Political post dealing with Guns,Zimmerman/Martin

[John T 744]

Below is a picture of the exact Gun I own that I can carry most anywhere. I carry it once on occasion but most of the time I keep it in my safe that has a hand print on it that I use my hand to pop in the number to open this safe. I do have a small arsenal in there.

I'll take a picture of that one of these days.

Face it--- for better or worse this country is built on guns. It truly is. I personally wish there were no guns in this country because I dealt with suicides, accidental kid deaths, Parents killing kids and vise a versa. But where a country that is built on guns and the fact is there are as many guns here as there are people which is roughly 300,000,000 in this country.

So since the 2nd amendment exist I follow my rights to bear arms. I'm also extremely careful that know one can get to my guns.

Now what I'm getting to. The Zimmerman story. I feel terrible for Trayvon Martin who was killed. Absolutely terrible. Who wouldn't if you have kids. He was someones child.

butttttttttttt.....

Now the problem. He gets into a confrontation with the neighborhood watch which was Zimmerman who has the right to bear arms. This kid is apparently pounding Zimmerman pretty good. What happened in here only the jury and the judge and Zimmerman really know.

In my case if I was doing my job the last thing I would use is deadly physical force but if need be.. I would use it.

This case is unfortunate. This country is built on guns may not be the greatest thing in the world but it is what it is.

So like my rights allow I have my family covered... but I also have myself covered because no one in my household can open my safe because of the hand print code I have.

What's your thoughts? Do you allow yourself to use your right which is the 2nd amendment which is your right to bear arms?

Edited July 21, 2013 by John T
having problem loading picture.

[John T 744]

I disagree, and if it were me I wouldn't. What has GZ got to apologize for? Defending himself? In some cases saying you're "Sorry" means you have taken personal responsibility for a situation and can be an admission of guilt.

Again GZ will have to hide in fear for the rest of his life because he defended himself......If anyone is owed an apology.....It's him.

If Trayvon's parents were standing in the same room with you, you couldn't say to them that "I am sorry that you lost your son"? That doesn't make you wrong at all. Its just the decent thing to do. I think Zimmerman did what he had to do and it is "Unfortunate" that someone was killed in here. Where is your compassion to his parents? You have kids so you know its killing them.

That's the difference between you and I Guy. I could look someone in the eye and tell them I am sorry this ended up this way but I did my job as Zimmerman did his and the Jury agreed with him on that.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I agree John....

It's really simple....

Remorse is a normal human response to an event such as this. One would think it would hit him that what was done can't be undone and there is a loss of life, the life of an unarmed child, whose parent are grieving and trying to move one.

A lack of remorse could be perceived several ways....

1. disrespectful

2. discriminatory

3. uncaring

4. guilt

I could go in.... fast forward to today's news of this rescue of four people form a flipped over car. He's loving the limelight. And, he did a good thing provided he did not further anyone's spinal injuries for example by removing them from a car prematurely, after all, he's NOT an EMT. If he loved his community, one would think he loved the people in it, and logically, one could expect to see remorse.

Hmmmmm......

Beth

[John T 744]

The poll numbers disgust me; they are not bull crap. By your own statement I would surmise that you find them to be inaccurate, while I do not. Allison explained it quite well, as did I. The numbers support the hypothesis suggesting that racial points of view are dramatically different regarding the outcome of this case, because of social, educational and economic backgrounds. The reason the numbers disgust me, is that discrimination disgusts me. I grew up with it, a victim of it, surrounded by it. I am perhaps overly sensitive to it. I do my very best to not let it into my life. Having said that, it saddens me greatly to see hatred in our society, displayed by any person or persons towards another person or persons. I look at the poll number and I remember my history lessons. I remember the Civil War. I remember the Civil Rights Acts. I remember other times too, some from history and some from my personal life. I look at those numbers as they are, a reflection of raw human emotion touched by personal experience, knowing that each person who answered that poll had a frame of reference that in that moment touched them emotionally with the result being their polling vote. To me, the numbers are not just numbers, they are an outcry, a scream of pain and anguish, a statement that many will choose to ignore because they are ....just numbers. And sadly, that these numbers are ignored, discounted and cast off as "BS" is disgusting.

Beth

Very well stated Beth and same goes with Allisons and Guys for that Matter. Where all entitled to our Opinions in this country and we can express it because we do have the "Freedom of Speech" here.

I'll tell you one of the very few things about the Law which I always liked. We by far have the best Criminal Justice system in the world. Far from Perfect but at least everyone in most cases has a fair shot to defend themselves. What I like is the proof of evidence we have that makes things go to a certain level. For example--I'll I need to arrest someone was "Probable cause". That's it. Now the level goes much higher to Convict someone Criminally which falls under "Beyond a reasonable doubt". I love that one. Its as close to fact that any court system in the world has. Rose color lenses, How people are brought up and everything else gets removed because we all have our personal preferences and bias's. So this is why I love facts. To convict someone here its has to be just about fact and if it is indeed fact and there are no extraordinary circumstances involved such as self defense etc. then the charges stick.

Once again this goes back to the Zimmerman trial which was polarizing for sure. I get it that the African American Population has a bad taste in their mouths because almost all of them dealt with bigotry somewhere in there life. So I get that. Its terrible. Heck if My daughters were born in some of these Muslim countries they would be considered "Second class citizens" so they would most definitely have inner turmoil like many African Americans feel they have here.

But in the court of Law you have to remove that from your mind. You have to go by the facts of what happened. Maybe Zimmerman got over because Trayvon died. Could very well be. The dead can't defend themselves(In most cases but sometimes there are circumstances the dead person did that indeed defended them---whole other story).

So in conclusion this whole story is tragic but a Jury of our peers came back with a verdict. Stinging to some but rightful to others. What I think this verdict does show is how divided we are as a country and your Poll article above shows that.

[Guy B 70]

To me, the numbers are not just numbers, they are an outcry, a scream of pain and anguish, a statement that many will choose to ignore because they are ....just numbers. And sadly, that these numbers are ignored, discounted and cast off as "BS" is disgusting.

Beth

Where is the data that supports the numbers Beth? Somebody throws poll numbers out and you just blindly accept them? Poll numbers are the certified "Pulse" of the people not to be questioned? Well there's a "Bat Baby Extraterrestrial" in New Mexico because the National Enquirer said so, right?

To blindly follow unverifiable (data) numbers and to form opinions from raw emotion while ignoring the facts....is Ignorance.

[Guy B 70]

You are talking centuries ago and none of that is prevalent today.

That is my point.

There is NO talk in government about taking away guns, repealing the 2nd amendment or anything of the sort.

Yes, government does overstep but the point is: guns are not on the table.

Rod!~

It's just as prevalent today as it was 200+ years ago Rod, come on Man. To say otherwise is to say the Constitution is not prevalent today, or the Bill Of Rights is not prevalent today.

I don't disagree with you that no one is "talking" about taking guns away. They would all be thrown out of office in a New York Minute. And you know as well as I do.... they would if they could.

Like I said.....They're chipping away at it little by little.

[steven 37]

The problem I have with polls is that 1000 people hardly represents the 311,591,917 (2011) people in this country.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Where is the data that supports the numbers Beth? Somebody throws poll numbers out and you just blindly accept them? Poll numbers are the certified "Pulse" of the people not to be questioned? Well there's a "Bat Baby Extraterrestrial" in New Mexico because the National Enquirer said so, right?

To blindly follow unverifiable (data) numbers and to form opinions from raw emotion while ignoring the facts....is Ignorance.

Not following blindly, but anyone who studies data, should have an understanding of it.

Beth

[Clear Shine Maintenance 15]

It's just as prevalent today as it was 200+ years ago Rod, come on Man. To say otherwise is to say the Constitution is not prevalent today, or the Bill Of Rights is not prevalent today.

I don't disagree with you that no one is "talking" about taking guns away. They would all be thrown out of office in a New York Minute. And you know as well as I do.... they would if they could.

Like I said.....They're chipping away at it little by little.

I disagree. Look at DC. Look at Chicago. There is no freedom of gun ownership there. You cannot carry a gun there. You have a limit on the number of guns that can be owned. What type of guns. That, my friends, is taking away people's freedom slowly and it doesn't start by just banning or taking them away at one time. They do it slowly and methodically so no one causes that big of a stink because it's just something little. A little over time becomes big. Does anyone else find it odd that the highest crime and murder rates are the population with the strictest gun laws?

[steven 37]

Not following blindly, but anyone who studies data, should have an understanding of it.

Beth

i never studied data, wanna try and help me understand it ?

[John T 744]

I'm no data expert but I understand how polls tend to work... Example. You take a 1000 people for example in a certain area and poll them the margin of error could be let's say 3-5% either way. If you were to take a poll that consisted of everyone in this country(never going to happen because we can't even get people off their fannies to vote) your margin of error would be 0%.

Collecting data is interesting I would think if your a numbers person or are on a fact finding mission. Predictions can come out of data that in many cases could be extremely important.

[John T 744]

I disagree. Look at DC. Look at Chicago. There is no freedom of gun ownership there. You cannot carry a gun there. You have a limit on the number of guns that can be owned. What type of guns. That, my friends, is taking away people's freedom slowly and it doesn't start by just banning or taking them away at one time. They do it slowly and methodically so no one causes that big of a stink because it's just something little. A little over time becomes big. Does anyone else find it odd that the highest crime and murder rates are the population with the strictest gun laws?

That's a fair debate to make but also consider those tend to be the lower income area's and guns or no guns crime runs rampant in lower income congested area's.

[Guy B 70]

I disagree. Look at DC. Look at Chicago. There is no freedom of gun ownership there. You cannot carry a gun there. You have a limit on the number of guns that can be owned. What type of guns. That, my friends, is taking away people's freedom slowly and it doesn't start by just banning or taking them away at one time. They do it slowly and methodically so no one causes that big of a stink because it's just something little. A little over time becomes big. Does anyone else find it odd that the highest crime and murder rates are the population with the strictest gun laws?

You might want to check that Jeremy. No in D.C. you can have a gun in your home (Restrictions), doubt they have Carry Conceal. Chicago's long time ban was lifted in 2010 by the Supreme Court and they just passed a bill for CC there.

Congress is not talking "Openly/Public" about taking guns from citizens, again....They're chipping away at it little by little. I do agree with the rest of your post.

For the sake of argument let's just say our right to defend ourselves, Family, Friends, & others was to be taken away, who would be responsible for our safety? Who would protect us from those that would harm us?

The Police? Think again........lhttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[Clear Shine Maintenance 15]

Guy, I have not kept up to date with the state run by Chicago democrats for a while and it's a breath of fresh air to see that Illinois is taking back itself from Chicago politics! Even though it is passed, it will be a while till it even will come to fruition, sadly if at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/17/Chicago-Pols-Strengthen-Gun-Ban-Ahead-of-New-Concealed-Carry-law

I lived in Hammond, Indiana and lived 3 blocks from a Chicago suburb at the age of 18. I was allowed in Indiana to carry a gun (which oddly enough wasn't allowed to purchase one at that age, but I digress) and it is great to see Illinois doing the same now if they don't screw it up which too many restrictions. Chicago will definitely be a better city for it. Thank you Guy, for bringing it to my attention!

[Rapid HotClean 26]

You might want to check that Jeremy. For the sake of argument let's just say our right to defend ourselves, Family, Friends, & others was to be taken away, who would be responsible for our safety? Who would protect us from those that would harm us?

The Police? Think again........lhttps://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

NBC News reports that in the City of Detroit the average police emergency response time is 58 minutes. So if you're in Detroit and you get shot and need someone to come and help you, you'd be better off calling the local pizzeria for delivery.

[Guy B 70]

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking LEO's...my Father was an MP & Deputy Sheriff, my point being is that there are more bad guys than LEO's out there. My point is citizens have the right to defend themselves and Government cannot restrict or impede that right, but do their best every chance they get. Case in point, Mr.Holder says the Government "still" has the case open in the GZ-TM case. This after a jury found GZ not guilty of any crime. The Man defended himself "Case Closed". But no, the Government is still investigating this matter. The Government is even looking into if Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is even "Legal".

[Clear Shine Maintenance 15]

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking LEO's...my Father was an MP & Deputy Sheriff, my point being is that there are more bad guys than LEO's out there. My point is citizens have the right to defend themselves and Government cannot restrict or impede that right, but do their best every chance they get. Case in point, Mr.Holder says the Government "still" has the case open in the GZ-TM case. This after a jury found GZ not guilty of any crime. The Man defended himself "Case Closed". But no, the Government is still investigating this matter. The Government is even looking into if Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is even "Legal".

+plus 1