U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,480 posts, read 6,196,455 times
Reputation: 6959

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
This thread is turning into silly back and forth bickering - I was going to ignore the thread completely, but I can't leave well enough alone.

Once in a while, in life, we're presented with a situation where some asshat, despite clear indications of asshattery, is right.

Legally, I have little doubt that the correct decision was made. Ethically, I think there's room to debate - and the debate will be endless.

What bothers me most, though, is that spectators (with no little help from the media) have turned both people involved into quasi folk heroes. They're not. Martin was not an innocent victim of latent American racism nor is Zimmerman the hero who stood up to an anti-gun, affirmative action laden bureaucracy hell bent on subverting American values.

I guess that's my takeaway - that modern Americans can't just leave a trial like this as a simple trial - they have to attach all their ideological baggage to it, to make it representative of their ideological struggle. It's left me wondering why a murder trial can't just be a murder trial.
Because we have a mainstream media that wants to make it more than it is. They don't like guns, they think it's still the 1930's when it comes to race relations, and they get more attention, ratings and dollars by doing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,480 posts, read 6,196,455 times
Reputation: 6959
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
Yes, repeatedly "slammed" into the ground, yet, Zimmerman received no skull fractures, not even a concussion, head trauma, or brain injury.

Just a little cut/scrape.

Amazing....

Maybe they should make hardhats out of his skull.
So he should have waited to hear the first, crisp crack of his skull before defending himself? Using your logic, a cop should take one in the chest before he should fire his weapon. This is too silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,431,836 times
Reputation: 3253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Explain to me, Luis, how I'm incorrect about the "Canadian Perspective"
I already did in my first response to you. If you can't or don't want to understand thats not my fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,213 posts, read 6,567,148 times
Reputation: 14122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post

..... I think you correctly surmise that we are a more violent country than Canada; as much is manifest. But there's the rub: If I live in a nation plagued with violence am I not more in need of the means to defend myself?
Do you have an opinion or theory about why it is more violent down there? Hasn't it always been more violent right from the very beginning? What could be the cause of that? I have often wondered about that and wondered if the plague of violence might actually be an unintended but direct consequence of the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment and what it implies had not been written into the constitution is it possible that the nation would consequently have evolved into a less violent nation?

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:34 PM
 
18,262 posts, read 10,360,166 times
Reputation: 13314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Explain to me, Luis, how I'm incorrect about the "Canadian Perspective"--my claim was that such a perspective is dictated by what I called an aversion to the Second Amendment and the social right/freedom that it acknowledges; you and jambo then insist that I don't understand the Canadian perspective whilst trashing the fact that Americans own guns under a fairly lenient legal framework (and you yourself explicitly imply an innate lack of respect for human life on the part of Americans who choose to own/carry them). If that isn't perspective, then again, what the hell is it?

I'm starting to understand, however, that you don't view the right to own or bear a firearm as a freedom--you indeed appear to view it as an act of attempted murder--but that's really just a small matter of semantics, isn't it?



And you make this assumption why? Because Canadians have notably broader rights in terms of free speech than Americans? Utter bullsh*t.

Also, one last question on this, umm, "point": if you'll acknowledge Canadian firearm laws as being more stringent than those of the U.S., then what, in this rousing game of wordplay, do you call those of the U.S. in comparison, if not "lenient"? Wouldn't this mean that Canadians, well, think the U.S. is too lenient in one respect? Or would you, you know, maybe have to acknowledge the U.S. as a little, errrm, too free?
Montguy; I'll attempt to give you and your surmisal of the Canadian perspective regarding 2nd amendment rights some......well.....Canadian perspective.

We tend to look at the 2nd amendment as written by a bunch of dudes who had something in mind to forestall the institution of a corrupt or tyrannical regime having just shrugged off the yoke of imperialism. We tend to look at that through the lens of them adequately predicting that a plethora of citizens could actually afford to have a weapon to carry on their person that wouldn't result in them having to walk lopsided by carrying all the parphanalia that went with that practice like spare flints, powder flask, patches and not the least to consider but a pouch full of lead balls.

We older Canadians do have the history to think of a long gun, either shot gun or rifle, as being an item in every rural household for generations. During periods of rabies incidents, it would not be uncommon for dad to make sure the lever action rifle or pump shotgun was in the car or truck when driving us to the other farms in the areas for social gatherings or indeed, leaning against the wall of the coop, barn or sty when we kids were doing the chores and we would all have been proficient in it's usage.

We were brought up with the long gun being akin to another tool in the shed but given way more respect and care.

As our country developed and prospered after WWII, many returning vets, having seen action in multiple theaters of war, made it their mission to relegate or banish the firearm to the woodshed, having no obstacle such as a 2nd amendment characterizing that desire as undemocratic.

You have today within Canada mulitple generations of people who perhaps immigrated here from afar and know full well the strife caused and fueled by weapons ownership run amock and they want no further part of that.

We cannot begin to reconcile that with your 2nd amendment being irrevocably tied to your measure of freedoms and rights. We instead have to simply think of it as many generations of you have grown up with the thinking that weapon was just another tool in the shed.

All too often however it would seem that now you have the expressed desire to actually carry a weapon why.....well of course the common denominator is always to protect yourselves from each other. A far less lofty asperation than ridding yourselves of a tyrannical government bent o limiting your rights and freedoms, would you agree?

We as Canadians cannot possibly understand how this came to be but rest assured we are not new to this game. We have observed carefully as you have declared your right as individuals to the ownership of personal firearms and haven't thought about it one way or the other. We do not understand however the insistance on belabouring the point to the extent you need one for your protection as we don't understand how the need to protect yourself has arrived at that juncture.

THAT is out of our pervue to understand or not, it is your right and that's where the discussion should end for us.

Discussing how it got to this juncture or what could be done about it can still take place but in the context of educating ourselves only. We do not have to agree, nor do we need to understand. We do have the right to discuss it among ourselves and express all sorts of dismay but it will still remain your right.

Last edited by BruSan; 07-15-2013 at 06:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
6,480 posts, read 6,196,455 times
Reputation: 6959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Do you have an opinion or theory about why it is more violent down there? Hasn't it always been more violent right from the very beginning? What could be the cause of that? I have often wondered about that and wondered if the plague of violence might actually be an unintended but direct consequence of the 2nd amendment.

.
If ever I did have a theory on that I no longer abide it. 'Rugged individualism' makes us a little more prone to act on our own behalf as opposed to calling a cop, I guess. Maybe. Who knows?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,565 posts, read 11,062,540 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Montguy; I'll attempt to give you and your surmisal of the Canadian perspective regarding 2nd amendment rights some......well.....Canadian perspective.
Very well said BruSan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:48 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,213 posts, read 6,567,148 times
Reputation: 14122
I'd heard on the news that the police had told Zimmerman to not follow or approach Martin. I haven't followed this case closely as some others have so maybe somebody can explain to me how it was that Zimmerman still ended up in a physical altercation with Martin in spite of the police having told him to back off?

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,443,006 times
Reputation: 4409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Do you have an opinion or theory about why it is more violent down there? Hasn't it always been more violent right from the very beginning? What could be the cause of that? I have often wondered about that and wondered if the plague of violence might actually be an unintended but direct consequence of the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment and what it implies had not been written into the constitution is it possible that the nation would consequently have evolved into a less violent nation?

.
Wait just ONE minute! Are you saying, that maybe...just MAYBE!!!! the USA's high gun violence rate per capita MIGHT have something to do with its tendency to be lenient when it comes to lethal firearms!?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 09:19 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,213 posts, read 6,567,148 times
Reputation: 14122
I don't know. I think there's more to it than just leniency with guns. I'm inclined to suspect that the leniency with guns may have attracted violent and/or fearful people to settle there and over the course of centuries it just developed into a violent warrior type of society. There has been no time in the entire history of the nation when there has not been violence happening or when there was no military involvement or conflict happening somewhere. It's a warrior nation and everyone knows that. It's a super-power in the world that has achieved its domination and superiority through its intimidating fire power, both in military fire power and with so many of the citizens exercising their rights to carry arms.

So if the people and the nation as a whole hadn't possessed or exercised its rights and use of fire power, would it have ended being a less violent nation, and also a less fearful nation with less citizens abiding in fear and feeling they had to carry arms for "protection" against their enemies (using protection against a tyrannical government as an excuse for doing so)?

Look what happened with Zimmerman and Martin as an example - an armed man who was a suspicious and fear-filled person and who ended up killing somebody because of his fear and his misplaced confidence in his fire power.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 07-15-2013 at 09:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top