# Trayvon and George



## NYC Composer (Jul 15, 2013)

I obviously wasn't on the jury, but with what I saw, I could not have convicted Zimmerman. On the other hand, what was the guy doing getting out of his car and playing cop? It seems to me a classic case of small penis/big gun, 'cause without that gun, I'm pretty sure he would ave remained in his vehicle and there would be one less dead black teen.

Meanwhile, if GZ's brother does one more interview, i'm marching on his house.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 15, 2013)

Let's see-

A kid is minding his own business on his way home
with a bag of candy.

A wanna be cop and self appointed "neighborhood watch captain" 
w/ a loaded gun is literally on patrol, looking for would be "perps".

Zimmerman calls 911 because there's a "suspicious black male" in his neighborhood.
Cops say, "Stand down George".
George ignores Cops "order" and continues pursuit, 
eventually confronting "suspicious black male".

We know from the phone call that Trevon is alarmed at being pursued by Zimmerman.

A lot has been made in the media of Martin's appearance-
Young black male in a "hoody".
But nothing has been said of Zimmerman's appearance.

To me, a dude w/ a shaved head and a goatee in a t-shirt 
seems like maybe he's a Nazi Skinhead.

Personally, I would be a lot more alarmed by being directly pursued by a skinhead
than by a kid in a hoody walking and talking casually on a cell phone.

We know from police transcripts that Zimmerman was concerned that his "quarry" might get away. 
Seems to me that Zimmerman very likely confronted Martin.
Likely wanted to keep him there until "back up" arrived.
Martin was probably very frightened of a threatening confrontational skinhead.
I know I would be.

We have only a murderer's word of what transpired.

IMO-
That jury of 5 suburban white woman... 
I'll bet they find all young black males in a hoody threatening.

Zimmerman was found not guilty by Southern Racist Mentality.
What do you think "Stand Your Ground" is about?

A murdering predator is set free.
Killing an innocent black teen is not a crime.
Walking while black though...
That's a capitol offense in Florida.

k


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 15, 2013)

talk about media overexposure.


----------



## rJames (Jul 15, 2013)

Manslaughter.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 15, 2013)

I agree. Manslaughter.

The prosecution wasn't able to prove evil intent, but it's pretty clear that Zimmerman's actions led to the death of an innocent person. Zimmerman brought the gun. Zimmerman was the motivated party. Zimmerman initiated the pursuit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

That said, I'm not convinced that the guy went out with the intention of killing somebody that night; hence, manslaughter.

One thing for sure, this wasn't Trayvon's fault.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 15, 2013)

It is a travesty that the prosecution bungled this so badly. As KEnK wrote, Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing until pursued by Zimmerman, and Zimmerman killed him. I don't see how material it is who threw the first punch, who was on top or what Zimmerman's state of mind was, other than to prove the second degree murder charge. So what appears to have been an over-reach by the prosecution (I understand they are elected, not appointed, in that jurisdiction) allows a killer to walk away. You wish that lynching were a thing of the past but this seems frighteningly close -- a black kid in a white neighborhood is targeted and killed, just because of the colour of his skin.

I am so sorry for Trayvon and his parents.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2013)

Larry said exactly what I've been saying. I agree on both accounts.

Get rid of the f-ing guns.


----------



## rJames (Jul 15, 2013)

Right John. And although I believe that Zimmerman is not a racist (per se), the point is the deeply held subtle racism that makes Z pursue a black man/boy when he may very well have not pursued a white man/boy.

We will never really know that; but we do know that an innocent kid was killed for no reason.

In Florida can I go into a bar, pick a fight and then go out to my car with a bloodied nose and shoot the guy who I punched first because he followed me out to my car?

I hope not but I won't be visiting Florida any time soon. Putting it on my travel list with Mexico and Egypt.

Ron


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

It shows again how messed up our legal system. GZ walked because of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

But then this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis was executed when there was no evidence against him. And there is a person who admitted to doing the crime, but the prosecution/police would not investigate.

Sad times.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 15, 2013)

. dont know why should anyone care besides 
their inmediate family members and their small comunnity. 

if its something to add to the statistics and for sure its bigger than one incident then yes, more poeple should be doing something. 

yet, the media overexposure makes it seem way more than it is. 

yet, hundred of thousands of poeple have dies in worst circunstances. no mention of that. 

the real issue that everyone forgot about this case was that initially the cops came to the 911 call, and DIDNT DO ANYTHING. basing it on stand your ground and didnt even open a case. 

thats when the protest happened and then what should of happened happened. 

so the real story is how racist the police dept was when they judged by themselves that a young black guy was killed and its inaction.


----------



## Alex Cuervo (Jul 15, 2013)

My reduction FWIW: Zimmerman picked a fight with a kid he was unfairly suspicious of and got his ass handed to him. Without the gun in the equation that would have been the end result.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 15, 2013)

The justice system is incredibly racist.

You have crap like this but also the incredibly disturbing subject of privatized prisons. They arrest predominantly black people for small crimes, slap them with outrageously long sentences, then toss them in these for-profit hellholes. It's the new slavery. I was in New Orleans last year and they have a private prison there that's actually built right over an old plantation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2013)

Pretty much true, choc. And the small crime is usually drugs.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 15, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Mon Jul 15 said:


> The justice system is incredibly racist.
> 
> You have crap like this but also the incredibly disturbing subject of privatized prisons. They arrest predominantly black people for small crimes, slap them with outrageously long sentences, then toss them in these for-profit hellholes. It's the new slavery. I was in New Orleans last year and they have a private prison there that's actually built right over an old plantation.



I think the business of incarceration is starting to come into focus, especially the privatized prisons and the institutionally racist nature of some of these petty drug offenses. I'm hearing more and more murmuring about it in the whisperstream.

I'm reading a book written by a black neuroscientist who made it out of a tough family situation. He is challenging a lot of the preconceptions about addiction, drug use, the drug wars and the neurological makeup of drug users. He's also challenging assumptions of how crack destroyed neighborhoods and the uninformed societal blaming that doesnt take into consideration helplessness, hopelessness, low employment, institutionalized racism.

If you think we've made great strides re racism in this county, don't do what I did and read the 7000 (thousands more now, I'm sure) comments posted after the CNN article about the verdict. They will make you shake your head.

@gsilbers- yes, and Rodney King was only one individual case as well- one that re- focused a lot of attention on BLATANT racism among LA cops and juries. Forward progress is usually about putting a human face on tragedy, because cold statistics and theories don't move people in the same way.

Look- this issue has a lot of sides to it. I live on the edge of West Harlem in a nice neighborhood, but I wouldnt be wandering around East Harlem in the wee hrs of the a.m. Racism? Caution? I'm sure Jesse Jackson regrets the remark, but when he says he sometimes is made nervous by groups of young black men on the streets of D.C., you know this is about more than just race. Urban and close ex- urban decay is getting worse. Black people who have better jobs and more money are less likely to be victims of street crime because they move out. The issue here isnt just race- it's class and economics as well, and most of that depends on education, which isnt improving. Between Obama's ineffectiveness in important areas and the bunker mentality obstructionism the Republicans have taken on, I don't see things improving soon. I've always been a sidelines person, but I'm ready to start volunteering and marching. I'd rather be another finger trying to plug up the dike than a hopeless shuffler. I think I'm ready for a third party. These two are toast.

End of rant. I'd like to see GZ spend a year or a few years in jail contemplating race relations and vigilantism. I doubt it will go there, but you know if it does, it will probably divide the country even further.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 15, 2013)

A handgun is for one thing, killing someone and having an edge as the dead person usually doesn't have a concealed weapon or a stupid stand your ground law.

Just like Liberals do not Liberate (unless we go back to Charlie Wilson my hero)
Conservatives overspend instead of Conserve 
And Stand Your Ground means to shoot someone before he shoots you.

Laws, ism's and ist's in the world are never accurate descriptions of their false sense of security, or contradicting names.

The real tragedy here is the DOJs bussing in of the Reverends and pressuring the State to step in and overcharge Zimmerman.
The Feds as usual could screw up a steel ball.

If they stepped in and actually went for Man 1/2 or 3, we could have made sure the next wannabe protector paused a second or so before knowing he/she was protected by the stand your ground jive. And Zimmerman would be doing 5-10 as Man 1 in Fla. could be 30 years.

Equally corrupt, and hopefully gets their ass sued beyond repair, are the editors who doctored the 911 call as they thrive on racial strife like a politician, and the other pathetic Parrots who tried to make this a white/black issue when it's obvious he's as many other millions in America, including our very own President, of mixed race.

The kid needs to do time in a medium security facility. But he will suffer the rest of his life as killing a kid, has to haunt anyone with half of a soul.

I have killed many Elk, Deer, Quail and Pheasant, and while I don't have nightmares, I still get mixed feelings of killing something so beautifully created.
But in my world, Hunters are actually more humane as we prevent the overpopulation of species, and waste no meat.

There are 300 million Deer, many would actually starve or be killed on highways if not controlled by the best Federal Agency we have known as Fish and Game....

My heart aches for Travons' parents. If someone shot my son, I would be on trial.
They have exhibited a self control and sorrow I doubt I could have.

:cry:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jul 16, 2013)

A 16 year 21 days old kid walks home from the store with candy and is followed by a stranger who calls the kid a "f-ing punk", and an "asshole" without knowing anything about him. 

The stranger tells the police he doesn't want the "f-ing punk" to get away, and he gets out of his car to take action. Meanwhile Trayvon Martin is making phone calls to a friend being concerned that he is in danger, being followed by a stranger. He asks the stranger why he is following him. 

Trayvon Martin is killed by he stranger, shot point blank range in the chest.

To me there is no ambiguity in this case.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 16, 2013)

my only problem with this case is that it continues to be dissected in the press, and in forums...

There are too many conflicting reports, none of us has access to the sworn testimony, although I won't be surprised if it eventually finds its way out.

If it in fact played out as Hans describes then there is no ambiguity, but we don't know that this was the sequence of events!

We don't know folks, and speculating now is probably only marginally more productive than speculating before the trial.

The justice system worked, if you believe:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

I happen to believe that.

I seldom like it when someone that I think is guilty goes free<G>... but in the balance I think our system still provides more protection from false imprisonment than most - although I'm well aware that these very protections are being assailed.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 16, 2013)

Too bad that Zimmerman didn't believe that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 16, 2013)

I can't believe the NAACP isn't pressuring this administration to address the black youth unemployment rates, which happens to be linked to the disproportional black youth crime rates, which is where this dangerous racial profiling stems from.
Black men scare other enthnic groups and their own elderly will tell you they don't fear white boys in the Hood, or the KKK coming to town, they fear their own.
I have many friends whose son can't find work, can't get unemployment since they're too young to have had a job. 
It's a tragedy and I feel so sorry for these kids.
My sons friends are lucky to get a gig at Mickey Dees, and as long as Small Businesses are getting crushed from regulations only a large company or Bank can afford, this sorry state of affairs isn't going to change.

A really simple law to get the ball rolling would be to pass legislation requiring anyone with a handgun to wear it on their Hip. It's what our patrolmen do.
Would Trayvon have jumped Wyatt Earp if the gun was in plain sight....?
In the land of wealthy redistributors we see a 40% black youth unemployment rate.
I wonder if other industrialized nations, have Capitals with such dreadful statistics.

In DC, there are more crimes committed in the legislative branches than the Hood IMHO.
Ironic that right down the Street wealthy redistributors are rolling in the Dough.
Occasionally looking at their direct deposited payroll of 6 figures, and that's before Tips.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 16, 2013)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Jul 16 said:


> Too bad that Zimmerman didn't believe that, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."



Agreed!


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jul 16, 2013)

rJames @ Mon Jul 15 said:


> Manslaughter.





JonFairhurst @ Mon Jul 15 said:


> I agree. Manslaughter.



No way. Look at what the law says:

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... /0782.html

There was no way the state proved that there was no lawful justification. There _might have been_ no lawful justification, but the state didn't _prove that_. Therfore, no manslaughter.



JonFairhurst @ Mon Jul 15 said:


> One thing for sure, this wasn't Trayvon's fault.



No - it's not "sure". The evidence seemingly points to Trayvon being at least partially responsible. Was he really? Maybe not. We will never know. And we don't convict when we don't know.


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jul 16, 2013)

Hans Adamson @ Tue Jul 16 said:


> A 16 year 21 days old kid walks home from the store with candy and is followed by a stranger who calls the kid a "f-ing punk", and an "asshole" without knowing anything about him.
> 
> The stranger tells the police he doesn't want the "f-ing punk" to get away, and he gets out of his car to take action. Meanwhile Trayvon Martin is making phone calls to a friend being concerned that he is in danger, being followed by a stranger. He asks the stranger why he is following him.
> 
> ...



Let me ask you (and the rest of you) a question. If Trayvon was so scared for his life, and if he was running away, why did he stay on the phone with his friend instead of calling the police? If you are in that situation and you are afriad, _and you have a phone in your hand_... you don't call 911? To me, that speaks volumes.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 16, 2013)

Did you call the cops a lot when you were 16? Do you think black teens call the cops often, 'scared'? I think you're ignoring some pretty wide cultural differences.

That said, I do think Trayvon certainly might have reacted physically when confronted by a guy playing cop and questioning his right to be somewhere. If so, that wasn't the best response. Did he deserve to be killed for it? Why did GZ set up the situation in the first place? Wanna-be macho, my thought.


----------



## SergeD (Jul 17, 2013)

Hans Adamson @ Tue Jul 16 said:


> A 16 year 21 days old kid walks home from the store with candy and is followed by a stranger who calls the kid a "f-ing punk", and an "asshole" without knowing anything about him.



That's what I asked myself. How did he approach the kid ? With such an attitude, how things could not go on the wrong side...


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

Some of the comments here make me want to point out that
maybe Travon was "standing his ground", 
reacting reasonably and fairly to being pursued by some random skinhead.
It was Travon's life that was in fact being threatened. 
But of course, being black, that "law" doesn't apply to him.

Zimmerman hunted that kid down, acting directly against a police order.
2nd degree murder or manslaughter, yes.
Innocent or not guilty? No way.

Also- I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard that juries have the legal power to ignore
the instructions given to them by a judge.
Judges and lawyers don't like to advertise that fact.

Saw an interview w/ one of the jurists yesterday.
the 1st vote was 3 guilty, 3 not guilty.

k


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jul 17, 2013)

HOLY CRAP!!!!



> maybe Travon was "standing his ground",



_Maybe_



> It was Travon's life that was in fact being threatened.



No - it was George's life who was being threatened - that's why he pulled the gun. If it wasn't, why was George bloodied, and Trayvon not?



> But of course, being black, that "law" doesn't apply to him.



Asinine statement.



> Zimmerman hunted that kid down, acting directly against a police order.



False information.

1) There is no evidence whatsoever showing Zimmerman hunted that kid down. What are you watching - Nancy Grace?

2) There was no police order. The 911 dispatcher said "we dont need you to do that". Again, not a police order.



> I've heard that juries have the legal power to ignore the instructions given to them by a judge.



You have heard wrong.



> Saw an interview w/ one of the jurists yesterday. the 1st vote was 3 guilty, 3 not guilty


.

That's why the system has _deliberations._


----------



## nikolas (Jul 17, 2013)

I got back from the USA last night, so less than 24 hours ago!

The one thing that hit me REALLY HARD with this case and any other case I've heard, but hadn't realized it until visiting Texas was that the USA is drowning in fear and violence. 

I'll leave aside gun control, racism and the juridical system for this post.

Guys you have been brought up with your minds in violence. (<-general comment. It doesn't apply to everyone in the US, or everyone in this thread... just thought I'd mention that) Even those who are not violent, go to church or whatever. I've been discussing with friends all of who are afraid that something will happen to them and that they will need to defend themselves. Honestly, even through these times that Greece is going through it never ever occurred to me that something REALLY BAD will happen if I get robbed. I'll just give the guy(s) what (t)he(y) want and I'll be on my way. 

Friend (very calm, nice guy, musician) told me how he got robbed from someone else. And beaten up severely. I understand the robbing part, but the violent part I don't, sorry.

___________________________

Now the fact that someone actually SHOOTS another man and goes walking free is insane for me. Almost as insane as one of the juries (B37) wanting to write a book about her experience being a jury! :(


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

Nicolas-

The USA was born from the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another.
The gun thing is crazy, and not going away.
Ignorance is rampant and fed by more ignorance.

This nation was created w/ violence.

There are "bubbles" of civilization, but once you leave one of those,
you're in a world of stupidity.

@ MarkS_Comp

Amazing post.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.
OT-- I wonder if you like Ted Nugent?

k


----------



## nikolas (Jul 17, 2013)

Wondering if this is factual: http://90degrees2theleft.com/2013/07/14/justice-2020/

No idea really, just wondering, cause it kinda seems to make sense... Then of course we have photoshop and anything in the world can happen really...


----------



## MarkS_Comp (Jul 17, 2013)

KEnK @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> The USA was born from the genocide of one race



This IS true. But the ancestors of overwhelming vast majority of people living in the USA today had NOTHING to do with that. 



KEnK @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> and the enslavement of another.



*BS*. Are you actually one of these people who believe that this country was born out of slavery? If so, you have no clue what you are talking about.

This country was in part born out of the ability of our elected govt to send men - white and black - _to their deaths _ to correct a morally reprehensible situation. If you dont see that, you sir, are blind.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2013)

KEnK is right, but the truth is that all countries have a brutal history - including all of Western Europe. Some countries have a brutal present, of course.

And how large the bubbles of civilization are is open to debate - as is whether it's just here - but there's no question that we have a world of extreme stupidity in this country. It even has a political party.

MarkS, are you saying that the country was born out of capital punishment? I don't quite follow what you're saying - although I'm quite confident I disagree with it.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 17, 2013)

KEnK @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> The USA was born from the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another.
> The gun thing is crazy, and not going away.
> Ignorance is rampant and fed by more ignorance.
> 
> ...



What Royal Bubble do you speak down from...?

Dead Indians and Slavery comments reflect the benfits of a free public education where any real depth is glossed over.

Even here in the States that "historical stereotype" didn't make children feel guilty since most of the slave owners and Kit Carson types died over a hundred years ago.
Most Americans fled various Genocides, Kings & Queens in the late 19th Century.
Great Grandfathers, Grandfathers and Fathers served well and suffered horrifically to preserve a new nation, but why bother looking at the bright side when we can refer to centuries past and apply guilt rather than skills.

But you are right about the danger of Guns in our culture.
Someday we'll get an honest Government where the word "serve" really applies to representation.
I am proud to say I never owned, nor will own guns designed to kill people.

Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Leonard Nimoy as Spock in Star Trek II : The Wrath Of Khan
Paramount Pictures 1982


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

MarkS_Comp @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> *BS*. Are you actually one of these people who believe that this country was born out of slavery? If so, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> This country was in part born out of the ability of our elected govt to send men - white and black - _to their deaths _ to correct a morally reprehensible situation. If you dont see that, you sir, are blind.


Guess you never heard of this little thing called the Civil War.
The economy of the south was built entirely on free labor.


----------



## olajideparis (Jul 17, 2013)

what in the world inspired this topic?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 17, 2013)

Ummm...as the OP.....the George Zimmerman case.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

chimuelo @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> ...What Royal Bubble do you speak down from...?
> 
> Dead Indians and Slavery comments reflect the benfits of a free public education where any real depth is glossed over.
> 
> Even here in the States that "historical stereotype" didn't make children feel guilty since most of the slave owners and Kit Carson types died over a hundred years ago...


I'm not speaking down-
Just pointing out that in big cities there's a different level
of tolerance for "the other", whoever that may be.
NYC, Chicago, SF, LA are all very different from Butt F*** Iowa,
or in this case Sanford Fla.

Ever read Howard Zinn?
They don't teach that in the public schools.

Slave owner and Kit Carson types are still very much here.
But slavery and murder are "mostly" illegal.

k


----------



## bimberl (Jul 17, 2013)

A very depressing and worthwhile article about the relationship of race and "Stand Your Ground" states.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2Z8FTcAPT


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 17, 2013)

We need a new set of laws in this country called, "Your gun? Your fault." (Or "Your gun? Your responsibility", if you prefer.)

If you fail to secure your gun and it's used in a crime, you are not without fault or responsibility.

If you allow young children to come across your gun and hurt somebody, you are not without fault or responsibility.

And when you are carrying a gun, confront somebody, and your bullet flies, you are not without fault or responsibility.

There would be no "he tried to grab it" if Zimmerman didn't bring it in the first place.

When will people figure out that a gun isn't a defensive weapon? It is an offensive weapon. And with the right to own it, one has the responsibility to secure it.

They say that "guns don't kill people; people do." Well, if the people with the guns are responsible, our laws should reflect that.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 17, 2013)

The thing about this case is that people are saying Zimmerman perusing Martin is a threatening move, while Martin beating Zimmerman (regardless of how much damage he sustained) is not?

If you feel threatened and you have a gun, you use it.

The biggest issue is there are too many theories with this case, and not enough fact. No one knows what started the actual struggle, therefore it's hard to determine self-defense or not. Whether he pursued Martin or not doesn't matter. It matters what happened when they met face to face.

For instance:
1. Who first attacked?
2. Did GZ pull the gun on Martin before or after the struggle?
3. Did Martin surprise him from behind, or did they just meet face to face (or vice versa)
4. Did Martin reach for the gun? (if he did, that is definitely a reason to end it right then and there.)
5. What happened BEFORE Martin was on top of GZ? (nobody saw what happened before that, and before the shot itself)

There's just so many questions, and no answers. So most opinions on this case are based on emotion, race, etc.

Also: Why are we calling Zimmerman a white skinhead?
Wasn't the neighborhood vastly mixed and not 100% white like I keep hearing?


What is even considered a proper source of the information of this case? The media edited tapes and videos just to make the story better..


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 17, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> If you feel threatened and you have a gun, you use it.



I'd change that to, "when a coward with a gun feels threatened, they use it."

I have a simple definition of a hero: A hero risks their own skin to save the skin of another. Conversely, a coward risks another's skin to save their own.

Zimmerman thought that by carrying a gun and by being aggressive on neighborhood watch, he was acting the hero. We learned otherwise.

In other words, just because a gun makes one feel brave, it doesn't mean that they really are.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jul 17, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> If you feel threatened and you have a gun, you use it.


And there, in a nutshell, is the problem you have in the US.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2013)

Yes (TheUnfinished).

...as long as you don't think that all Americans chew gum and carry a rifle (to borrow a line from a German friend)!

Also: Nathan, there's something seriously wrong with you if you carry a gun in the first place. Guns suck.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 17, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> If you feel threatened and you have a gun, you use it.


Honestly?!?!?

If you *FEEL* threatened and have a gun use it?!?! You're kidding right?!?!


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 17, 2013)

Ok, bad choice of words guys. Threatened isn't the right word as that could mean anything.

If you feel your life is in danger (sorry, I'm not basing this on my own opinion I'm basing this on gun law) and you have a weapon, it's generally your right to defense yourself. Unless I'm missing something that says you have to be injured significantly.

Unless of course you own your own home and are in Texas. You can shoot to kill on any intruder in your home. Of course this case wasn't that.

I don't own guns, so please don't take this as my own "Gun Toting" opinion. I can't really say what I'd do in that situation. The fact is NO ONE can.

I'm pretty sure if I had a gun, and the assailant tried to reach for it I would use it. But I don't know that for sure.

I'm also pretty sure if I was being pummeled while someone is on top I'd get disoriented enough to want to stop it somehow.

But as I said, no one knows what really happened during that time.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

nikolas @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 17 said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel threatened and you have a gun, you use it.
> ...


I don't think the man is kidding.
That mind set Nikolas, is why there are so many murders in the US.
Where it really gets truly sick is that a lot of people take that one step further.
If someone "disses" you and you have a gun, you use it.
Happens all the time.

And Mr. Pinard-
In my view, Zimmerman started the whole thing when he walked out the door w/ a loaded weapon. 
Incredibly absurd that there can be any question about who is at fault.
That "Skinhead" studied martial arts and outweighed Martin by at least 50 lbs.
Why is there a question that maybe Martin acted in self defense?
Zimmerman was the assailant here.

k


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 17, 2013)

You are again basing this on assumption. That is not how due process works.

You also call him a skinhead. Where is that at?

As far as self-defense goes:

_Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."_

I'm not saying it's NOT possible Zimmerman killed him without any reason. It could've gone either way.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 17 said:


> ...In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."[/i]...


I look at the sentence from Martin's perspective.
Obviously his life was threatened because he was murdered.
So according to that, he had every legal right to bash Zimmerman's skull against the pavement.

I refer to GZ as a skinhead because maybe that's how he appeared to Martin.
Personally, I wouldn't feel threatened by a teen in hoody on a cell phone w/ a bag of candy.
But if some nut was following me in a t-shirt w/ a shaved head,
and accosted me, wanting me to wait around for his "buddies"-
you bet I'd feel threatened.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 17, 2013)

There's justice and there's the law. Neither I nor Stevie Wonder will tour in states with "stand your ground" laws.

(The difference is that I don't tour anywhere, but still...)


----------



## nikolas (Jul 17, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

The actual murder count for the USA is 4.8 and in Greece is 1.5 . It's not an ultra HIGH number by any means. 

The problem, is exactly the mind set and the laws. You are allowed to kill in certain circumstances. You know that you can do that and you know that there are reasons this exists. You don't get just how violent this just is? It's insanely violent!


----------



## KEnK (Jul 17, 2013)

Very interesting graphs.
You can click on the rate, 
the US is surpassed pretty much only by so called 3rd world countries.
We're just about at that level here.
Nothing to brag about.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 18, 2013)

Nathan got it... no one really knows what they will do in any given set of circumstances. You can say that you'll rescue your wife and kids if your house goes up in flames, but until it happens it's just a guess for most... I was a volunteer fireman when I was younger, I've been in burning buildings, and I'm pretty sure I can keep my wits about me, but I really hope I never find out, because I do not know for certain.

Same goes for owning a gun... if you keep one in your home, for self defense, then you think that you can use it. Or at least I hope you do!

But when it comes down to it you may not, or you may choose not to. For myself I still keep a gun in a safe, and if someone breaks in and steals all my stuff then it stays in the safe. If that same person threatens my kids or wife then I will probably get it out of the safe. But you know, I don't know for certain. 

I do know, for certain, that I feel a bit more comfortable having the option!

I also went into a 'bad neighborhood' once with a concealed weapon (I have a permit)... scared me silly. I haven't carried it since! In that case I'll take my chances escaping...

I can certainly understand, and respect anyone that chooses not to own a lethal weapon. It's all about choices.

I can also understand someone from another country/culture viewing this as "insanely violent", but I do not agree.

If we could put the genie back in the bottle, and the bad guys did not have unfettered access to firearms it would be different... but then the whole thing would be different!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 18, 2013)

If you want to talk about "insanely violent", my wife spent a couple weeks in El Salvador earlier this year. El Salvador's rate is 69.2. ("We're number two! Estamos numero dos!")

The good news is that the rate has declined strongly over recent years based on negotiations between the government and gangs. The bad news is that the rate mainly went down because the gangs agreed to disappear the bodies. No body, no murder statistic.

Why so high? The country was divided between 14 families by colonial Spain. The poor were driven into the mountains. The wealth gap was huge and aligned with skin color. There was a recent civil war. What remains is fear, arms, racism, a wealth gap, and deep resentment. Both groups wish each other's babies dead. Gangs are deeply entrenched. If you are a young man in a given neighborhood, you join the gang or die along with your family.

El Salvador is a template for how not to create a country and society. I don't know that we have a template for repair.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill, I just don't understand why an intelligent person would look at this tragedy from that angle. The brain process is simply beyond me.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 18, 2013)

Which angle Nick?

It was tragic, no one has suggested otherwise. In fact it is tragic on many levels!

The point I was trying to highlight is the difference between a citizen choosing to maintain the option to defend themselves, or their family, by any means necessary - which I think is good - vs. armed, untrained citizens taking on the responsibility of law enforcement - which I think is a recipe for disaster, and I don't think I need to prove that one<G>!

Neighborhood Watch started out as a good idea, and really an extension of how things once were. People looked out for each other. Armed neighborhood watch is insane. There are probably a handful of responsible people taking on that role, but I'd argue that the vast majority are wannabe cops, and that is even scarier than cops.

I wasn't there, I don't know what really happened, but I do know that it would not have happened if Zimmerman had not been armed - not just because he wouldn't have had the gun, but because he probably would have stayed put - he would not have been emboldened by his weapon.

Did he fear for his life? Only he knows. Was he legitimately in fear for his life? I'm not sure anyone knows. Did Martin deserve to die? I think not, but I'll never really know for certain.

This was a tragic event, but I'm really tired of people trying to assign blame (either to one of the parties or the Stand Your Ground Law) or make this into a race issue. These arguments do nothing to help prevent future tragedies. We, as a society, need to decide whether or not we want untrained people wandering the streets with lethal weapons - and not as private citizens but as pseudo-law enforcement agents.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 18, 2013)

wst3 @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> Did Martin deserve to die? I think not, but I'll never really know for certain.


 :!: 
The kid was walking home w/ a bag of candy!
Why is there any uncertainty in your mind about whether or not he deserved to die?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill, I'm with you a good part of the way. But why do you think it's not an SYG or a race issue?

And what KEnK says. That kid should be alive today.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 18, 2013)

KEnK @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> The kid was walking home w/ a bag of candy!
> Why is there any uncertainty in your mind about whether or not he deserved to die?



That's one version... there's another version, apparently entered as evidence through testimony, that the kid attacked Zimmerman. I wasn't there when it happened, and I wasn't present for the trial, and I refuse to pretend that I know what happened that night.

IF, and it's a big if, Martin attacked Zimmerman, and threatened Zimmerman's life then the jury was allowed to find Zimmerman not guilty. And that appears (again I was not there) to be what happened - the part where the jury believed Zimmerman acted to save his own life - we still do not know what happened on that street.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 18, 2013)

wst3 @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> Did Martin deserve to die? I think not, but I'll never really know for certain.


So... for you some people deserve to die, right?

This is what's SO different between me (European and Greek) and someone like you (not like "you personally", but someone in the States, an American): You find that some people deserve to die!

I don't!


----------



## wst3 (Jul 18, 2013)

Nikolas and Nick... you are taking exception to my statement and it took me a while to figure out why... I'm not sure there is a word that fits perfectly, and certainly "Deserves" is not quite right.

IF someone were to come into my home and try to kill my family I would do whatever was required to prevent that from happening, including possibly killing them. I would not be happy about having to make such a decision, and I probably would say that they deserved to die, but somehow 'deserve' seems, even to someone like me, inappropriate.

Perhaps if I said that 'that kid' had a hand in creating a situation where the outcome was that he died that would work?

I am not sure exactly how to put it into words!

But the short answer is that yes, there are people who do things for which they deserve to die, because that is the only way that they can be prevented from causing someone else to die.

Am I making sense?

The kid - can we call him by his name or does that make it somehow too personal? - should be alive today. No way an untrained watched should be allowed to carry a weapon while watching. Other times? Well that's the pesky 2nd amendment - but if you are going to take on a responsibility to watch your neighborhood either you get the same training in deadly force that the police get, or you get a non-lethal weapon, or you skip the weapon altogether and simply report things. Am I blurring the lines with respect to the 2nd amendment? Maybe, but a police officer does not get carte blanche either, and in fact they are held (usually) to a higher standard as a result of their training.

And Nick - SYG is part of the conversation, but blaming the laws is not moving the conversation forward. I still find it difficult to believe that race was a factor, except to the news folks trying to sell advertising time. This was two kids playing chicken - so to speak - and one of them had a gun. No one likes those odds. If race really was a factor in the shooting (it probably was a factor in the events that led to the shooting - how the heck do you factor that in?) I can not believe that no one was able to dig it up!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 18, 2013)

wst3 @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> KEnK @ Thu Jul 18 said:
> 
> 
> > The kid was walking home w/ a bag of candy!
> ...



Even if Zimmerman's life was threatened and he was forced to shoot Trayvon, he still has to answer for the fact that he incited the whole incident in the first place. IMO, agressively following a stranger with a loaded gun will, in many cases, lead to a heated confrontation. If some creepy little 5'7 guy was tracking me and coming up to me I can't promise it wouldn't end up with me rearranging his face. 

And let's say I hate my co-worker Dave and I'd like to see him in a casket. All I have to do is pick a fight with him then when I feel my ass has been satisfactorily whooped I can stand my ground through his chest with a hail of righteous bullets. ...But then what happens if I later realize he wasn't the one eating the croutons off my salad in the office fridge? My murderous gaze would then shift to Michelle in accounts receivable... she's been avoiding me. Possibly because of the murderous gaze.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 18, 2013)

wst3 @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> The kid - can we call him by his name or does that make it somehow too personal? - should be alive today. No way an untrained watched should be allowed to carry a weapon while watching.



Well we seem to agree on something...

I used the term "that kid" to drive the point that Travon Martin was 17 years old.
A minor.
Just a couple of years on the "grown up" side of childhood.

@ Nikolas
about that USA murder rate...
The US is geographically huge, and large parts of it are rural.
Looking at the "urban center" homicide rate tells a different story
than that 4.8 per 100,000.

In Oakland Ca. ,where I live, that rate goes up to 26.3.
I'm sure it's similar in other big cities, although Oakland is one of the worst.
There are other nice friendly crime stats there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_O ... California

k


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 18, 2013)

nikolas @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> wst3 @ Thu Jul 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Did Martin deserve to die? I think not, but I'll never really know for certain.
> ...



That generalization is way too broad, Nikolas. A lot of Europeans think someone or other needs to die, and there are plenty of peaceful Americans.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 18, 2013)

choc, why not just shoot Michelle for avoiding your gaze? Stand your ground, don't be a wimp!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 18, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 18 said:


> choc, why not just shoot Michelle for avoiding your gaze? Stand your ground, don't be a wimp!



You're right, that's reason enough to take her out- but by out I mean on a date. Then I'd kill her... in a blaze of self defense laden glory that would include a kick ass tactical roll and the words "America, fuck yeah!" as I pull the trigger. That or "Heads up!", depends where I'm aiming.

I hear if you stand your ground 3 times in a single year Ted Nugent magically appears and gives you a rockin' BJ. I know the dude loves meat so it's probably true.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 18, 2013)

Bill, Ken,

The problem is that getting someone in my home that intends to kill my family (for example) is something that doesn't cross my mind, where I live! Simply put! If someone comes in my house it will be to steal and not to (btw) kill my family. I won't resist and that's it.

That's the difference here.

And yes, the comment I made was way too broad, and definitely if someone was after to kill my family I'd do whatever is possible to protect them! Notice however how my comment is about *protecting* my family, not killing the intruder, the thief, whoever... 

No European country has capital sentence, right? And no European country will allow someone to murder, no matter the cause and let them be afterwards... (I think for the second part). 

Fear + violence + the ability to hold guns = shite...


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Bill, Ken,
> 
> The problem is that getting someone in my home that intends to kill my family (for example) is something that doesn't cross my mind, where I live! Simply put! If someone comes in my house it will be to steal and not to (btw) kill my family. I won't resist and that's it.
> 
> ...



Nikolas-I'm not trying to be provocative, and I have never owned a gun, but let me ask you this-would you have fought the Nazis in WW2? The Greek people paid a big price like much of Europe to try to fight off or hold off the Nazis--would you have picked up a gun then?


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

Larry... You're actually comparing war time with now?!?!

BTW, most of Europe didn't fight back. French resistance?!?!?

Greece did fight back, pushed the Italians away and Crete was fighting so hard that they held off the Germans for long enough for the summer to end and thus making it too difficult for the Germans to invade Russian next!


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jul 19, 2013)

Sadly Nikolas, Belarus still has capital punishment. But that is the only European country that does.

You have a little more faith in Europe than perhaps I do. There are definitely gun cultures in parts of Eastern Europe and enough corruption in policing and legal areas in a number of countries, that a Zimmerman/Martin incident could happen. There's also enough racism (colour and religion based) to encourage such an incident.

None of this makes the prevalent attitudes along these lines any more acceptable in the US (we've all read about the Cheerios commercial thing, right?). But whilst much of Central Europe may have a better record, we are not without out prejudices and injustices.

The UK is steadily becoming a far more intolerant place. Partly driven by an aggressive, illiberal press and government who seek to fuel people's, often unfounded, fears. It worries me that the general populace can be quite so out of touch with the realities of the society around them. It is not a good sign.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Larry... You're actually comparing war time with now?!?!
> 
> BTW, most of Europe didn't fight back. French resistance?!?!?
> 
> Greece did fight back, pushed the Italians away and Crete was fighting so hard that they held off the Germans for long enough for the summer to end and thus making it too difficult for the Germans to invade Russian next!



Nikolas - i am not making a comparison. I also know Greece's brave history of resistance in WW2- but you didnt answer the quesion.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

Larry, the idea is NOT if I would EVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD use a gun. The idea is that this is NOT a war time. So your question is as silly as it can get...

But to answer your question: Yes in war time, I would've used a gun, especially if I knew that my family was already secure (thus fighting for my country... and the safety of others, not of my family). In other words I'd flee my family and THEN fight. Not sure if it makes any sense, but it does to me...

The Unfinished: I wasn't aware of Belarus... :-/ And perhaps you're right about having too much faith in europe... As far as UK is concerned, I did feel the intolerance building up when I was in London, but I still didn't feel threatened, regardless that I lived next to housing benefit ( = "low quality").


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Larry, the idea is NOT if I would EVER EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD use a gun. The idea is that this is NOT a war time. So your question is as silly as it can get...
> 
> But to answer your question: Yes in war time, I would've used a gun, especially if I knew that my family was already secure (thus fighting for my country... and the safety of others, not of my family). In other words I'd flee my family and THEN fight. Not sure if it makes any sense, but it does to me...
> 
> The Unfinished: I wasn't aware of Belarus... :-/ And perhaps you're right about having too much faith in europe... As far as UK is concerned, I did feel the intolerance building up when I was in London, but I still didn't feel threatened, regardless that I lived next to housing benefit ( = "low quality").



OK NIKOLAS-THANKS FOR ANSWERING MY SILLY QUESTION. :wink: 

(we violent Americans need lessons in comportment from you non-violent and pleasant Europeans, you know-we're new in town.)


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

Larry, I guess you're new to being sarcastic as well, cause you're not really successful at that! LOL! 

But, do answer me this then: What use was your question exactly? I repeat, do you think this is a war time? If not... why on earth would you ask that? I fail to see the point...


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

Back in Trayvon and George land, it will be very interesting to see if the Feds bring an indictment on civil rights charges. The way I read the requirements, the case doesn't meet the standard, but I'm not an attorney. I'm curious to see whether the Feds will attempt to seek social justice in a case that probably doesn't merit an indictment.

I hope a lot of pressure is brought to bear on Florida to change the presumption of justified, and almost encouraged, killing in self defense- yet 22 or so other states have enacted similar laws.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Larry, I guess you're new to being sarcastic as well, cause you're not really successful at that! LOL!
> 
> But, do answer me this then: What use was your question exactly? I repeat, do you think this is a war time? If not... why on earth would you ask that? I fail to see the point...



If you assumed my question was silly without you knowing the basis for it, Nikolas, i think I'll skip explaining. Cheers.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Larry, I guess you're new to being sarcastic as well, cause you're not really successful at that! LOL!
> ...


Great! Well done on being unable to explain yourself!  (<- and yes this is also an assumption!)

And to think that I was being nice in trying to make sure you didn't think I was avoiding your question... :(


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Bill, Ken,
> 
> The problem is that getting someone in my home that intends to kill my family (for example) is something that doesn't cross my mind, where I live! Simply put! If someone comes in my house it will be to steal and not to (btw) kill my family. I won't resist and that's it.



This I don't understand. Now I don't have a family, but you have a right to keep your property safe. Your property is an extension of you, that's why you should have the right to defend it. I know a guy who was Special Forces in Vietnam, friend of the family. When he was back home someone trespassed on his property. He warned him several time to get off, he didn't, so he killed him. Cruel? Arguably. But IMHO you shouldn't have to let somebody steal your property, ever. No one deserves to die unless they put themselves in that position. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make this decision, but I firmly believe that the attitude of "Come on in and steal my stuff, I don't want to shoot you" is an open invitation to get robbed. Just the same as if a criminal knew that no one in the country was concealing because having a gun period was against the law. 

I'm about to move from Texas to Florida in the next couple weeks, it'll be interesting to come in to the middle of all this.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Bill, Ken,
> ...


I didn't want to post in this thread, because I already made someone feel uneasy (or at least that... could be worst)... 

But,

Did the guy from the Special Forces in Vietnam thought of... perhaps... shooting the guy in the legs: Same result, the robber doesn't carry on his robbery, the Special Forces guy gets his stuff saved and the robber goes to jail... 

You see... "your" guys provided several warnings, which goes to prove (probably) that the robber wasn't carrying a gun himself...right? 

Just to give an example: In Greece we don't have guns. We lock our doors and have security alarms in our houses and music studios, etc. It doesn't seem too inviting, does it? And robbers don't come in to shoot and kill. They come in to steal! (and yes i've had my music studio robbed, but thankfully those who came in didn't know anything, so they left with absolutely nothing with them!)

__________________________________

This is what I mean about having a mindset somewhat geared to violence and fear. This is not personal and certainly I haven't been that long in the States to know much, but from all I can gather, I get a certain vibe from various posts (like Sam's): If someone tries to steal your stuff, which is your extension, you can shoot to kill. Now that for me is an overstretch! 

Perhaps I'll change my mind (gawd forbid) if something happens to me or my family, but for now this is where I stand...


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Did the guy from the Special Forces in Vietnam thought of... perhaps... shooting the guy in the legs: Same result, the robber doesn't carry on his robbery, the Special Forces guy gets his stuff saved and the robber goes to jail...



You probably shouldn't be shooting someone for merely trespassing on your property but if you are, you should probably shoot to kill cause once that dude's back on the streets he's gonna be comin' for ya.



nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Just to give an example: In Greece we don't have guns. We lock our doors and have security alarms in our houses and music studios, etc. It doesn't seem too inviting, does it? And robbers don't come in to shoot and kill. They come in to steal! (and yes i've had my music studio robbed, but thankfully those who came in didn't know anything, so they left with absolutely nothing with them!)



You must be from one of the few places that has no murders or rapes. In a lot of other places people who have someone break into their place can't sit back with confidence and say to their 13 year old daughter "Oh stop crying Jenny, he's just gonna steal some stuff - you're totes not gonna get raped. Go back to your room".



nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Perhaps I'll change my mind (gawd forbid) if something happens to me or my family, but for now this is where I stand...



But by then it'd be too late.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

Just one quick note before I bow out of this thread. I totally understand that when you live in a violent society you are forced to "Stand your ground". But this is what I mean: Apparently the US IS a violent place... drenched in fear and violence... :-/ 

Anyhow there's no reason to keep discussing this. We live in different places and it's getting quite rude of me to keep making assumptions about the US... :-/ 

Sorry and bye!


----------



## wst3 (Jul 19, 2013)

Sorry you are bowing out - you've brought up an excellent topic that certainly needs debate, and for the most part here the debate has been thoughtful and civil... pretty cool!

To me it is about choices or options. I do not value my gear sufficiently to feel the need to kill someone. I do value my family sufficiently to at least want the option available to use any force necessary to protect them.

When I took my gun safety and self defense class they really emphasized that it is a bad idea to shoot to wound. The general rules were:
1) NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it
-and-
2) NEVER use lethal force unless you intend to kill.

The reasoning was two-fold... very few people are good enough to shoot to wound, a leg is a very small target! Add to that the adrenalin, and you need to aim at the largest target, which is the trunk. The second half of the argument was Choco's - if you wound them you just make them angry.

I hope I never fire a weapon except at the range. And I hope that if I am ever in a position to use a weapon for self defense that I have the wisdom and courage to make the right choices.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 19, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> ...this is what I mean: Apparently the US IS a violent place... drenched in fear and violence... :-/


Absolutely Nicolas.
You see the mind set on display here in this thread.
We still live in the OK Corral.

YIP YAW :twisted: :roll:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 19, 2013)

I seriously wonder if there is a correlation with the belief in violent response and being beaten as a child.

Years ago, I bought a house that was not yet finished. The contractor was a one-man operation who hired (homeless) day laborers. I worked on the house as well to get more for my money. 

One day during lunch break, one of the laborers mentioned that after my kid was born, I should beat him to teach him discipline. The other laborer and his wife agreed. They had been beaten by their parents and figured that was best. The contractor (who had built a successful business from scratch) and I (a successful professional) just looked at one another without saying a word. 

Not only were these "beaten" people homeless, they had on-and-off addiction problems and were reactionary. ("I'd shoot anybody who..." fill in the blank.)

Yes, we want kids to learn consequences for bad behavior. Unfortunately, when one is beaten, they don't tend to focus on their own behavior. They want the beating to stop. They resent the beater. They want to avoid being the weak party. More often than not, they want to take it out on somebody weaker than they are.

A common thread from the "shoot first" crowd seems to be a victimization fear coupled with a retribution/revenge fantasy.

It makes sense. If one grows up in a violent society where they are victimized (beaten, molested) or learn to fear being victimized (mom brutalized, a friend killed), it would make sense for that person to perpetrate violence out of fear, resentment, and reaction. If one grows up in relative safety, they're less likely to be haunted by violent thoughts.

I wonder if there's a correlation between corporal punishment and fear/violence as adults in society.

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

Here's a map of where corporal punishment is allowed in schools by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corpo ... States.svg

And here's a murder rate map:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/general- ... -rate.html

For consequences, I like the idea of denying everybody in the family something (no desert for anybody!) when a kid does something bad. They can't resent the parent (if the apply the rule calmly - like gravity) because the parent doesn't get desert either. Nor can they resent the sibling, because the sibling suffers as well. It really leaves the child to think about their own culpability. On the other hand, when the child is beaten or is the lone loser, they tend to focus their resentment on the punnisher or the advantaged as they tell lies about, justify, or downplay their own behavior. (This won't work on a mentally ill or sociopathic person, but that's a different topic.)


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 19, 2013)

I got whipped as a kid by teachers, neighborhood kids who became best friends, but never my Parents. Although Pops was an X Cleveland Brown Guard, so he would wind up and swing at me hoping I was smart enough to duck.
I never hit my sons and I am glad as both of them are 6'4 and 5"... 8) 
But I could not agree more as it's a life lesson seeing the outcome of kids with parents who drank too much, or beat their kids or taught them hate.

On another note I was filled with pride today after Obamas speech. I know he could have divided us as that is a tactic his handlers push at every oppurtunity, but he did the right thing. 
For the Martin familys sake and Trayvon, he really did the right thing.

So let the reverends get some more headlines for a few weeks, and the DOJ can fund some more events with our money, no problemo.
Obamas speech was so appropraitely bonding, no speech from the Reverends could muster any anger after that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

chimuelo @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> I got whipped as a kid by teachers, neighborhood kids who became best friends, but never my Parents. Although Pops was an X Cleveland Brown Guard, so he would wind up and swing at me hoping I was smart enough to duck.
> I never hit my sons and I am glad as both of them are 6'4 and 5"... 8)
> But I could not agree more as it's a life lesson seeing the outcome of kids with parents who drank too much, or beat their kids or taught them hate.
> 
> ...



You're a complex guy, Jimmy. I like complicated people, because though many people see things as black or white, I see the world as being filled with nuance.  

@Sam- I think your Special Forces friend might need some psychiatric attention. He killed a guy for multiple trespass? Why not simply swear out a complaint, and if the miscreant repeated the behavior, have him thrown in jail? Failing that, why not simply kick his ass?

Many years ago when I was in between apartments, i lived in a cheap hotel for two months. My first really good guitar, a Strat, was stolen from my room. I'd like it if the guy had gone to jail for stealing it, but capital punishment for the loss of my property?? I don't own anything I care about enough to execute someone for.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 19, 2013)

Because the guy meant harm right then and there. Filing a complaint would have been after the fact, which is no good in the present. Were not talking about he accidentally stumbled on another persons property. He trespassed with the intent of robbing. Unfortunately, or fortunately however you look at it, you have the right to shoot someone on your property. I'm not saying I'd shoot someone who accidentally ended up on my property, but if you trespass and your warned to get off and you don't, and that person means to do harm by stealing your property or hurting your family, you bet I will shoot him. I dread the day when I have to move to a Duty to Retreat state. 

Moral of the story; think twice before you want to rob someone. It's that simple to me. I'm not saying taking someones life would be a simple and easy thing to stomach, but the law is the law. If someone tries to break into your car while your in the vehicle, you have the right to shoot them. If someone tries to break into your house, you have the right to shoot them. If someone trespasses on your property, you have the right to shoot them. ESPECIALLY if someone breaks into your house you have the right to shoot them. Don't break into someones house if you don't want to get shot. I shouldn't have to feel guilty for defending what I've worked to own.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> Because the guy meant harm right then and there. Filing a complaint would have been after the fact, which is no good in the present. Were not talking about he accidentally stumbled on another persons property. He trespassed with the intent of robbing. Unfortunately, or fortunately however you look at it, you have the right to shoot someone on your property. I'm not saying I'd shoot someone who accidentally ended up on my property, but if you trespass and your warned to get off and you don't, and that person means to do harm by stealing your property or hurting your family, you bet I will shoot him. I dread the day when I have to move to a Duty to Retreat state.
> 
> Moral of the story; think twice before you want to rob someone. It's that simple to me. I'm not saying taking someones life would be a simple and easy thing to stomach, but the law is the law. If someone tries to break into your car while your in the vehicle, you have the right to shoot them. If someone tries to break into your house, you have the right to shoot them. If someone trespasses on your property, you have the right to shoot them. ESPECIALLY if someone breaks into your house you have the right to shoot them. Don't break into someones house if you don't want to get shot. I shouldn't have to feel guilty for defending what I've worked to own.



My hope for you as life goes by, Sam, is that it becomes less simple. I mean this without disparagement or animus. 

Also, I'm surprised that a member of our Special Forces could not disarm and or disable an enemy on his own turf. Every SEAL And Ranger i know sure could.

I do have a family by the way, a wife and son. I don't own a gun, but I would protect them with life and limb. If I killed someone in the process, that would be bad...but that's the way it would be. I woud pick up a gun to defend my country if it was attacked. I add all this to say I'm not a Quaker, not a pacifist. I'm a peaceful man who would use deadly force to protect lives, not to protect stuff. We differ. Maybe someday i'll change my mind. Maybe you'll change yours. You have more time :wink:


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 19, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> If someone trespasses on your property, you have the right to shoot them.



I can understand obliterating someone who's breaking into your place but killing them for trespassing seems a little nuts. What if my cousin Ricky, who's between jobs right now, is out playing ultimate frisbee with some neighborhood kids and the frisbee lands in your yard. He rushes in, looks around, then lights up - "found it, guy-- BLAM! his lower jaw blows off from a close range shotgun blast. Doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 19, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> ...but the law is the law.....



Sam, 

with the greatest respect, as we come from totally different cultures, I disagree with almost everything you say. I don't believe that a member of the public should have the right to kill another human for any of the reasons you have given - these are not capital offences under the law.

But - I would also point out: the law is an ever evolving creature. It is made by man, and changed by man. What is legal one day, is illegal the next. And vice versa.

"The Law" is therefore, in my mind, not the ultimate arbiter of how one should behave.

Best,

Paul


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 19, 2013)

Not a duty to retreat state, doesn't have to. Deadly force is protected under law if you are or believe your in eminent danger. It's not mine or anyones problem to only use as little of lethal force as possible. It sounds cruel and insensitive, but what if the special forces guy didn't know that the trespasser was also a special forces guy from another unit, and he ended up getting himself killed and then his family is harmed. What if I aim for the leg and miss, then the attacker gets to me and hurts me or my family. What if I decided to wrestle with the guy instead because I think I might be able to take him on, only to find out that this skinny little dude is a black belt. I would rather not take these chances. 

Like I've said many times already, I wouldn't shoot someone for accidentally stumbling on my property and playing frisbee. This is not protected under law anyways. But in this case where the guy showed obvious signs of robbing/inflicting harm, I would then use necessary force. 

And while you say the law is always changing, when speaking of legal rights, I agree. However, I believe the right to self-defense (which includes you, your property, and your family) is a natural right, God-given unalienable right.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 19, 2013)

Hmm. I'm just a simple atheist, but from a Christian perspective:

"You have heard that it was said 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."

-Matthew 5:38-40


----------



## nikolas (Jul 19, 2013)

It's simply so weird to me that in this thread the discussion of killing someone is SO light! It seems like we're out from a movie, where killings come in dozens... :-/ 

I don't know guys... that's why I decided to leave the thread alone. I just don't understand it. It seems that the vaule of any human life is great, enormous. For both sides, that of a robber, and that defending a property, the family, etc. I can't think that a person should judge, shoot and kill in a split second, because of fear. 

I'll repeat that here in Greece when there's a robbery, it's just that: a robbery. Reason is simple: In the eyes of the law it's one thing to steal, it's another thing to beat up someone, it's another thing to rape and another thing to kill. So if you can "just" rob, then you "just" rob.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jul 20, 2013)

It may be that robberies in the US are more violent than in Europe, Nikolas?

In the UK, most robberies are opportunist, attempted when the owners are out. People getting killed during robberies is extraordinarily rare.

To me, the idea that attempted robbery is viewed as a 'technical' capital offence. The idea that you can kill someone for being a thief is completely anathema to me.

But maybe that's because, to me, the idea of robberies and violence don't go so hand in hand. And frankly, I'm glad. So, again we return to the idea that an air of violence is the problem. Imagine that, with all those safe, reassuring guns! How could it be?


----------



## nikolas (Jul 20, 2013)

TheUnfinished @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> It may be that robberies in the US are more violent than in Europe, Nikolas?
> 
> In the UK, most robberies are opportunist, attempted when the owners are out. People getting killed during robberies is extraordinarily rare.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!

Most robberies in Greece are exactly that: Wait for the owners to get out to get in, or catch them in their sleep, to spray them with sleeping gas (happened to my sister in law...), and so on. Robbers do NOT like confrontation, at least not in Greece... :-/


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 20, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> ...



Nikolas- I've told you I prefer not to engage both publicly and privately. If your interest is in being "nice", might you not best just let it go at that? Thank you.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 20, 2013)

Quick reply: If you check the time stamp of the post you quoted, it will give you a hint that it was posted before I sent the PM and certainly before I got your PM reply!  

I haven't engaged with you since, right?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 20, 2013)

Then my apologies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 20, 2013)

My property is not an extension of me or my penis; unlike them, it can be replaced. A criminal can leave with everything I own if I can avoid a violent confrontation. And I will never own a gun.

Bill, why do you think SYG is bogging down the conversation? To me it's an essential part of the dipshit vigilante culture that led to this tragedy.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 20, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> My property is not an extension of me or my penis; unlike them, it can be replaced. A criminal can leave with everything I own if I can avoid a violent confrontation.



And on this we can't possibly be more in agreement... it's stuff, and it can be replaced. 



Nick Batzdorf said:


> And I will never own a gun.



And that's your privilege, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It's a personal choice.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bill, why do you think SYG is bogging down the conversation? To me it's an essential part of the dipshit vigilante culture that led to this tragedy.



Stand-Your-Ground laws are not, by themselves, the problem. Or at least the principle is not flawed. It's just another way of saying that we have the right to defend ourselves.

OK, come to think of it we didn't really need yet another law telling us what we already know... but that's a topic for another day!

The problem, at least to me, is that we keep extending that basic principle, and adding loopholes and extensions and before you know it an untrained civilian is shooting (and killing) an unarmed citizen.

Would we even be having a conversation if both parties had been armed? Has anyone considered that? And I'm quite certain we would not be having any conversation if neither of them were armed... a good old fashioned slug fest seldom makes the papers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 20, 2013)

> And that's your privilege, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It's a personal choice.



Right, it's a personal choice not to be a knuckle-dragging moron.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 20, 2013)

> Right, it's a personal choice not to be a knuckle-dragging moron.



Are you insinuating that any civilian carrying a gun is a knuckle-dragging moron?


----------



## KEnK (Jul 20, 2013)

Could I carry a sword or a Viking style axe?
or a Medieval Mace?
How about a spear?

If not-
why not?

I think nunchucks are illegal as are throwing stars.

Why are those weapons not acceptable but guns are right as rain?

k


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 20, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> > And that's your privilege, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It's a personal choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's a personal choice not to be a knuckle-dragging moron.



Always with the delicacy. Man up, liberalboy.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 21, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> > And that's your privilege, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. It's a personal choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's a personal choice not to be a knuckle-dragging moron.



And that's your prerogative as well - but you aren't advancing the debate when you resort to name-calling. (and for the record, my knuckles do not reach the ground!)


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 23, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> nikolas @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Bill, Ken,This I don't understand. Now I don't have a family, but you have a right to keep your property safe. Your property is an extension of you, that's why you should have the right to defend it. I know a guy who was Special Forces in Vietnam, friend of the family. When he was back home someone trespassed on his property. He warned him several time to get off, he didn't, so he killed him. Cruel? Arguably. But IMHO you shouldn't have to let somebody steal your property, ever. No one deserves to die unless they put themselves in that position. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to make this decision, but I firmly believe that the attitude of "Come on in and steal my stuff, I don't want to shoot you" is an open invitation to get robbed. Just the same as if a criminal knew that no one in the country was concealing because having a gun period was against the law.
> ...




I am a lawyer. No, I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge, "defense of property" is not a defense for homicide in any state. I don't think we've stooped that low yet. The degree, however, to which the prosecution may be willing pursue charges may be "flexible" in some states. And, a wrongful death suit would certainly be appropriate. (as may be possible in the Martin case).


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 23, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> Not a duty to retreat state, doesn't have to. Deadly force is protected under law if you are or believe your in eminent danger. .



Uh..that would be "imminent"...unless you're being chased by the Pope.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 23, 2013)

MichaelL @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> I am a lawyer. No, I don't think so. To the best of my knowledge, "defense of property" is not a defense for homicide in any state. I don't think we've stooped that low yet. The degree, however, to which the prosecution may willing pursue charges may be "flexible" in some states. And, a wrongful death suit would certainly be appropriate. (as may be possible in the Martin case).



Thanks Michael for chiming in - I was wondering how long you'd wait<G>!

I am not an attorney, but I am a LOT happier learning that we have not, yet at least, added defense of property to the list of crimes for which lethal force is allowed.

At least I hope you are correct!!!

aside: I'm still not convinced that the concept of "wrongful death" as a form of civil suit has done much to advance society, but I understand the distinction.


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 23, 2013)

@ Nikolas and Paul...I don't know what it's like in Europe, but the media here feeds inot people's fears. There is a saying in local news, "if it bleeds, it leads," meaning that any story involving violence is the lead story. 

I live on the edge of a large city. The greatest number of homicides occur in certain areas of the city. Most of those ivolve young black men killing young black men. Yet, people in the suburbs arm themselves as if they live in a war zone. In reality, outside the city domestic violence is often the culprit. In that case, you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun than protected. 

But, just as people fear flying more than driving, although they are far more likely to be killed or injured by a drunk driver or some idiot texting, they misjudge the actual likelihood of becoming a victim of violent crime. This is due, in part, to the disproportionate ammount of violence in news coverage. 

So, yes Nikolas, I have relatives and neighbors that are afraid of their own shadow. I see it all the time. And, they own guns.


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 23, 2013)

Bill...catch me for lunch or coffee soon. I'm moving to the country, where they still keep their doors unlocked. HA! ~o)


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 23, 2013)

@MichaelL. So shooting someone when they break into your property isn't allowed by any state? Unless we're not on the same page for what defense of property means, justifiable homicide by self defense is covered by many states, which includes breaking and entering. I hear of these stories all the time.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 23, 2013)

Sam,

Out of interest, do you think breaking and entering should be a capital offence?

So - if the police capture someone breaking into someone else's house, should they be sent to the electric chair/gas chamber/needle?

Best,

Paul


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 23, 2013)

> Are you insinuating that any civilian carrying a gun is a knuckle-dragging moron?



There may be a few exceptions, but I doubt it.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 23, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> @MichaelL. So shooting someone when they break into your property isn't allowed by any state? Unless we're not on the same page for what defense of property means, justifiable homicide by self defense is covered by many states, which includes breaking and entering. I hear of these stories all the time.


Sam,

About a couple of years ago, my music studio was robbed. I wasn't in.

They took *nothing*.

But this made me realize two things. One straight away, and one when reading your post:
1. The next day of the robbery, I put in an alarm and begun locking the doors as much as possible (added new locks, etc).
2. Reading your post made me think that if I had a gun and was in, I would've actually killed someone who would've taken *nothing*!

Welcome to insanity!


----------



## PMortise (Jul 23, 2013)

wst3 @ Sat Jul 20 said:


> ...Would we even be having a conversation if both parties had been armed? Has anyone considered that? And I'm quite certain we would not be having any conversation if neither of them were armed... a good old fashioned slug fest seldom makes the papers.


In either of those cases it more than likely would've ended with another black teen in jail - no matter what his side of the story was.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 23, 2013)

It's not the same thing. Self defense is about protecting yourself right then and there. Self defense is not the punishment that goes with the crime but the necessary action that might have to be taken to prevent yourself from harm. The punishment is jail time, but jail-time is not a defense in the present. If the police do get there in time, then they have their way of dealing with it. But, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 23, 2013)

Sam,

Do you not see that the logical extension of this is that you have members of the public freely shooting each other like they are soldiers in a warzone - or actually in fact, far worse, as trained soldiers are able to assess the use of force under stress.

Lets see:

Road rage - someone thinks I cut them up, they get out of their car and walk towards mine, I shoot them dead.

Attempted robbery - someone tries to snatch my briefcase - I shoot them dead.

Mistaken identity - someone has been pickpocketed in the street - they turn around and see me and remonstrate angrily - feeling threatened, I shoot them dead.

and on. and on. ad infinitum.

I understand Michael's point - that this is a frenzy created by a fear mongering media, in collusion with 'home arms' dealers who want to flood the USA with their profitable weaponry.

It appals me, and for many Europeans, (not to mention also many Americans) its totally incomprehensible.

I don't know how you retreat from this position though, or if the genie has fled so far from the bottle that it can never be put back in. Its very sad.

Best,

Paul


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 23, 2013)

We have been talking about someone breaking and entering on your property or in your home and creating a situation where you feel threatened. Rolling down your window to shoot somebody because they cut you off is way outside of the scope of what I'm talking about. 

We all see the world through a different lens. I grew up in a different environment than you did, and you grew up in a different environment than the next guy, and so on and so on.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jul 23, 2013)

Guns. One more reason I doubt I'll be living out my days in the US. I've only shot a high-powered hand gun once (on a ranch near Houston and listening to ZZ Top no less...) and it was not an experience I'd soon relive. They are just evil pieces of machinery and I want as little to do with them as possible. Go ahead and rob me.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 23, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Jul 19 said:


> Hmm. I'm just a simple atheist, but from a Christian perspective:
> 
> "You have heard that it was said 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."
> 
> -Matthew 5:38-40



Jesus' quote is from the Torah teaching on a passage that's been pushed out of context. He is correcting a teaching brought about by tradition (taking the verse out of context) and giving a correct Kingdom teaching in its place. When the actual quote is read in context, it says something quite different. In context it has to do with equitable compensation for loss, which Moses describes as a hand for a hand, foot for foot, etc. It is not about vengeance but rather working out equitable compensation for the loss. 

Read the entire section in context in Exodus 21: 12-26 NAS

*Personal Injuries*

12"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13"But if he did not lie in wait [for him], but God let [him] fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee. 14"If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him [even] from My altar, that he may die.

15"He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

16"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

17"He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

18"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with [his] fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, 19if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges [decide]. 23"But if there is [any further] injury, then you shall appoint [as a penalty] life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27"And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. 

See also Chabad.org
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9882


----------



## wst3 (Jul 23, 2013)

MichaelL @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> Bill...catch me for lunch or coffee soon. I'm moving to the country, where they still keep their doors unlocked. HA! ~o)



That must be pretty far out there... I grew up in what was considered the boonies outside Philly (that's really difficult to imagine now!). But in 1959, when my folks bought the place there were only two homes on a dirt road approximately one mile long! And when they purchased the place the previous owner could not find a complete set of keys, as they had never used them! And my folks did not lock the doors until probably the early 1970s! The reason? Well if someone broke down on the road they'd need a phone! I kid you not. These were not pie-in-the-sky hippies, my dad was an engineer for the local power company, and my mom was a social worker before I arrived. If they identified with any group it was the rat pack. The house has been robbed twice, once when I was very young, a friend of the neighbor kid took a bottle of gin, and once after I graduated from high school, when all my guitars and gear were stolen, along with my mother's jewelry. It was only then that they really started to pay attention to things like locking the house, and not leaving the car keys in the ignition.

All that to say I hope you find something similar! It really is a better way to live!

And I will get in touch shortly for that lunch!


----------



## PMortise (Jul 23, 2013)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. I'm just a simple atheist, but from a Christian perspective:
> ...


Apparently, Jesus was smart enough to know when an antiquated law needed to be amended.

But the 800lb gorilla of it all is that a white guy seen walking around k-mart with a gun is viewed as expressing his 2nd amendment right, but the chance a black guy doing the same thing without security following him or the cops being called is pretty slim, at best.

Even _without_ the racial realities, the right for citizens to own firearms is questionable. I'm on the fence about having one in the home to protect family in the event of the much-feared home invasion, but that's also akin to thinking I need to pack a parachute every time I fly.

I also believe that when you DO have a gun, you're less likely to think of other courses of action you could take to solve the situation. I bet if George wasn't packing, he'd have listened to the dispatcher.

I grew up and hung out in some pretty rough NYC neighborhoods, and have seen plenty of guns there. I was also in the army. Infantry. Many more guns. In both cases I've only seen people get shot by someone they actually knew.

Too bad all home robberies can't be like this. :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 23, 2013)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Jul 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. I'm just a simple atheist, but from a Christian perspective:
> ...




My comment had nothing to do with any of that. It was about the phrase "god given right", which is used by some people to give themselves the right to perpetrate whatever evil they wish on humanity. Of course, this is not limited to people of faith- it's just the one they most often use. Mao, Stalin, Hitler were their own godheads and had different justifications.


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 24, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> @MichaelL. So shooting someone when they break into your property isn't allowed by any state? Unless we're not on the same page for what defense of property means, justifiable homicide by self defense is covered by many states, which includes breaking and entering. I hear of these stories all the time.




Yes, Sam you are correct. We have reached a new cave-dwelling low, as some states have enacted "castle" statutes, which allow for use of deadly force when protecting mere property, Texas being one of them. Apparently, a car IS worth more than a human life. Welcome to Dodge City.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/0 ... teens.html


----------



## wst3 (Jul 24, 2013)

I am not an attorney, and I live in Pennsylvania.

As I understand it, PA has long had a Castle Doctrine allowing home owners to protect their homes. It was recently amended to allow the same protection from law suits to apply to defense outside one's home, aka stand your ground.

Now I may be reading these things with rose colored glasses, but my interpretation would be that the protections applied to the 'actor' (love the use of that term<G>) only applies if there is a threat of harm to a person, it doesn't apply to loss of property.

Am I reading it correctly?


----------



## MichaelL (Jul 24, 2013)

Here are some "highlights" from the article. You can even shoot 'em in the back!

States legalizing the "castle doctrine" do it in different ways. For example, some don't allow deadly force if the intruder retreats. Others, such as Texas, allow deadly force even against *fleeing *intruders in some circumstances....

One point where many states diverge is on when force or deadly force can be used to protect property.

Texas illustrates one end of the spectrum -- where deadly force is allowed in certain circumstances to protect or recover one's own property or the property of another person. *Many states forbid the use of deadly force to protect or recover property*.

In addition to the many situations in which it allows deadly force in self-defense, Texas law allows deadly force in defense of property if:

•The person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent another from taking the property or to recover it once taken (if in fresh pursuit); and
•when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime; and
•the person reasonably believes that the property can't be recovered by any other means, and that using less than deadly force might expose the person to substantial risk of bodily harm or death.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 24, 2013)

Yes, but Texas has a 3 prong test for when using deadly force in self defense. Ability, opportunity, and intent. If the person doesn't have the ability to harm you, you cannot use deadly force. If they can, then you move on to opportunity. If they have the opportunity to then you move on to intent. If they have intent to, then deadly force is allowed. You can't shoot a kid for losing his frisbee on your property, you can't shoot someone 50yards away standing still with a knife either. You have to be threatened to use deadly force. If you feel threatened, or are threatened, I don't see why deadly force is such a big deal if it means protecting you or what you own. Where this gets a bad wrap is whether or not you have the duty to retreat. 

Texas does allow deadly force in the case of breaking and entering. You don't know for sure if that person is going to harm you or not. People don't just don't break on to your property to steal a TV and chill and drink a beer with you, they're breaking the law by trespassing and could very well threaten you to continue on with breaking and entering. 

But this argument is so fundamental in nature it's hard to keep arguing. I'm proud to live in a state that supports my right to defend myself by any means, if my life is in danger. This duty to retreat garbage is garbage, and this "Come on in and steal my stuff, I don't want a fight" is beyond me. 

That being said, no judgement. We are all a product of our environment, life experiences, and upbringings.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 24, 2013)

No Sam, some of us - like me - use our minds to transcend our environment when necessary. I am proud to stand in judgement that guns suck.

By the way, the Bible was dictated over cell phones from God to Moses way before guns had been invented.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 24, 2013)

And you say that looking through the lens that your life has created. We all see the world through the paradigm that our life experiences, principles, morals, and values have surrounded us with. You whole-heartedly believe that your mind has transcended your environment because you believe that guns suck, while nearly half of the other American's believe the opposite. This is something I really learned to embrace when reading this book linked below. It spends a good majority of the book talking about what I just said earlier in the paragraph. You say that I am wrong, but you don't know me, you don't live in Texas, and you didn't grow up in the world that I did. And while the opposite is true for me not knowing you, I respect and understand the anti-gun argument. However, my life experiences, teachings, and set of values has led me to believe something differently. No judgement, just a different life. I might stand alone on this forum on many issues, but you would stand alone in the environment that I live in. Just a different world. 


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=7%20habits%20of%20highly%20effective%20people&sprefix=7+%2Caps%2C211


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 24, 2013)

PMortise @ Tue Jul 23 said:


> ...In both cases I've only seen people get shot by someone they actually knew...



All the shootings I know of from people I know are of the tragic, or near tragic type...

* Two kids killed by unlocked guns in separate incidences.
* A friend shot in the leg while riding on a Jeep on a hunting trip.
* A woman cleaning her gun not realizing a bullet was in the chamber. The bullet went through the kids' bedroom, but nobody was hit.

I have no stories where a gun led to a heroic outcome.

BTW, I have even more tragic motorcycle stories. Almost everybody I know who rides (or rode) regularly ended up in a serious accident - at best. However, there's a difference. The bike riders hurt themselves (and in one case, their passenger) while the gun accidents harmed or threatened to harm others.

Again, there need to be laws that say, "Your gun? Your responsibility." People who allow kids to get their hands on guns are the lowest of low-lifes.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 24, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Wed Jul 24 said:


> I don't see why deadly force is such a big deal if it means protecting you or what you own.



Sam, 

This is my last post on this topic - I just wanted to highlight this that you said and ask if you really mean this, or maybe you chose the wrong words.

Personally, this is my fundamental problem - the use of a gun by a member of the public to kill another human being is most definitely "a big deal".

Before even addressing the extension to "what you own". Personally, no matter how low the crook, nothing that I own is worth another human being's life.

I'd happily hand over my wallet, equipment, car etc. Its just stuff. Leather, metal, plastic. Insurance will buy me a new one.

Nothing I own is so valuable that it is necessary to take someone's life away in order to hold onto it.

Anyway - I bow out now. Just my 2p!

Best

Paul


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not saying killing isn't a big deal. It most certainly is and I hope it's something I'd never have to do. 

Anything you own that is irreplaceable or can't be recovered is covered by deadly force under the law. If someone wanted to steal a pencil of mine, fine. If someone ran into my home and stole all of my gear, then yes, I would shoot him. I'm not saying I'd stand over him like in a GTA video game, but I would do what was necessary to prevent my property from being taken by another. This is covered under the law. This is a quote from an article I read a couple days ago that sums it up. 

"Texas makes no secret of the Castle Doctrine or of allowing homeowners to shoot intruders. I don’t like to see anyone killed, but if someone is stupid enough to break into a house that isn’t theirs, they deserve to get whatever comes their way."


----------



## Udo (Jul 24, 2013)

One of the iron rules of history tells us: "Great nations will eventually develop great problems."

The decline of the US will eventually result in internal turmoil and the extremely high gun ownership doesn't bode well.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jul 24, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Wed Jul 24 said:


> If someone ran into my home and stole all of my gear, then yes, I would shoot him.


So, your studio gear is more valuable than another person's life? Really? 

Sure, that person is a dick for wanting to steal it, but there is not a single human being on this planet who is worth less than your studio gear. Not one, no matter what they've done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 24, 2013)

Udo, you're right. And the biggest reason gun ownership is so high is that we live in an environment of hyped-up fear and gun folklore, cultivated and paid for by a bunch of cynical NRA and similar subhuman assholes whose mission in life is to make as much money as possible selling the disgusting things.

Guns suck.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 24, 2013)

I really liked Austin when I was there, and Ann Richards was great. Bruce Richardson is from Texas. Senator Wendy Davis is great. North Texas State had a great jazz program when I was in college, and probably still does.

Other than that, does Texas serve any useful purpose?


----------



## KEnK (Jul 24, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 24 said:


> I really liked Austin when I was there, and Ann Richards was great. Bruce Richardson is from Texas. Senator Wendy Davis is great. North Texas State had a great jazz program when I was in college, and probably still does.
> 
> Other than that, does Texas serve any useful purpose?


To form a more perfect Union w/ Arizona?

The United States of Arizona and Texas.
I like it. :wink: 

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 24, 2013)

It's dry hate.


----------



## KEnK (Jul 24, 2013)

HAH!
That _really_ made me lol ! :twisted: :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 25, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 24 said:


> Other than that, does Texas serve any useful purpose?



Well they do have am amazing number of fine women there. Once a year an alumni hires us either here, or in San Padre to play and I love it when we go there.
Texas, like Nevada is very progressive, we hear mostly highlighted politically charged incidents, or incredibly stupid remarks from Perry and his personal relationship with God.
Over 60% of the people don't even vote since they all have decent jobs and aren't upset enough about their districts to take a "stand."
My only Beef about Texas is how hard it is to get their Unions to sign better contracts in relation to wage increases in the Building and Trades.
This slow but methodical wage increase has however shown that they have a consistent record of wage increases in comparison to the national level.
The only area where wages are consistently better is in DC where the wealthy redistributors tell us how much they are going to make and vote themselves raises on a bi yearly basis.

If you want to see just how highly the wealthy redistributors think of themselves, take the Department Of Transportation, headed by the GOP rep. Ray La Hood.
He's a Conservative which I think means he's different than his Liberal counterpart, but in 2008 170,000 USD was the top salary and only 1 guy got that pay.
In 2009 we saw that over 1,000 people were now making 170,000 USD and up.
FOIA watchdogs are pretty dominate in the 3 rags of DC, (Truthful reporting locally on lobbyists, which are really the bosses over Senatorial and Congressional elected officials) and are great reading as Federal Pravda outlets like MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN never mention said facts. 
But they really aren't investigative Journalists anyway. They simply edit and cherry pick issues to establish ratings, and are so pathetic that all of them combined cannot generate the revenue Fox does with advertisement income. The fact Fox is the highest grossing branch of Pravda is a testament of political corrution.

But outside of our wealthy redistributors in DC posing as exact oppoistes of each other, Texas has the steadiest, and highest wage increases.
I would like to see their Unions get a little more money on their envelope (paystub) but the Right To Work Laws seem to keep Big Unions and Public workers from pricing themselves above national standards, which relates to the endless increase of middle class workers getting taxed to cover wealthy redistributors Public Union contracts that are really meant to lenthgen their stay in office, similar to the Detroit model of success.
If you want pay increases to really jump up by 10 years every 2 years, you better claim you are a GOP or DNC member, otherwise, you'll get the same meger cost of living rise, or as we saw the Elderly have their cost of living increases frozen for 4 years when the wealthy Liberals took office and started making sure that only they got increases. 
To hell with those who worked all of their lives, there are not as important as the "public servants" in DC who's sole purpose is to protect the little people.

I can't imagine how destructive such facts would be in a campaign, and not surprised this 2 headed Dog that serves the wealthy and powerful, never mentions these infuriating facts that happened while the rest of America lost money, had to negotiate lower pay to remain employed, etc.
But who wouldn't want a 40-70,000 USD a year raise to "serve" the people.

So we all have the chance to fight our way to DC and become wealthy.
We chose to stay here and serve our families instead of feasting on stimulus money that never went to creating jobs.
But by changing the term from stimulus, to investments, the wealthy redistributors have their eyes set on once again becoming the Stewards of a huge amount of capital which like Hurricane Sandy, or other programs for Shovel Ready jobs, etc. never makes it to the public which it was taken from in the first place.

Anyone who doesn't like this fleecing does have a choice. Jump in for the big win, or shut up and send them your money.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 25, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 25 said:


> Other than that, does Texas serve any useful purpose?


I was there a couple of weeks ago and I had one of my works premiered, so yes... Texas can be useful! :D

Really, though I found great people there, ready to discuss many things, not being close minded AT ALL and in all very fair in their thoughts. I didn't come across any cowboys shooting knuckle heads...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 25, 2013)

The truth is that most people are pretty cool everywhere. And if you run around parts of California you'll find dopes too.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 25, 2013)

I think you guys are focusing less more on the robbery part than you should.

Obviously, if you are not home a robbery is a robbery. You certainly aren't going to hunt him down and shoot him long after.

But if they are attempting to break INTO your home while you are there, or even worse...asleep, I'm sorry but you have a right to defend yourself.

Let me give you a real world example:

My parents were robbed, just a laptop in the living room upstairs.
They were downstairs watching TV. Now mind you, downstairs has NO other exit other then the stairs upward.

The thief broke in through the window, stole the laptop and left. The thief was not armed, and later on...unbelievably the laptop was found, and my mother even got on the news as a result. The thief was a first timer, and was trying to feed his family.

Now, let's say it was different and the thief got a little confident and decided to go downstairs. Let's say he wasn't armed (but nobody new it at the time), but my parents are in their 50s-60s.

My parents don't own a gun, but if they did, and that guy approached them, in which they would be in a VERY cornered position. Do you believe they should have the right to use deadly force?

(note: this is not an argument on the case, but what this thread has turned into)


----------



## nikolas (Jul 25, 2013)

Nathan:

*NO!*

Why on earth are you guys not getting it?

Physical objects < human life
Pure fear without any proof of lethal harm < human life

You seem to be bypassing the two above *FACTS* (which apply for me anyhow, thus the bold part). 

Sam has been saying how he feels that he should shoot dead people who try to steal his equipment and you mention that your parents, without having any clue if the guy would *kill them* would still be somewhat justified in killing the guy if he approached you.

That's *A LOT OF* ifs, no?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 25, 2013)

I guess at this point we agree to disagree, since many of us won't see it the same way.

So what's the alternative to defending yourself? Let your ass get beat, killed, or hell..possibly raped?

I understand there are a lot of IFs, but when someone breaks INTO your home, I don't see why you would just let whatever they intended happen.

I would agree that shooting to WOUND would be a choice, but this isn't the movies. A shot to the leg can kill a man instantly (bullet travels up the femoral artery and into the heart)

Now in the case Vietnam Vet issue people were arguing before. Being a special forces op kind of changes things. You are a trained weapon. In fact I believe you are CONSIDERED a weapon by law. That being said, that was Vietnam. Who knows what state the guy was in.

I'm not trying to piss you off Nik, I'm just trying to get you to understand my perspective. My parents were robbed. They were lucky as the robber wasn't experience nor violent. Not ALL robbers are non-violent.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 25, 2013)

Nathan: My brother and sister in law were robbed, while they were sleeping with their 5 month old kid inside the house. 

My studio was robbed (ok... broken into, but nothing taken, and I wasn't in).

My mothers purse was snatched from here, right after she was in the bank.

My situation is similar to yours, but I don't live in the States. If something happens to me, I don't think about killing the other guy! Simple as that! I'll try to run away, call someone for help, give them what they want, etc (not in that order necessarily). NOT kill. 

"Defending yourself" implies what? Getting beaten up by somebody? Does this give you the right to shoot the bastard to death? Personally I don't think so. Does it imply that you will get robbed? Ok... does it mean that you need to shoot to kill? Does it imply that they will murder you, and then rape your wife in front of your children, before raping them? Ok, then you have my permission (haha, anyone?) to kill!

This seems really weird to me: "The guy kick my balls, so I killed him". 

I don't deny protecting your home, or your property, or certainly yourself and your family. I'm not insane, nor a pacifist, etc. But I do see so many ifs in every scenario, and so many alternatives to killing that I simply cannot believe that someone of you take it so lightly!

(No, I'm not pissed, but I was really trying to make a point with that bold 24 pt font (like it wasn't clear before that... heh...))


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm pretty much a pacifist too. This is why I clearly do not know what I would do in a situation. I've never been in one. Heck, I've never even been into a bar fight.

There are certain freak out moments that some people will have in situations that will cause them to defend themselves by any means necessary. I personally don't know mine.

You can't always assume what someone is going to do to you. For instance, ok yes you're getting beat up, and yes betting beat up is probably light compared to shooting someone. But what indicates that you are just going to be beat up, and not killed?

I'm not trying to make this about killing being taken so lightly. I DON'T take it lightly.

I'm more talking on perspective. I can tell you what of my freak out points is not being able to breath. If someone was on top of me choking, it's possible I would do something I didn't expect.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 25, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Thu Jul 25 said:


> So what's the alternative to defending yourself?



Here's a hint: shooting to kill isn't self defense. It's offense.

Defense is locks, dead-bolts, burglar alarms, dialing 911, a bullet-proof vest, an escape plan, a shield, etc.

Here's a video of an audience in which every member is armed. One member fires. A shield could be an effective defense. Being armed clearly isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKajmVgaOEM

And that's the flaw in the whole "gun as protection" argument. If everybody is armed and fearful, people will be harmed needlessly. 

Here's a scenario: a thief goes into a home and carries a gun - not to kill, but for self "defense". He startles the homeowner, who reaches for a gun. Bam. Dead homeowner.

Or maybe the homeowner keeps a gun next to their bed with a round in the chamber. The burglar arrives in the early evening - and hits the bedroom first. So much for defense.

So the homeowner puts an accessible gun in every room in the house. That's great news for the thief. And it's terrible news for the grandkids.

Now let's look at defensive tools: you put an alarm, a phone, and a bullet-proof shield in every room. Now the grandkids might trigger a call from the security company. And they might dress up as robocop. But they won't be harmed by a truly defensive tool.

"But", you say, "alarms, phones, and shields aren't a guarantee of safety!" 
 
And guns are???


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 25, 2013)

Harry Reid has a great idea too. 
NRA and ADT stickers in the window, even if you don't have a gun or alarm.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 25, 2013)

If self defense is the justification for being well armed, I suggest most people aren't well armed. 

Let's say three or four gangbangers decide to rob your house and rape your dog, and they're armed with Uzis. I doubt your cool AR-15 is going to do the job. I suggest machine gun turrets, barbed wire fences and a private security force to protect your iLoks.

People go on and on about the Second Amendment like it was the word of God, immutable and perfect in its form, because, of course, it protects us against Doctor Evil, aka The Government. Okay, so you, your mini-arsenal and your 15 militia buddies are going to hold off a battalion of the U.S. military?? If you really have a problem with The Government, well, I'm afraid it's your problem, not the G's, 'cause they are going to kill your ass.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 26, 2013)

In continuation to what Larry says, I just read this very simple claim in facebook (a great site for political talk... :D):

"Why doesn't the NRA push all young blacks to be better armed, in case they get attacked by people like George?"


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 26, 2013)

I have claymores strung out along a perimeter and even following the escape routes.
All wireless and remote controlled by a set reciever triggered by my Cell phone, which is my main weapon anyways.
We have trip wires set up everymight for home invasions, along with Standtastic 105KS, and QuikLok speakers stands so anyone kicking in the down and running, will stumble, where I reach over the balconey spraying their backs with rock salt.
Then the bright lights in their eyes will I roll a few Gas grenades over the upper deck, and a couple of stun grenades by the ready.
So I won't ever have to shoot anyone.
Much more fun torturing them, but if they harm anyone, I will detonate the claymores as they leave will only mames their limbs for life, as I a human knuckle dragger.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 26, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> In continuation to what Larry says, I just read this very simple claim in facebook (a great site for political talk... :D):
> 
> "Why doesn't the NRA push all young blacks to be better armed, in case they get attacked by people like George?"



's what. Malcolm X believed.


----------



## PMortise (Jul 26, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Thu Jul 25 said:


> ...Let's say three or four gangbangers decide to rob your house and rape your dog, and they're armed with Uzis. I doubt your cool AR-15 is going to do the job. I suggest machine gun turrets, barbed wire fences and a private security force to protect your iLoks.
> 
> People go on and on about the Second Amendment like it was the word of God, immutable and perfect in its form, because, of course, it protects us against Doctor Evil, aka The Government. Okay, so you, your mini-arsenal and your 15 militia buddies are going to hold off a battalion of the U.S. military?? If you really have a problem with The Government, well, I'm afraid it's your problem, not the G's, 'cause they are going to kill your ass.


Amen... :lol: 



nikolas @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> ..."Why doesn't the NRA push all young blacks to be better armed, in case they get attacked by people like George?"


...and amen! :roll: 



chimuelo @ Fri Jul 26 said:


> I have claymores strung out along a perimeter and even following the escape routes.
> All wireless and remote controlled by a set reciever triggered by my Cell phone, which is my main weapon anyways.
> We have trip wires set up everymight for home invasions, along with Standtastic 105KS, and QuikLok speakers stands so anyone kicking in the down and running, will stumble, where I reach over the balconey spraying their backs with rock salt.
> Then the bright lights in their eyes will I roll a few Gas grenades over the upper deck, and a couple of stun grenades by the ready.
> ...


I love the idea. Mine however, is a bit less sophisticated - not to mention the waste of a perfectly good piano:


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jul 26, 2013)

In the era of armed drones, the idea of overcoming the government with some rifles and a cache of ammunition is so... quaint.

Yes, guns might help against foot-soldiers going door to door in an occupation, but I don't expect platoons of Mounties to come streaming down across the border any time soon.

To overthrow an oppressive government, first, you need a huge portion of the population to agree that they are oppressed and need change. Second, you need that group to become willfully disobedient. Gandhi trounced the British Empire without firing a single round.

For all the complaining in the US, we just aren't all that oppressed. And with the polarization, there's no consensus for change. Frankly, I trust our current leaders far more than some wingnuts holed up in armed bunkers.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 26, 2013)

Not to mention- I fail to see the correlation between "gun control" and "gun removal."

The first tries to keep psychotics and felons from buying weapons in the parking lot of a gun show or on Craigslist. This seems to me to be a worthy and logical goal, and the fact that it doesn't seem worthy and logical to more people would be surprising- IF I wasn't aware that shills for the gun industry are out there everyday, spreading bs, disinformation and cash everywhere it'll keep people scared and energized to buy more guns.

The second- wait! No one is even suggesting the second....well, except for Nick B, and who listens to him anyway?


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 27, 2013)

Gun Control coming from wealthy redistributors is as usual a contradiction in terms.

Thanks to headline grabbers threatening to pass ineffective "feel good" legislation they have scared millions of Americans to buy a weapon now.

FACT 1: Under Obama we have set a historical record of Gun ownership.
FACT 2: Napalitano bought 3.5 billion rounds of ammo for another Federal Agency, and this caused historical back orders, and more ammo sold than anytime since WW2.
FACT 3: The NRA is now stronger and has more members than anytime in history.

The 2 headed Dog has once again served the public so well... :cry: 
One head has messages different than the other head, but both feed the same body.


----------

