GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2012, 14:47   #81
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugo View Post
Well, this was kind of a fun read, but there's always a problem with these threads: Some folks go into denial when they are getting shot down.

Maybe I can help. Greentriple, why don't you try this: step back and get your head clear, then go back over this thread with your analytical thinking cap on. You may figure you got a couple of licks in, but if you are honest, you will also realize that what you tried to do here was not well-founded and therefore did not work. Once you see that, you have taken the first step towards healthy objectivity.

Then, imagine you were free to examine the whole issue again, objectively, including things that you previously refused to consider (or didn't understand -- a couple of Jerry's posts, for instance). Here's the thing: you will either learn how to present a better argument, or you will begin to change your mind about some of these things.

I'd bet that the more honest and objective you can be, the more you will tend to change your mind. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Much better stated than I have or could have.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 14:48   #82
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Funny, I though Neo-Nazi’s and religious fanatics were the ones doing that. But then I forgot liberals consider anyone on the right Nazis and religious fanatics.

For your information, most people on the right don’t consider those groups conservatives. They consider them CRIMINALS and a group unto themselves, unlike those on the left who embrace and condones rioters and hate mongers.
Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 14:52   #83
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugo View Post
Well, this was kind of a fun read, but there's always a problem with these threads: Some folks go into denial when they are getting shot down.

Maybe I can help. Greentriple, why don't you try this: step back and get your head clear, then go back over this thread with your analytical thinking cap on. You may figure you got a couple of licks in, but if you are honest, you will also realize that what you tried to do here was not well-founded and therefore did not work. Once you see that, you have taken the first step towards healthy objectivity.

Then, imagine you were free to examine the whole issue again, objectively, including things that you previously refused to consider (or didn't understand -- a couple of Jerry's posts, for instance). Here's the thing: you will either learn how to present a better argument, or you will begin to change your mind about some of these things.

I'd bet that the more honest and objective you can be, the more you will tend to change your mind. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Spare me the sanctimonious, condescending, quasi-intellectual BS, and direct me to the points you seem to think I "missed". I'm happy to reconsider my position and openly concede I'm capable of miscommunication a point. However, based on the logic and reasoning I'm confronted with I'm hard pressed to move ideologues such as you or your cadre. But, again, point me to my folly and I will defend what merits defending.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 15:54   #84
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
First, I’m quite often referred to as a right wing not job by those on the left merely because I’m a firearm owner. They have also called me Gun Nazi so whenever a liberal says right wing nut job I naturally assume they are speaking of people like myself. What you have offered as an explanation of right wing nut jobs are considered just plain nut jobs by those on the right but of course the left has to associated them with the right.

Why not call them what they really are, extremists outside of the realm of conservatism.

Here's why your opinion is wrong. Groups that are extreme are WIDELY accepted and supported by liberals. The Black Panther’s leader offered a bounty on Zimmerman. That is ageist the law. If someone on the right had offered a bounty on the Panther’s leader it would have been all over the liberal networks and liberals would be demanding an arrest be made just like they did with Zimmerman. Instead the liberal networks didn’t say a word about the Panther’s doing it and the liberal administration has not arrested anyone. Black Panthers stood outside poling places with sticks during the last presidential election and nothing was done about it. The liberal media glossed over it. The Occupy Wall-Street people have taken to destroying property and even tried to blow up a bridge and the liberals are still supporting them. I could go on and on.

When churches are burned or abortion clinics or Doctors are attacked it’s all over the Conservative (right leaning) TV and Radio and we are just as outraged as the left. When extremists create problems we call for action no matter what side of center they profess to be on. However, when extremists claim to be doing it for left i.e. progressives they are either openly supported by liberals or liberals stay mum in silent support.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-04-2012 at 16:25..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 20:16   #85
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
First, I’m quite often referred to as a right wing not job by those on the left merely because I’m a firearm owner. They have also called me Gun Nazi so whenever a liberal says right wing nut job I naturally assume they are speaking of people like myself. What you have offered as an explanation of right wing nut jobs are considered just plain nut jobs by those on the right but of course the left has to associated them with the right.

Why not call them what they really are, extremists outside of the realm of conservatism.

Here's why your opinion is wrong. Groups that are extreme are WIDELY accepted and supported by liberals. The Black Panther’s leader offered a bounty on Zimmerman. That is ageist the law. If someone on the right had offered a bounty on the Panther’s leader it would have been all over the liberal networks and liberals would be demanding an arrest be made just like they did with Zimmerman. Instead the liberal networks didn’t say a word about the Panther’s doing it and the liberal administration has not arrested anyone. Black Panthers stood outside poling places with sticks during the last presidential election and nothing was done about it. The liberal media glossed over it. The Occupy Wall-Street people have taken to destroying property and even tried to blow up a bridge and the liberals are still supporting them. I could go on and on.

When churches are burned or abortion clinics or Doctors are attacked it’s all over the Conservative (right leaning) TV and Radio and we are just as outraged as the left. When extremists create problems we call for action no matter what side of center they profess to be on. However, when extremists claim to be doing it for left i.e. progressives they are either openly supported by liberals or liberals stay mum in silent support.
Jerry,

Trying to reason with you is beginning to feel like talking with my 5 year old when he's emotional about something. But, I'll try.

I'll start I reverse order with your assumptions.

1) All your examples of radical conservative action that bring the rational conservative outrage are situations where the extremists have killed or injured people. Clearly this kind of behavior must be condemned regardless of political leanings. However, by contrast the example should give to show leftist support are examples of speech, vial as it may be. Had the BP hurt Zimmerman I can't imagine any reasonable progressive celebrating, in fact every progressive I know and spoke with found the BP bounty offensive and even criminal. As for the "occupy wall street" movement, again their right to protest was supported by progressives and I would think as a strict Constitutionalist you would encourage their freedom of assembly and speech. Now I did not hear the right protesting when the OWS people were forcibly ejected, beaten and OCed. Further their destruction of public property was not applauded by progressives nor their arrests for this objected to

2) In a more similar example to radical right actions that are lauded by conservatives are statements and gatherings by groups like the Minutemen. When this group threatens, albeit not actually injures, women and children crossing the border I don't hear conservatives clamoring about the "evil" of terrorizing women and children. But I'm certain if a minuteman killed a child or woman you would decry the conduct as would the left.

3) As for your leanings, I don't assume your gun ownership makes you a wack-job. After all I am a gun owner as well. But if you are an Extremist in your 2nd Amendment views crying foul at every turn, well then you might be a gun nut. As for Gun Nazi, well anyone who compares you to a Nazi is not firing on all pistons, unless of course you believe in the tenants of the Nazi party.





Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 20:32   #86
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
Quote:
Sorry, missed the questions and don't feel like digging for them. Please repeat?
They are not hard to find, they are right above where you posted your reply. However I will assume that you are a VERY important person and do not have time to "dig these questions up" and I will re post them after my arduous search.


Quote:
Are you basing your logic for violating the Constitution on "public safety"? If so, where in the Constitution does it state "public safety" is a reasonable exception to the bill of RIGHTS?


You called BS on Jerry's last post. Can you explain where Jerry was wrong, or are you just going to dismiss his comments without addressing them?
I look forward to your reply.
IhRedrider is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 21:33   #87
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Jerry,

Trying to reason with you is beginning to feel like talking with my 5 year old when he's emotional about something. But, I'll try.
Why don't we put it to a vote and see who is acting more like a 5 year old. Dollar to do-nut it's you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
I'll start I reverse order with your assumptions.

1) All your examples of radical conservative action that bring the rational conservative outrage are situations where the extremists have killed or injured people. Clearly this kind of behavior must be condemned regardless of political leanings.
Well once again my words went completely over your head. The people committing those acts are not conservatives. By your reasoning Hitler was a conservative. Actually he consider himself a progressive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
However, by contrast the example should give to show leftist support are examples of speech, vial as it may be. Had the BP hurt Zimmerman I can't imagine any reasonable progressive celebrating, in fact every progressive I know and spoke with found the BP bounty offensive and even criminal.
Had the Zimmerman's and Martin's rolls be reversed the liberals wouldn't even be talking about it. It never would have made the news. Funny the liberal news didn't report on the ILLEGAL ACT of BP offering a bounty. Free speech? Nope ILLEGAL act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
As for the "occupy wall street" movement, again their right to protest was supported by progressives and I would think as a strict Constitutionalist you would encourage their freedom of assembly and speech.
Funny how when the Tea Party people "peacefully" assembled the liberals were in an uproar calling them racists and and demanding the government shut them down. However even after the the Occupy Wall-Street crowd has turned violent here you are voicing your support and trying to make it look as if I want to curtail their right to free speech. I haven't said one word about their speech I have condemned their actions.

The Tea Party people made their speeches then clean the places up before they left. The Occupy Wall-street bunch have made a mess of parks, defecate in public areas, and destroy property yet here you are defending their "free speech". Shows how a liberal mind works. Free speech ends when the speakers start destroying that which belongs to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Now I did not hear the right protesting when the OWS people were forcibly ejected, beaten and OCed. Further their destruction of public property was not applauded by progressives nor their arrests for this objected to
And why were they being beaten and forcible ejected? Their actions become dethronement and destructive. But then that's ok in the liberals view as long as it's to further the progressive agenda. How would you feel if they camped out on your front law, were having sex in front of your children, peeing in your garden and blocking your driveway and front door? Bet you'd be peachy keen with that right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
2) In a more similar example to radical right actions that are lauded by conservatives are statements and gatherings by groups like the Minutemen. When this group threatens, albeit not actually injures, women and children crossing the border I don't hear conservatives clamoring about the "evil" of terrorizing women and children. But I'm certain if a minuteman killed a child or woman you would decry the conduct as would the left.
All the Minutemen did was "report" ILLEGAL activity to the Border Patrol. You do understand report ILLEGAL activity? I'll bet not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
3) As for your leanings, I don't assume your gun ownership makes you a wack-job. After all I am a gun owner as well. But if you are an Extremist in your 2nd Amendment views crying foul at every turn, well then you might be a gun nut. As for Gun Nazi, well anyone who compares you to a Nazi is not firing on all pistons, unless of course you believe in the tenants of the Nazi party.
We've been over my views of the Second amendment and that of the Constitution as a whole. You still haven't grasp the concept.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 21:33   #88
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
They are not hard to find, they are right above where you posted your reply. However I will assume that you are a VERY important person and do not have time to "dig these questions up" and I will re post them after my arduous search.




I look forward to your reply.
First I'm not saying I agree with restrictions on the BoR, in fact I'm inclined to write I don't. However, my point was that most, not all, conservative and progressive leaders have made restrictions usually around public safety, most of which The Court had upheld as Constitutional. So, if we accept "reasonable" restrictions to one Amendment it seems fair to accept it for others. I argue that conservatives often champion restrictions that erode the Constitutional protections of the criminally accused and try to create equal protections for Victims, which is not in the document. Our opinions will vary as to what is reasonable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 21:50   #89
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Why don't we put it to a vote and see who is acting more like a 5 year old. Dollar to do-nut it's you.

"Well once again my words went completely over your head. The people committing those acts are not conservatives. By your reasoning Hitler was a conservative. Actually he consider himself a progressive."
I never mentioned Hitler or said conservatives are Nazis. Those groups, individuals I mentioned consider themselves conservatives. They don't have to share all your values to be on the right.

Quote:
"Had the Zimmerman's and Martin's rolls be reversed the liberals wouldn't even be talking about it. It never would have made the news. Funny the liberal news didn't report on the ILLEGAL ACT of BP offering a bounty. Free speech? Nope ILLEGAL act."
Yes they did, and condemned it. I don't listen to FOX and I read and heard about their outrageous and potentially illegal actions. And I condemn it. Without question the Martin shooting has been blown out of proportion and exploited my left wing extremist.

Quote:
"Funny how when the Tea Party people "peacefully" assembled the liberals were in an uproar calling them racists and and demanding the government shut them down. However even after the the Occupy Wall-Street crowd has turned violent here you are voicing your support and trying to make it look as if I want to curtail their right to free speech. I haven't said one word about their speech I have condemned their actions. "
No I'm not. When they are violent they should be arrested. And some Tea Baggers mad PE threats, and displayed vial and perhaps illegal posters.

Quote:
"The Tea Party people made their speeches then clean the places up before they left. The Occupy Wall-street bunch have made a mess of parks, defecate in public areas, and destroy property yet here you are defending their "free speech". Shows how a liberal mind works. Free speech ends when the speakers start destroying that which belongs to others. "
No, you can't hide behind free speech and destroy property. If they are fought they are prosecutor. And the media outlets I listen to condemned the violence and any distraction of property.


Quote:
"And why were they being beaten and forcible ejected? Their actions become dethronement and destructive. But then that's ok in the liberals view as long as it's to further the progressive agenda. How would you feel if they camped out on your front law, were having sex in front of your children, peeing in your garden and blocking your driveway and front door? Bet you'd be peachy keen with that right?"
Not all did this, and the problem was with a few. Again if hey can be identified, prosecute. BTW the OWS in my city did not have sex in front of children, or destroyed public property. Unfortunately some more destructive elements, with no real political agenda did cause problems.

Quote:
" All the Minutemen did was "report" ILLEGAL activity to the Border Patrol. You do understand report ILLEGAL activity? I'll bet not! "
Not true.

Quote:
"We've been over my views of the Second amendment and that of the Constitution as a whole. You still haven't grasp the concept.

You truly are a selective reader.

You just don't get it, but that's ok.

Enjoy you corner of realty, I tire of your inability to read, comprehend and articulate.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Last edited by Jerry; 05-05-2012 at 10:39..
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-04-2012, 21:58   #90
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
There, I corrected the quoted formatting for you. Took me all of two minutes. Seems you are just a challenged by posting as you are by right and wrong.

Actually you can ask anyone here who is the one not getting it or you can merely look in the mirror.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 05-05-2012 at 10:44..
Jerry is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 04:26   #91
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
greentriple


Quote:
First I'm not saying I agree with restrictions on the BoR, in fact I'm inclined to write I don't.
What are you actually saying? Because it LOOKS,to the casual reader, that you support the Constitution. However, like many far left liberals, you never actually pledge your support to the highest law of the land.

Do you actually support the Constitution and the BOR completely and in it's entirety OR do you not?

Just so you know, I COMPLETELY support the Constitution and the BOR.


Quote:
However, my point was that most, not all, conservative and progressive leaders have made restrictions usually around public safety, most of which The Court had upheld as Constitutional.

IF, the point of your OP was simply to state that politicians and judges have acted very poorly by trampling the Constitution and subsequently men's rights, we are in agreement. However, if that was your goal, the OP was VERY unclear and misleading. I would suggest rereading it and maybe you will see were your point was lost.


Quote:
So, if we accept "reasonable" restrictions to one Amendment it seems fair to accept it for others.
"WE" are NOT accepting "reasonable restrictions" to the Constitution. You may accept restrictions to your RIGHTS, however I (and many others) do NOT.

"Reasonable restrictions" are the one of the first steps to taking away something. Are you in support of giving up your RIGHTS? If you are, I guess that is one of your right, but I will not submit to tyranny!

Quote:
Our opinions will vary as to what is reasonable.
This is the very reason I will never agree to "reasonable restrictions". Why don't we simply follow what is written in the Constitution? Makes life much easier.


I've said all this and haven't even delved into the fact that if we allow someone (the government or any other wack job) to restrict our RIGHTS, then they were never RIGHTS to begin with. This I cannot abide by, how about you?
IhRedrider is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 06:06   #92
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Jerry,

After all I am a gun owner as well


Sure you are.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 06:09   #93
dugo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Spare me the sanctimonious, condescending, quasi-intellectual BS, and direct me to the points you seem to think I "missed". I'm happy to reconsider my position and openly concede I'm capable of miscommunication a point. However, based on the logic and reasoning I'm confronted with I'm hard pressed to move ideologues such as you or your cadre. But, again, point me to my folly and I will defend what merits defending.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Your response is actually a joke on me, and I had to laugh at myself. You see, I had originally written that, "...before you get personal, I admit to being pompous and condescending here, but that should not stop you from being honest with yourself". Then, I edited to omit that sentence and soften my post overall, to your benefit, thinking it would give you a little more room for thoughtfulness rather than provoking defensiveness and anger.

But you were clever enough to see through that.

(Gosh, I had never been called "ideologue", or "sanctimonious", though I certainly will think about it, now. I have joked that I used to be a pseudo-intellectual, but I accept your upgrade to "quasi". Thanks for the personal attention.) (-- No need to point out the sarcasm here; I am aware of it.)

Anyway, the joke is on me.

On the OTHER hand, that doesn't get YOU any closer to the truth; AND, your name calling as a primary response to challenges could be taken to indicate a pretty low level of commitment to intellectual honesty.

Since you asked about your "folly", you might want to take another look at Jerry's post, where you responded with only, "Dude, you'r (sic.) post is pure BS".

Jerry's was actually pretty well reasoned, and specifically relevant to what you had said, but your response to him made it look like you could not understand it at all. That might be a good place for you to start.

Last edited by dugo; 05-05-2012 at 07:51..
dugo is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 06:58   #94
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 34,939
I'm trying to figure out if greentriple has, once again, become hysterical because he posted some DU troll topic that was easily seen through, but he can't give it up.

Or is he posting while drinking...and becoming hysterical...?
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.
Bren is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 07:08   #95
dugo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 936
Greentriple, You know what? No need to respond to my above post if you don't want to. I'll leave it here, but thanks anyway.

Jerry and Redrider are being way more substantive than I am, and reasonable responses to their posts should be enough. (Only partly condescending, here.)

I'll just be checking in, to see how it goes.

Thanks for the perspective, Bren.

Last edited by dugo; 05-05-2012 at 07:30..
dugo is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 08:23   #96
Silver_Bullet_00
Senior Member
 
Silver_Bullet_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Obama embraced Bill Ayers! (extreme communist, terrorist and founder of the weather underground) Who conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s.

I haven't seen a right wing president, or political leader embrace Timothy McVeigh, or any other criminal.

Oh and Nancy and other on the left embrace the poo throwing, rapists, and rioting idoits.

So your point is mute, and incorrect. Of the violent crime states listed, study where it comes from, and you might learn that it comes from the people on the programs you on the left support.
Oh and see my chart on my post # 59 in this thread. I would love you to comment on it. You might get an understanding of why these states are listed!
__________________
When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia,” it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. Ron Paul

Last edited by Silver_Bullet_00; 05-05-2012 at 08:29..
Silver_Bullet_00 is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 09:21   #97
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
I'm trying to figure out if greentriple has, once again, become hysterical because he posted some DU troll topic that was easily seen through, but he can't give it up.

Or is he posting while drinking...and becoming hysterical...?
Yup, you win! I'm running out of tissue.

Oh and as my original post did, here is another for discussion.

A lethal right to self-defense

Stand Your Ground laws have come under fire after the death of Trayvon Martin. Do they offer a license to kill?

What are Stand Your Ground laws?

Statutes that expand a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense, which have been adopted by 25 states in the last decade. An established legal principle, the Castle Doctrine, has long allowed people to use reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force to protect themselves from an assailant inside their homes. But on public property outside the home, a person who could safely retreat from a threat generally has a legal duty to do so. Stand Your Ground laws remove that requirement to retreat, and authorize the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels at risk of death or great bodily harm. In the Trayvon Martin case, police in Sanford, Fla., said they didn’t initially arrest the shooter, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman, because they couldn’t refute his claim that he’d fired in self-defense—even though Martin, 17, was unarmed when killed.

Why were these laws introduced?

The push for Stand Your Ground began in Florida in 2004, after Pensacola resident James Workman shot and killed a man who entered his recreational vehicle. Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Workman, but lawmakers said they were disgusted that the retiree had to suffer months of legal uncertainty before being cleared. Together with National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, Republican state Sen. Durell Peaden drafted a bill that would allow Floridians to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, wherever they were. “Now, the law and their government is on the side of law-abiding people and victims, rather than on the side of criminals,” said Hammer. Some law-enforcement officials warned that the statute would make it hard to secure murder convictions, by enabling almost any defendant to claim self-defense and increasing the burden of proof on prosecutors. The state legislature overruled those objections, and the bill became law in 2005. Since then the NRA has successfully pushed for similar statutes in 24 additional states.

What impact have these laws had?

That is a matter of bitter dispute, as is so often the case when gun rights are involved. State legislators who supported Florida’s law cite a 23 percent drop in violent crime over the first five years the law was in effect; they contend that criminals were cowed by the knowledge that citizens could legally shoot them in self-defense. Gun-control advocates argue that the decrease was not related to Stand Your Ground, noting that violent-crime rates dropped 12 percent in the five years before the law was passed, and have continued falling in states with or without such laws. These critics also contend that the law has caused a surge in people using guns to settle conflicts.

What do the statistics show?

Before 2005, Florida civilians committed an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year. Two years after the law’s passing, that number surged to more than 40 a year. Other states with Stand Your Ground laws have seen similar spikes. An analysis of FBI data by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg shows that states that passed Stand Your Ground laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment. States without such laws experienced a mere 4.2 percent increase. “These laws are vigilantism masquerading as self-defense,” said Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate. He accused the NRA of seeking to “create a nation where disputes are settled by guns instead of gavels, and where suspects are shot by civilians instead of arrested by police.”

How do the laws’ supporters respond?

Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who co-sponsored the original bill, says the jump in justifiable homicides simply proves that the law is working. “The perpetrator suffered instead of the person they were victimizing,” said Baxley. “That’s what those numbers mean.” Supporters note that the law contains safeguards designed to counter vigilantism and prevent criminals from murdering someone and then claiming self-defense. “In order to get the protection of the law,” said Florida state Sen. David Simmons, an alleged victim “must not, for example, be the aggressor; cannot be waving a gun at someone; and cannot be engaged in drug dealing.”

Do these laws remain popular?

The Trayvon Martin case appears to be causing second thoughts. Attempts to pass Stand Your Ground laws in Alaska and Iowa were halted after Martin was killed, and Democrats in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin are attempting to roll back the legislation. In Florida, Rep. Baxley has said that he is open to considering small amendments to the law, such as clarifying when neighborhood-watch volunteers like Zimmerman can use force. But the drive to repeal Stand Your Ground faces fierce opposition from the NRA, a powerful lobbying force in many state legislatures. In addition, the law’s opponents are almost all Democrats, many of whom serve in states with legislatures controlled by pro–Stand Your Ground Republicans. “When laws have unintended consequences, they demand review,” said Democratic state Rep. Bakari Sellers of South Carolina, who filed a repeal bill last month. But “it’s an uphill battle.”

When gangsters stand their ground

Could a criminal use Stand Your Ground to justify a deliberate homicide? It’s happened on multiple occasions, say critics of the law. One such case occurred in 2008, when a wild gunfight broke out between rival gangs outside an apartment block in Tallahassee. Some 30 shots were fired, and one of them resulted in the death of 15-year-old Michael Jackson. Two young men were arrested for his murder, but they were subsequently freed after claiming they had acted in self-defense. An angry Judge Terry Lewis said he had no choice but to order their release. “The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun,” Lewis said. “Contrary to the state’s assertion, it is very much like the Wild West.”



– Sent from The Week iPad edition –
All You Need To Know About Everything That Matters
Download the app and try The Week for free: http://iTunes.com/apps/theweekmagazineus


Until such time,


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 09:30   #98
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver_Bullet_00 View Post
Here is a link of actual statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...r-jan-jun-2011

If one cares to organise the data, you can verify the claims.

Republican or Democratic governors have nothing to do with the crime!

I might take some heat for saying it, but socioeconomics, plays a huge part in crime. If you look into socioeconomics, you find certain races are greatly effected by socioeconomics.

Notice the South East has the most violent crime rates according to the articals. The North has less.
Gun-Control Issues
My apologies for not responding. I find the information compelling. And I never disputed it, I simply found a article that listed states, I the, out of curiosity, looked up the governors. Any assumptions made by others of some intended corollary was fear and defensiveness by others.

I agree that socioeconomics "play a huge part in crime".


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
greentriple is offline  
Old 05-05-2012, 11:00   #99
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
I've warned you already and you've managed to get a second thread closed. It is obvious that what is posted below is copped. You don't show it as a quote and you don't credit the original source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post

Oh and as my original post did, here is another for discussion.

A lethal right to self-defense

Stand Your Ground laws have come under fire after the death of Trayvon Martin. Do they offer a license to kill?

What are Stand Your Ground laws?

Statutes that expand a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense, which have been adopted by 25 states in the last decade. An established legal principle, the Castle Doctrine, has long allowed people to use reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force to protect themselves from an assailant inside their homes. But on public property outside the home, a person who could safely retreat from a threat generally has a legal duty to do so. Stand Your Ground laws remove that requirement to retreat, and authorize the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels at risk of death or great bodily harm. In the Trayvon Martin case, police in Sanford, Fla., said they didn’t initially arrest the shooter, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman, because they couldn’t refute his claim that he’d fired in self-defense—even though Martin, 17, was unarmed when killed.

Why were these laws introduced?

The push for Stand Your Ground began in Florida in 2004, after Pensacola resident James Workman shot and killed a man who entered his recreational vehicle. Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Workman, but lawmakers said they were disgusted that the retiree had to suffer months of legal uncertainty before being cleared. Together with National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, Republican state Sen. Durell Peaden drafted a bill that would allow Floridians to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, wherever they were. “Now, the law and their government is on the side of law-abiding people and victims, rather than on the side of criminals,” said Hammer. Some law-enforcement officials warned that the statute would make it hard to secure murder convictions, by enabling almost any defendant to claim self-defense and increasing the burden of proof on prosecutors. The state legislature overruled those objections, and the bill became law in 2005. Since then the NRA has successfully pushed for similar statutes in 24 additional states.

What impact have these laws had?

That is a matter of bitter dispute, as is so often the case when gun rights are involved. State legislators who supported Florida’s law cite a 23 percent drop in violent crime over the first five years the law was in effect; they contend that criminals were cowed by the knowledge that citizens could legally shoot them in self-defense. Gun-control advocates argue that the decrease was not related to Stand Your Ground, noting that violent-crime rates dropped 12 percent in the five years before the law was passed, and have continued falling in states with or without such laws. These critics also contend that the law has caused a surge in people using guns to settle conflicts.

What do the statistics show?

Before 2005, Florida civilians committed an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year. Two years after the law’s passing, that number surged to more than 40 a year. Other states with Stand Your Ground laws have seen similar spikes. An analysis of FBI data by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg shows that states that passed Stand Your Ground laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment. States without such laws experienced a mere 4.2 percent increase. “These laws are vigilantism masquerading as self-defense,” said Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate. He accused the NRA of seeking to “create a nation where disputes are settled by guns instead of gavels, and where suspects are shot by civilians instead of arrested by police.”

How do the laws’ supporters respond?

Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who co-sponsored the original bill, says the jump in justifiable homicides simply proves that the law is working. “The perpetrator suffered instead of the person they were victimizing,” said Baxley. “That’s what those numbers mean.” Supporters note that the law contains safeguards designed to counter vigilantism and prevent criminals from murdering someone and then claiming self-defense. “In order to get the protection of the law,” said Florida state Sen. David Simmons, an alleged victim “must not, for example, be the aggressor; cannot be waving a gun at someone; and cannot be engaged in drug dealing.”

Do these laws remain popular?

The Trayvon Martin case appears to be causing second thoughts. Attempts to pass Stand Your Ground laws in Alaska and Iowa were halted after Martin was killed, and Democrats in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin are attempting to roll back the legislation. In Florida, Rep. Baxley has said that he is open to considering small amendments to the law, such as clarifying when neighborhood-watch volunteers like Zimmerman can use force. But the drive to repeal Stand Your Ground faces fierce opposition from the NRA, a powerful lobbying force in many state legislatures. In addition, the law’s opponents are almost all Democrats, many of whom serve in states with legislatures controlled by pro–Stand Your Ground Republicans. “When laws have unintended consequences, they demand review,” said Democratic state Rep. Bakari Sellers of South Carolina, who filed a repeal bill last month. But “it’s an uphill battle.”

When gangsters stand their ground

Could a criminal use Stand Your Ground to justify a deliberate homicide? It’s happened on multiple occasions, say critics of the law. One such case occurred in 2008, when a wild gunfight broke out between rival gangs outside an apartment block in Tallahassee. Some 30 shots were fired, and one of them resulted in the death of 15-year-old Michael Jackson. Two young men were arrested for his murder, but they were subsequently freed after claiming they had acted in self-defense. An angry Judge Terry Lewis said he had no choice but to order their release. “The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun,” Lewis said. “Contrary to the state’s assertion, it is very much like the Wild West.”



– Sent from The Week iPad edition –
All You Need To Know About Everything That Matters
Download the app and try The Week for free: http://iTunes.com/apps/theweekmagazineus


Until such time,


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:02.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,078
227 Members
851 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42