Skip to main content

Much like Stephen Colbert did this week, Bill Maher also pointed the finger in Trayvon Martin's murder at the hands of George Zimmerman at this country's psychotic love of guns on his show last night.

And finally, New Rule.  The next time someone attacks President Obama for being unfriendly to business, one industry has to stand up and thank him as the best friend they've ever had: America's gun makers.

Over the past four years, fear of a black president has made gun sales shoot through the roof and into the apartment upstairs.  There are now more guns in America than there are people.  [See note after the fold.]  And if you laid them end to end, Ted Nugent would ejaculate until he dissolved into a pile of dust.  Did you know that Walmart is selling guns again?  Happy Easter, motherfucker!

Now I believe, of course, that an American should have the right to protect their home.  Their own home, from robbers, or rapists, or some guy on the Bravo network who wants to redecorate.  So, make no mistake, anyone who breaks into my house and threatens me and my vicious Pomeranians, Gilbert and Sullivan, is going to be staring down the barrel of a Franchi SPAS-12 combat shotgun loaded with incendiary rounds.  That's right, dirtbag.  Take one step toward my car elevator, and I will set you on fire like a Burmese monk.

That said, my preference is to run away.  Because killing people is bad karma, and also I have white carpeting.  Now, we can go on and on about hoodies and the neighborhood watch guy who looks like Chaz Bono.  But it's not really a discussion until you save some blame for the liberal politicians who unconditionally surrendered in the fight for sensible gun laws.  When are they going to stand their ground?

Did you know yesterday that Texas adopted a law allowing you to shoot a deer with a silencer?  How is this even a problem?  Do you need to take out deer henchmen before they can warn the deer evil genius in his lair?  It's a deer; you have a gun.  It doesn't even have hands.  How much more of an edge do you need?

Right now, Congress is considering a bill that would forbid the EPA from regulating the lead in bullets.  Not that the EPA is regulating the lead in bullets, but it might.  And imagine what they could do if they linked up with the deer!

Hunters leave 3,000 tons of lead bullets in America's forests every year, which poisons 20,000,000 birds.  Birds that will never know the joy of being blown to pieces by a miserable chinless fuckface.  (wild audience applause)

Why can't we even pass a rule against poisoned bullets?  This is a cautionary tale about what happens when the Democrats completely lay down on an issue, and let the Right get whatever they want.  You get insanity.  Arming panicky untrained vigilantes like George Zimmerman and telling them it's OK to shoot whenever they're afraid, is like dumping all the milk bones on the kitchen floor and telling your dog, "Just eat when you're hungry."

Stand Your Ground, guns in bars, guns in church, guns in the classroom....  Where does it end?  Why not guns in the delivery room?  What if my fetus is armed, and comes out firing?  Also, I think we should have a "use it or lose it" law.  Yeah, where at least once every six months you have to shoot someone.  After all, isn't that what gun nuts really want, to shoot someone?  Otherwise, what's the point of collecting something that just sits on the shelf?  I mean, I collect rare Ming dynasty opium pipes.  But I use them!

Just to clarify, when Maher says there are "more guns in America than there are people", from what I could find, the latest study on this was from 2007 which found from the Small Arms Survey that there were 90 guns for every 100 people in the U.S.  So not quite, but daaaaaamn, it's pretty darn close.  However, notably, this was from 2007, and we all know gun sales went through the roof when Obama was elected, and again this year in fear of Obama's re-election.  And that's a different surge than the over 1.5 million background checks needed in December 2011 ALONE.  So with all those surges, Maher could very well be correct that the number of guns now outnumbers the number of people in this country.

Originally posted to BruinKid on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Electronic America: Progressives Film, music & Arts Group.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (152+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ehrenfeucht games, OleHippieChick, RFK Lives, lineatus, xgy2, worldlotus, Habitat Vic, The Lone Apple, Dirk McQuigley, DRo, journeyman, BoiseBlue, Eric Twocents, vacantlook, Hillbilly Dem, arroganceisstrength, PsychoSavannah, theKgirls, Temmoku, Curt Matlock, Iberian, Kingsmeg, TracieLynn, Laurilei, Dancun74, Joes Steven, bluestatedem84, Carol in San Antonio, MKSinSA, politik, cosmic debris, Matt Z, averybird, OLinda, geordie, Getreal1246, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, historys mysteries, dmhlt 66, aitchdee, kerflooey, progressiveinga, pat of butter in a sea of grits, mofembot, Its a New Day, TomP, NM Ray, prettygirlxoxoxo, Via Chicago, ichibon, Sue B, a2nite, Texknight, Calvino Partigiani, Preston S, Debs2, glitterscale, Teiresias70, raptavio, Wayward Wind, sound of progress, MartyM, citizen dan, roses, middleagedhousewife, miracle11, LarisaW, ItsSimpleSimon, HCKAD, Plox, emelyn, john07801, mungley, revsue, Shotput8, doroma, Cory Bantic, GeorgeXVIII, Agathena, gramofsam1, Youffraita, OldDragon, Knucklehead, LillithMc, playtonjr, sherlyle, Sharon Wraight, Son of a Cat, splintersawry, Debby, NYFM, bronte17, alnep, GrannyGeek, Tinfoil Hat, mimi2three, CA Nana, dotsright, elwior, temptxan, Marjmar, belinda ridgewood, maggiejean, MufsMom, sockpuppet, shaharazade, Brit, jadt65, Azazello, tytalus, dotdash2u, Ice Blue, GenXangster, KnotIookin, True North, mod2lib, dewtx, ladyjames, stevej, caul, Nulwee, Sprinkles, cacamp, enhydra lutris, murphy, martinjedlicka, LinSea, Angie in WA State, greengemini, randomfacts, BarackStarObama, Caipirinha, Trendar, devis1, mikeconwell, cpresley, rapala, reflectionsv37, pgm 01, Larsstephens, KenBee, SoCaliana, slatsg, annieli, cybersaur, ranger995, bcashncali, millwood, DruidQueen, burlydee, TexDem, YucatanMan
  •  I loved that segment of Maher's (58+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure which I find more disturbing--the cultural attitudes that millions of Americans have towards guns, or our lack of regulation of guns.  Either way, a hothead w/ a piece cruising his gated community on the lookout for A-A teenagers in hoodies is a recipe for trouble.  There are several factors that led to this unspeakable tragedy, but how our national gun fetish was clearly one of them.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:17:27 AM PDT

    •  Money: every time someone gets shot the gun (19+ / 0-)

      Money makes it all happen.

      Everytime someone gets shot, the gun companies make a little bit of money.  

      Gun corporations make money from selling guns and ammo.  Every gunshot is the sound of the gun indsutry making money.  The money from those profits goes to buy law-makers and laws to increase the profits of the gun industry: greater gun sales, allowing gun-owners to bring their guns to more places, de-criminalization for using your guns, etc.  

      To the law-makers and the gun industry, those profits are more important than the lives of our children.  The gun indsutry will go to great length to protect their profits, aided in this quest by the legislature and the police.

      And who is looking out to protect the lives of our children?

      Another case of proftis trumping lives and health.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:17:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh what bullshit (20+ / 0-)
        Everytime someone gets shot, the gun companies make a little bit of money.  
        THIS is.

        They made the money when they sold the ammo, just like they did when they sold me my last box of ammo, and none of those bullets have killed anyone and hopefully never will.

        And who is looking out to protect the lives of our children?
        OH! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

        The first cry of those who seek to infringe the rights of others.

        Again: Guns and gun laws are not responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin, any more than the hoodie or the suspension for an empty pot baggie is.

        George Zimmerman is.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:22:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Think of the children" (16+ / 0-)

        said the Operation Rescue folks outside the medical clinic.

        "Think of the children" said Maggie Gallagher of NOM as she fought marriage equality.

        "Think of the children" said the Catholic Church in Massachusetts as they shut down their adoption agency rather than having to consider same sex couples.

        "Think of the children", said Tipper Gore as she lobbied for warning labels on record albums.

        Think of the company you keep when you decide to use that rhetorical tactic.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:30:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only sick people value guns before children (12+ / 0-)

          Only sick people place a greater value on guns and gun indsutry profits than on the value of human life.

          What kind of company do you keep?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:43:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do not mischaracterize me. (18+ / 0-)

            It won't fly.
            I am calling you out for a rightwinger tactic.
            Do not dare to speak to me of my priorities.
            You do not know me, or them.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:45:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have no need to characterize you. (5+ / 0-)

              I have no need to characterize you; you do a perfectly fine job of characterizing yourself.

              Your have made your views on gun use quite plain in numerous statements.  There is little I could add or detract from what you have already said about yourself.

              A 17 year old is dead by gunfire, and no crime was prevented, nor any life spared.  And you are deeply angered when anyone makes the obviously true statement that gun manufacturers make a profit on every gun sold, and every bullet fired.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:33:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kestrel, you are mistaken. (10+ / 0-)

              Although I do not presume to judge your priorities, I can say with certainty that the Second Amendment was carefully crafted for... ambiguity. In an attempt to bring Southern States around into accepting the Union in 1789, the drafters hung fire on the ownership of guns question by hedging their bets with an ambiguous statement, mixing a mention of militia regulation and personal gun ownership in the Second Amendment. It is also no accident that this is the SECOND amendment, only after the first. The contention upon this issue is long and bloody. It answers the question WHY is this amendment so important then and now. The answer is slavery.

               This is a lawyer's trick of long standing in English Common Law, and the Founders were nothing if not excellent lawyers. The South DID join the Union, and even agreed at that time to the eventual extinction of slavery, their main objection to joining the Union at that time. Their guns were considered necessary, by them, to prevent mass uprisings of chattel who outnumbered the slave owners by a considerable margin.

              As we now know, the south backslid on the issue of eventual slavery extinction in the 1800-1850's, and used their guns against the Union in due time. They continued to do so until the 1960's, so we are still at the very beginning of trying to interpret the Constitution in a socially responsible way; that personal gun ownership is DEPENDENT UPON the existence of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, no matter HOW you define a well-regulated militia.

              The recent Supremes decision defining away the WELL REGULATED part will in due time be seen to be absurd and Unconstitutional, just as Citizens United, Corporate Personhood and the Supremacy of Florida voting law over US Constitutional Statute will be held to be absurd readings with disastrous consequences.

              I am a gun owner, and yet I understand the absurdity of our current interpretation if people like Mr. Zimmerman can get and hold the most lethal handguns ever produced. The Supremes will in time understand that a "look the other way" attitude toward gun ownership, while politically popular, is NOT the same as freedom; that freedom is always a balancing act between MY individual freedom and the freedoms of society. They have forgotten that lately, and need to be reminded.

              That is all we are doing; reminding them that they are temporary and so is their decision regarding the second amendment. Unfortunately, more innocent people like Trayvon Martin are likely to die to prove how wrong they are. I consider Trayvon a hero in the cause of eventual extinction of gun slavery in the US, in its final phases. I will honor his memory.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:46:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did Scalia et al hear this particular argument? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                caul, ehrenfeucht games

                It is an excellent one, for there is no denying that the 2nd Amendment is a model of ambiguity.  And the current interpretation from the Supremes is absolutely dependent on twisting the meanings of REGULATED MILITIA and INFRINGED to suit their ends.

              •  Interesting argument. (7+ / 0-)

                This is a great topic for a full diary.  The historical perspective is interesting, and I would love to see more on the idea that personal gun ownership is dependent on the existence of a militia.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  OregonOak: (4+ / 0-)

                Thanks for this rational post.  As someone who doesn't own a gun and never will I can appreciate what you have written.  I have no problems with "responsible" gun ownership it's some of the crap laws that have come along that I have a problem with.  Again thanks, great comment.

              •  The problem with your argument is (6+ / 0-)

                that all of the southern states except North Carolina (so Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia) had already joined the Union before the Bill and Rights (and the Second Amendment) had been adopted. So clearly gun possession was not a major obstacle for a Southern state to join the Union. Interestingly the two states (of the original 13 colonies) that joined the Union after the adoption of the second amendment were North Carolina and Rhode Island.

                •  They joined the Union conditionally (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ehrenfeucht games

                  based, in Virginia's case, on the Right of Militia members to bear arms. WHEN they joined the Union is largely irrelevant to when they ratified the Bill of Rights, and under what conditions.

                  Only four of the ratifying states had Militia Right to Bear Arms clauses in their state constitutions when they joined the Union.  The other nine thought it best to leave to state government, regulated under military departments under governors and legislatures. The WHEN argument is a familar canard. Come up with something better.

                  The specter of slave insurrection made even Rhode Island, a commerce center of slave trade, and Delaware, a financial center of the slave trade, quake with fear. They also were slave states until the 1810's.

                  Responsible historians give due credit to the slave system in the formation of the Right to Bear Arms within a Regulated Militia, in fear that a new Federal Authority would take away the states rights to regulate slavery. Irresponsible historians go through intellectual and factual contortions to show it was not a factor.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:46:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Nice theories and whitewashing of history. (8+ / 0-)
                "This is a lawyer's trick of long standing in English Common Law, and the Founders were nothing if not excellent lawyers."
                The reason we have the BoR is because the States, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. passed resolutions 1 year after they tentatively ratified our current constitution with the instructions that they be added.  The First Congress did not act fast enough and when the States started Article V procedures in spite of congress,  the congress feared they would lose control and had no choice but to act upon them.

                The majority of the States made clear their intent of the BoR AND the 2nd Amendments scope and meaning:

                New Hampshire made it clear:

                XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

                Rhode Island's take:

                XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well- regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.

                XVIII. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

                New York's take:

                And the Convention do, in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New York, enjoin it upon their representatives in Congress to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable means, to obtain a ratification of the following amendments to the said Constitution, in the manner prescribed therein; and in all laws to be passed by the Congress, in the mean time, to conform to the spirit of the said amendments, as far as the Constitution will admit.

                That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

                Virginia's statement:

                That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people in some such manner as the following:

                1st. That there are certain natural rights of which men when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life, and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

                17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

                19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

                Please note, these amendments were finally forced out of committee and debated upon.

                As a Mr. Gerry states during those "First Debates In Congress":

                The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not;"
                I simply cannot agree with this:
                so we are still at the very beginning of trying to interpret the Constitution in a socially responsible way;

                "Socially responsible way"??? Is this the way that tells us that we are not born with unalienable rights that some how some way we re-created the idea that a king is the source of sovereignty and not the individual? Or in our case that our created government grants us privileges, if they so desire?

                Please note the words from JFK's Inaugural address in 1961:

                For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
                This I cannot fathom:
                freedom is always a balancing act between MY individual freedom and the freedoms of society.
                NO, my freedoms end where yours begin.  When we collide or disagree, it is the duty of our created government to mediate our differences.  Society is not superior to or even equal to the individual.  If the individual is suppressed, so is society.

                See JFK's quote in his Civil Rights Speech, 1963:

                This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.
                I still believe in John Fitzgerald Kennedy's words and ideals.

                If guns were slavery, as you've claimed, then is our current president enslaving the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Somalia and Syria too? Have we not armed rebels throughout the globe for decades? Claiming we were helping them be free?

                Sadly you've equated guns to the institutional racism and corruption we allowed to flourish here.  

                There are so many facts that have come to light in the last couple days about Zimmerman's arrests, etc...things that would have denied anyone else the right to keep and bear arms but we don't all have fathers that are or were Judges.

                The only true way to honor Trayvon Martin's life would be to accept responsibility for that corruption, demand a citizen panel to investigate, prosecute and jail those people we entrusted to enforce the laws but did not.

                It's easy to blame an object and not look in the mirror at the real culprit.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 01:48:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Equating Racism and Guns (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ehrenfeucht games

                  is the logical and reasonable conclusion of objective and honest scholars. But for the "peculiar institution" and the states' horror of slave insurrection, and possibly more worrisome, federal usurpation of states desire to legalize slavery by force if necessary, the issue would never have arisen.

                  The issue of gun rights, racism (against Native Americans, Catholics, and Africans, as well as French Canadians, the Scots, etc etc) and slave trade (as well as the Indentured Servitude laws against poor white Europeans) is so intertwined in both northern and southern psychology that it is possible for some to ignore it. It is too close. It is too obvious. It is too damning.

                  I will write a diary instead of arguing the various points here given. I only ask for an objective view, not a preconceived and precooked set of standard responses.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:53:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "conclusion of objective and honest scholars" (6+ / 0-)

                    There was nothing in my response that was "precooked or standard"...

                    As an educated historian, I'll patiently wait for your "re-interpretations", correction, your "objective view".

                    History is replete with facts that are conveniently ignored, obfuscated and omitted "from the record".

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:45:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Historians are trained... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ehrenfeucht games

                      by other historians. Who have you been trained by?

                      Perhaps as a historian, you have read "The Narrative of the Life of an American Slave," by Frederick Douglass, and you were immediately enlightened by the necessity of "white militia" to keep and bear arms in the antebellum south. This is the reason Madison, a Virginian with a shaky political career, proposed the wording of the second amendment after several iterations and much discussion among Constitutional Framers at the Convention.  

                      Finally,  how do you and Justice Scalia simply define away the "Well-regulated" clause of the Second Amendment? Oh. I know. The NRA forgets about it too in all its propaganda. They have done a masterful job of rewriting history to their own profit.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:19:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well-regulated (5+ / 0-)

                        In eighteenth-century English, that phrase was used the way "well-functioning" is used in modern English.

                        As a historian, you must know that word meaning can change over time.

                        If you say that I'm just saying this because it's convenient and no word definition would change that much (I've heard that before), just remember that in less time, the definition of "gay" turned from "happy" to "homosexual" by way of being a slang term for "female prostitute."

                        •  Well-Functioning, then. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Agathena

                          So you would argue that Zimmerman and others who shoot black men and young men are within the 18th Century definition of a "well functioning militia?"

                          Good luck with that one.

                          I read the words. I know what "well-regulated" means in both its legal sense, its historical sense and in its common usage sense. In no sense is the use of personal firearms for vigilante action in neighborhoods by unregulated personnel a part of the definition of a "well-regulated militia," except in the snarled and convoluted imagination of Justice Scalia, and, apparently, you.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 03:28:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  In fact one of my favorite men in history is (5+ / 0-)

                        Frederick Douglass, we need more gentlemen like him.

                        America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.
                        Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
                        Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
                        Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
                        As for Scalia, I could truly care less what he thinks, really, but to answer your question:

                        The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is contained, were added to protect individual liberties. To make clear the newly created central government could not abrogate those specific unalienable rights, as well as, those not mentioned.

                        The referendum failures in Rhode Island to accept the proposed constitution IS because of the lack of these protections.

                        Hamilton's Federalist #84 is a warning to the people of New York against adding a Bill of Rights:

                        It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects,

                        It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.

                        But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

                        I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

                        Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers,

                        New York, due to his warning made it perfectly clear:
                        and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
                        We cannot ignore the reality that the constitution limits our created government's authority.  The 2nd Amendment grants only one exception to the central government when it can "regulate"that unalienable right...DURING militia service...not before or after.

                        It matters not what your definition is of "regulate", if we take "regulate" to mean "well trained" or as is attempted today for it to mean "controlled".

                        Either definition of "regulate" is tied to the governments authority over the militia.  

                        See, no problems from where I stand.

                        This authority is further exemplified by the Militia Act of 1792. Which by the way was the law of the land until the 1903 Dick Act.

                        These acts presupposes that the individual citizen was armed and if not, they must be (if they were labeled as a militia member) and later, evolving into the government paying/providing for those arms.  The 2nd Amendment says nothing about any other group, women, children, doctors, lawyers, farmers, firemen, preachers, constables, teachers, etc, etc...they all could, at any time be armed (and most likely were if the need arose).

                        See, still no problems.

                        Now do you understand why I don't care what Scalia says???  I've defined nothing away, just viewed the 2nd Amendment in it's actual historical context.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:34:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You and Scalia just happen to agree, and yet, (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Agathena, joe wobblie

                          you could not care less what he thinks. How convenient. Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to give credit to him for articulating your position and codifying it into Federal Law in 2010. Until it is overturned, that is.

                          As for myself and for millions of other Americans who have seen the slow, and now quick descent into anarchy at the hands of "individual rights" lobbyists (interestingly, the same lobbyists as for the arms manufacturers and secret rendition supporters and arms dealers) with no regard to "individual responsibilities" morality, I will not hesitate to call out your shilling for the gun lobby and the radical notion that anyone anywhere can call themselves a militia member and get away with murder. That stance you take is reminiscent of Somalia, Haiti, the Confederate South, Rwanda, and any number of failed Constitutional Republics who failed to regulate the nastier most selfish and paranoid members of their society and lived to regret it. This is what Scalia wants. He apparently wants the crazies to have the power to inflict murder with impunity, on the streets, upon anyone who disagrees with him, and squelch their speech and economic power. It is the basis of Thugism, or Fascism, who, ironically, when they get power will outlaw firearms for anyone who is not a member of their Thug gang. It is a belief system which apparently fits well with his Sicilian heritage.

                          I could go on for hours, but it is the proper subject of a series of diaries, or lectures, or speaking tours or a Book, not a downthread response.  Suffice it to say that your "information" is all publically available legalese spin from the legal offices of the NRA, and the various Pro-Gun lobbies and shows the contortions their lawyers are willing to go to to change the basic law of the US to a selfish, violent and paranoid system not unlike the slave system of the south before 1865. You are on the the wrong side of history, gerrilea.
                          Watch out for the company you keep. They will not be as loyal to you as you are to them, history shows.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 03:43:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow, I don't know whether to laugh or cry... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            joe wobblie, 43north

                            In less than 1000 words I have presented you with verifiable historical facts, backed up with verifiable links to the sources that you continue to ignore...HOW CONVENIENT; claiming I'm on the wrong side of history.  The truth is not a perspective. Historical fact IS not opinion. If history were or is anything other than what I've presented, show me your history. Not your opinion, not your desires, not your "re-write".

                            Calling me a shill...that alone IS the most insulting part of your diatribe.   So much for honest discussion, "teacher"!

                            For the record, it seems you are the one that supports gun manufacturers here, not I: "I am a gun owner, and yet..."

                            I have never owned a gun and at the present time have no desires to, until such time that I feel I have no other options left for personal defense or the defense of my family, friends or property, I will continue to be unarmed.

                            Also, for the record, I was trained on the proper use and storage of guns by my father, an NRA member and NYS Pistol Instructor.  He trained all four of us (I have 3 siblings) from a very early age, I believe I was around 7 or 8 when that training began. He also had us trained in karate, Kyokushinkai Kan to be exact.  

                            And what did that NRA member teach me?

                            1.  "Every gun is loaded."
                            2. "Never point a gun at someone (or in their direction) unless you intend to kill them."
                            3.  "It's easy to pull the trigger. But can you live with the consequences?
                            4.  
                            "Self defense is your responsibility."

                            What did my Karate lessons teach me?

                            1. "You are not here to learn how to attack someone but how to defend yourself."
                            2. "Avoid confrontations at all costs, if you have to run away, do so.  If you are a half mile down the road, you cannot be harmed."
                            3.  "NEVER throw the first punch if you cannot flee!"
                            ~___~

                            Your rant reveals an instability of reason, strawmen and
                            logical failures:  

                            the radical notion that anyone anywhere can call themselves a militia member and get away with murder.
                            Where did I say a "militia member" could kill anyone? Where did I say if you called yourself a "militia member" you had such authority?

                            How about you actually address what it is I did say?  

                            The 2nd Amendment is the only exception whereby the Federal government is granted limited authority to "regulate" arms, FOR militia members WHILE called into service, not before or after and NOT anyone else.

                            It's easy to create strawmen and attack them, leading to this folly:

                            That stance you take is reminiscent of Somalia, Haiti, the Confederate South, Rwanda, and any number of failed Constitutional Republics who failed to regulate...
                            Funny, really funny for you.  I asked you previously if our current president was enslaving the peoples of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, et al. by arming the insurgents and you come up with this bullshit...what cognitive dissonance you display.  OUR government has armed "insurgents" and governments for decades throughout the world that have gone on to commit genocide in their own countries against unarmed populations.

                            Who's side are you on here? The side of history or the side of propaganda?
                            Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

                            Author Stephen Kinzer discusses his new book, "Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq." In it, he writes that the invasion of Iraq "was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons."
                            DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
                            Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.
                            Your faux moral indignation aside, history shows us that those without the means to defend themselves are plowed into the soil as fertilizer.  262 million unarmed humans have been exterminated in less than 100 yrs by their own governments.

                            As for this:

                            He apparently wants the crazies to have the power to inflict murder with impunity, on the streets, upon anyone who disagrees with him, and squelch their speech and economic power.
                            I do not know what Scalia wants.  I do know in a majority decision of 7-2, the Supreme Court made it clear the police have no duty to protect the individual.

                            Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

                            WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
                            As for this last tidbit you throw in:
                            and shows the contortions their lawyers are willing to go to to change the basic law of the US to a selfish, violent and paranoid system not unlike the slave system of the south before 1865.
                            History shows that gun control was and always has been racist.  

                            See Otis McDonald's statements on the SC decision in McDonald v. Chicago:

                            But for Otis McDonald, who took on the city and won, the ruling was as much about correcting misdeeds done to his African-American ancestors as giving law-abiding residents the right to have guns at home to protect themselves from violent crime.

                            "I couldn't take that anymore. I knew I had to look somewhere and find somebody to do something about this. It was all designed by a great power. … It was all for a reason."

                            "There was a wrong done a long time ago that dates back to slavery time," said McDonald. "I could feel the spirit of those people running through me as I sat in the Supreme Court."

                            As I said previously, I patiently wait for your "objective views", let's hope, for all our sake, that you are actually honest with yourself and true to history.

                            It does seem there is some small window for actual constructive conversation here:

                            It is the basis of Thugism, or Fascism, who, ironically, when they get power will outlaw firearms for anyone who is not a member of their Thug gang.
                            NO SHIT! Divide and conquer.  Pit us against each other by enacting "international agreements" such as GATT & NAFTA and our membership in the WTO, which has gutted the American dream and made the majority of us into economic serfs again! Enact "drug wars" that  fill the Prison Industrial Complex with the casualties of those policies then blame it all on guns, perfect Hegelian Dialectic, "problem, reaction, (pre-)determined solution".

                            I'll ask these questions of you:

                            If I cannot defend myself against those that wish me harm, who does?

                            Is it vigilantism to do so, as you've implied?

                            Is not self-defense an unalienable human right?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 08:36:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Our duty is to replace the Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

                            as soon as possible. With rulings such as the ones cited by both of us, we will soon be another Banana Republic on the road to Government by Neighborhood Warlords in Gated Communities with Toyota pickups and 50 cal machine guns.

                            You do not see how the proliferation of gun rights has endangered us all, and have argued yourself into pretzel logic that the preservation of "freedom" demands the extinction of government. Which Ron Paul delegate are you?

                            We are NOT more free with random shootings occuring at the rate of 70 per day in America. We are now slaves of the gun lobby and gun industry, just as the poor people of Somalia and Iraq are. It is not lack of guns which endangers us. It is the sheer weight of lethal weapons at everyone's disposal, waiting for a bad mood to strike them, and kill with impunity.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 06:13:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Complete dodge of every question posed to you. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  I guess you really don't want to find common (0+ / 0-)

                            ground nor elect more or better Democrats.

                            I'm part of the 99% that know and believe the only way to change our constitution is by employing Article V, not have the fascist 1% "re-interpret" it to suit your desires.  You have espoused one of the biggest attacks we Democrats have had to fend off: The"Activist Judges" meme.

                            It's become painfully obvious that you will continue your historical revisions to justify your "visions of the future."

                            Your fear mongering and propaganda has been revealed for all to see. Maybe you should seriously re-read the words of wisdom written by Fredrick Douglass:

                            America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.
                            You are a slave to your created dogma and self-righteous moral indignation.  Freedom is ugly and vile yet it is the most precious gift one can give themselves.  I have faith in my fellow man that if he is taught critical logical thinking, taught empowerment, and finally, taught peace...he will evolve beyond the chains you would bind his mind, body and spirit with.  It must be his choice not decreed from upon high.  Only then will we all be truly free.

                            As Otis McDonald said:  "There was a wrong done a long time ago that dates back to slavery time,"

                            Today the African American is truly on the path for equality in this society because of Mr. McDonald.  His courage has brought equity under the law to all minorities, including myself, a transgendered woman.

                            It will take some time to dismantle your racist control measures that have been utilized in so many places, but it will be done. Man will evolve, with or without you.

                            As for your strawmen arguments above, I will say this: I wish you well tilting at those windmills you've created to justify your bigoted personal attacks against me to shutdown honest discussion.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 08:30:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  You take every opportunity presented to you... (0+ / 0-)

              ...to redicule concern for our children.

              "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

              by ehrenfeucht games on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  True (6+ / 0-)

            But only people who don't have an actual argument to make use straw man arguments like you just did.

      •  At one point there was some thought (9+ / 0-)

        to suing the gun manufactures because they knew they were creating more guns than the legitimate market required. But I believe the gun lobby made sure they were protected from suits. And again, dems laid down.

        Congress is at 9% approval rating - within the +/- of making herpes more popular than congress! - Webranding

        by glitterscale on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:35:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please define this "legitimate market". (8+ / 0-)

          Then explain why firearms manufacturers are "creating more guns than the legitimate market required."

          Especially in the face of this:

          http://www.cbsnews.com/...

          http://www.courant.com/...

          http://www.foxbusiness.com/...

          •  From Wiki (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe wobblie, shaharazade
            In 2003, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a "public nuisance" through the "negligent marketing" of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday Night Specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. "The gun industry has refused to take even basic measures to keep criminals and prohibited persons from obtaining firearms," NAACP President/CEO Kweisi Mfume said. "The industry must be as responsible as any other and it must stop dumping firearms in over-saturated markets. The obvious result of dumping guns is that they will increasingly find their way into the hands of criminals."[2] The suit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who ruled that members of the NAACP were not "uniquely harmed" by illegal use of firearms and therefore had no standing to sue.[3]
            (Bolding mine)
            Wiki

            Now I can remember that we were looking at this issue prior to 2003. And this issue then was that guns were flowing into black market areas and drug cartels even then.

            Off that topic but still somewhat related:

            Diaz:I was an attorney on the House of Representatives' crime subcommittee. I was hired to work on terrorism, but I ended up working on gun stuff. I put together some hearings for pending legislation. Now, remember, I'm from a military family. I learned how to shoot in the Boy Scouts in Mississippi. But these larger gun issues were sort of abstract to me. So I put together a hearing on kids and guns and began investigating it. I heard the kids' stories firsthand, from all over the United States, and from all socioeconomic groups.

            What I realized was that the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defense or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the U.S. with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines. I was shocked and tormented by these kids' stories. One girl told a story of a friend literally dying in her arms from a stray bullet.

            What the gun industry doesn't want you to know

            Surprise, gun manufacturers are a business and their business model is how to sell more guns.

            I am not sure of the provenance of this but it is chilling none the less:

            The ALEC advocates for "limited government, free markets, and federalism". A future joint seminar sponsored by ALEC and the NRA: “How to Get Away With Murder. Legally.” – The George Zimmerman Story. How to use language, the law, and dress to avoid suspicion and prosecution. (Read ALEC Exposed, and also read about the Koch brothers connection to ALEC.)

            The 3 things you must know before talking to the police. Use the same language the police use for a “good shoot”:

                “He angrily reached into his pocket..."
                “I felt threatened for my life. I had no duty to retreat. It was my right to stand my ground."
                “This is a defensive wound…”

                Why you MUST shoot to kill – (Avoiding the “his word against mine” problem)
                What makes you a law-abiding citizen shooter outside your home vs. a law-breaking hood you might encounter?
                Clothing to wear outside your home while preparing to "defend your ground".
                Avoid “ethnic” clothing such as “bling,” hoodies, baggy pants.
                Pro-tip: Observe what off-duty cops wear and copy them.
                How to look like a banker out walking, not a gangster out robbing.
                Train for split second decisions based on clothing bulges, just like the police do.
                Use your own weapon bulge as a guideline. Scientific studies show that the odds are the bad guy is carrying too.
                Remember, you can’t “respawn” when you get it wrong. Learn from video games why you must shoot first.
                Why it’s better to be wrong than dead by shooting first.

            * Twenty-five states have “Stand Your Ground” laws.

            Bud Meyers blog

            What we have is a perfect storm, if you will. Racism combined with marketing prowess, combined with NRA who claims to be just good old boys but make great money lobbying and have enormous power and then combine all that with the Koch brothers and Alec. And how many guns do you need anyway? Okay you can buy more to protect yourself from a likely Obama second term!

            Back on topic:

            Every ten seconds a gun is made in America; every nine seconds one is imported, adding over 6m guns annually to the estimated 212m already in private circulation, nearly one per citizen. The country's 1,200 gun makers, most of them tiny firms, pay $150 for their three-yearly federal permits and are subject to a single initial inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Unless the guns they make are fully automatic (in other words, machine-guns), they are subject to virtually no federal restrictions. Manufacturers of ammunition, even of hollow-point rounds, banned under the Geneva Convention for use in warfare, are also virtually unregulated: they pay $10 a year for a manufacturing licence plus 10% federal excise tax.
            snip
            Of the 284,000 gun dealers, about 20,000 have proper stores; just over half of these are pawnbrokers. The rest sell guns out of car boots, over the kitchen table, or at gun shows and flea markets. They do not buy solely from manufacturers. Until January this year, federal law-enforcement agencies also sold off their surplus weapons - some 60,000 handguns and rifles, including the quasi-military 9mm automatic pistols so popular with young bloods.
            University of Michigan Economist Articles

            You might stop a minute and consider that you might be being played like a lute

            Congress is at 9% approval rating - within the +/- of making herpes more popular than congress! - Webranding

            by glitterscale on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:20:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of nifty buzz-words and phrases.... (4+ / 0-)

              with no explainations.

              You have not defined the terms you were using, neither do your sources.  You have, in effect, dodged the question.  

              http://redwing.hutman.net/...

              "quasi-military 9mm automatic pistols so popular with young bloods."

              I can assure you that those pistols were invented and marketed to the public long before adoption by military forces.  In fact, adoption was rather slow, as the 9mm round is generally thought to be at the lower end of useful stopping power.  They replaced the larger (and, in the minds of many, much more effective) .45 ACP, .45 Colt, .455 Webley, etc., used by military forces for many decades.

        •  Yes, congress passed a law that exempts (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          caul, greengemini, shaharazade

          Yes, congress passed a law that exempts gun manufacturers from civil suits resulting from the lethal use of their product.  No doubt the gun industry spent a good deal of money lobbying members of congress for passage of such a law.  No doubt the congressmen/women were happy to receive money from the gun industry.

          If memory serves, this law was proposed and passed after several successful lawsuits were made against cigarette makers.  The cigarette industry suffered a significant blow to their business from these lawsuits.

          There are some legal basis to the difference in lawsuits brought against cigarette makers and gun makers.  The cigarette makers had previously claimed their products were not harmful or habit-forming, and hid evidence that they knew these claims were not true.  The gun manufacturers claim their product is lethal, that is indeed the products selling point.  While using a gun may be enjoyable, no one claims that gun use is habit-forming.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:14:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cigarettes can not be used for defense. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hagagaga, ER Doc, KVoimakas, labwitchy

            Using any cigarette is immediately bad for everyone in close proximity, especially the user.

            the same can not be said of guns.

            Note that tobacco use kills far more people every year than guns.  There is no safe personal use for tobacco.

            •  cigarette smoking (0+ / 0-)

              is regulated and controlled. Like a gun they don't hurt anyone in your pocket but unlike a gun when used the person who is being shot at cannot simply leave the room or walk away.

              •  Cigarettes are not nearly as controlled.... (4+ / 0-)

                as guns.

                I don't need to get government permission to carry cigs outside my private property.  There's no waiting period for purchase.  No permits required, anywhere.  Felons can buy cigs, no questions asked.  No background check.  They can be sold next door to schools.  Etc., etc.....

                I can use a cigarette as a time delay fuze for arson.  I can not really think of a use for them in any defensive capacity.  I can't use them for healthy recreation.  I can't use them for competitive sport, like the Olympic games.

                 

        •  They can be sued (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, PavePusher, labwitchy

          If you attempt to defend yourself with an M&P9 and it malfunctions, you can sue Smith & Wesson.

      •  It's a self perpetuating market (6+ / 0-)

        what a great business model, every time someone gets shot with a gun, others need to run out and buy a gun too

        "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

        by eXtina on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Accelerated by corruption (4+ / 0-)

          don't forget that this vicious circle is accelerated by corruption.  The gun indsutry wants to sell more guns (= more profit), and gifts willing law-makers with "campaign donations" so the law-makers will liberalize gun control alws and de-ciminalizae gun use.  With people encouraged by law to use their guns more readily, more violent shootings occur, resulting in more people wanting to buy guns to protect themselves.

          Don't forget, at the same time the legislatures around the country are liberalizing gun control laws, they are also making cut-backs on police forces (rationalized as necessary because of deficits, or opposition to big government).  So that gun advocates can rightly say "we need more guns because the police can't/won't protect us"

          And what is the outcome of suggesting that every person should arm themselves and be a police force unto themselves?  George Zimmermans.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:47:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You are setting yourself up with this one. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini
        And who is looking out to protect the lives of our children?
        There are Kossacks who enjoy rediculing any expression of concern for the safety of our children.

        We are expected to be as uncaring as the Republicans.

        "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

        by ehrenfeucht games on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:53:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The King of Sarcasm (8+ / 0-)

    Love him.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:25:20 AM PDT

  •  Lead shot (32+ / 0-)

    is already prohibited for use when hunting waterfowl. Duck hunters must use shells loaded with steel shot.

    Texas already allows sound suppressors for hunting of nonregulated game such as feral hogs and coyotes--silencer is a misnomer, since the sound of the shot is not silenced, but is reduced to about the sound level of a firecracker. This is a good thing for not only people who might be disturbed by the noise, but also for the hunter's hearing. Note that several European countries allow hunting with suppressors.

    As for Zimmerman

    Arming panicky untrained vigilantes like George Zimmerman and telling them it's OK to shoot whenever they're afraid
    I do not believe his actions were covered by the law. Every account, including his own, shows him to be the aggressor. The detective who initially investigated the incident wanted to arrest him for manslaughter, but was prevented from doing so by the state's attorney.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:41:09 AM PDT

    •  Also I have heard that he technically (4+ / 0-)

      broke a gun law by carrying a gun too close to a school. Quite frankly it's like the banking industry- it doesn't matter what regulations if you refuse to enforce them.

    •  does anyone know if Zimmerman.... (0+ / 0-)

      was INSIDE his vehicle when he told the 911 dispatcher that a suspicious person was "coming toward him."  

      Republicans have the 1% vote locked up.

      by MartyM on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:48:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, the actions of George ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChurchofBruce, Iberian, burlydee, Marjmar

      ... Zimmerman were obviously covered by the law until people began to notice the problem. How many other situations has it covered up since these laws were enacted in the various states? Would you agree then -- since you believe that George Zimmerman's actions were not covered by the SYG law -- that Zimmerman almost got away with murder because of the law?

      I agree with you about silencers on guns, as the loss of an unnoticeable portion of one's hearing is not an equitable price to pay for taking an animal's life. Gun manufacturers should paint their guns pink and make them as soundless and apparently innocent as possible, then they can go after the pre-teen market and that's good for the economy.

      On the other hand, why not require hunters to buy a box of 200 ear plugs for 17.99 (+ shipping and handling), as that would get the ear plug economy going? But then, again, it leaves the guns with that noisy crack or explosion, and the economy would do so much better selling expensive guns to pre-teens and women. So, I see your point.

      As for steel versus lead shot, I am thankful that you have reported that one instance of its use is prohibited. Now, if you can provide some scientific research -- not performed or funded by the gun lobby or gun manufacturers -- as to the ecological and biological impact of steel pellets, we're all set! Everything is then hunky-dory!

      Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

      by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:53:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to disagree on one point. (9+ / 0-)
        Well, the actions of George ... ... Zimmerman were obviously covered by the law until people began to notice the problem.
        One could as easily -- and, perhaps, more accurately, say:
        Well, the actions of George ... ... Zimmerman were obviously covered by the police until people began to notice the problem.
        The wording of the law simply does not protect as self-defense the actions Zimmerman allegedly undertook -- and as more information comes out, this becomes increasingly clear.

        It doesn't matter what the law actually says if law enforcement is not undertaken in a reasonable way.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:06:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that my wording ... (8+ / 0-)

          ... was not crystal clear. It could've been better. I should've written that "the actions of George .... Zimmerman were obviously de facto covered by the law until people began to notice the problem." I see the SYG law as a reef with upward projections from the sea floor. Without the reef, the sea floor is flat and there is no place to hide. With the SYG available, there is a place for vigilantes -- heck even outright murderers -- to hide.

          I see people throughout the country claiming guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that gun laws don't kill people, people with guns who break the law kill people. Well, folks, it's a helluva lot more complicated than that in my opinion. I look at it more like the "shared responsibility" laws for tortfeasors. For example, if you are driving in your car 25 mph over the speed limit, and another car shoots through a red light at an intersection and strikes your vehicle, then that person is to blame, right? Well, a jury might find that person 80% to blame and the speeder 20% to blame.

          In other words, I think there is plenty of blame to go around between George Zimmerman, the Sanford authorities, the Florida state legislature and their then-Governor Jeb Bush, and the gun lobby.

          Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

          by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:34:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No. (11+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman almost got away with murder because the police and state's attorney were ready to let him get away with murder, not because of this law.

        The rest of your comment is sarcastic nonsense that I'm not going to bother responding to.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:50:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just answer this, happy camper ... (6+ / 0-)

          ... If the SYG law was not in place, would George Zimmerman have walked out of the Sanford police station that night?

          If you feel like debating, also answer this one:  Why is it so good that hunters cannot use lead shot against ducks when they can still use lead shot against squirrels, other varmints, other birds and larger mammals?

          Also, have you found any of the studies that I referenced in my post -- the ones not funded by gun manufacturers and the gun lobby fully exploring the ecological and biological effects of steel shot?

          Why shouldn't gun owners be responsible enough to protect their own hearing with ear plugs? It's not that expensive, and you can get 200 plugs at a crack.

          I'm sorry but I don't want gun laws written in my state by Doomsday Preppers. SYG laws, concealed-carry laws, silenced rifles and shotguns, carrying guns into hospitals ... that's going way too f-ing far, if you ask me. I really do think those laws have skipped past the insanity test.

          Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

          by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, he apparently did... (10+ / 0-)
            If the SYG law was not in place, would George Zimmerman have walked out of the Sanford police station that night?
            ...when he allegedly violently resisted arrest in another case, or when he was not arrested/charged with domestic violence.  So, yeah, I gotta say here that he may well have some influence -- rather, a certain judge does.

            As for this:

            Why shouldn't gun owners be responsible enough to protect their own hearing with ear plugs? It's not that expensive, and you can get 200 plugs at a crack.
            How about other people's hearing?  Given the option, I would use a suppressor along with earmuff-type protection.  The suppressor itself doesn't really make the gunshot all that much quieter -- but how about my neighbors?  I have people who live close enough that the sound of my target-shooting may well be annoying -- it certainly is when they do it and I can hear it!  I do not complain, though, as they are acting well within the law -- as I am when I do the same thing.  That's kinda how it works in some places, we let other people do what they want, as long as it's within the law, and they show us the same consideration.

            Or are you expecting everyone who can hear a gunshot should provide their own earplugs?  Silliness -- when there is a better option available.

            ... that's going way too f-ing far, if you ask me. I really do think those laws have skipped past the insanity test.
            As can be seen here, obviously, not everyone agrees with you on this.  Are you really saying that those who disagree "have skipped past the insanity test?"

            I would hope not -- but we have seen others accuse those who disagree with them of mental illness.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:17:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not calling anyone insane, ... (4+ / 0-)

              ... theatre goon. I'm calling the development of the gun-in-your-face laws insane. Actually, they make a huge amount of sense to gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists, both industries owe their livelihoods to the continued expansion of gun use.

              I also agree that we don't know the depths of racial prejudice in the Sanford Police Department to know if he would've walked out of the PD that night with or without a SYG law in place. On the other hand, I think nobody can dispute that SYG laws provide a "reef of protection" for gun users that even illegal gun users will resort to in the future. How can you argue that is not likely the case? As a lawyer, I would be compelled to make that argument by my oath to zealously protect my client!

              As for ear protection, I'm obviously not for harming anyone's hearing. But I am suspicious of gun marketing attempts to make guns more palatable to children. I also think that gun owners should take personal responsibility. If you buy a dog in an apartment complex, you better train him or her not to bark all day while you're gone or you'll be thrown out of the building. If you shoot your gun all day, you better do it away from your neighbor's house and wear ear protection. I see it as another stride made by gun lobbyists and gun manufacturers to get their guns closer to our houses and children.

              In the end, I stand by this because I see a web of instanity involved in these guns-in-your-face laws:

              I'm sorry but I don't want gun laws written in my state by Doomsday Preppers. SYG laws, concealed-carry laws, silenced rifles and shotguns, carrying guns into hospitals ... that's going way too f-ing far, if you ask me. I really do think those laws have skipped past the insanity test.

              Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

              by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:41:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My point is... (6+ / 0-)

                ...that there are those who do support those laws that you characterize as insane -- and who can explain in quite some detail why they do so, such as the sound-suppressor issue.

                That being the case, such laws are apparently not insane, as you would characterize them.  Nor are those who support them.

                You have shown that you don't know that much, for instance, about sound suppressors.  Nothing wrong with that -- anyone can learn something new.

                Isn't it also, therefore, possible that laws you dismiss as insane may well have good arguments for them?

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:44:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And, on that note... (7+ / 0-)

                  ...I am off, to take my lovely wife out to lunch.

                  You have a wonderful day.  And, no, I'm not being snarky with that.

                  :-)

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Do you not agree ... (5+ / 0-)

                  ... that one of the side-effects of sound-suppression technology is to bring guns closer to neighborhoods and children? I don't know jack about sound suppressors, there's no doubt about it, but I'm also reasonable enough to know that sound suppressors are there, in part, to get more "guns-in-your-face laws" passed. Heck, even you (or one of your cohorts) wrote in this thread that with the gun sound suppressor capability he can now go shooting near his neighborhood more often.

                  As for the sanity of "guns-in-your-face laws," I think that you are weighing recent opinion too heavily. For example:

                  In a challenge to a tough gun-control law in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment gives people an individual right to bear arms. To many judicial observers and gun-control advocates, that came as something of a shock, since for more than 200 years, the overwhelming view in the legal world had been that the Second Amendment only protected a state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia."
                  Just because 5 Conservative Justices changed the law -- for now -- doesn't mean that it will be changed forever. I'm an optimist, and I think Americans will come to their senses eventually.

                  Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

                  by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:56:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I do not. (6+ / 0-)
                    Do you not agree ... ... that one of the side-effects of sound-suppression technology is to bring guns closer to neighborhoods and children?
                    Nor do I see any compelling argument that this is a side-effect of sound-suppression, which is primarily a safety and hearing-protection issue.

                    You're got a pretty good point here:

                    I don't know jack about sound suppressors, there's no doubt about it...
                    ...but then you go on to explain what you see as at least part of the purpose of sound-suppressors, even though you fully admit that you don't know anything about them.  Which is it?  Do you not know anything about them, or do you know the real purpose behind using them?

                    It would seem that you are making an assumption based on ignorance here.

                    Now, this:

                    Heck, even you (or one of your cohorts) wrote in this thread that with the gun sound suppressor capability he can now go shooting near his neighborhood more often.
                    ...is simply reading something into my statement that is not there.  What I pointed out is that with a sound-suppressor, the sound of my target-shooting might not bother my neighbors so much -- my nearest neighbor being something over a quarter-mile away.

                    I'll be target-shooting either way, but with the sound-suppressor, they wouldn't have to hear it quite so easily.  It's a noise-pollution thing -- it won't change my behavior either way, but it would keep things a bit quieter.

                    And, to finish off:

                    I'm an optimist, and I think Americans will come to their senses eventually.
                    Me, too.  Supply-side gun control has never been shown to lower violent crime, so I am optimistic that, at some point, people will stop supporting such laws that don't do anything about crime -- but do a very good job at getting Republicans elected.

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:00:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Ear plugs alone are generally not enough. (9+ / 0-)

            Real hearing protection requires plugs and ear muffs.  Using a suppressor will still require at minimum, a set of ear plugs.  Suppressors do not do what you are inmplying, i.e. reduce the sound of shooting to a whisper.  

            But that ignores the issue of noise from shooting ranges, etc.  Good neighbors try to reduce their noise output whenever they can.  And if we took the really stupid restrictions off the sales of firearms suppresors, we could do that for $50-60 per firearm caliber, as opposed to the current $500-1500 per and intensive colon scan and time delays now required.

            If you had to pay 10-30 times real cost, a $200 Federal "tax", get permission from local LEO's and wait 3-6 months every time you wanted to buy a car or motorcycle muffler, you'd probably want to shoot someone.

            Every person I've ever met, who approved of heavy restrictions on firearms suppressors, bitched up a storm when a loud vehicle passed by.  The word we're looking for here is... dichotomy.  

          •  I suspect that Zimmerman (10+ / 0-)

            would have walked. I think the record of this department indicates that it would have been a good possibility. I don't believe his actions were protected by the law anyway.

            The issue with waterfowl and lead shot is simple: the shallow wetlands where ducks are hunted, and the concentrated nature of duck hunting, resulted in a situation where the ducks, as well as other diving birds, were eating spent shot off the bottom of the wetlands. This wasn't just endangering hunters who might eat the duck, or carrion eaters, it was killing ducks outright and interfering with their reproduction.

            I believe steel was substituted at the behest of EPA. To my knowledge there is no controversy over steel shot, because steel is not poisonous to living things the way heavy metals like lead and mercury are. I doubt the gun manufacturers, or anyone else, has studied the matter. If you have information otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.

            Earplugs make it tough to hunt deer, which generally involves sitting and waiting for the animal to appear. If you can't hear them, a lot of deer will walk right past you.

            We've had shall-issue concealed carry in my state for ten years, with no problems. It's not even an issue.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:07:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  happy camper: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper

              Two questions if you don't mind.  Question one:  Isn't the lead going to contaminate the "animal" meat as well?  Why not switch all ammo to something that won't contaminate the meat itself or other animals that it may hurt through whatever reasons?  Question two:  My first thought about the "silencers" was at least without them others nearby would know that someone was hunting.  I know that there are "seasons" and people should be aware of the dates, but not all of us are.  That was my only problem with them.  If someone can clear this up I'm open to listening.  Yeah I'm not a fan of hunting BUT I do know many are including friends of mine so I butt out.

              •  Regarding "silencers." (10+ / 0-)

                Really, the word is a misnomer.

                Sound-suppressors don't make gunfire silent -- it just lowers the volume from somewhere around 150 decibels to around 90 -- only just below the pain/damage threshold.

                People will still be quite aware that you are out there if you happen to shoot.  It's not like in the movies where you just get this little "pffft" sound.

                Not to worry -- it's a very common misconception.  The only way you're going to get something really quiet is with serious military hardware and sub-sonic ammuntion -- neither of which are used for hunting.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 01:34:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It can. (10+ / 0-)

                Lead contamination can occur in game animals, according to several studies. People who eat large amounts of game harvested with lead bullets tend to show higher lead levels in their blood, though the difference is small, and not at hazardous levels set by EPA.

                Pregnant women are advised against consuming such game.

                http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/...

                Opposition to other materials exists due to mainly the superiority of lead as a projectile--it is heavy, thus transferring more energy to the target, and has superior ballistic properties. This may lessen as people become convinced of the hazards of lead bullets.

                A silencer, or more properly a "suppressor", does not eliminate the sound of a gunshot. A gunshot measures anywhere from 120 to 160dB--a jet engine is about 120dB--and a suppressor reduces it by about 40dB, getting it down to the level of a gas lawnmower or a passing motorcycle. Those super-quiet assassin pistols you see in movies only exist in movies.

                People nearby will still hear the gun clearly, even with a sound suppressor. I would love it if my neighbor, an avid shooter, had access to a suppressor. My dogs are scared of loud sounds, and go nuts whenever he shoots. The guy is half a mile away, and a suppressor would make the sound quite tolerable.

                "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 01:35:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'll go further than that. (0+ / 0-)
            If the SYG law was not in place, would George Zimmerman have walked out of the Sanford police station that night?
            I'll claim that without STAND YOUR GROUND, Zimmerman may very well not felt such a bold sense of privilage and entitlement, and the issue of walking out of the police station might never have come up, because there might very well have been no murder in the first place.

            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

            by ehrenfeucht games on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:33:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's Actually the Presence of a Law Not a Shortage (16+ / 0-)

    as he says:

    and telling them it's OK to shoot whenever
    Stand your ground. Because with violent crime dropping for years in a row, it could get too late for you to bag your catch.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:43:17 AM PDT

  •  Saw it, laughed at it, discounted it. (25+ / 0-)

    Even when Bill Maher is wrong, I watch him.

    He's wrong.
    Gun laws didn't murder Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman did.
    A gun wasn't the cause of death. Racism was.

    You could restrict gun sales to exceed the wildest fantasies of Sarah Brady, and turn America into a police state trying to track down maybe 80-90% of the existing guns (we're halfway there, right?), and it wouldn't save enough lives to count on one hand.

    Why not? Because the doomed attempts to pass such laws would turn all three branches of our guv'mint over to the worst Republifascists imaginable, until the end of time.

    George Zimmerman is a murderer, and belongs in prison. The police that didn't do their jobs belong on the unemployment line, or the express checkout line at WalMart.

    That is all.

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:47:21 AM PDT

    •  And all the other people (9+ / 0-)

      killed by the FL stand your ground law where killed not by disgustingly lax gun laws?

      •  How many? Who? (12+ / 0-)

        Name them. Count them. Show your work.

        "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

        by Tom Seaview on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:07:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  THere are a million articles (5+ / 0-)

          Now published about these. The number has multiplied by three at least since the passing of this law. You do your work, its called google.On your fingers reach dude. Hell you can even do a search inside Dailykos, yeah this site, there are plenty of links and names.

          •  Umm, you made (13+ / 0-)

            the assertion, it is incumbent on you to back it up.

            You know how this works...

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No denialism (15+ / 0-)

              does not need to be proved wrong, but I'll give you guys some links because it seems your searching skills are rusty. THat's the problem of feeding the game.

              Under the National Rifle Association-backed Florida law passed in 2005, Florida, unlike most other states, grants immunity from prosecution or arrest to suspects who successfully invoke the "stand your ground" claim. And if a suspect is arrested and charged, a judge can throw out the case well before trial based on a self-defense claim.

              That happened Wednesday in an unrelated case. A Miami judge dismissed a second-degree murder case, citing the Stand Your Ground law and ruling that 25-year-old Greyston Garcia's testimony about self-defense was credible. The Miami Herald reported that Garcia was charged after chasing down and stabbing to death a 26-year-old suspected burglar in January.

              source
              The paper reviewed press accounts of 93 cases involving 65 deaths in confrontations in which the new law could be applied and found that 57 of them resulted in no criminal charge or trial. In seven others that went to trial, the defendants were then acquitted.

              In these cases, the Florida Supreme Court recognizes something called “true immunity.” That means, according to Emily Bazelon in Slate, that the assertion of the Stand Your Ground law can be enough for a judge to dismiss a case before trial even starts.

              Source
              Since the law was enacted in 2005, the number of justifiable homicides in Florida has skyrocketed, said state Sen. Oscar Braynon, a Democrat who represents the area in Miami where Trayvon lived with his mother. In 2005, there were 43 such cases; in 2009, the last complete year available, there were 105, he said.
              Source
              •  Personally, I think Stand Your Ground (11+ / 0-)

                is overly broad.  Even those States with a "duty to retreat" statute usually cite:  "without increased danger to yourself".

                How that "increased danger" is perceived by the Prosecutor, or in a civil action brought against you?

                I've seen claimed that a leap from a second floor window, through the glass, and onto shrubs or the lawn - is not like leaping onto a concrete walkway or alley - and should have been undertaken instead of assaulting the person who broke into your home.

                Hollywood stunts by trained personnel who often leap into airbags - and not onto cars, lawns, or passing trains as shown - is ingrained as "totally possible".  There's no "CUT!" and Scene Two in real life.

                That sort of unrealistic expectation in the Courtroom results in a legislative over-reaction, which becomes "Stand Your Ground".

                Both may be ill-advised.

                A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                by 43north on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:47:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Claimed by whom? (0+ / 0-)
                  I've seen claimed that a leap from a second floor window, through the glass, and onto shrubs or the lawn - is not like leaping onto a concrete walkway or alley - and should have been undertaken instead of assaulting the person who broke into your home.
                  I know of no jurisdiction which would take the duty to retreat to such an extreme, especially in one's own residence.

                  I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                  by Wayward Wind on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:03:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  civil court - not jurisdiction (6+ / 0-)

                    wrongful injury lawsuit, where Article 35 of the NYS Penal Code was cited as "duty to retreat" without modifiers.

                    Nice thing about civil court (ask OJ) you don't have to play fair, you only have to lay it out there, lay it on thick... and let the jury take their preconceptions and prejudices and apply them at-will.

                    The litigant's attorney was a big name fellow, and shot-down every witness who cited all of Article 35 (Defenses of Justification for those of you who are unaware), as unqualified or answering beyond the scope of questioning.
                    He endeavored to have the Defendant placed on the stand to cite Article 35, and show how the Defendant's knowledge was premeditation to commit a felony assault upon his client.

                    A client who admittedly forced entry to the premises and threatened the occupants - however, he was "not in his right mind" unlike his usual calm demeanor - as evinced in Court today.
                    Therefore the duty to retreat is absolute, and any reason not to do so is the equivalent to vigilante justice.

                    The insurance company lawyers folded, offered $100,000 plus court costs on a 10 million dollar lawsuit waged by a 23 year old with both a mean streak and a crack habit.
                    Settlement was reached for the $200,000 per incident maximum of the insurance policy, as it was evident there would be no further funds available from the victim of the home invasion.

                    Who, didn't shoot the home invader, as his gun had no bullets.  (pistol permit restricted to premises, and target shooting only)
                    He hit the invader with a golf club, causing permanent damage to his eye and skull.  
                    The litigant claiming that the knife recovered by us (EMS) and the Police was planted there by the homeowner, an object of opportunity, planted there by the Police, or dropped by EMS.   As he was mostly unconscious, he couldn't know for sure... but it certainly wasn't his.

                    Unlike that handgun, and gun permit - which shows premeditation... and a determination to kill and maim.

                    A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                    by 43north on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:54:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There are numerous facts (0+ / 0-)

                      missing from your description, as Article 35 would provide an absolute defense if the defendant in the civil suit was in his own dwelling, faced with the real possibility of the imminent use of deadly physical force, and used that level of force necessary to terminate the threat.

                      That being said, it wouldn't be the first time that an insurance company folded a solid case in order to avoid the potential of a verdict in excess of policy limits and then being sued by the insured for failing to settle.

                      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                      by Wayward Wind on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:14:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I am absolutely not a denialist!! (8+ / 0-)

                Happy just to be alive

                by exlrrp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:16:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  What does this mean? (10+ / 0-)
                No denialism does not need to be proved wrong
                Just because you say something, those statements get to stand on their own, and others are required to accept them or be guilty of "denialism"?

                Please...

                When you assert something like this:

                And all the other people killed by the FL stand your ground law where killed not by disgustingly lax gun laws?
                it's on you to back it up. This is not Facebook or a Yahoo! board.

                "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:31:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  what does implicate the law is (3+ / 0-)
                found that 57 of them resulted in no criminal charge or trial. In seven others that went to trial, the defendants were then acquitted
                 
                It's sp broad it covers everything.

                the future begins

                by zozie on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:54:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Everything? (10+ / 0-)

                  No, it covers legitimate self defense.

                  The paper reviewed press accounts of 93 cases involving 65 deaths in confrontations in which the new law could be applied and found that 57 of them resulted in no criminal charge or trial. In seven others that went to trial, the defendants were then acquitted.
                  That's why Zimmerman is likely screwed. He was not legitimately defending himself, from what I can gather. The problem here seems to be incompetent and/or corrupt police and state attorneys.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:27:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Now show how many were not justifiable.... (7+ / 0-)

                or legitimate defensive incidents.

                Just because the numbers went up does not prove any particular point.  It could well mean that incidents that were legit defense were not previously properly protected under the previous legal limitations.

                As previously stated: Show.  Your.  Work.

          •  You have nothing. (7+ / 0-)

            Why am I not surprised?

            "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

            by Tom Seaview on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:21:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Allow me (13+ / 0-)

              http://online.wsj.com/...

              Mind you, this article adopts the most lenient gun rights position possible, and yet:

              In absolute terms, the number of homicides of all kinds reported in the data increased slightly between 2000 and 2010. But when adjusted for population growth, the overall homicide rate declined slightly in that data.

              By contrast, over that period, the number of killings categorized as justifiable rose by 85% to 326 cases in 2010 from 176 in 2000, the figures show.
              >>>>>>
              Overall, the figures show the sharpest increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.
              >>>>>>
              In Texas and Georgia, such cases nearly doubled and in Florida, they nearly tripled. Meanwhile, in states that saw no change in their self-defense laws, justifiable homicides reported to the FBI stayed nearly flat after a slight uptick in the middle decade.

              Florida's particularly strong law not only eliminates the duty to retreat, but also presumes that a person who used deadly force in his home or vehicle had a reasonable fear of harm, and it immunizes the killer from civil lawsuits. At least six other states have laws mirroring Florida's.

              Justifiable homicides in Florida rose from an average of 12 a year before the law was passed in 2005 to an average 33 a year afterward, according to statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

              Happy to help.
    •  A gun WAS INDEED the cause of death (31+ / 0-)
      Gun laws didn't murder Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman did.
      A gun wasn't the cause of death. Racism was.
      A gun was indeed the cause of death.  When the coroner writes out the death certificate, the cause of death will indeed state that a gunshot was the cause of death.  Racism will not be listed on the death certificate as either a primary, secondary, or even tertiary cause of death.

      You are correct that George Zimmerman did the killing.  You are correct that George Zimmerman is a racist.  But the instrument George Zimmerman used in his racially motivated killing was a gun.  I am guessing he chose a gun because of its lethality, portability, and ease of use.

      It is true that people kill people.  It is equally true that of all the methods available for people to kill people, they overwhelmingly chose to use guns (according to the FBI, guns are used in over 67% of murders that occur in the USA), not knives, not hammers,  not hair dryers, bicycles, push pins, or ice cream cones

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:02:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very well written, ... (4+ / 0-)

        ... Hugh Jim Bissell!

        Republicans, like Zombies, just want to get a head.

        by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Americans like guns (8+ / 0-)

        Thats just it. Theyre part of our national character, our mythology. The right to them is enshrined in our constitution. Youre not going to get anyplace far denouncing lenient gun laws in America, we Americans like our guns.
        What you need to do  is turn our whole national character (war mongering reprobates!) around and Youre on the right track! Write indignant posts, comments and diaries here, but don't stop there---write your Congressman, Senator, circulate petitions,hold rallies and bake sales.
        Surely you can turn the whole national character around and rewrite the constitution on this issue.
        I shall watch your future career in this matter with great interest

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:12:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Money motivates, not national character (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greengemini, ehrenfeucht games

          I reject the suggestion that national character is the reason why Americans kill each other with guns at rates that far exceed those in any other country on the planet.

          My thesis is that corporate profits, and a system of government by and for corporate profits is what results in our naional slaughter.  Gun enthusiasts applaud this reasoning when it is applied to banking and home foreclosures, but their reasoning abandons them when the same arguement is applied to firearms.

          It is true that guns have been part of America since the beginning.  So was slavery.  We got rid of slavery when our disgust with slavery outgrew the ability of the corporatocracy to support slavery.  The corporatocracy was willing to go to great lengths (succession and civil war) to maintain their profit-taking.

          You have every right to support the corporatocracy.  I will even support your right to do so.  Just as I have every right to say you are wrong to do so, and that the corporatocracy, gun industry profits, and the routine gun-aided slaugther of Americans is bad for us individually and for our nation.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:51:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, isn't that interesting (7+ / 0-)
            My thesis is that corporate profits, and a system of government by and for corporate profits is what results in our naional slaughter.
            .....Helped along by the American's propensity for guns. You may be right, but if guns weren't in our national character, they wouldn't sell but very few of them here.
            Its a violent country and we like our guns---surely the anti gun crowd can't argue with that. The gun companies provide for what the majority of Americans see as a need, right or wrong
            You have every right to support the corporatocracy.
            and so do you when you fill up your tank or buy things like toilet paper. Don't accuse me of doing what you do ewvery time you go into a store.
            Please don't act alll "I' don't support corpratocracy" around me unless you live in a yurt and cook dinners over a campfire because I know better

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:22:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  people 'like' (3+ / 0-)

          a lot of violent nasty shit. Why should the fact that people like guns prohibit the regulation of gun's. Why should the rest of us be threatened with armed people who can kill legally because they feel threatened?  Do people like guns because they like being able to kill other humans? Is protecting your stuff, or feeling threatened, more important then another's life?  

          Stand your ground is literally license to kill if you feel threatened. Laws that regulate guns do not take away your 2nd amendment rights, they protect society from those who think they have the right to settle their  disputes by killing or force or at the least intimidation.

          When gun packers rights, fear and aggression trumps civilized society and lethal force becomes the recognized authority. imho violence breeds violence. The 2nd amendment rights being elevated to the point where it infringes and voids the other rights stated in the Bill of Rights makes a mockery of all of our rights including the right to bear arms. Fine, use your 2nd amendment right but by their very nature guns and armed people do need to be regulated. Access to guns needs to highly regulated. Armed people on the street are a threat to everyone else as they have the ability to kill anyone they feel threatened by.

          Why should the rest of us have to be intimidated because American's like guns and violence? Regulation is not taking away anyones right it is ensuring society's right to live without fear and intimidation and without having our children or loved ones killed. Why do gun nuts not accept regulation as a good thing. Maybe if they did it would help them not to feel that they needed protection in a violet armed to the teeth society. Not a place or society that respects other's rights and a perversion of self defense or the right to bear arms.    

                   

          •  Like I said above: hold bake sales and rallies (6+ / 0-)

            Get that awful old law changed!! I just know you can do it if you work hard! I said the future career/great interest thing above.
            Won't work in Oregon where I live and virtually everybody owns guns, D and R alike. Its a Castle state and a SYG state too and I feel  OK about it and I hardly ever---not even yearly---carry a gun outside private property. All those laws did was make legal action that was going to happen. I think its nice to be in a society that trusts its citizens enough to allow them their rights, one of the reasons I moved here.There's no pushback at all about it here. They allow carry in universities and there's been no incidents. They even allow card carrying medical marijuana patients to get CCW, thats the kind of people we are.
            I think most people here think like I do: If everybody else has one, I want one too!. Or several.
            And we have the ,lowest  gun homicide rates, lower than most states with a lot more draconian laws. We're always in the bottom 10% of that number
            Its always been a polite place. I can't imagine why.

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:17:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I live in OR (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ehrenfeucht games

              in SE Portland close to the river and I know no one who has a gun other then hunting rifles.   My kids live in the burbs and they they don't have guns, one of them is a conservative. Like I said you have the right to bear arms, gun regulation laws do take away those rights.

              Of course having rights is essential I made that clear. Regulating weapons is not taking away your rights. I really doubt that the fact in OR  we all have guns which is why were polite. Maybe we are polite because we value our civil society and quality of life. Trust in each other and value community.

               Regulation of guns do not take away your right to bear arms. Why do students in University need to carry a gun? do you live in Cave Junction or there about? When I was a kid here in OR I was always intimidated by pick ups with gun racks and rifles that would come to the city. I don't see that much anymore and it's reassuring to see this state is evolving beyond the scary cultural divides we had and into a civil and peaceful place.

              Fine keep your guns but do not place your right to carry above societies right to regulate guns. all rights have controls it makes us 'polite' and civilized. You may not be a danger with your guns but believe me there are a lot of gun packers that are. Zimmerman being one. I find it interesting that you equate politeness with intimidation and fear and carrying a lethal threat. That's not polite that's freaking rude.

               Personally it worries me that gun nuts are usually aggressive and belligerent about their right to kill. Even here on a progressive blog. People who do not share your love of guns and violence passed off as protection or the only right you seem interested in   give your dkos gun club, wide berth just like IP it's a freaking swamp of anger and violence passed off as defense or worse sport.                  

    •  I used to say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zaphkiel

      that the rest of the world thinks you're nuts in response to this subject.  Now, they know you're nuts.

  •  Lack of gun laws did not lead to Trayvon's murder. (22+ / 0-)

    Maher is full of shit. Misapplication of a flawed Stand Your Ground law (which is not a gun law, it's a use of force law)  by corrupt and racist police mishandling a case involving the son of a well-connected individual led to the situation we now see.
    Trust Maher to blame the sin object rather than the sinners, and trust a lot of others to kneejerk rally around him because someone said the evil G-word.
    Blaming gun laws for this is no better than blaming Trayvon himself because he was suspended for carrying a baggie that once contained marijuana.  

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:50:14 AM PDT

  •  40 years ago on All In The Family, (33+ / 0-)

    Archie Bunker's answer to airline hijacking was to arm all the passengers. The studio audience howled with laughter at Archie's stupid, simplistic and deadly solution.
           Fast forward to America 2012. Now, the answer to the crime problem is to arm all of the citizens? Gawd.

    The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

    by Hillbilly Dem on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:52:33 AM PDT

  •  Why not, indeed? (15+ / 0-)
    Why not guns in the delivery room?
    If we have a child here in Delaware, I probably will have my gun in the delivery room. Not because I'd expect to need my gun there, but just because I'm usually armed when we leave the house... and the safest place to keep a firearm is in its holster, not in a 'locked' car in the parking lot.
    My wife (also armed, albeit probably not during childbirth) would expect nothing less if I'm driving her to the hospital.

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:55:18 AM PDT

  •  Take the number of guns with a grain of salt. (11+ / 0-)

    If you hunt, you are likely to have at least 2 guns: a rifle and shotgun.  

    Republicans: if they only had a heart.

    by leu2500 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:57:54 AM PDT

  •  yes! (14+ / 0-)

    people here have been routinely vilified for claiming that the availability of weapons, the balkanization of towns into gated "communities", and the devolution of law enforcement authority through neighborhood watch and stand your ground laws contributed to this tragedy.  But there are real public policy issues here and I commend the Florida House Democrats demand for a review of public policy in light of recent events.

    Justice for Trayvon doesn't just mean throwing Zimmerman in prison for murder.  It means ensuring that it won't happen again.

  •  Zimmerman is (18+ / 0-)

    the kind of guy who would probably carry anyway, even if he were denied a permit.

    He was, as far as I can tell, the only member of the neighborhood watch. The neighbors considered him a pest. 911 dispatchers probably did too, judging from all the trivial calls he made to them. He was a cop wannabe with anger issues who was once arrested for assaulting a cop. He ignored advice from dispatchers on the night of the incident, and confronted Trayvon anyway.

    The very first rule of being in a neighborhood watch is NO WEAPONS. The second is NO CONFRONTATIONS.

    Does anyone really think the law could have prevented Zimmerman from carrying a weapon or using it?

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:07:22 AM PDT

  •  Trayvon Martin was killed (14+ / 0-)

    because an idiot made an idiotic choice not because of gun laws.  

    Thanks for using his death to make your political point.

    Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

    by mim5677 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:16:04 AM PDT

  •  Dems have to stay away from 2nd ammendment... (11+ / 0-)

    Call them cowards if you want , but if Dems went after more gun control laws, it give the right something to really rally around, an issue to go to the polls.
    A reason for people who would rather wait till 2016 then vote for a rich moderate Mormon, to get out and vote.
    A political reality.
    Watch what will happen in Nov. How the left is going to rally around the anti-reproductive crusade the right has been ignorantly been pushing as hard as it can.
    Politically dangerous.
    Civilly dangerous too. It will be a call to arms for the whackjob militia types who have been waiting for Obama to come take their guns.
    They would be on high alert. They have been waiting for this.
    Sweeping gun control laws from the Fed level will be a dangerously incendiary event that could likely lead to domestic terrorism.

    Go to the Southern Poverty Law Centers Intelligence files.
    Most are big-mouthed cowards, but there are seriously dangerous motherfuckers out there.

    'Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.' ---George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), Easy Rider.

    by SDG63 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:29:35 AM PDT

    •  Lenient gun laws (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, emelyn, randomfacts, greengemini

      are resulting in more murders. How can you argue with a straight face that revisiting gun control will somehow unleash a worse boogie-man. Ruby Ridge and Waco happened independent of political pressures associated with gun regulation.

      •  No. (15+ / 0-)

        The murder rate has dropped even as gun laws have been relaxed. More guns does not equal more crime.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:06:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I love that one... (11+ / 0-)

          "Lenient gun laws cause more murders!"

          The facts are quite the opposite -- the gun laws have become, generally, more liberal, and murder (violent crime in general, in fact) has gone down over the same period of time.

          But, we're still supposed to accept the claim that lenient gun laws lead to more murders.  I guess we're not supposed to let little things like facts get in the way of claims any more.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Crime in general has gone down (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Marjmar, randomfacts, ladyjames

            recently and there are no credible statistical studies that show deregulation of gun laws are responsible.  If lax gun laws made people safer states like florida wouldn't be in the top ten for most violent crime according to the FBI.  Conversely there are no credible studies that show more regulation results in fewer gun crimes.  There is one exception to this though.  The number of people going to jail for illegally threatening someone with their permit or people with permits shooting someone has gone up with deregulation.

            •  But I am not making the claim... (12+ / 0-)

              ...that deregulation of gun laws is responsible for the decrease in the crime rate -- I am only stating that it shows that claims that "lax gun laws leads to more murder" is false.

              People say that liberalized gun laws will lead to an increase in violence -- and this has not been the case.  In fact, the opposite has occurred.  I make no claims for what is causing the decrease, only pointing out that the claims of increase are simply inaccurate.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:09:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Can you provide a link to a study (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                randomfacts

                that shows a statistically significant link to the drop in violent crime to deregulation?  As far as I know there has never been a study that could provide a correlation outside of statistical noise.  Same goes for increased regulation, no statistically significant link.

                Though might I point out that if you look at the FBI's stats on violent crime the most violent states are almost all states with ptc and the death penalty.  Both of those are supposed to deter crime, some people claim just the death penalty reduces violent crime in half.  If that were true would a state like flordia be a war zone without ptc and the death penalty?

                •  I'm not asserting any such link. (10+ / 0-)

                  That being the case, why would I provide proof of it...?

                  Read again -- I do not claim that the tendency towards more liberalized gun laws has caused the decrease in crime.

                  My only assertion here is that claims that more liberalized gun laws will increase crime has been shown to be false by the decrease in violent crime over the same time period that we have enacted more liberalized gun laws.

                  I assert no causation nor correlation at any point -- I only point out the falseness of the counter-claim.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  There are no recent studies (0+ / 0-)

                  because the N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research. They don't want you to know.

                  In any case I don't see how opposing 'Stand Your Ground' laws means support for more restrictive gun laws. 'Stand Your Ground' isn't about your right to own or bear arms... it's about your right to use deadly force. It's about to use your right to use deadly force when you have the option of retreating safely and not using deadly force. It's about your right not to lose your life just because some punk on the street thought you were a threat. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. There's no reason for the NRA to support these laws except to make it harder for prosecutors to go after unnecessary and unjustifiable homicides.

                  "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

                  by randomfacts on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Note that I (12+ / 0-)

              did not say lenient gun laws are responsible for the decrease in crime. I said more lenient laws have not resulted in an increase in crime, which is what the anti-gun folks keep insisting will happen.

              The number of people going to jail for illegally threatening someone with their permit or people with permits shooting someone has gone up with deregulation.
              That's to be expected, because the number of people with permits has increased. Yet permit holders have very low rates of violent crime, lower than the general population.

              Vermont has very lax laws, even more lax than Florida, requiring no permit to carry a weapon either concealed or openly, yet they are on the bottom of the list for violent crime.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:13:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  i would say lenient self-defense laws.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cachola

        are resulting in more murders...look at the dramatic increase in ''justified homicides'' because of 'stand you ground laws'..wild west laws, 'he drew first sheriff', 'he did?, well then ok, your free to go'...
        Not just defending your castle anymore, it's out in the streets, insane.
        These laws need to go. Local law enforcement need to be more vigilant, this stupid fuckin sheriff in Fla. didn't have a red flag go up in his head knowing he had an armed neighborhood watch guy who that very least was increasingly overzealous.
        How many times did he call 911?

        Yeah brother I'm saying it with a straight face. Sweeping Fed gun control measure will unleash a boogyman.

        How do you enforce new gun control laws? You have to go confiscate the weapons. ATF has to come on your property and confront you. Waco?.....
        Only these post Waco/Ruby Ridge groups might not wait for the Govt. to come on their property , very possible they will strike first.

        'Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.' ---George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), Easy Rider.

        by SDG63 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:26:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, you're assuming... (8+ / 0-)

          ...that all of those justified homicides should not have been justified?

          On what do you base that assumption?  Simply the increase in number?  

          That does not necessarily follow.  The law allows for self-defense in more locations than were formerly allowed.  That alone could well account for an increase in honestly justified self-defense shootings.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  im just assuming.. (0+ / 0-)

            that all of those increased homicides were increased homicides, all justified?...your right i don't know.
            The fact the numbers have increased at all is something to be looked at.
            If your assuming more gun laws would have prevented them?..maybe your right I'll concede that.
            My point from the beginning is an attack on the 2nd amendment could result in innocent civilians killed.
            I don't think it's paranoia.
            I think it's a very real possibility.

            'Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.' ---George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), Easy Rider.

            by SDG63 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:47:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I think we largely agree on this... (5+ / 0-)

              ...but was asking for clarification on your view of the increase in justified homicides -- it's been a pretty common claim here lately, used to insist that the SYG law is completely flawed.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:51:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  clarification.... (0+ / 0-)

                I saw a graph on Chris Hayes showing increase in justified homicides in states with SYG laws.That's good enough for me, anyone smarter or have more integrity then him on TV?
                You can probably find it.
                I think SYG is flawed. It's insane yeah.
                And ,it's unnecessary. Really, when you think about it.If you are a lawful, licensed to carry gun owner and are involved in a self defense situation where you have to use that weapon, the odds are very much in your favor the DA will not prosecute you.
                Not necessary. Makes some people look for it. Pursue the threat.

                'Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.' ---George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), Easy Rider.

                by SDG63 on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:11:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Showing an increase.... (6+ / 0-)

                  is not at all the same as demonstrating a reason for the increase.

                  And thus merely showing an increase does not, in itself, prove anything about the acts or the laws.

                  •  wasnt on me... (0+ / 0-)

                    to demonstrate a reason for the increase, i got derailed into that dialogue, my original point was sweeping federal gun control laws  would incite domestic terrorism..... I stand by my opinion of SYG laws tho, they make people look for trouble, pursue the threat.....more offensive then defensive

                    'Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.' ---George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), Easy Rider.

                    by SDG63 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 02:40:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  You should have read the stand your ground (0+ / 0-)

          law that Minnesota republicans and alec tried to pass this year.  It's similar to the florida law except that instead of being in fear of great bodily harm or resisting a forcible felony you just had to be in fear of bodily harm.  You could literally shot someone for accidentally bumping into you on a street.  And the best part is the police were barred from detaining you afterward while they conducted an investigation.  Not that they would need to investigate as the bar for using lethal force was so low that almost anything qualified as an excuse.

      •  yeah, no (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, wishbone, oldpunk

        There is no link between gun laws and violent crime rates.  They're down everywhere, nearly back to the levels they should have been at all along.  The rise in crime from the 60s-90s still hasn't been explained, but that is the actual mystery.  Not why rates are down, but how they ever went up in the first place.

        You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

        by nominalize on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:50:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  DHS just placed a 450 million round order (7+ / 0-)

      for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition, effectively consuming all domestic production from that manufacturer for the next five years.  That means the other manufacturers will be hard-pressed to fill State and Municipal police orders.

      With between 180,000 and 230,000 employees

      450 million divided by 230,000 (and we know the DHS geeks aren't packing heat) would be 1956 bullets per employee.
      391 per year.

      Eliminate the half who are administrative-only, and double your count.  That's nearly 800 rounds per agent, per year.

      Now these are hollow point rounds, not military style "ball" or full metal jacket rounds commonly used for training.
      Either we've money to spare, or DHS is planning for the Zombie Apocalypse.

      In civilian hands, you'd run around in circles crying ARSENAL ARSENAL HE'S A FUCKING GUN NUT AND THREAT TO OUR SAFETY.

      A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

      by 43north on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:27:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Standardization of service weapons. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, labwitchy

        For example, USCG has moved to the SIG P226 in .40 cal as the standard sidearm.  Add in ICE, CBP, USSS, and the training center down at FLETC and you can see the picture.

        The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines still use 9mm ball ammo.

        "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.." - John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. We are the 99%.

        by IndieGuy on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:41:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, KVoimakas, labwitchy

          Only the DoD has to go with NATO standardization agreements, and they don't have to follow them with some units. SEALs use the Coast Guard service pistol, the 1st SFOD-DELTA uses 1911's, Marine Recon uses 1911's.

        •  Qualification would require what? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, hagagaga, labwitchy

          30 rounds minimum, 120 rounds maximum.

          Practice would use 170 or 180 grain ball ammo, unless Uncle Sam is really adamant about "money is no object", as those hollow points are twice the cost as ball (FMJ) ammo.

          SIG P226 use 12 round magazines x 3 is 36 and one more up the pipe for 37.  Spare box of ammo for the Zombie hoards and we're at 87, call it 100.

          I still come up with 220 rounds per year maximum per agent.
          My experience with the small badge/large ID folks is there's Agents, Special Agents, and all those others who do accounting, forensics, and internet geek work - sans sidearm.

          So there's no way in hell all 230,000 DHS employees are packin' heat.

          My Rat-o-Meter smells one... and the uniformly poor regard for the First Amendment Rights of the OWS protesters does little to ease the meter back into the null range.

          A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

          by 43north on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:03:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well for the record I'm not defending DHS. :-> (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hagagaga

            But range days are more than just qualifying, they're also practice.  If given the chance the average guy/gal is gonna shoot as many bullets as they can get.

            And FLETC is a training center.  They put a shit-load of people through there, and do a lot of shooting.  Not to say that doesn't still leave a bunch of extra bullets sitting around, but still....

            "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.." - John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. We are the 99%.

            by IndieGuy on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:53:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Federal HST does not function (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              labwitchy

              in a manner differing from Federal "ball" ammo for target practice, etc....

              I've attended Quantico, though decades ago.
              While we fired HK MP-5 submachine guns, and those guns would be issued with hollowpoint ammunition for use in the field, training was done with less expensive "ball" ammo.

              You'd qualify with hollowpoint for court defensibility, but again, we're talking maybe 200 rounds - compared to the 800 fired in training.

              Rat-o-Meter remains in the red zone.

              A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

              by 43north on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 09:38:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Zimmerman only needed one gun, one bullet (11+ / 0-)

    You admit that Zimmerman, not yet being a convicted felon, did have a Constitutional right to own a gun and to own bullets.

    So unless your plan is to violate the Constitution, please explain exactly which gun law would have prevented Zimmerman from killing Trayvon?  Murder is already illegal and he didn't care much about that law.

    Why is it that gun laws are supposedly so much more effective than murder laws?  Zimmerman shot a man in cold blood.  That's the problem, not that he didn't knife Trayvon.

    Would that be better, if Trayvon was still dead, but from a knife wound?  Would that be more civilized?

    •  Well, in Zimmerman's case... (9+ / 0-)

      ...there is the possibility that, had he been charged, prosecuted, and convicted of any one of several alleged crimes (resisting arrest and assault, domestic abuse), he would not have been able to got a CCL, if not be legally prohibited from owning any firearm.

      It would, then, be a case of enforcing the laws we already have, rather than needing to create new ones.

      Even at that, though, you could well be correct that he would have ignored such laws, just as he did the legal requirements for using force in self-defense.

      In fact, I think it's quite likely that he would have, considering his past legal problems.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:21:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd like to thank Bill Maher (10+ / 0-)

    for helping to elect Republicans in 2012.

    Everyone is well aware of Maher's $1,000,000 donation to Obama's PAC. Now the NRA will easily be able to make the claim that Maher + Obama = "They're coming for your guns!"

    Here's some fun facts. Did you know there are no laws in America prohibiting owning a car? Anyone, even a three time convicted felon can buy one. There are 250 million cars (less than the 280 million guns). In 2007 (the last year I can find CDC data) those cars (people don't kill people, cars kill people) killed 42,031 people. In 2007 suicides and murders by firearms combined were 29,984 with 17,352 of those being suicides and 12,632 murders.

    In 2007 you were much more likely to be killed by a car owner than a gun owner. Yes, it would be great to lower the numbers of both of those types of deaths. But reducing both of these death rates starts with the people that cause them, not the instrument that they used.

    And yes, to prevent the obvious "But you need a license to drive!" I support gun registration, even the NRA supports some gun laws like NICS background checks. But neither of those would change the number of guns in this country.

    "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

    From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

    by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:19:38 AM PDT

    •  Guns are not motor vehicles (6+ / 0-)

      Primary purpose of automobiles - transport
      Primary purpose of handguns - kill people

      Primary reason for automobile-related deaths - driver error
      Primary reason for handgun-related deaths - intent to harm

      Regulation and enforcement are necessary for both instrumentalities, but the problems to be addressed by the regulations are NOT parallel.

      •  No, the primary purpose of a handgun (10+ / 0-)

        is self-defense. Very few guns are bought with an intent to kill. Even gun owners would rather not kill (surprise! they're not all gun-toting psychopaths). And the primary reason for car deaths is drunk driving, which is willful and premeditated murder, we just don't treat it that way. If we did we might actually do something about the problem.

        "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

        From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

        by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:11:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  yeah, I'm gonna have to give you a "lame" (3+ / 0-)

      for the car thing.   That fallacy was old when I was a kid.

      You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

      by nominalize on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:51:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Umm, why? (8+ / 0-)

        Dead is dead. You think the parents of a teenager killed by a drunk are somehow relieved that, "Well, at least he wasn't killed by a gun"? What the hell kind of logic is that?

        "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

        From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

        by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:08:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well if you drive drunk, you're arrested and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldmilitant

          have your driving privileges suspended.  If you shoot drunk... well that is just a good Friday night for some people.  

        •  Yes, let's think about the children (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          labwitchy

          The car = gun false equivalence is simple intellectual laziness.  

          Cars are only dangerous because of how often we're in them--- their danger emerges from mistakes and misuses out of countless millions of ordinary trips.  Or put another way, if we used our cars as rarely as we used guns, there'd be nearly no accidents on the road.  

          Guns are dangerous inherently, because they are designed to be, and no amount of happy thoughts will change that.  That's why people buy guns when they're scared of boogeymen or want to kill animals for sport; they don't buy cars.  

          Or, put another way:  A car owner hesitates to hand their car over to someone who's never driven before because they're worried about the car getting hurt.  A gun owner hesitates to hand their gun to someone who's never held a gun before because they're worried about people getting hurt.  

          Cars are not guns. Next.

          You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

          by nominalize on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:51:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And cars are not fish. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, rockhound, oldpunk, labwitchy

            And guns aren't drills. Do we need some more obvious statements of fact? Sorry, just because they are different things doesn't mean they aren't both lethal when misused. The point is there are hundreds of millions of guns, millions are used daily and they don't kill people. Should we have better training and licensing for guns? Sure, that would help. But if you want to prevent gun crime work at preventing the root cause -- crime. Just like curing drunk driving you work on the drunk, not the car.

            "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

            From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

            by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 02:03:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There you go again... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ehrenfeucht games
              Do we need some more obvious statements of fact?
              Apparently, we do.
              Sorry, just because they are different things doesn't mean they aren't both lethal when misused.

              (Speaking of obvious).  You do realize that guns are lethal when they are used properly, don't you?  Or are you not familiar with firearms.  Cars are lethal when a lot of things go wrong.  Guns are lethal when everything is in working order.  

              Making false equivalences between them is a facile attempt to divert our attention from that very important fact, and minimize what guns actually are.  "No worse than cars," you say, "and who doesn't love cars?"  Look. If I wanted to read re-hashed bullshit right-wing talking points, I'd go to redstate.  

              Guns are weapons.  They are tools designed to wound and kill.  Just because a lot of people find them interesting as a hobby, or treat them like big boy toys, doesn't change that fact.  Just because most people use their guns to kill or wound animals or paper targets instead of people, doesn't change that fact.  For most Americans (an increasing number of them, too), guns are simply not normal.  All the glib schmoozing in the world will not change that fact.

              You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic

              by nominalize on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 02:22:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah everyone should shut up (0+ / 0-)

      and follow lockstep behind DEAR LEADER.  What a insane point of view.  

      •  Huh? What the hell comment are you talking (4+ / 0-)

        about? Where did I say anything about a dictatorial mandate. I'm pointing out that the argument about gun control is based on fear and ignorance not those "fact" things.

        "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

        From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

        by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:02:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To quote (2+ / 0-)
          I'd like to thank Bill Maher for helping to elect Republicans in 2012.

          Everyone is well aware of Maher's $1,000,000 donation to Obama's PAC. Now the NRA will easily be able to make the claim that Maher + Obama = "They're coming for your guns!"

          i.e. people who support gun regulation should shut up b/c it may cause some gun nut who already hates Obama to hate him more.  

          And for the record - there are laws in American prohibiting car use.  If I don't get a license and pass a test, I'm not legally allowed to drive a car.  If I use the car improperly, i.e. drive recklessly, drive drunk, park in the wrong place too many times, speed too often, I can have my driving privileges suspended.  Every two years, I have to take my car for testing to make sure it still meets proper regulations.  And everyday, thousands of cops patrol the streets actively regulating the use of cars.  Pulling people over for speeding, for improper lane change, for DRIVING TOO SLOW!

          Your analogy was ridiculous and that is why I originally ignored it.  If you support gun regulation, you shouldn't have any problem with what Maher said.  He has guns too.

          •  Ahh, so pointing out the fact the NRA is going to (5+ / 0-)

            use this as a stupid attack on Obama is telling you to shut up and follow Dear Leader? Right. Gotcha. The analogy to cars is only ridiculous because you're so blinded by your fear of guns you'll happily let Republicans use fear of gun laws to get elected.

            Sure, you can lose your driving privileges temporarily. Do you want to know how many people with drunk driving offenses still have licenses? This country is as married to cars as it is to guns. The analogy isn't as far-fetched as you claim.

            And finally, Republican policies kill more people than guns or automobiles every year. Toss in their ability to shut down any progress on global warming and it gets even crazier. But at least you can tell yourself you fought against gun ownership.

            "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

            From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

            by ontheleftcoast on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:00:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Zimmerman is a coward (10+ / 0-)

    I'll start with the disclaimer here: I'm speaking of Zimmerman, not all gun owners.

    Zimmerman was a coward who would only kill with a gun. His fear is obvious in every description of this incident, and I can tell he wouldn't be going anywhere near the scary black kid if he wasn't packing heat.

    The cause of death was a gunshot.

    This killer was Zimmerman.

    It doesn't happen without the gun.

    It is ok to be in favor of stronger gun laws in any forum, but especially on a liberal website.  Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

  •  I have to ask the gun (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ehrenfeucht games

    lobby here, what would it take for you to get on board with some form of gun control? How many people dead by guns would you need, to try, in even a limited way,  to this rush to make everyone a gun-toting maniac such as Zimmerman?
    I haven't heard any of you say that he shouldn't have been allowed a permit to carry. Some may have, but I haven't read it, and I monitor this site often.
    Is there a limit to your obsesion with guns?  

    I'd become a Lesbian for Rachel Maddow, I would.

    by ichibon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:35:27 AM PDT

    •  I guess you just don't pay attention. (12+ / 0-)
      Some may have, but I haven't read it, and I monitor this site often.
      Quite a few of what you term "the gun lobby" are, in fact, quite supportive of various forms of gun control.  The NICS background check, for instance, is generally supported by those here who support the 2nd Amendment.

      Claims that people are in some "rush to make everyone a gun-toting maniac such as Zimmerman" are simply false.  No one advocates everyone owning a firearm -- not even the dreaded NRA.  That being the case, your cute little leading question is disingenuous at best.

      I have, myself, questioned whether Zimmerman should have had a concealed carry permit.  If he had been charged, prosecuted, and convicted of any one of several crimes he is alleged to have committed, he would not only have not been able to obtain a CCL, he may well have not been able to legally own a firearm at all.  So, once again, you are arguing against something not said.

      And to round it all off:

      Is there a limit to your obsesion with guns?
       
      ...another disingenuous leading question.  Who are you to diagnose an "obsesion" in anyone?  Just because they disagree with you?  Nonsense.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:45:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking for myself only ... (18+ / 0-)

      but fully aware that most gun owners support some gun control, (and ignoring your inflammatory language that does not really serve to further actual conversation), I would like to see much stronger requirements for training for those licensed to carry. I'm willing to guess Zimmerman had little to none. First rule of a gun fight? Don't be there. The idea that Zimmerman thought he was bad ass enough to go take down the "suspicious" Martin, rather than sitting his dumb ass in his car until the cops showed up, indicates to me that Zimmerman was not properly trained to own a fire arm. Because one of the critical things you learn is how to get away from the danger, not run toward it. Training isn't just about knowing when the safety is on or how to have the proper stance to hit the bullseye; it's about knowing how to be a responsible gun owner. And how to conduct oneself in situations in which one might use one's gun. Zimmerman had a duty to avoid confrontation, to keep himself out of harm's way (you know, assuming he was ever in harm's way). Instead, like an idiot, he went chasing after it. Now, whether he did so because he wanted to kill that kid, we don't know. But we do know Martin wouldn't be dead if Zimmerman had followed the most basic principle of staying away from, not running toward, danger.

      One other thing. If there's anyone whose hands should never touch a gun, it's a guy who beats up his girlfriend. Now, I understand that he was never charged and convicted for his assault; I don't care. His girlfriend sought, and received, a restraining order against him. That's reason enough for me that he should be denied the right to carry a concealed weapon. Woman-beaters are, pretty much by definition, violent and impulsive. That's a piss poor combination, and I have no problem with making laws as strict as possible to keep guns out of such hands.  

    •  You have proof gun control actually works? (10+ / 0-)

      Proof here, in the US?

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:28:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What would it take? (6+ / 0-)

      Some honest debate without insinuations or accusations for starters.

      So you fail from the begining.  Good luck with that.

    •  What would it take for me (0+ / 0-)

      What would it take for me to support firearm restrictions? You'd have to shove them into my cold, dead mind.

    •  In fact, I have heard one of them say that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Zimmerman should be given back his gun if he manages to use STAND YOUR GROWND to beat a murder rap.

      So far, it's got 3 recs.

      I haven't heard any of you say that he shouldn't have been allowed a permit to carry. Some may have, but I haven't read it, and I monitor this site often.
      Is there a limit to your obsesion with guns?  
      How many more kids does the extreme fringe of the Daily Kos RKBA group want to allow Zimmerman to murder?

      "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

      by ehrenfeucht games on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 10:00:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guns don't kill people (0+ / 0-)

    regulated broccoli does

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:37:03 AM PDT

  •  I'm a bit hmmmm... (6+ / 0-)

    I'm not a fan of guns, but I'd actually lay blame on 'stand your ground' laws more than gun laws specifically.  If Zimmerman couldn't get a gun, he'd probably have been out playing vigilante with some sort of Rambo knife.

    And though I don't see the point of shooting deer with a silencer, shooting deer is shooting deer - the deer is just as dead no matter how you shot it, and hopefully was shot to be eaten, no matter what it was shot with.

    The amount of lead left in forests is a serious eye opener, though.  Is there some less toxic metal that would work instead?

  •  Shh.. we can't anger the psychotic gun nuts.. (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    burlydee, randomfacts, ehrenfeucht games
    Hidden by:
    PavePusher

    ..because they might vote Republican.

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:12:34 AM PDT

  •  This writing is superb (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, mkor7, randomfacts, annieli
    Now I believe, of course, that an American should have the right to protect their home.  Their own home, from robbers, or rapists, or some guy on the Bravo network who wants to redecorate.  So, make no mistake, anyone who breaks into my house and threatens me and my vicious Pomeranians, Gilbert and Sullivan, is going to be staring down the barrel of a Franchi SPAS-12 combat shotgun loaded with incendiary rounds.  That's right, dirtbag.  Take one step toward my car elevator, and I will set you on fire like a Burmese monk.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:58:00 AM PDT

  •  Maher can't have it both ways (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, hagagaga

    He claims to be a Libertarian - and Libertarians don't want no big government interfering with their right to bare arms.

    Yet when someone bares arms which results in a killing, he's turning around and asking for more government regulation of the right to bare arms? Maher make up your mind, please.

    And what's Ron Paul's take on this shooting? He's been real silent and no one in the media has bothered to ask him. Any Paulites around?

  •  How an amendment which I interpret as the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, ehrenfeucht games, ladyjames

    right of states to form militias against an outside enemy, and to arm their citizens accordingly turned into I can own an unlimited amount of guns, even those that can take out 30 people in seconds is beyond me.  I now there are many, even here, who feel strongly about their rights.  But I feel strongly about my right to survive walking the dog late at night or sleeping in my own bed without gunfire coming through the walls or windows.    Maybe it's time to revisit that amendment.  Of course that's me just dreaming.  The gun lobby is too strong for someone like me to stand up against for my rights.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:56:17 AM PDT

  •  One thing is clear these days... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    randomfacts, ladyjames

    ...I need to go out of my house armed to protect myself from the Zimmermans of this country. If we're going to descend into a gun-crazy country, I have to be at least as well-armed as the crazies.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

  •  Great diary. Thanks for posting! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    randomfacts, ladyjames
  •  Can't Watch Maher (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hagagaga, IndieGuy

    I just keep seeing him defending his pal the horrible fucking Ann KKKoulter..

  •  Bill Maher is an idiot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom Seaview, 0wn, theatre goon

    If a man denies the germ theory of disease, I tend to take his statements even less seriously than I take creationists' statements.

  •  Don't attack the messenger (4+ / 0-)

    You may not like Maher, but don't deny the truth of what he is saying. Guns kiil people and the lack of gun laws is a sign of the the aggressiveness and violence of some AmericaNS live in our community afraid of their own shadow.

  •  hahaha, loved it all but this is genius... (6+ / 0-)
    Why can't we even pass a rule against poisoned bullets?  This is a cautionary tale about what happens when the Democrats completely lay down on an issue, and let the Right get whatever they want.  You get insanity.  Arming panicky untrained vigilantes like George Zimmerman and telling them it's OK to shoot whenever they're afraid, is like dumping all the milk bones on the kitchen floor and telling your dog, "Just eat when you're hungry."

    Stand Your Ground, guns in bars, guns in church, guns in the classroom....  Where does it end?  Why not guns in the delivery room?  What if my fetus is armed, and comes out firing?  Also, I think we should have a "use it or lose it" law.  Yeah, where at least once every six months you have to shoot someone.  After all, isn't that what gun nuts really want, to shoot someone?  Otherwise, what's the point of collecting something that just sits on the shelf?  I mean, I collect rare Ming dynasty opium pipes.  But I use them!

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 11:47:18 AM PDT

  •  'Stand Your Ground/Shoot First' law coming to Ohio (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, ehrenfeucht games

    Effort Under Way In Ohio To Enact ‘Stand Your Ground Law.

    Gun rights advocates were lobbying Ohio lawmakers Tuesday to enact the controversial “Stand Your Ground” law.
    Yeah, that was this past Tuesday, in the middle of when the Trayvon Martin case was being discussed. The brazenness of these lobbyists is breathtaking.
    Gun-owner Mike Moore said that he would defend his home with a weapon if forced.

    “If you bust into my house, I will do what it takes to defend myself and my family,” said Moore, a member of his neighborhood’s block watch. “I would never pull my gun unless I was backed up against the wall and met that type of confrontation.”
    ...
    Moore said that the “Stand Your Ground” law would not mean more peace of mind.

    “I don’t think it’s going to make me feel any more or less safe than I do now,” Moore said.

    "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

    by randomfacts on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:34:46 PM PDT

    •  I live in Canada. (5+ / 0-)

      We have gun laws.

      The 9mm that Zimmerman had?

      I can't have one here.

      But we do own firearms.  Legally.

      Homicide rate by firearm much lower here.

      Why?  Is it the gun laws? Or is it a different culture?

      My impression is its the culture.

      •  Yeah, in Canada (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul, oldmilitant

        they don't have a culture that people feel the need to have these 'Stand your ground' laws to protect their 'honor'. Northern US states bordering Canada have been the slowest to adopt these laws. The southern states have been the quickest. Let's change the culture so that the US is more like Canada.

        "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

        by randomfacts on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:51:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As I understand it, and correct me if I'm (0+ / 0-)

        wrong, but doesn't Canada require an extensive gun safety and training course + a lengthy waiting period before obtaining any gun?   I recall seeing something about that somewhere.

        This would allow both the instructor and the authorities to more closely scrutinize the gun buyer, likely better insuring a more sober and sophisticated demeanor toward gun ownership.

        Again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, and/or expand on the extent of Canada's gun laws.

        Most of my colleagues in journalism aren't longing to do the right thing, restrained by the need for a job. Mostly, they just suck. -- Tweet from Jeff Sharlet

        by caul on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 01:55:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And this is a problem? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, labwitchy, PavePusher
  •  the defense (2+ / 6-)

    of guns here blows my mind. you people who think that gun control is some how a threat to you rights are sicko's.
    Happiness is not a warm gun. A warm gun is death most likely or at the least violence unleashed out of fear or hate. . Go ahead you violence gun lovers make my day HR me. bang bang. Your world is nothing but sick. You defend the right of someone like Zimmerman to kill that which he feels threatens his insane hateful fearful vision of the world we all must share.

Caipirinha, Angie in WA State, murphy, glitterscale, Sprinkles, RFK Lives, emelyn, bronte17, Agathena, Time Waits for no Woman, DaveP, cosmic debris, mrblifil, farmerhunt, roses, Iberian, aitchdee, Brit, revsue, Texknight, Getreal1246, averybird, sockpuppet, TexDem, lungfish, ranger995, NYFM, RuralLiberal, Wayward Wind, Curt Matlock, mungley, Hillbilly Dem, lyvwyr101, vacantlook, rapala, Dirk McQuigley, historys mysteries, Tinfoil Hat, ichibon, caul, LarisaW, dewtx, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, ratzo, Kayakbiker, Ice Blue, Shotput8, rbjets69, Joes Steven, Cory Bantic, Alan Arizona, zozie, Knucklehead, esquimaux, sherlyle, cybersaur, Clytemnestra, KenBee, eglantine, Preston S, middleagedhousewife, CA Nana, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, shaharazade, Temmoku, Nulwee, cpresley, pat of butter in a sea of grits, pgm 01, john07801, Habitat Vic, Debs2, devis1, LillithMc, Via Chicago, burlydee, HCKAD, journeyman, cacamp, TomP, weegeeone, chakadog, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, elwior, Sharon Wraight, KJG52, alnep, dmhlt 66, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, MufsMom, greengemini, LinSea, bobatkinson, Carol in San Antonio, Methinks They Lie, MKSinSA, Tortmaster, Larsstephens, Caringthinkingperson, Laurilei, kinserlow, eXtina, gramofsam1, politik, fidellio, NM Ray, ItsSimpleSimon, DrTerwilliker, nosleep4u, annieli, Jasel, xgy2, SoCaliana, DruidQueen, floridablue, worldlotus, mimi2three, enhydra lutris, Calvino Partigiani, sound of progress, randomfacts, Democrats Ramshield, GrannyGeek, jadt65, DRo, GenXangster, OldDragon, The Lone Apple, AnnieR, a2nite, martinjedlicka, belinda ridgewood, the Don, MartyM, doroma, tytalus, splintersawry, ehrenfeucht games, dotdash2u, Marjmar, JAM11, Sue B, Dancun74, Eric Twocents, ladyjames, averblue

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site