special than goal post movers.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)crazy-ass paranoid racists are fearful for no reason, other than the color of someone's skin or his accent. and they are using the law to kill innocent people. this was a travesty, and this man should have gone to jail. if Yoshihiro was white, I doubt this idiot would have felt so threatened that he had to shot...and kill. fuck any law that says this if ok. it was murder, plain and simple, and so Trayvon's life was also taken from a place of irrational fear.
Two months into his stay in the United States, he received an invitation, along with Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairses' residence for their intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the outside of the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door. (Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.)
Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, likely thinking he said "please," stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. (Kernodle 2002; Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.) Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairses' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of the Peairses' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?"
The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori