Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What was the situation before the Second Amendment? What, er, triggered it (so to speak)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The "stand your ground law" in your State is highly flawed even to the point of being ridiculous. I refer you to the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Martin was visiting the lady friend of his father who lived in the complex according to news reports and ended up being shot by Zimmerman who ignored the police dispatcher's warning to " stay away from Martin and let the police deal with it" No doubt Zimmerman thought he was "standing his ground" by acting like the Sheriff of Dodge City and getting into a punch up with Martin and worse still getting his butt kicked by Martin. Did you get your information on this case from the official reports which were released (Not very many of those) or from the media reports? The media decided - right from the start - that this was a racially-motivated killing and they reported it as such. "White vigilante kills black teenager." Then somebody pointed out that the 'white vigilante' was, in fact, an 'hispanic vigilante' and 'Member of one ethnic minority group kills member of another ethnic minority group' didn't quite have a racist ring to it, so they had to change course. First they invented a new ethnic group: 'White Hispanic'. That didn't work (in fact, there was an outcry.) Then they published the text of the 911 (Emergency) operator's conversation with Zimmerman. Well, sort of. They 'edited' the conversation (took some of the operator's words out) to give it a rather different meaning (and to support the impression they wanted to give.) There were complaints about that too - but hey, there's a thing called 'The First Amendment' which says that the News Media can say or print whatever they like, what they say or print does not have to be accurate and they are above criticism. (Or something like that.) We were told that Zimmerman was 'out patrolling' his local area. Why? That's not his job. What does he think he is? - Some sort of unpaid 'rent-a-cop'? We were told that Trayvon was an innocent (true enough) young black male armed only with a bag of sweeties (also true.) We were told (by his parents) that he was a mild boy who would never attack anybody. But it turns out that there is a hospital record of Zimmerman being treated for the injuries he received when Martin - this quiet young man who wouldn't attack anybody - attacked him. The Florida law says that if you are attacked and you fear that you are going to be killed or injured (and if you end up in hospital for treatment for the injuries you receive, that does suggest your fears might be reasonable) then you may retaliate using lethal force. Martin did attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman was injured and needed hospital treatment and Zimmerman shot Martin. All are documented facts. That may be why the DA declined to prosecute Zimmerman. I don't have a problem (personally) with giving people the right to defend themselves, but I have reservations about people being allowed to claim self-defence when they are merely protecting property and there is no threat of injury or death to a human being. In this case, Zimmerman was attacked and he was injured - so he managed to claim protection under the law. Had he stayed at home and not gone out 'on patrol' he wouldn't have been attacked. As I understand it, the purpose of the 'stand your ground' law was to allow a person to protect himself or others when attacked, not to provide some sort of license to vigilantes. Perhaps Florida needs a law controlling the actions of vigilantes? - There's no reason why people shouldn't walk around the neighbourhood keeping their eyes open - but if they see something going wrong, it could be argued that there's no reason why they can't just phone the police (who do tend to respond, they don't just give you a crime number) and leave it up to them. In the one instance of burglary which occurred in this community, some of the residents (who were heavily armed and very well trained in the use of those weapons) did indeed 'apprehend' the burglars (without shooting them) and handed them over to the police. - More or less intact, too. Should that be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What was the situation before the Second Amendment? What, er, triggered it (so to speak)? Here's an article discussing that: THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Most people support a complete ban on assault type weapons including Obama and that makes complete sense since why anybody wants an AR-15 for instance is beyond me. I'm not for gun control, just for controlling some kinds of weapons as above Where I grew up, the law says: "Each man may possess a musket and a pound of powder." The interpretation is 'somewhat liberal'. You have to inform the police every third weapon you buy. The 'pound of powder' limits the amount of ammunition you may hold. - For instance a friend (a collector) who bought a 3" Rocket launcher was told he could only hold 3 rockets. When the same individual wanted to put a Panzer V on his firearm certificate, the government balked at that ... "The term 'a musket and a pound of powder' may not be interpreted to include self-propelled weapons.:hihi:" If you want a machine-gun, go and buy one. There is no firearm crime in that community, so controls have, in the past, been deemed to be unnecessary. What I'd like to see (And there is little or no chance of that happening) is everybody who owns a firearm being required to do some sort of training course. Firearm ownership in Germany is very low (and it's discouraged) but it is possible to get a firearm certificate. You have to do an extensive training course, which takes many months. At the end of that course you will be examined and if you pass the exams, you can get a licence. About 1000 people are shot in hunting accidents in the US and Canada each year. 100 of them die. Germany has about 8 accidents a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Did you get your information on this case from the official reports which were released (Not very many of those) or from the media reports? The media decided - right from the start - that this was a racially-motivated killing and they reported it as such. "White vigilante kills black teenager." Then somebody pointed out that the 'white vigilante' was, in fact, an 'hispanic vigilante' and 'Member of one ethnic minority group kills member of another ethnic minority group' didn't quite have a racist ring to it, so they had to change course. First they invented a new ethnic group: 'White Hispanic'. That didn't work (in fact, there was an outcry.) Then they published the text of the 911 (Emergency) operator's conversation with Zimmerman. Well, sort of. They 'edited' the conversation (took some of the operator's words out) to give it a rather different meaning (and to support the impression they wanted to give.) There were complaints about that too - but hey, there's a thing called 'The First Amendment' which says that the News Media can say or print whatever they like, what they say or print does not have to be accurate and they are above criticism. (Or something like that.) We were told that Zimmerman was 'out patrolling' his local area. Why? That's not his job. What does he think he is? - Some sort of unpaid 'rent-a-cop'? We were told that Trayvon was an innocent (true enough) young black male armed only with a bag of sweeties (also true.) We were told (by his parents) that he was a mild boy who would never attack anybody. But it turns out that there is a hospital record of Zimmerman being treated for the injuries he received when Martin - this quiet young man who wouldn't attack anybody - attacked him. The Florida law says that if you are attacked and you fear that you are going to be killed or injured (and if you end up in hospital for treatment for the injuries you receive, that does suggest your fears might be reasonable) then you may retaliate using lethal force. Martin did attack Zimmerman, Zimmerman was injured and needed hospital treatment and Zimmerman shot Martin. All are documented facts. That may be why the DA declined to prosecute Zimmerman. I don't have a problem (personally) with giving people the right to defend themselves, but I have reservations about people being allowed to claim self-defence when they are merely protecting property and there is no threat of injury or death to a human being. In this case, Zimmerman was attacked and he was injured - so he managed to claim protection under the law. Had he stayed at home and not gone out 'on patrol' he wouldn't have been attacked. As I understand it, the purpose of the 'stand your ground' law was to allow a person to protect himself or others when attacked, not to provide some sort of license to vigilantes. Perhaps Florida needs a law controlling the actions of vigilantes? - There's no reason why people shouldn't walk around the neighbourhood keeping their eyes open - but if they see something going wrong, it could be argued that there's no reason why they can't just phone the police (who do tend to respond, they don't just give you a crime number) and leave it up to them. In the one instance of burglary which occurred in this community, some of the residents (who were heavily armed and very well trained in the use of those weapons) did indeed 'apprehend' the burglars (without shooting them) and handed them over to the police. - More or less intact, too. Should that be allowed? The law is no good because the meaning "defend yourself" is too open to misinterpretation. A shouting fest between two neighbours could turn into a shooting if one of the neighbours set a foot onto the other neighbours property but with no intent to commit physical violence to that neighbour but the other neighbour thought he was going to be attacked. Such things and such misundertsandings do happen What kind of a security guard was Zimmerman? He seemed a mild enough dude when in court but maybe that's because he's scared to death and still in a state of shock Was he in fact the two legged Dobermann? Did he approach visitors to the complex in an overly aggressive manner asking what their business was? That kind of attitude could go either the wrong way or the right way depending on the nature of the person being asked and maybe in Trayvon's case it was a negative reaction. Did Zimmerman disobey the the police dispatcherr's instructions to leave the matter to the police after Zimmerman called them? Did he continue to follow Martin and get into a verbal argument that got out of control and the insults finally turned it into fisticuffs. Everybody has their limits and Martin who was in the complex quite legally may have been driven too far. Race has nothing to do with it. Hispanics can be quite often as prejudiced against black people as much as any white racist and a black person as much prejudiced against Hispanics. One of the major problems in the prisons is the racial tension which always exists between blacks and hispanics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Where I grew up, the law says: "Each man may possess a musket and a pound of powder." The interpretation is 'somewhat liberal'. You have to inform the police every third weapon you buy. The 'pound of powder' limits the amount of ammunition you may hold. - For instance a friend (a collector) who bought a 3" Rocket launcher was told he could only hold 3 rockets. When the same individual wanted to put a Panzer V on his firearm certificate, the government balked at that ... "The term 'a musket and a pound of powder' may not be interpreted to include self-propelled weapons.:hihi:" If you want a machine-gun, go and buy one. There is no firearm crime in that community, so controls have, in the past, been deemed to be unnecessary. What I'd like to see (And there is little or no chance of that happening) is everybody who owns a firearm being required to do some sort of training course. Firearm ownership in Germany is very low (and it's discouraged) but it is possible to get a firearm certificate. You have to do an extensive training course, which takes many months. At the end of that course you will be examined and if you pass the exams, you can get a licence. About 1000 people are shot in hunting accidents in the US and Canada each year. 100 of them die. Germany has about 8 accidents a year. Those statistics dont mean anything. You could fit the whole of Germany into just the areas allowed for hunting in Colorado and Arizona alone. I know. I used to hunt in both States years ago. There are also a sight more hunters here than in Germany I taught my sons to shoot. My wife was already very proficient in the art. In California before applying for a weapon you have to pass a written test on gun safety and the background check generally takes a few days. However, gun shows have sold guns without background checks being carried out and some of these guns have found their way into the hands of criminals. One reason why the Los Angeles County Supervisors banned all gun shows a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The law is no good because the meaning "defend yourself" is too open to misinterpretation. ... I've just received some new information and perhaps we shouldn't discuss this case on the forum. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder and on 17 October, Judge Debra S. Nelson set his trial date for June 10, 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Those statistics dont mean anything. You could fit the whole of Germany into just the areas allowed for hunting in Colorado and Arizona alone. I know. I used to hunt in both States years ago. There are also a sight more hunters here than in Germany There are indeed rather more hunters in the US than in Germany. - But there are about 300,000 hunters in Germany, so the number is significant. The first time I went to Louisiana (Sep 79) I was warned by a local not to go out during the first few days of the hunting season. The day before the season started, I was out fishing at Flag Lake and on the way back, I saw a very strange animal. It was quit large, moved very slowly, had horns and had a strange coat. - Short-haired, but it appeared that there were flaps of 'skin' reaching almost to the ground. The animal's coat was black, but with white markings. Which said: COW. Then I realised why I'd been advised not to go out during the first few days of the season. In California before applying for a weapon you have to pass a written test on gun safety and the background check generally takes a few days. However, gun shows have sold guns without background checks being carried out and some of these guns have found their way into the hands of criminals. One reason why the Los Angeles County Supervisors banned all gun shows a few years ago. I don't know what you have to do here. AFAIK, there is a 'waiting period' for handguns, but I think you can buy a rifle or shotgun over the counter. There are gun shows - but I've no idea whether they run any sort of check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What's Mitt Romney got to do with some nut job who shoots his estranged wife in a shopping mall ? Isn't Romney as a Republican more likely to be against stricter gun controls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 There are indeed rather more hunters in the US than in Germany. - But there are about 300,000 hunters in Germany, so the number is significant. The first time I went to Louisiana (Sep 79) I was warned by a local not to go out during the first few days of the hunting season. The day before the season started, I was out fishing at Flag Lake and on the way back, I saw a very strange animal. It was quit large, moved very slowly, had horns and had a strange coat. - Short-haired, but it appeared that there were flaps of 'skin' reaching almost to the ground. The animal's coat was black, but with white markings. Which said: COW. Then I realised why I'd been advised not to go out during the first few days of the season. I don't know what you have to do here. AFAIK, there is a 'waiting period' for handguns, but I think you can buy a rifle or shotgun over the counter. There are gun shows - but I've no idea whether they run any sort of check. Never go hunting with Dick Cheney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.