Why has Zimmerman not been charged yet? Answer inside...

[JoeJGibbs]

No, you said "obtain firearms", your words not mine. I now see what you intended though.
I can agree it may be responsible to at least reevaluate the SYG law, I think it has too vague of a reach.

Well yea, you pull out a single phrase what I said and take it away from the context of my entire post-- then yes. But the juxtaposition in which I was specifically speaking about owning a gun coupled with the stand your own ground law was my point from the start.

Under the law of Florida Zimmermann probably didn't do anything wrong except be a pen1s jack@ss with nothing better to do. Kid is dead because the law allows dumb@sses to obtain, carry, and discharge firearms. They need to seriously take a deep look at that law.

You can't control people's prejudices. A racist person is going to be racist. But knowing that-- you cannot allow the human element to be such a factor in life or death situation. You can control who is allowed to own a gun along with the parameters in which they are allowed to use it.
The stand your own ground law allows citizens to combine their personal feelings with a dangerous yet now defensible action.

'

Then followed by the 2nd time I explained what I meant again by immediately refuting resnor's interpretation.

No no, I'm not saying specifically control who owns firearms. I'm not saying you try to figure out who is racist and deny them a gun. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

I'm saying that the stand your own ground law assumes that some dummy isn't going to feel comfortable enough to go following people around the neighborhood. The law assumes that we will be responsible 100% of the time. I say 100% of the time because we're talking about a matter of life and death so with 100% accuracy is exactly the only way it is effective. Unfortunately the quickest way to shatter that 100% is for a 1 lone knucklehead to do something like this. It completely ruins it.

SYG law leaves to much to interpretation. Who is to say when I FEEL THREATENED? And furthermore, how could you even prove if I felt threatened or not?

[sanantonio]

Well yea, you pull out a single phrase what I said and take it away from the context of my entire post-- then yes. But the juxtaposition in which I was specifically speaking about owning a gun coupled with the stand your own ground law was my point from the start.

'

Then followed by the 2nd time I explained what I meant again by immediately refuting resnor's interpretation.


SYG law leaves to much to interpretation. Who is to say when I FEEL THREATENED? And furthermore, how could you even prove if I felt threatened or not?

Ding ding ding!!! That right there makes it the vaguest of vague.

[sanantonio]

You're seriously recommending we repeal the Second Amendment?

I don't think it should be repealed but it could be amended.

[H1tStick]

Well yea, you pull out a single phrase what I said and take it away from the context of my entire post-- then yes. But the juxtaposition in which I was specifically speaking about owning a gun coupled with the stand your own ground law was my point from the start.

The word "obtain" is hard to take out of context. Stand your ground has nothing to do with owning or purchasing a gun. Whatever, it's not that important.

[H1tStick]

I don't think it should be repealed but it could be amended.

What are your recommendations?

[resnor]

It has to be up to personal interpretation...no one else will be there to tell you that your life is in danger.

[sanantonio]

What are your recommendations?

I have none there are people in a higher pay grade then me that should be able to decide that. But it's not unlike a drivers license or having children everyone can have them but not everyone should.

[resnor]

I have none there are people in a higher pay grade then me that should be able to decide that. But it's not unlike a drivers license or having children everyone can have them but not everyone should.

That's a terrible outlook. You are basically saying you want to have no say in the laws that govern your life. I don't believe that laws should only be made by people that graduated from an Ivy League school. Someone without a high school diploma can still be smart enough to contribute in a worthwhile way to discussions involving the laws that govern them.

[sanantonio]

That's a terrible outlook. You are basically saying you want to have no say in the laws that govern your life. I don't believe that laws should only be made by people that graduated from an Ivy League school. Someone without a high school diploma can still be smart enough to contribute in a worthwhile way to discussions involving the laws that govern them.

Actually it should be revised because in it's present state it's not as clear cut as it should be. Of course I want to have a say but I know that certain powers that be don't want and in some cases will not have my opinion lol.

[nothasoul]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...d-your-ground/


"The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be," Baxley wrote. "Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford."

[resnor]

Castle Doctrine is not the same as Stand Your Ground, as far as I understand. Castle Doctrine applies to your home.

[H1tStick]

Castle Doctrine is not the same as Stand Your Ground, as far as I understand. Castle Doctrine applies to your home.

Yeah, the two are unrelated. It can also apply to your car or workplace depending on the state.