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.
Seems to me this is the perfect "incident" for the ultra liberal government and DOJ to continue with their gun grab from law abidizng citizens looking to protect themselves and their families from thieves and violent criminals. Why do they never address all the shootings in Chicago which within city limits has a ban on handguns? They want to disarm us so they can CONTROL us. The idiocracy going on in this country is astonishing to say the least.
Seems to me this is the perfect "incident" for the ultra liberal government and DOJ to continue with their gun grab from law abidizng citizens looking to protect themselves and their families from thieves and violent criminals. Why do they never address all the shootings in Chicago which within city limits has a ban on handguns? They want to disarm us so they can CONTROL us. The idiocracy going on in this country is astonishing to say the least.
Excellent post. I always bring up Chicago before and after the handgun laws, when making a point about what stricter gun laws do. Anyone that even thinks they might use a firearm in an illegal manor, is obviously going to get them from Big Moe down the block. Every time you hear about firearms arrests, the guns are never registered. What a shock right? Meanwhile liberal scum want law abiding citizens, who's only purpose is to protect their family, to have a hard time (most of them would just outright ban firearms all together if they had their way) buying a gun legally. Just imagine how safe it would be if none of us could get protection, yet millions and millions of illegal firearms still exist, and almost all would be owned by criminals, felons and gang members. Ya that sounds like a great idea, thanks a lot liberals!! I could go on and on about this, but the point has been made. These people make me sick.
Stand your ground law has nothing to do with guns. You can 'stand your ground' and kill someone with a weapon of your choice - baseball-bat, knife.
What is wrong with "Stand your ground"?
Many things. Most importantly, under this law, the burden of proof to use deadly force (gun or no gun) simply requires that a person imagines that he or she in danger (life is being threatened). Therefore it is a law full of holes.
I am so against the gun grabbers because they always go after the legal guns.
If they outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.
I agree with stand your ground laws BUT they do seem to have some holes in them. If someone kicks in your door yes beat them with a fireplace poker, stab them with a kitchen knife or shoot them. The perp violated your space and it could possibly be a case of his life or yours.
Trouble is walking down the street and you get mugged by a guy that looks threatening, maybe he has a knife maybe he is dressed up like a gangsta rapper with baggy pants and a hoodie? There is a VERY fine line between knowing when to use deadly force. I get nervous when I take the dog for a walk in the woods along a path and occasionally there have been groups of teenagers hanging out. It would only take one to do something stupid and what they think is funny I might perceive as a threat. It is never funny when someone gets shot.
It is best not to get into any altercation. Treyvon you probably shouldn't have been walking looking like a hood with a attitude and I promise I will stay out of the hood when the sun goes down.
I do not agree that one should be able to provoke a situation or purposely place themselves in a situation to where they're life might be in danger, and then claim self defense afterwards... I shouldn't be able to go into a bar while armed, intentionally pick on and start sh*t with a unarmed 6"5 250lb UTF fighter and then claim self defenses and legally be able to kill him while he's in the middle of giving me the ass whipping that I asked for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Treyvon you probably shouldn't have been walking looking like a hood with a attitude and I promise I will stay out of the hood when the sun goes down.
So basically you're saying minorities shouldn't walk in urban attire in White neighborhoods, or they deserve to be harassed and/or shot if they get tired of the harassment? You're a segregationist and an elitist?
You just answered the OP's question. People who think like Todd is what's wrong with Stand Your Ground.
These kinds of laws do nothing to improve human relations but probably are the needed salve of those who seem to fear everyone and think that self defense will be called for at any time. Not that this thinking is too far off base for some, (security guards, etc) but for the majority it just adds fuel to the ongoing gun debates because most of the conversation around self defense centers on gun use. I'm old now and never needed a gun beyond my military service, I know where not to venture and what to look for in most of my outside the home dealings. Fear seems to be the real issue here, and that speaks volumes to the changes in the U.S.
Stand your ground law has nothing to do with guns. You can 'stand your ground' and kill someone with a weapon of your choice - baseball-bat, knife.
What is wrong with "Stand your ground"?
Many things. Most importantly, under this law, the burden of proof to use deadly force (gun or no gun) simply requires that a person imagines that he or she in danger (life is being threatened). Therefore it is a law full of holes.
Important quibble: The person invoking SYG must have been reasonably in fear of death or serious injury, not merely 'imagine' it.
These kinds of laws do nothing to improve human relations but probably are the needed salve of those who seem to fear everyone and think that self defense will be called for at any time. Not that this thinking is too far off base for some, (security guards, etc) but for the majority it just adds fuel to the ongoing gun debates because most of the conversation around self defense centers on gun use. I'm old now and never needed a gun beyond my military service, I know where not to venture and what to look for in most of my outside the home dealings. Fear seems to be the real issue here, and that speaks volumes to the changes in the U.S.
I'm pro-gun, and I too think that this law and all the shoot first blood thirty gun toting cowboys who are salivating over the thought of being in a situation where that can kill someone is hurting our cause more than helping. Media story's like Travon and Zim., are also adding fuel to the fire. Everyone can agree that whole situation could have been avoided, but it's cowboys like the guys in this post that think it's okay to go looking for trouble that are the problem.. I do not think scared is the best word to use.. I think paranoid is more like it.
Last edited by DoniDanko; 07-15-2013 at 08:11 PM..
I see nothing wrong with it. Even the supreme court has ruled that once a police officer has justification to use deadly force he does not have to retreat.
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.
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.
