• George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin Probably Won't be Charged
    118 replies, posted
[QUOTE=faze;35233323]NRA are not all paranoid gun nuts. I am a lifetime NRA member, and avid shooter. I attend tons of NRA meetings, gun club events, etc and have never met a "paranoid gun nut." Cut out the leftist propaganda attitude.[/QUOTE] i had to wipe my eyes once i read this. plus you take a "propaganda" attitude anytime you post. remember that time you made a thread decrying Apple's usage of horrible facilities with the statement "This is why i don't buy their shit" while failing to note that many Android phones are made in the same exact facilities?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35240447]you're joking. the NRA has been pushing "Stand Your Ground" for years.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/[/url] The law is great when it is used right, problem is laws aren't bullet proof.
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240487]It shouldn't have been brought up, the topic only brings an argument. Fine, you hate guns. I respect your opinion. There are now four things you don't discuss if you wanna keep friends. Politics, homosexuality, religion, and now firearms.[/QUOTE] it's right there in the goddamn article so i'll discuss it if i want to. and why assume i hate guns? well, actually i guess it is safe to assume i hate something purely created to take life but still.
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240498] The law is great when it is used right[/QUOTE] i'm sure a lot of laws are great when "used right" but that doesn't make it a good law.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35240529]it's right there in the goddamn article so i'll discuss it if i want to. and why assume i hate guns? well, actually i guess it is safe to assume i hate something purely created to take life but still.[/QUOTE] Fine get your rocks off bashing the NRA, you aren't hurting me. This is mankind, we are violent and stupid.
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240556]Fine get your rocks off bashing the NRA, you aren't hurting me. This is mankind, we are violent and stupid.[/QUOTE] what? if you think mankind is violent and stupid shouldn't you be bashing the NRA & gun ownership too?
the concept of Stand Your Ground is somewhat logical, if you're threatened and you [B]need[/B] to shoot to save yourself, you shouldn't be worrying about legal prosecution over whatever danger you might be in the problem is that bullshit like this takes place and it becomes a catchall for any cases that lack cut and dry, final evidence to prove the user wasn't in trouble. it shifts the burden of proof to the victim rather than whoever pulled the trigger, and thats fucked up [editline]22nd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240556]Fine get your rocks off bashing the NRA, you aren't hurting me. This is mankind, we are violent and stupid.[/QUOTE] what exactly is the point of this post
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35240580]what? if you think mankind is violent and stupid shouldn't you be bashing the NRA & gun ownership too?[/QUOTE] Actually, I think the exact opposite. Because mankind is violent and stupid I think it is vital that we have the ability to protect ourselves from the complete assholes that litter the landscape.
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240632]Actually, I think the exact opposite. Because mankind is violent and stupid I think it is vital that we have the ability to protect ourselves from the complete assholes that litter the landscape.[/QUOTE] but if mankind is inherently violent and stupid doesn't that mean there will be more armed violent and stupid people than people who just want to protect themselves?!?! this is a stupid train of thought anyway though because you can't just generalize an entire species like that!
[QUOTE=Griffster26;35234030]This kid didn't deserve any of this. He was a football player, a straight-A student and all around a well loved kid. My condolences go out to the family.[/QUOTE] Even if he was a scumbag, no one deserves this.
everyone is armed and dangerous and EXTREMELY STUPID but not me!!
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35240653]but if mankind is inherently violent and stupid doesn't that mean there will be more armed violent and stupid people than people who just want to protect themselves?!?! this is a stupid train of thought anyway though because you can't just generalize an entire species like that![/QUOTE] Ok well in that case, lets ban guns and.. oh knives too. And any object that is long and heavy and scissors and every other sharp thing in this world and maybe then it will be baby proof.
The fact that this guy get's off so easily disgusts me.
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240632]Actually, I think the exact opposite. Because mankind is violent and stupid I think it is vital that we have the ability to protect ourselves from the complete assholes that litter the landscape.[/QUOTE] no mankind forced itself to be stupid and violent.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35240761]no mankind forced itself to be stupid and violent.[/QUOTE] Exactly, are you gonna do anything about it?
yeah i'm gonna protest against injustices like laws that allow bullies to have guns and kill black people.
[QUOTE=Lazor;35240322]but you don't understand Nazereth666, black children in hoodies are inherently threatening!! it was my god given right to shoot him!! totally not a race crime tho[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;35240336]maybe if you read the article you'd see that the law thats being used as his defense was lobbied for by the nra[/QUOTE] Wait a minute, I thought you guys were the same person.
mankind isn't stupid or violent, mankind is the median of individual actions talking humans as a whole, while being a violent species, we're incredibly passive in comparison to most others on this planet
[QUOTE=Nazereth666;35240696]Ok well in that case, lets ban guns and.. oh knives too. And any object that is long and heavy and scissors and every other sharp thing in this world and maybe then it will be baby proof.[/QUOTE] huh? where did i say anything about banning guns? i was just pointing out how stupid your reasoning for having guns is. [editline]22nd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;35240867]Wait a minute, I thought you guys were the same person.[/QUOTE] no we are different people
[QUOTE=thisispain;35240829]yeah i'm gonna protest against injustices like laws that allow bullies to have guns and kill black people.[/QUOTE] While I agree, the law was still used wrongly. "It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law." And he hasn't gotten away with it completely, the case still has to go in front of a grand jury. I don't think he will get away with it. The fact that he followed he kid and then shot him does now allow him to claim defense, he provoked the incident instead of letting the police deal with the issue.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35233360] Well, other than the fact that the stand your ground laws they lobby for allow people to defend themselves rather than magically be expected to run away when somebody's attempting to rape them, but don't let that get in the way of your agenda![/QUOTE] If someone is raping them, I don't think they care about the legality. I think they care about the fact they're being raped. Logic tells me they'd run away. Not everyone is armed and paranoid like a lot of Americans. [editline]22nd March 2012[/editline] That's the problem with most gun nuts, they use the defence card. But it just shows how insidiously paranoid they are.
I've mentioned it before: Rules of thumb for self defense generally are as follows: Many shots fired is often panic. This is extremely common for self defense with handguns as the distance is very short and handgun rounds are so very unreliable for stopping someone with one round. Often the defensive shooter will empty an entire magazine and continue to pull the trigger for a few seconds afterwards. Several shots fired is generally training. Police, former military, and gun nuts may only fire a few times in self defense. One shot fired is often an execution. If you are calm enough to fire once and WAIT for the bullet to take effect, then something is wrong. ESPECIALLY with a chest shot. In addition to this, for two people of the same sex and both physically able and sober, there is the rule of thumb of "one up". Basically you can use one tier of weapon above that of your assailant. The tiers generally being: unarmed -> melee weapon -> firearm If he comes at you with fists and you shoot him dead, you are in trouble. If he comes at you with a knife or similar melee weapon, and you shoot him dead, then you are likely just fine. And of course similar tier weapons are fine for defense. Firearm vs firearm. There are numerous exclusions to both of these rules of thumb and neither is law, but both are commonly accepted for determining proper self defense. None of the exceptions seem to apply here and BOTH rules are violated. Furthermore "stand your ground" is precisely what it sounds like. You are permitted to stand your ground, but you are NOT allowed to follow someone. He walked after the kid even after being told by 911 to NOT follow him. Kid was followed, unarmed, and shot once. This does not hold water as a self defense. It is manslaughter at least.
speculative opinion pieces aren't news
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35234005]According to the Guardian there was a phone call between the victim and his girlfriend that pretty much confirms that the defendant's claim is bullshit. So [I]how is he still innocent[/I]? And how the fuck are your gun laws lax enough to give a whackjob like this a firearm?[/QUOTE] Because our firearms are not for personal defense. Our constitution was written during a period where self defense was a given. Law enforcement officials were very few and far between. Firearms are for keeping our government in check. That was the point of the amendment. So when the organization intended to be kept in check by firearms wants to control the flow of firearms, we tend to be displeased. We are a society that firmly believes that the power should always rest with the citizen and that the government answers to us. We have certainly done a shitty job in recent years of maintaining that, but the reasoning behind it still holds. If that logic doesn't float your boat, great, I totally understand and I don't even disagree with you, but you do not live here and you do not understand our culture or our reasoning. It may differ from yours but the amount of sheer arrogance is requires to completely write it off is massive and insulting, so either research the topic better, or consider keeping quiet on the subject.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35241066]Because our firearms are not for personal defense. Our constitution was written during a period where self defense was a given. Law enforcement officials were very few and far between. Firearms are for keeping our government in check. That was the point of the amendment. So when the organization intended to be kept in check by firearms wants to control the flow of firearms, we tend to be displeased. We are a society that firmly believes that the power should always rest with the citizen and that the government answers to us. We have certainly done a shitty job in recent years of maintaining that, but the reasoning behind it still holds. If that logic doesn't float your boat, great, I totally understand and I don't even disagree with you, but you do not live here and you do not understand our culture or our reasoning. It may differ from yours but the amount of sheer arrogance is requires to completely write it off is massive and insulting, so either research the topic better, or consider keeping quiet on the subject.[/QUOTE] I love you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.