TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:
That's most of what this is about....using the incident to undermine self-defense law and impose more gun control.

I think the usual suspects such as bloomberg are absolutely trying to turn it into more gun control.

But with the current administrations weigh in on the topic, I think its far more about "our poll numbers are looking bad, we need to find something to galvanize the base" for national level democrats.

They tried the "war on women" and trying to shut down Limbaugh...didn't work. This is just the next noodle thrown at the wall to see what sticks.

v-rog wrote:I make a post and the thread is in danger of being locked ....Can I go for thread lock #3 :

Keith B wrote:OK folks. This thread is getting way to personal. I will make a suggestion that everyone drop the discussion for now and cool your jets. If it continues on the downward spiral, then it will be locked.

Don't worry, there were some *ahem* interesting *ahem* personal attacks and rants earlier in the thread.

I don't think its your fault.

TAM and mamabearcali, right on.

Agreeing with others that Zimmerman should be punished before the investigation concludes does not help our 2nd amendment rights, it merely adds our voices to that of the rabnlerousers.

We should keep a close eye on this. We shouldn't be jumping to anyones defense, Zimmerman or Martin, until we know the facts.

Speculation on how this event will be used by anti gunners makes sense to me. Speculating on guilt just seems silly. There will be plenty of time to Monday morning quarterback zimmermzns every decision after the grand jury and or trial.

A-R, does stand your ground still apply if engaged in criminal activity? For example, our MPA law allows car carry if not engaged in gang activity.

Is there any possibility "white boy" got a deal for information on gang drug activities and that's why it never went to trial?

Just wondering if there's a "and now, the rest of the story..." because if it's true as written, that is bad.

gdanaher wrote:Try to stay focused.

Hey, you offered up the distraction. Stay on topic.

It was an allegory.

Those are usually more useful if they're true.

BACK ON TOPIC,

Jusster, interesting about the neighborhood diversity. Where did you find that number? (25% of the neighborhood being black).

There's been a lot of interesting news coming out of this case last few days, from the broken nose/bloody head/grassy shirt indicating self defense, to the fact Zimmerman tutored black kids (sounds like a real racist to me).

As more facts come out, the MSMs story looks less and less "true".

gdanaher wrote:Wow, I agree with you. Scary.

Well I guess my Nazi propaganda machine is getting better.

But in some industries, a higher level of training implies a higher responsibility. Example: if someone untrained in CPR cracks a few ribs, well they were doing all they could to help a guy live. If the same person has had the Red Cross training class, then there could be a problem with those broken ribs.

I get what you're trying to say here, but your example isn't correct. Good Samaritan laws do protect someone trying to help out, even doctors who have lots of training. For example, check out this case of a Texas doc who could not be held negligent for injuring a child during birth because he was acting as a samaritan, not the woman's paid medical professional:http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/h ... 011203.htm

I understand you're trying to stress that more training=more responsibility, but considering that most NW groups emphasize and teach reporting to police and not confrontation, I'm not sure that his NW training has any real bearing on his actions once the confrontation became violent. His NW training most likely taught reporting to the police, which is what he did.

Zimmerman might not have been 'on duty' at the time, but he has read the rules/suggestions, has been told that the police don't need him to follow. He could have chosen to stay in his car, stay back a half block, and waited for the police to arrive. There has been nothing to indicate that there was any immediate threat to persons or property other than Zimmerman not recognizing Martin, so what was his rush? His case is not helped much when the college where he has been taking criminal justice classes asks him to stay away until the smoke clears.

Yep, I agree that he made a stupid decision to get out and confront instead of merely reporting. That act in and of itself is not illegal, however. Getting out of the car does not justify Martin attacking Zimmerman. Nor does Martin looking "suspicious" justify Zimmerman attacking Martin.

What happened beyond calling the cops (regarding who changed the situation from non violent to violent) is unclear. We still don't have conclusive evidence of who did what, so its hard to determine who was standing their ground and in the right and who was attacking.

As for the college telling him to stay away, I think that is a symptom of the media circus, not an indication of his innocence or guilt. When you have the New Black Panther party encouraging people to find and apprehend Zimmerman "Dead or Alive", keeping that whole mess off your campus is just common sense.

None of what was stated above is intended as an attack on you personally. Please don't take it the wrong way.

A-R wrote:
IMHO, way too much is made of Zimmerman's NW status. This was an easy way to LABEL him for purposes of the initial media coverage, but it has little to no bearing on the circumstances. If someone who was NOT a member of NW did the same thing as Zimmerman, would that make the other person's actions more excusable because Zimmerman "was trained and should have known better" (heck, we're assuming he had any formal training at all beyond his CHL).

It's as you're saying his NW status somehow makes Zimmerman MORE liable for his stupid decision to pursue?

I think his participation in a Neighborhood Watch program is exactly what is leading people to paint him as a "wanna be cop".

Now it doesn't matter at all legally (if he was indeed "not on watch" when he confronted Martin) that he is a NW member, but its part of what has helped drag him through the court of pubic opinion with a guilty sign hung around his neck.

It'll be interesting when it all shakes out who said and initiated what (if we ever learn the facts...which I'm doubtful of at this point. Already too much of a circus for facts to be important to most people).

Gdanaher and rockinrook, I'm going to hand out a bit off free advice, then back out of this thread.

On a discussion forum, when someone disagrees with an idea you had or statement you have made, it is not a personal attack. If you treat every disagreement someone has with you personally, you won't enjoy posting very much.

In both of your cases, I have posted ideas counter to your own, not personal attcks.

By rocking rook, that was responded to by calling me as much of a threat to the 2nd amendment as Zimmerman, then telling me to grow up.

In gdanahers case, a counter view point was responded to by attacking me for being "biased" instead of countering an idea with another idea.

Gentleman, if you continue to take offense at people having different ideas than your own, and insult members instead of discuss ideas, I fear it will be your stays on the boards that may be tragically cut short.

In closing, it's the Internet. Dong take things so personally, and realize there is a vast difference between disagreeing with someones views....and name calling.

gdanaher wrote:

74novaman wrote:
Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

I know what I said, and GUARANTEED is neither stated nor implied. You need to avoid reading your bias into other folk's comments.

...... but it seems you are bent on twisting things to your narrow view. Have a nice day.[/color]

From your post on page 4:

gdanaher wrote:
So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation.

I'll say one thing...you're right, guaranteed was not implied. You implicitly stated it. I even used the word guaranteed because YOU used that word.

Not sure on what planet quoting someones EXACT STATEMENT becomes "twisting things to my narrow view" or "reading my bias into things".

Seriously?

gdanaher wrote: The statistics can be read differently I guess so here goes: Currently, 44% of those polled nationally felt that gun laws should be strengthened. Is it ok to they are likely anti gun?? Further down in the article it stated that 29% of individuals owned guns, so I am figuring they are pro gun, not anti, right?? Now, 42% of households own guns which means that you have come couples (I'd say married, but the times have changed), who might disagree on this issue but let's shoot on the high side and say that 42% are pro gun. Your statistics. That leaves 14% of the population that apparently cares neither way. They don't support, they don't think they need new laws. So, 58% of those polled were either anti-gun or neutral on the issue. Now, isn't that pretty much what I said 3 pages ago?

Well if we're going to get to say what percentage of certain groups is anti or pro gun, here's my take on it.

To put it as simply as possible, your initial statement was this:

Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc.

Now both polls I cited asked random Americans what they thought. Considering in 2009 we were getting a lot of news about gun shows in the Southwest being responsible for the gun violence across the border in Mexico (this was before we found out that its mainly the ATF shipping guns across the borders), it should be no surprise a sampling of random Americans thought "laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict" (The question Gallup asked). I wouldn't be so quick to paint those people as strongly anti gun as merely misinformed by the main stream media. These aren't people that are writing their cogresscritters, or signing up for the Brady Campaign...they just see in the news that US guns are heading to Mexico, and when asked, say "yeah, something should be done about that." Much like those who "raise awareness" for things like Darfur, they are all talk and no action.

For reference, I cite 2 articles from 2 nationally known and read newspapers, New York Times and LA Times reproting the "fact" that lax US gun laws are responsible for Mexican violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15 ... wanted=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16 ... gunshows16

In regards to your painting the entire lot of those who favor stricter gun laws and being "anti gun", what do you think about the CNN poll, which found the following:

The poll indicates that the two sides of the gun debate are evenly balanced, with one in seven Americans opposing any restrictions on guns at all and one in seven saying that all guns should be illegal except for police and other authorized personnel. Roughly a third support minor restrictions and roughly a third support major restrictions.

Basically, you've got the zealots on both sides (The 1 in 7 on guns being illegal for citizens, 1 in 7 wanting no restrictions), 1/3 who support "minor" and 1/3 who support "major" restrictions.

Considering how many here who support CHL licensing to carry, etc, just because someone supports minor restrictions does not put them into the anti gun camp. For that reason, I don't believe you can just lump the 43% that want stricter laws firmly into the anti gun camp so much as in the "I get my news from the New York times and think the gun loophole should be closed because I'm ignorant" camp.

To quote the summary of the gallup poll:

Rather, Americans as a whole may just be more accepting of gun rights now than in the past. Compared with views in 2000, each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup has shown a shift toward a more pro-gun stance on the question about whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. (The results are similar on the question of a ban on handgun possession, with nearly every major demographic group less supportive of a ban now than at the start of the decade.)

Now the important part: After your initial statement (most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral), you posed the idea that legislation is GUARANTEED to be created to restrict gun rights after an event such as the Giffords shooting or this Zimmerman media circus.

Not only did the Arizona shooting fail to pass anti gun legislation, the CNN article I cited states that the shooting did NOTHING to sway people's attitudes regarding guns as their poll numbers remained the same.

The facts are as follows:
1) people in the US across every major demographic group are less likely to support new gun laws than they were 10 years ago. The trends are shifting in our favor.
2) In addition, if a US congresswoman getting shot doesn't produce anti gun legislation, I don't know if much will.

Well, GDANAHER, if you're interested, I responded to your assertion regarding gun tragedies=new gun laws and that most people are either neutral or anti gun......back on the bottom of page 4.

Didn't want you to miss that in the subsequent 3 pages of back and forth between VMI and Jusster.

matriculated wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

matriculated wrote:Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

Is that honestly such a bad thing? In the 24 hour news cycle, any random bit of supposed "insight" or "new facts" gets reported with little to no research into the actual credibility of said information.

Heck, look into the reporting from any major event from the beginning to the end of its life in the news cycle.....they ALWAYS get things wrong at first, always have new information that sometimes makes what they reported first look completely false, are constantly changing the narrative and facts of the story...

Why avidly follow a story when next hour they'll have some new revelation to invalidate what they're saying this hour?

This thing has become a media circus, and at this point we'll be lucky to ever find out what really happened.

gdanaher wrote: Most people in society are either moderately anti gun or neutral. It takes little to swing some to the anti side, and when that happens, folks contact their legislators and then those folks craft new rules that might limit our ability to cc. So whenever someone with a license does something boneheaded, it reflects on everyone, and when a nutcase cuts loose in a crowd, legislation is guaranteed to be generated, and the higher the profile of the case, the more wordy is the legislation.

You, my friend, are stuck in the 90s. Then it was absolutely true that most Americans supported more gun laws. That trend, in no small part due to the almost complete lack of blood in the streets predicted by the antis following CHL laws passing, has been going the other way since at least 2000.

Here's some reading for ya.

Record low numbers of Americans support stricter gun laws: Gallop, 2009
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u. ... -laws.aspx

Support for stricter gun laws fell from 54% of Americans in 2001 to 39% in 2009, according to CNN.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/poli ... M:POLITICS

Another CNN poll taken after the Giffords shooting in 2011 SHOULD have shown a big swing towards stricter laws according to your statement, correct? Instead, the 2011 numbers looked near identical to the numbers from a CNN poll in 2009. In other words, the Giffords tragedy didn't sway anyone on either side to change their mind.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... shootings/


Am I saying that these types of terrible events are GOOD for us? Absolutely not. But, your statements I quoted are factually incorrect.

gdanaher wrote:Another twist on the issue. State legislatures have generally allowed cc after applicants were vetted and cleared. All or part of 5 states have 'constitutional carry' and that has been advocated for Texas here as well. In light of this case, what affect might this matter have on any future Texas legislation that would permit 'constitutional carry'?

Considering the reports are that this guy had a permit, and Florida is not one of those states that has constitutional/permitless carry, I fail to see how your twist has any connection, but I guess I'll answer...

If any shooting comes up regarding permitless carry, it will be Laughner in Arizona. But once again, just like every other shooting by a mad man.....one more gun law wouldn't have mattered a lick anyway. He already lied on the 4473 to purchase the gun (are you a dependent user of any illicit substance...he checked no, when he was a habitual marijuana smoker), its not like Laughner would have bothered to go out and get an Arizona permit, THEN gone and shot people.

Criminals and murders do not obey laws. Not laws regarding purchase, ownership, or carrying of weapons. In this case, until we have all the facts....we simply do not know what happened. We know Mr. Zimmerman is a questionable guy, but we simply don't know all the facts.

A series of events and decisions led up to their tragic meeting. I truly don't think Zimmerman set out that night thinking "I may get to kill a bad guy today". Zimmerman seems to be the type that wanted to play cop without going through the hard work it takes to become one. While fulfilling his fantasies with the neighborhood watch, he saw what he thought was a suspicious person. If he'd had the sense to merely call the cops and report said person, instead of getting out of his car and confronting him, things would have ended very differently.

Unfortunately, past the fact he got out of a car against dispatchers advice to confront someone, we don't know with certainty what happened next.

Short of Mr. Zimmerman making better life decisions all around, I'm truly not sure what could have prevented this.

I certainly don't think the "stand your ground" law was the reason this happened, and short of the usual anti's bleating about lax gun laws being responsible for everything from colonial slavery to global warming and transfats, I don't think this will result in any legal changes regarding gun rights.

RockingRook wrote:Again, grow up!! Maybe god gave you your rights but the govt. can take them away.

I know they will have to pry open your cold dead hands. Right!!

That and all the other garbage that people say. It may sound good but it is all hogwash.

Well, you're free to disagree with me, but that is EXACTLY what the founders intended. I guess they should grow up too.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? - Patrick Henry

...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry

Man, those guys sure need to grow up!!