Rangerland Forum Information

[Kusand]

Well, either the radio station here is stupid, or they're intentionally trying to misguide people. For 3 days now, every time I've heard them talk about this issue with the Black Panthers, they have said it was a $1 million bounty. So I apologize if I was wrong, but I was going off what they've been spouting.

They're "receiving donations" to increase the amount of the bounty. From "anonymous donors," and they refuse to provide verification of the existence of any donation.

[rightbug]

For 3 days now, every time I've heard them talk about this issue with the Black Panthers, they have said it was a $1 million bounty.

The important thing to remember at this time is that, if you are a white male, you should be feeling afraid and outraged. Zimmerman was not racist but what will I tell my son about this yoke of fear and discrimination under which he must live his life?

[leetchie69]

The whole "stand your ground" defense loses me once I heard that Zimmerman chased Trayvon.

If he doesn't do that none of this happens.

[Sed]

You're both wrong - the press release stated that the person who brought in Zimmerman would get $10,000 worth of Bounty. Them's a lot of paper towels. A man could retire with that kind of supply...

The Zimmer picker-upper?

Yes - for a Rosier tomorrow!

[Knight of Dight]

Interestingly, Tennessee has a law similar to "Stand your Ground" referred to as the "Make my Day" law. Basically, if you feel like your life is in danger you can use lethal force to defend yourself. Obviously, you have to be able to articulate that to the police and in court if it goes that far, but yeah. Someone breaks into your house and you kill them, you are in the right in this state.

[Kusand]

Anytime a law is referred to with a Dirty Harry quote, you just KNOW it's a solid law.

[Knight of Dight]

Anytime a law is referred to with a Dirty Harry quote, you just KNOW it's a solid law.

Hey, it's the South, man. We're all a bunch of gun-toting illiterate inbred bumblefucks, remember?

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Mar 30 2012, 01:34 PM

[xcdudesquadloves...]

Anytime a law is referred to with a Dirty Harry quote, you just KNOW it's a solid law.

Hey, it's the South, man. We're all a bunch of gun-toting illiterate inbred bumblefucks, remember?

I confirm this.

[jkman61494]

Interestingly, Tennessee has a law similar to "Stand your Ground" referred to as the "Make my Day" law. Basically, if you feel like your life is in danger you can use lethal force to defend yourself. Obviously, you have to be able to articulate that to the police and in court if it goes that far, but yeah. Someone breaks into your house and you kill them, you are in the right in this state.

Ok, the name of that is funny.. But in all seriousness.

I was under the impression that would be legal in ANY state? If someone was breaking into and robbing my house here in PA, I wouldn't be in my legal right to use whatever force necessary to defend me, family etc?

[rightbug]

That's why I hate these laws. Self-defense is self-defense. Just because someone is breaking into my house, that doesn't mean I have an innate right to murder them.

[Tex]

That's why I hate these laws. Self-defense is self-defense. Just because someone is breaking into my house, that doesn't mean I have an innate right to murder them.

well, you are by far more tolerant than I of people who believe that they have an innate right to come into my home and fuck with my shit.

"Oh! But, Tex! It's just a TV and your wallet! That has far less value than a human life!"

Is there really any value to a person who already believes they have the right to steal and possibly kill? I say no. I also say that if you want to play the steal and kill game, you take your chances when you go into people's homes intending to steal and kill. It's all about the instigator penalty. No breaking and entering? No death by angry homeowner. Fucking simple. Rabid animals are put down every day. I do not discern a difference in this specific regard.

But hey, it's just my opinion and how it applies to my home. You can run your ship your way and we'll be fine. Do NOT tell me that criminals choosing to come into my home forces me to surrender my rights to not be robbed and/or killed to those criminals. That's not gonna work out. They already don't know right from wrong. No amount of prison time (and oh yeah, THAT's on my dime, too) will fix that behavior. I damned sure wouldn't want the revenge of some 'schnozzle who got safely hauled away to prison and lived to pay me back for his graybar vacation. Fuck that. I don't expect to be spared any damage by such people in their "right to steal and kill" phase, so I won't be kindly letting them have their will at my expense. If it is in my power in that moment, I put a permanent stop to their behaviors.

It will likely never ever come to anything like that, of course, but it is my opinion. On the internet.

Now, profiling and hunting people in public (which this case event appears to describe) is wrong and is not the same at all. imo.

[rightbug]

Is there really any value to a person who already believes they have the right to steal and possibly kill? I say no.

Here's where I stopped reading. Thank you for illustrating exactly why I hate these laws.

[Ebase]

That's why I hate these laws. Self-defense is self-defense. Just because someone is breaking into my house, that doesn't mean I have an innate right to murder them.

You are right, I don't have a license to kill. And truth be told, I am a controlled enough personality to give a person an opportunity to surrender. And I will keep aim on that person while he lays face down and awaits for law enforcement. BUT a failure to surrender is a forfeit on your life.

Like I stated before, there are very few arguments that I could understand that a person could give to justify their presence in my living room.

I have young children who every night I have to look into their eyes and know that they depend on me for their very lives.

[Sed]

That's why I hate these laws. Self-defense is self-defense. Just because someone is breaking into my house, that doesn't mean I have an innate right to murder them.

Besides, if ADT ads have taught us nothing else - and they haven't - it's that burglars and such are as skittish as deer. They break in the door and run away at the first loud noise.

[rightbug]

I have young children who every night I have to look into their eyes and know that they depend on me for their very lives.

Their lives are at far more risk due to a gun in the house than from a hypothetical home-breaker (and I say this as a supporter of gun-rights). In fact, in the event that someone does break into your house, I'm willing to bet that you having a firearm is more likely to escalate the situation to a point that is dangerous to your family than would otherwise be the case.

I'm guessing that the overwhelming percentage of home invasions (as opposed to burglaries) are either related to drug dealers ripping each other off or domestic disputes with a tiny percentage targeted at ultra-wealthy home owners.

And, again, I'm not saying that, in the absurdly unlikely event that some random psychopath breaks into your home looking to do physical harm to you or your family, that you do not have a right to defend yourself. I'm saying that you do not have an innate right to murder anyone who comes into your house uninvited.

Bringing it back to Trayvon Martin, the type of person who feels justified murdering anyone who enters their home uninvited is one step removed from feeling justified murdering any junkies they see on the street in their neighborhood because, you know, those people are just a home invasion waiting to happen. And as long as we're keeping our family safe, what's with that black kid in the hoodie?

[jkman61494]

Is there really any value to a person who already believes they have the right to steal and possibly kill? I say no.

Here's where I stopped reading. Thank you for illustrating exactly why I hate these laws.

Look, I'm about as peaceful and pacifist as they come. I don't own a gun and for that matter I've never fired one in my life. I frankly have no intention to. I'm also a person that would LOVE to see legislation passed to curb guns in our society. I'm not against people owning one, but I'm against someone owning an arsenal of sub-machine guns.

With all of that said, I really don't think it's fair to tell someone they can't sufficiently defend themselves from a potential burglar. Maybe you're right. The majority of these crimes may be drug related or with feuds and what not.

However, there are cases the the good 'ole suburban family with two kids, a dog and a nice fence is targeted by a robber. It's happened before and will happen again. If that person comes into someone's home with a weapon of any sort and looks to steal property and threaten the harm of a family? The home owner to me should have whatever rights needed to defend he/she and their family.

If that person wants to better the odds in living a nice long life, then don't be a criminal. Sometimes people may even have their compassionate reasons for stealing. Take the theoretical scenario in John Q for example as a "compassionate criminal" where he can't afford a heart transplant for his sick child.

Nevertheless, by engaging in criminal acts, you put your life, well being and freedom at risk. If any of them are taken away, it's your responsibility.

[rightbug]

With all of that said, I really don't think it's fair to tell someone they can't sufficiently defend themselves from a potential burglar.

I've already said that you have a right to defend yourself. It's called self-defense. That's not what Tex is talking about:

Is there really any value to a person who already believes they have the right to steal and possibly kill? I say no.

Anyone breaking into Tex's house is not, by his standards, of value to this planet. They are not, in his estimation, worthy of life. Accordingly, he should be legally entitled to kill them if he so chooses. It's the American way.

That's what the castle laws say. It doesn't have to be self-defense. Your house is a sovereign state and you have a legal right to murder anyone who enters without your permission.

Stand Your Ground extends that principle outside the house. I find dogs and black people scary -- I should be able to shoot them without fear of criminal persecution. That guy cut me off. I could have been killed! I must shoot him.

[Kusand]

I'm with 'Bug. I'm hoping it's not what they mean, but they sound a bit like they'd be happy to pop a fleeing burglar in the back and call it a good day's work. Defending yourself against someone coming through the door of the room your in or coming at you with a weapon is one thing; coming out from the bedroom looking to kill someone is kinda messed up.

[Tex]

meh, look. I do not own guns. And while I periodically shoot for fun with highly trained friends, on those trips I'm only plinking metal spinny targets, box turtles and water moccasins with nothing larger than .22 cal.

We will apparently always disagree on showing love and affection for criminals. If you, as a criminal, choose to threaten or harm me and mine in my home, you have chosen poorly and I'll do my best to stop you from ever doing it to anybody else, ever again. Understand this, please. The only "right" I claim is to not be a victim. I'm not hunting for trouble, but if it finds me, I'm trying to stop it from finding anybody else. Nobody should be a victim in order to coddle and caress those poor criminals and validate (if not celebrate) their poor choices.

If you prefer to insist that I am demanding some sort of an All-American "Free Murder Pass", one step from publicly hunting junkies based on whether or not they are wearing hoodies (hooray hyperbole!) whatev. We just disagree on this one. I'm not serving tea and dumplings with a big warm fuzzy hug while calmly awaiting law enforcement transportation of somebody who wrongfully and with malice entered my home. Such events do not usually engender compliant surrender, do they? Maybe they do, but those aren't getting any news coverage.

I can only hope that the Martin investigation is done properly and that nobody else is harmed in the social backlash that seems to be building.

[Kusand]

I think we disagree on what "love and affection" means.

[Tex]

I think we disagree on what "love and affection" means.

well, it was just my equal-and-opposite snarky hyperbole. somewhere, hidden quietly in the middle, was a calm, sensible reply.

[Kusand]

I think we disagree on what "love and affection" means.

well, it was just my equal-and-opposite snarky hyperbole. somewhere, hidden quietly in the middle, was a calm, sensible reply.

Fair.

[Tex]

you know, I don't hang out here to piss you guys off and irritate your beliefs.
I hang out here because so many of you are so much more high-brain functioning than I am. Truly brilliant and enlightened things are written here every day. I really enjoy all that is said and written all over these boards. I learn new stuff every day and am introduced to myriad opinions which is very healthy for my personal growth.

But, as a victim of various criminal acts, I feel like I simply have a different--yet informed--perspective on victim's rights. I've not been shown, ever, that those who would take from and injure others are worthy of my charity. There are enough bad things in the world happening to good people that I can not spare any amount of my sympathy for those who choose a path of crime. Maybe that makes me less noble in some minds, that my historical willingness to render aid at every opportunity does NOT extend to those who prefer to harm others. It just is how it is for me. *shrug*

[Beamer]

The amount of home break-ins that threaten people are small.
People break in. Usually wanting to go undisturbed. If they get disturbed they usually try to flee.

Break-ins happen every day. Break-ins with bodily harm happen rarely. Breaking into a home != threatening or harming the people inside the home. That's very rarely the goal.

[jkman61494]

I can understand why people are going against what Tex is saying. But trying to use the "it happens rarely" explanation I just have issues with. Not just on this particular issue, but period.

Incestual rapes that lead to pregnancy happen rarely....but they do happen. And when people go on the circuit to talk about the fact that ALL abortions should be made illegal, or we should be doing vaginal probes to all women....a girl under the age of 18 raped by a family is affected, even if it's just .089% of victims.

That's just one case where people might not think of the rare occurrences.

Just because a home invasion rarely leads to violence, doesn't mean people should not prepare for it, or assume that the invader IS capable of violence.

[Kusand]

Just because a home invasion rarely leads to violence, doesn't mean people should not prepare for it, or assume that the invader IS capable of violence.

Neither 'Bug nor I are suggesting to invite them to tea. We ('Bug, feel free to correct me if you are not on board) simply disagree that meeting ANY burglary/break-in with lethal force is an appropriate reaction.

[jkman61494]

Well, it's a case where I think people can cordially agree to disagree. I almost feel like I'm a moderator haha, but at least a tweener of sorts.

I'm about as anti NRA as they come, but if someone broke into my home, my assumption would be they are dangerous. Now, I wouldn't spot the person and shoot on sight but I'd at least have myself prepared in case aggressive actions were taken.

I totally see where you two are coming from, and I'm not so far to the other side on this issue. Killing is wrong. And if I ever was broken into, I might very well clam up if presented with a situation like I described above. I agree with you in that if a person robs my house, or tries to rob my car and they're caught.....and they run off, surrender, seek forgiveness etc etc. Let the authorities take care of them. But if they're holding a gun, a crowbar, hell a hockey stick and make a move towards someone? Then lethal force should be adequate.

I'll shut up about it at this point because I'm pretty much in the middle between everyone's opinion here, and it does distort from the Martin issue.

[jkman61494]

For the record, I'm against these Stand Your Ground laws and I think it's a joke that Zimmerman hasn't at least been arrested. Maybe this is a Duke Lacrosse situation where the truth would clear his name and we'd find out Martin wasn't Mr. innocent. But at least we need some answers.

At this point though, I think we're in a catch 22.

--If he's never arrested, the pot will continue to stir and I fear somewhere it's going to boil over whether that be in Florida, or at a march whether it's L.A. or Harrisburg where they held one today.

--If they do arrest him? You'll have people demanding to know why it took upwards of 6-8 weeks to happen and you STILL may have hostilities begin.

[Knight of Dight]

For what it's worth, keeping a pump shotgun available is an awesome deterrent for any would-be robbers. You hear them breaking in, and they hear you cock it, chances are they'll rethink their plan and get the fuck out. The sound it makes when you cock it is unmistakable.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Mar 31 2012, 02:26 PM

[Ebase]

I have young children who every night I have to look into their eyes and know that they depend on me for their very lives.

Their lives are at far more risk due to a gun in the house than from a hypothetical home-breaker (and I say this as a supporter of gun-rights). In fact, in the event that someone does break into your house, I'm willing to bet that you having a firearm is more likely to escalate the situation to a point that is dangerous to your family than would otherwise be the case.

I'm guessing that the overwhelming percentage of home invasions (as opposed to burglaries) are either related to drug dealers ripping each other off or domestic disputes with a tiny percentage targeted at ultra-wealthy home owners.

And, again, I'm not saying that, in the absurdly unlikely event that some random psychopath breaks into your home looking to do physical harm to you or your family, that you do not have a right to defend yourself. I'm saying that you do not have an innate right to murder anyone who comes into your house uninvited.

Bringing it back to Trayvon Martin, the type of person who feels justified murdering anyone who enters their home uninvited is one step removed from feeling justified murdering any junkies they see on the street in their neighborhood because, you know, those people are just a home invasion waiting to happen. And as long as we're keeping our family safe, what's with that black kid in the hoodie?

I understand what you are stating and I understand some of the statistics. And this is why I have been so diligent in making sure that I understand the operation of my gun, my ability to fire with precision, and why I don't have some goddamned bazooka in my house. This is why I have my gun in a very secure case. I recognize some of issues with children. And because of that I have a combination on that case. You are not opening this case with a lever, or anything else reasonable. I have a civic reponsibily to be proficient like I am with a car and using that as a lethal weapon.

And in reality, the odds of someone actually breaking into my home are completely minuscule.

I have a set of samurai swords in my house as well. And as a weapon I am also not running into the street to filet them.

Getting back to our boy Zimmerman and the slippery slope. You think it's one step but I disagree. This to me speaks more to the cavalier attitude Amercians have with guns. Stand your ground rules and other things that actually are tacit concepts that can justify or even encourage this type of behavior to occur. My standards are very different. the one step only exists because some people actually think what a Zimmerman did is ok. Look at the zealot approach the RW media is running to back Zimmerman.

If we could remove the cavalier attitude that gun nuts have. Something that I think compensates for penis size. You have these NRA gun nuts and they have taken things to an upsurd level that is really the slippery slope to what I am doing. They are not reasonable.

In my opinion, it IS the 2nd Amendment that differentiates Americans from other countries. There is this cult of paranoia that exists in America. And I think it is the very root cause for many of the aggressive gun behavior in this country.

It is tied back into this RW freedom concept that we are all frontiersman and that any kind of modern governance is nothing but tyranny.

[Tex]

to those who'd not defend their homes or selves against a present criminal (I feel pretty comfortable that I can use the word criminal in this context because: 1. The odds of facing a home invasion are tiny and 2. the odds of an "accidental" home invasion are even smaller) I have a few questions.

Do you lock your cars? Do you lock your homes' doors and windows? Why? You've already stated that you have nothing that you value enough to defend, and that you can easily go on without whatever somebody might wish to take from you. Locking windows only makes it more dangerous for criminals to get in, and they deserve every advantage to make their efforts easier and safer.

Do you expect that any such invader would be kind enough to leave and never come back just because you politely and calmly asked him too?

Do you expect that any such invader would immediately surrender and quietly await arrest from just the sound of your voice?

Do you really feel that prior victims of crime are not entitled to their feelings of horror and angst at having been victimized before, and not wanting the source of that feeling to go on, perhaps to even affect innocent others?

I can say that as a victim, I can not change the way criminals have made me feel about being victimized. They make me angry. Who the fuck are they to create these horrors and angsts (and fuck you, spell check, more than one angst IS angsts) in fellow humans? Finish them off, I say. Or should I rather direct them to your homes for all of their due pity, empathy and looting opportunities?

Again, I'm not a gun nut. I simply refuse to support the latent idea that criminals have the right to victimize others and that they should further be protected from harm despite their own harmful behaviors.

Maybe that just makes me some toothless, tobacco-drooling, mindless, heathen redneck.

And maybe it also means that your life has been mercifully free from attack by such criminals. Congratulations on your luck thus far. If you still feel the same way after they steal rape and murder your rainbow farting unicorn, you are a better human than I.

none of this helps Martin, though, who's situation is entirely different from the home invasion scenario talks.

[Knight of Dight]

to those who'd not defend their homes or selves against a present criminal (I feel pretty comfortable that I can use the word criminal in this context because: 1. The odds of facing a home invasion are tiny and 2. the odds of an "accidental" home invasion are even smaller) I have a few questions.

Do you lock your cars? Do you lock your homes' doors and windows? Why? You've already stated that you have nothing that you value enough to defend, and that you can easily go on without whatever somebody might wish to take from you. Locking windows only makes it more dangerous for criminals to get in, and they deserve every advantage to make their efforts easier and safer.

Do you expect that any such invader would be kind enough to leave and never come back just because you politely and calmly asked him too?

Do you expect that any such invader would immediately surrender and quietly await arrest from just the sound of your voice?

Do you really feel that prior victims of crime are not entitled to their feelings of horror and angst at having been victimized before, and not wanting the source of that feeling to go on, perhaps to even affect innocent others?

I can say that as a victim, I can not change the way criminals have made me feel about being victimized. They make me angry. Who the fuck are they to create these horrors and angsts (and fuck you, spell check, more than one angst IS angsts) in fellow humans? Finish them off, I say. Or should I rather direct them to your homes for all of their due pity, empathy and looting opportunities?

Again, I'm not a gun nut. I simply refuse to support the latent idea that criminals have the right to victimize others and that they should further be protected from harm despite their own harmful behaviors.

Maybe that just makes me some toothless, tobacco-drooling, mindless, heathen redneck.

And maybe it also means that your life has been mercifully free from attack by such criminals. Congratulations on your luck thus far. If you still feel the same way after they steal rape and murder your rainbow farting unicorn, you are a better human than I.

none of this helps Martin, though, who's situation is entirely different from the home invasion scenario talks.

Well said.

[rightbug]

Neither 'Bug nor I are suggesting to invite them to tea. We ('Bug, feel free to correct me if you are not on board) simply disagree that meeting ANY burglary/break-in with lethal force is an appropriate reaction.

Yes, I don't understand why this is a difficult concept. I've repeatedly said that self-defense is a given. Deadly force is sometimes necessary in defending oneself. But you do not have an inherent right to murder any random crackhead who breaks into your house while you are home.

My brother had a crackhead break into his apartment in Brooklynklyn while he was sleeping one night. Do you know what he did? Exactly the same thing I would have done in that situation. He beat the fuck out of the guy, threw him out and called the cops.

My next door neighbor had some dude whacked out on drugs come into his house one night because he was so fucking blitzed on drugs he thought it was his dealer's house. My neighbor has four children. Do you know what he did to this guy who was muscular and fucked up on drugs? He yelled loudly, turned on the lights, pointed at the door and told the guy he was going to call the police. If the guy had gotten aggressive my neighbor would have fought him while his wife called the cops. (My neighbor is a big guy -- Him not beating the crap out of the guy had nothing to do with fear. It was just good, common sense.)

I would not hesitate to use deadly force to defend my family but it would be a last resort, him or me (or them) situation.

You'll notice that tea was not being served in any of those scenarios. I'm not suggesting that the alternative to killing home invaders is hugs. But while we're on the subject of compassion, or it's close relative, basic human decency, it bears mention that criminals and drug addicts have made bad choices any a good percentage of them are shitty fucking people that I want nothing to do with. But they are still human beings. You don't have to like them and you certainly don't have to like them breaking into your house but the next logical thought in that progression should not be, "you are legally entitled to kill them" or, in Tex's words:

Is there really any value to a person who already believes they have the right to steal and possibly kill? I say no.

Okay Bernie Goetz. I think you should consider the possibility that you are a sociopath.

to those who'd not defend their homes or selves against a present criminal...

Or a retard.

This post has been edited by rightbug: Mar 31 2012, 06:36 PM

[rightbug]

By the way, this is an opposing position that I have 100% respect for:

I understand what you are stating and I understand some of the statistics. And this is why I have been so diligent in making sure that I understand the operation of my gun, my ability to fire with precision, and why I don't have some goddamned bazooka in my house. This is why I have my gun in a very secure case. I recognize some of issues with children. And because of that I have a combination on that case. You are not opening this case with a lever, or anything else reasonable. I have a civic reponsibily to be proficient like I am with a car and using that as a lethal weapon.

And in reality, the odds of someone actually breaking into my home are completely minuscule.

I have a set of samurai swords in my house as well. And as a weapon I am also not running into the street to filet them.

Getting back to our boy Zimmerman and the slippery slope. You think it's one step but I disagree. This to me speaks more to the cavalier attitude Amercians have with guns. Stand your ground rules and other things that actually are tacit concepts that can justify or even encourage this type of behavior to occur. My standards are very different. the one step only exists because some people actually think what a Zimmerman did is ok. Look at the zealot approach the RW media is running to back Zimmerman.

If we could remove the cavalier attitude that gun nuts have. Something that I think compensates for penis size. You have these NRA gun nuts and they have taken things to an upsurd level that is really the slippery slope to what I am doing. They are not reasonable.

In my opinion, it IS the 2nd Amendment that differentiates Americans from other countries. There is this cult of paranoia that exists in America. And I think it is the very root cause for many of the aggressive gun behavior in this country.

It is tied back into this RW freedom concept that we are all frontiersman and that any kind of modern governance is nothing but tyranny.

[Alitaki]

to those who'd not defend their homes or selves against a present criminal (I feel pretty comfortable that I can use the word criminal in this context because: 1. The odds of facing a home invasion are tiny and 2. the odds of an "accidental" home invasion are even smaller) I have a few questions.

Do you lock your cars? Do you lock your homes' doors and windows? Why? You've already stated that you have nothing that you value enough to defend, and that you can easily go on without whatever somebody might wish to take from you. Locking windows only makes it more dangerous for criminals to get in, and they deserve every advantage to make their efforts easier and safer.

Do you expect that any such invader would be kind enough to leave and never come back just because you politely and calmly asked him too?

Do you expect that any such invader would immediately surrender and quietly await arrest from just the sound of your voice?

Do you really feel that prior victims of crime are not entitled to their feelings of horror and angst at having been victimized before, and not wanting the source of that feeling to go on, perhaps to even affect innocent others?

I can say that as a victim, I can not change the way criminals have made me feel about being victimized. They make me angry. Who the fuck are they to create these horrors and angsts (and fuck you, spell check, more than one angst IS angsts) in fellow humans? Finish them off, I say. Or should I rather direct them to your homes for all of their due pity, empathy and looting opportunities?

Again, I'm not a gun nut. I simply refuse to support the latent idea that criminals have the right to victimize others and that they should further be protected from harm despite their own harmful behaviors.

Maybe that just makes me some toothless, tobacco-drooling, mindless, heathen redneck.

And maybe it also means that your life has been mercifully free from attack by such criminals. Congratulations on your luck thus far. If you still feel the same way after they steal rape and murder your rainbow farting unicorn, you are a better human than I.

none of this helps Martin, though, who's situation is entirely different from the home invasion scenario talks.

Question for you Tackleberry. Are you giving the person breaking in a chance to surrender and holding for arrest or are you comin' out blastin' like Yosemite Sam? I mean I know that you better be ready when the shit goes down, but it let's be real here.

[Greatone]

I think Pete should only post this in response to posts by Sats and I the rest of the regular season.

[Ebase]

By the way, this is an opposing position that I have 100% respect for:

Which, BTW I don't necessarily fully disagree with you.

What I think has occurred to this case is the weird gun disfunction that exists in the USA showing back up again. And if we are being intellectually honest we are a violent country. When we have more gun related deaths than almost every other 1st world country it speaks a lot.

Almost more than the salacious story about an asshole who shot an unarmed kid is the incessant need for the paranoid 2nd Amendment guys to come out of the woodwork and proactively defend the gun. Their allegiance has far more to do with the gun then it does with Zimmerman.

On one end you have the outrage that a young boy was assassinated by a douchebag. And these people want justice. To counter this the gun crazed feel they need to come out and declare that guns had nothing to do with this and this is expressed in the way the right is saying, "heh, lets not rush to judgement. He hasn't even been charged with anything yet..." They couple this with the age old argument of, "guns don't kill, people do."

So if we look try to figure out the NRA gun nut psychology it is born out of the true cowboy, tough guy, John Wayne frontiersman. Free from tyranny to live their lives off of the land and raise their children like its "Little House on the Prairie." Its a nostalgic attitude about a world that doesn't exist any longer. And so, when this is pointed out or reality kicks in and people inform them that this is a fantasy they almost counter this with expanding their arsenal and believing that they need more weapons and more powerful weapons. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers. Right? Here is the thing though. The government isn't coming into your house and if they wanted to, you couldn't stop them anyway. And to think in any other manner is stupidity.

Canada also has tons of guns. That is a fact. But Canadians don't kill each other in a serial way like Americans do. I think it has more to do with a collective societal healthier approach to weaponry. They are for lack of a better term, more mature than Americans are. This isn't to paint a overly rosy picture of Canadians as purely harmonious with their weapons. Its just they are more adult for lack of a better term than we are.

I believe its the 2nd Amendment, its intricate ties to RW politics that causes many of the issues. NRA folk as a collective do not have a mature approach to guns. They want more and more guns and more and more deregulation. They confuse this with freedom from tyranny. Given that we have a President who isn't like them , a guy who is an intellectual from a NE school put in the WH from people who are not establishment white people but by the new generation of progressive, highly educated, and immigrant rich is scary to them. How have they reacted? By purchasing guns by the dozen because they honestly believe that the President is an illegitimate foreigner and he is going to outlaw their lifestyles.

Zimmerman should be charged and if he isn't, it will be yet another example of the travesty of a society that does not have a really good relationship with weapons. It would be Zimmerman escaping true justice not because he did something morally correct but it would be because of some of these over the top gun laws.

But then again, there is a common pathology with the right nowadays. It is a bizarre obsession with anti-intellectualism. I think that in some ways the country is so utterly divided that some of this anti-intellectualism is nothing more then the antithesis of a perceived liberal lifestyle. Just follow some of the anti-intellectual statements made by the more fundamentalist Republicans. Not the establishment guys like 101. Rick Santorum has tapped into a huge swath of the Right with this very platform. Science? Stupid. Religion? Thats all that matters. Education? Indoctrination. Homeschool.

So i think that Zimmerman is not really a situation about an asshole who killed a kid skittles in hand. But more so, a clash of two civilizations in the US today that is becoming more and more divided then at any point post civil war.

This post has been edited by Ebase: Apr 1 2012, 03:26 AM

[Knight of Dight]

The way I look at it, when someone breaks into my house I will use whatever force is necessary to stop them but once they're down, I stop and wait for the police to come clean up the mess. If they later die from their wounds, well that's the risk they took breaking into my house. To me, there is a difference between defending yourself and your family and the person succumbing to the wounds sustained from that, and trying to murder someone.

[jkman61494]

Well said Ebase, especially about the divsiveness. To go off what you're saying, I'm someone who's not against the 2nd Amendment. While I think it's outdated, and needs tinkering, I don't have an issue with people having the right to bear arms. But the law wasn't designed to allow a person to have the ability to purchase 57 sub-automatic machine guns and high caliber sniper rifles that you can scope out a dear 500 yards away.

I also think there is HORRIBLE lack of holding gun sellers accountable for doing background checks on customers. Time and again you'll see reports about people going to gun shows and people buying weapons without a check, going so far as telling the person they've done crimes before.

The problem is if anyone, whether it be Barack Obama or Bill Clinton speaks a word about gun reforms, you get the ultra RW NRA lovers Ebase was talking about. And it's stuff like this that's making our society and country slow in progression while much of the rest of the world accelerates. There is over a 300/1 ratio of gun related homicides between America and Britain. That's a joke.

Again, like Ebase alluded to, we have a large chunk of society who just afraid of change. Whether that's moving forward with healthcare, gun reform, modern energy investments etc, they can't stand the world changing. And it's accelerating our decension from the world's best nation. We may always be the most powerful, but in the quality of life we have, it's eroding.

[Beamer]

Times per year a gun owner says "thank god I had that handgun, otherwise my daughter would have been raped!" few
Times per year a gun owner says "oh my god, I bought that to protect my family and now my son is gone!" many more

"I never thought it would happen to me!"

This post has been edited by Beamer: Apr 1 2012, 11:12 AM

[Tex]

Question for you Tackleberry. Are you giving the person breaking in a chance to surrender and holding for arrest or are you comin' out blastin' like Yosemite Sam? I mean I know that you better be ready when the shit goes down, but it let's be real here.

meh, 3rd time, I'm not a gun owner, but home invaders will have a fight on their hands. I disagree that sending rabid animals back into society is a good plan long term. My sociopathical scales are tipped decidedly towards victims rights and not attackers rights. I get no quarter, I give no quarter. Want to arrest me for pre-crime, just in case a home invasion could ever happen to me? Am I simply not allowed to even feel this way without being called a retard sociopath? Really?

[Mike B.]

I think the very fact that we've had a 40-post discussion about home invasions, which have absolutely zero to do with the Trayvon Martin case in themselves, is illustrative of the problem with people's attitudes to guns in this country. Tex and Ebase, you guys are almost fantasizing about the incredibly unlikely event of home invasions and what you would do, almost hoping they happen judging by your rhetoric, as a way to show how loyal to your families you are. Which is fine in some ways, I'm sure we all engage in that sort of behavior in regards to the people we care about.

Where I see a big problem is this notion that any criminal's life is a worthless one. That complete devaluing of life leads to a host of other problems. I might err on the side of elimination of a threat if I were assaulted in my home, but I would still recognize that ending a life is a devastatingly tragic occurrence, no matter where or when it happens. Even assuming that the perpetrator themselves was irredeemable (a big assumption) or that your actions were justified, the death profoundly affects you, your community, their community, your family, their family, and on. How would you feel after you shot someone in your home, even if you may have gauged the threat appropriately?

How I do see this relating to the incident in Florida is that maybe Zimmerman was emboldened by the same fantasies. No way to know this until more information comes out of course, but judging by his prior actions it's reasonable to think that he saw himself as a watchdog of his community, and he wanted to be a hero. If you dehumanize kids walking around in hoodies, as a threat to the safety of your neighborhood, it's easy to justify what you do at the time. Until you realize afterward what you've done.

[Knight of Dight]

You know, what just gets me about this shit is that it is one unfortunate event that has been singled out by the media, when similar things happen every day. Furthermore, there are lots of black-on-white crimes, but almost none of them ever make anything more than local news (and some of them don't even make that).


The liberal media has turned this into a circus through heavy usage of the race card, and now you have the idiots like Jessie Jackson coming out of the woodwork trying to incite a race war. It's fucking ludicrous.

Zimmerman is NOT white, he is Hispanic and looks Hispanic. But the media and all the idiots like Jackson and now the New Black Panthers are playing it off like it's a white man on black man hate crime and trying to rally blacks against whites. It's not. At worst it's one minority against another, and more likely, it was a crime committed by someone who is mentally ill. Also, if they really want to point fingers about crimes against blacks, statistics show that the vast majority of crimes against blacks are committed by blacks, not whites or any other race.

I'm sick of all this bullshit. There has been so much mudslinging and media bias involved that it's hard to really tell who truthfully did what, anymore.

[Greatone]

He is half white. And the complaint of "blacks shoot whites all the time and its not on the news!" isnt really any different than people complaining about coverage of certain missing kids etc. And it has nothing to do with the case. The facts of the case, no matter what the media says, shows extreme negligence on Zimmermans part.

[Tex]

no, Mike, facing that kind of event is the last thing I'd ever want to do. I'd likely be at a decided physical disadvantage to any invader. And true, such a thing would have a profound impact on me. However, the concept of breaking the chain of probable repeat offenses against an innocent society makes sense to me. My faith in the real rehabilitation abilities of our prison system is nil. I'd be glad to hear compelling evidence and statistics to the contrary. It is just where I stand on it. Oh yeah, I'm STILL not a gun owner. Fuck, it's like I need to get a t-shirt made that says that, or something.

[Greatone]

And I really dont know what you are trying to get at with that post. I mean it is possible for one minority to have a racist mindset against another minority. Its not just a white/black thing.

[Kusand]

Is there no justice for white people in America?! The New Black Panthers just keep holding them back!

Edit: Seriously, where is this "race war" stuff coming from? And again, the NBP are a joke.

This post has been edited by Kusand: Apr 1 2012, 01:03 PM

[Greatone]

Is there no justice for white people in America?! The New Black Panthers just keep holding them back!

I hate how blacks get away with killing white people!

Reading that post I read it with Rush Limbaughs voice.

[Ebase]

I think the very fact that we've had a 40-post discussion about home invasions, which have absolutely zero to do with the Trayvon Martin case in themselves, is illustrative of the problem with people's attitudes to guns in this country. Tex and Ebase, you guys are almost fantasizing about the incredibly unlikely event of home invasions and what you would do, almost hoping they happen judging by your rhetoric, as a way to show how loyal to your families you are. Which is fine in some ways, I'm sure we all engage in that sort of behavior in regards to the people we care about.

Well... Actually this is a case where you clearly have no idea what I have been espousing all along.

I am not fantasizing an unlikely scenario and I sure as fuck would never hope for it. That is insane. If that is how you took my comments then you either didn't read and understand what I submitted whatsoever, or you are trying to pigeonhole my views for the purposes of your narrative, or I wasn't clear enough on my points.

I need no catastrophic event to demonstrate any kind of loyalty to my family. Honestly, rethink that one for a moment. What exactly would I be trying to prove? That I am one badass hombre? Nonsense. I am an architect for fucks sake. How tough do you think I really am? My strength training comes from washing my 3-series every Sunday after going to Costco in my very macho Honda CRV to buy food food and supplies for my family. And of course my 3x a week trip to the gym includes that ever fueling run on a treadmill. I'm no Navy SEAL.

Due to my trade, I am someone who ACTUALLY does read the instructions on how to put together the table I bought from IKEA. and as a result, when I purchased a gun I did so with the same anal attention to detail. I learned everything about the gun. I learned how to shoot it. How to shoot accurately.

Whether or not you agree with my opinion, I don't think that anyone here would consider my view cavalier in anyway shape or form if they understood it correctly. In the contrary, my beliefs are fairly cowardice by the standards of most gun people.

I am not a gun nut. I do see value in having a gun in my house. My point all long was multifold

1. Zimmerman was a classic case of a douchebag looking for trouble. By the number of 911 calls he makes, the way he single handily deputized himself why is anyone surprised that this happened?

2. Trayvon was murdered in cold blood and there is no doubt that Zimmerman did this as far as I can tell.

3. Gun laws are completely out of control in this country and I believe that there is a subculture of RW Americans who have an unhealthy obsession with guns. And the Trayvon murder has brought them back out of the woodwork with the whole guns don't kill people, people do argument. And that cowboy attitude that a component of American society has towards the changing trends of this country. How Obama's election sparked an upsurd number of gun purchases by people to fend off the coming liberal zombie invasion.

And how all of this, and my little pussy handgun which has virtually no purpose in the world other then a calming sense that I have that I can adequately defend my home should the zombie invasion occur. And how I like another swath of Americans whose guns never see the light of day need not be lumped in with a douche bag like Zimmerman. That many countries that have guns including several in Europe, and our neighbors to the north have murder rates that are significantly lower then the US confirms to me that the bigger issue then guns in general is us. We are a violent and paranoid country. You could make the argument that because collectively we are a society that may be too immature for things such as guns, that the issue really speaks to how evolved or lack their of we are when it comes to such things.

And if you outlaw guns, you know what? I'll go to wherever the collection point is and present them my weapon. Why? Because I am a law abiding citizen.

[Paul Smachetti]

Is there no justice for white people in America?! The New Black Panthers just keep holding them back!

Edit: Seriously, where is this "race war" stuff coming from? And again, the NBP are a joke.

They're certainly not helping the situation. They're just inflaming the black community w/their rhetoric.