Another Innocent Dead 17 yr Old

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Trayvon Martin.
Died not too far from my town.
I don't want to get into discussing his case again.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" was never intended to be abused like it is today.

I'm all for the rights of gun owners to own any weapon they want (not including military grade weapons), but this law just needs to be re-worded so that there is no mistake in what the law will and will not protect.


Either re-word the law or repeal it completely. Too many innocent people are being murdered under the guise of, "Stand Your Ground."

Apparently, no one read the above from page 1 of this thread as my post.

Race is a factor in this incident and in the Martin incident. However, the problem is the misinterpretation of this law.

Originalist and others have asked questions that alluded to race, but the major reason for this incident and the Martin incident is the misinterpretation of a poorly written law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Apparently, no one read the above from page 1 of this thread as my post.

Race is a factor in this incident and in the Martin incident. However, the problem is the misinterpretation of this law.

Originalist and others have asked questions that alluded to race, but the major reason for this incident and the Martin incident is the misinterpretation of a poorly written law.

If a man feels threatened with grave bodily injury or death, it is certainly his right to defend himself, assuming that other RATIONAL recourse is not immediately available (such as driving away, for example).

In this case, I do not know the particulars so can't judge who is in the right or wrong.

But I can judge that your statement - "I'm all for the rights of gun owners to own any weapon they want (not including military grade weapons).." is contrary to both the Scripture and the Bill of Rights and the understanding of America's founding generation and the Supreme Court as well.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a man feels threatened with grave bodily injury or death, it is certainly his right to defend himself, assuming that other RATIONAL recourse is not immediately available (such as driving away, for example).

In this case, I do not know the particulars so can't judge who is in the right or wrong.

But I can judge that your statement - "I'm all for the rights of gun owners to own any weapon they want (not including military grade weapons).." is contrary to both the Scripture and the Bill of Rights and the understanding of America's founding generation and the Supreme Court as well.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is there so that the citizens have the right to defend themselves from oppressive governments.

However, our country isn't oppressive and I can only imagine the carnage that would unfold if citizens had recreational access to RPG's, tanks, and other military instruments of death.

As for contrary to scripture, care to enlighten me?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Did you even read my post?

Did you see the connection between race and music that I made?

I saw the connection of race to the shooting you made and to the other black kid that was shot not too long ago

Do you honestly think that if the victim was playing Lynrd Skynrd he would be dead?

I make no assumptions... I leave that for you to do.

How many black 17 yr old kids you know listen to Lynrd Skynrd?

What does that have to do with anything?

I am not for vigilantism and I am glad that the murderer is locked up behind bars without bond, awaiting trial.

Everyone is Im sure, remember you were the one that assumed some would justify shooting a black kid over his loud music?

There are people who look a this tragedy and say that race had absolutley nothing involved in this.

And there are those who will always assume if a white person shoots a black person it was racism...thank you for making my point

While I never said that race was the primary factor, I am informed enough to realize that race probably played a part in this tragedy.

Then all you had to do was just say "Praxeas was right"...thank you Mr Judge and Jury

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Apparently, no one read the above from page 1 of this thread as my post.

Race is a factor in this incident and in the Martin incident. However, the problem is the misinterpretation of this law.

Originalist and others have asked questions that alluded to race, but the major reason for this incident and the Martin incident is the misinterpretation of a poorly written law.

Could find an example where the victim was not black?

[canam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I saw the connection of race to the shooting you made and to the other black kid that was shot not too long ago


I make no assumptions... I leave that for you to do.

What does that have to do with anything?


Everyone is Im sure, remember you were the one that assumed some would justify shooting a black kid over his loud music?


And there are those who will always assume if a white person shoots a black person it was racism...thank you for making my point



Then all you had to do was just say "Praxeas was right"...thank you Mr Judge and Jury

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is there so that the citizens have the right to defend themselves from oppressive governments.

No. the Second Amendment in our Bill of rights is not there 'so that' the people anything. It is there 'so that' the government does not infringe on our rights. the right predates the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant any of our rights. It contains prohibitions against government interfering with our rights (not that such prohibitions have stopped them, of course).

However, our country isn't oppressive

Define 'oppressive'.

1. We have in this nation the largest imprisoned population of any nation (including communist China).
2. Nobody can own land (have to pay a yearly rent to the State or some local governmental subdivision thereof).
3. The average American works close to 50% of the year to pay federal taxes.
4. Government routinely enacts laws, rules, and regulations which are blatantly contrary to the Constitution.
5. We have the single greatest and most efficient police state apparatus ever developed.
6. ALL electronic communications (phone, email, etc) are monitored by government.
7. Have you seen the cameras at street intersections? (And no, I'm not talking about 'red light' cameras...)
8. The government last year passed a law allowing for indefinite military detention of American citizens WITHOUT CHARGES, attorneys, habeus corpus, etc.
9. The JSC admitted to Congress earlier this year that they take their orders from NATO and the UN, not Congress (caused quite a flap during the hearings, by the way).
10. The Executive operates a 'secret kill list' without any review or oversight whatsoever.
11. No-knock raids, SWAT style, even for bad student loans.
12. TSA? Hello? Hello?
etc.

We're on the fast track to putting in place a system that would make Hitler and Stalin blush with embarassment.

Of course, 'it can never happen HERE...' (Of course, it IS happening, as we speak. Will history record of us... 'we heard the rumours, but thought it was all just crazy talk...'?)

and I can only imagine the carnage that would unfold if citizens had recreational access to RPG's, tanks, and other military instruments of death.

Citizens used to have unrestricted and unlicensed access to just all that, and more, prior to 1934 (around the same time citizen ownership of gold was made illegal). In fact, you could get all sorts of military hardware MAILED TO YOUR DOOR as late as the 1970s.

Ever heard of Switzerland? No death and carnage going on there...

The Second Amendment's intent was a 'well regulated militia' consisting of the general population being armed with and trained in the use of military weapons, as a defence against riot, insurrection, invasion, and usurpation (tyranny). The Supreme court ruled in US v Miller that the 2nd Amendment specifically protected MILITARY WEAPONS, the kind generally used by soldiers. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things that don't get enforced these days, but hey...

As for contrary to scripture, care to enlighten me?

Luke 11

21When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

22But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

Thus, the lesson is to be better armed than those who would do you harm.

Mark 3

27No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

And the lesson is, those who wish to spoil your goods (ie ROB you), will seek to BIND you. Citizen disarmament is a form of 'binding' of a person sho they cannot defend themselves.

Luke 22

36b ... and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Swords were standard military weapons, the 'small arms' of the day for soldiers. Jesus' command, if repeated today, would be to buy an assault rifle, the standard military small arm of the infantryman.

Judges 5

7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.

8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?

And the lesson is, disarmament accompanies a change in religion. God's people, being disarmed, was disastrous for them as a nation. BTW, those spears and shields (equivalent today to rifles and body armor) were PERSONAL belongings, not kept by a select militia or 'army' alone.

1 Sam 13

19 Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

And the lesson is, it is the conquered and enslaved who are disarmed, and prevented from not only acquiring but even having the means to manufacture arms.

Num 31

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.

And the lesson is, the people had to have the arms to begin with before they could send a volunteer militia to fight the Midianites.

...And so forth.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So this guy shoots an unarmed black male because his music was too loud.

I guess it's justifiable by some (don't know how but whatever). I hope the state of Florida makes this guy to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-death...004720741.html

Mr. Dunn has a side to the story, and it should be carefully investigated before conclusions are drawn.

"Dunn's lawyer, Robin Lemonidis, told reporters that someone in the SUV brandished a shotgun and Dunn opened fire on the vehicle in self-defense.

"It will be very clear that Mr. Dunn acted responsibly, and as any responsible firearms owner would have acted, under these same circumstances," Lemonidis said."

IF this is true, Jermyn, then your first sentence should read, "So this guy shoots a shotgun-brandishing black male after an argument over loud music." In fairness, you don't KNOW that the young man was innocent.

Of course, if it is NOT true, then Mr. Dunn will be in the wrong, and I'm sure no one will justify his actions. (Police did not find a shotgun in the SUV--but that doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't one at the time of the incident.) Like the Martin case, a LOT more information and investigation is necessary. The fact that he fled the scene won't be in his favor, but then again, maybe he was afraid of immediate reprisal from those in the vehicle. (Perhaps because he really DID see a shotgun?)

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The average person in America is not racist and by definition cannot be.

I do believe that a lot of Americans have prejudices, even racial prejudices, that influence how they see the world, how they perceive threats, how they respond to threats, and more.

Agreed. If America were as a whole a racist nation how could we explain a two term Black President?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Esaias,
This incident was all over the news down here.
I didn't actively search this story out-- it was one of the YAHOO articles.

and lots of yahoos responded with knee jerk reactions