'Wanted Dead or Alive' poster issued for George Zimmerman by New Black Panther Party

[Danno 1,228]

Which Constitutional guaranteed right would you like to give up because some don't like that particular right? What say you should be done about that pesky 2nd amendment?

Yeah I am thinking about all the fights ....many which lead to death which could be prevented if we would just ban the use if nasty words or obscene gestures.

You're on to something there leather..... if we would just cut back on some of these freedoms we could create a much more pleasant world.

[Leatherneck 693]

What part of "well-regulated militia" applies to modern-day life in the USA?

You're definitely not well-regulated, but certainly are militant.

As part of my First Amendment rights, I'm expressing my opinion that SCOTUS took liberties with the wording of the Second Amendment and dragged it well beyond its original intent.

I welcome your opinion as much as I welcome the chance to have a civil debate about the matter.

The folks on the SCOTUS that understand the importance of looking at amendments in their historical context -- got it right. If you understood the 2A "original intent" you would have not asked that question. I know what the framer's "original intent" was regarding the 2A and I can show you their own words -- but something just tells me you would probably dismiss it.

Considering your question -- I'd say you've done very little research about the 2nd amendment, "well-regulated militia" is only one part of a two clause amendment. Interesting you picked that part -- little do you know, it still applies today, provided you understand the meaning of those 3 words.

[Leatherneck 693]

Yeah I am thinking about all the fights ....many which lead to death which could be prevented if we would just ban the use if nasty words or obscene gestures.

You're on to something there leather..... if we would just cut back on some of these freedoms we could create a much more pleasant world.

Not sure I'd like to live in that ..."more pleasant world." Something tells me, that's been tried before -- and it didn't end so well.

[Pooky 3,347]

I welcome your opinion as much as I welcome the chance to have a civil debate about the matter.

The folks on the SCOTUS that understand the importance of looking at amendments in their historical context -- got it right. If you understood the 2A "original intent" you would have not asked that question. I know what the framer's "original intent" was regarding the 2A and I can show you their own words -- but something just tells me you would probably dismiss it.

Considering your question -- I'd say you've done very little research about the 2nd amendment, "well-regulated militia" is only one part of a two clause amendment. Interesting you picked that part -- little do you know, it still applies today, provided you understand the meaning of those 3 words.

You are, of course, like me, entitled to your opinion. Difference is, in this case, you'd be wrong.

[Leatherneck 693]

You are, of course, like me, entitled to your opinion. Difference is, in this case, you'd be wrong.

My position is based on fact -- not my opinion. Whata ya got -- prove your point, with facts.

As part of my First Amendment rights, I'm expressing my opinion that SCOTUS took liberties with the wording of the Second Amendment and dragged it well beyond its original intent.

Specifically your facts regarding the original intent of the Second Amendment.

[james&olya 1,121]

What part of "well-regulated militia" applies to modern-day life in the USA?

You're definitely not well-regulated, but certainly are militant.

As part of my First Amendment rights, I'm expressing my opinion that SCOTUS took liberties with the wording of the Second Amendment and dragged it well beyond its original intent.

I have heard that the current controversy over what the ambiguously worded single sentence comprising the 2nd amendment means dates all the way back to its origin. The ambiguity may have been intentional, allowing both sides of the debate then to see in it what they wanted with the hope being that future courts and legislative bodies might sort it out. If that is true I think they may have failed. The unfortunate reality now is that there are so many guns in private ownership that the horse is now quite irretrievably out of the barn. The best that anyone can hope for now is for some common sense to prevail. This 'stand your ground' law doesn't seem to be helping. Even if not meant to condone this shooters behavior it is not hard to understand how it gives such vigilante minded individuals the idea that they can use deadly force with minimal provocation. The extreme partisans on the right and the tea-party fringe make it difficult to have the kind of reasonable adult level discussions of these issues that are necessary.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

As I understand it assault is what you do short of physical contact. It can be verbal threats or challenges, it could be moving to block someones path, etc. It is battery when you so much as lay a finger on someone else when it is clearly unwelcome. The only one alive that could clarify this is Zimmerman and I doubt his veracity. Martin may have been justified in punching GZ in the nose even if battery had not yet been committed by Zimmerman. It all depends on exactly how it all went down and we only have GZ's side of that story.

Titles depend on the state. Some states have no "battery" charge but call it "aggravated assault". names are not important anyway.

The law is fairly simple on the matter, as it SHOULD BE. If one reasonably believes one is in danger of death or serious physical injury one can use deadly force to prevent it. YES that means that law CAN be abused, as ALL laws can be abused. We have a RIGHT to defend ourselves wherever we are, the right to defend oneself cannot end at your front door. We have a responsibility to do so ...responsibly. Some people will violate the law or not be responsible and for them we have a system of trial and punishment. That is how it works. Not everyone will be happy with the results every time. The Black Panthers have a right to free speech just like the guy with the "Don't re-nig" bumper stickers. Rights protect unpopular positions, not popular ones.

We have the best legal system available and this man will be investigated as thoroughly as possible I am sure and I will stand by our system's decision.

[james&olya 1,121]

Titles depend on the state. Some states have no "battery" charge but call it "aggravated assault". names are not important anyway.

The law is fairly simple on the matter, as it SHOULD BE. If one reasonably believes one is in danger of death or serious physical injury one can use deadly force to prevent it. YES that means that law CAN be abused, as ALL laws can be abused. We have a RIGHT to defend ourselves wherever we are, the right to defend oneself cannot end at your front door. We have a responsibility to do so ...responsibly. Some people will violate the law or not be responsible and for them we have a system of trial and punishment. That is how it works. Not everyone will be happy with the results every time. The Black Panthers have a right to free speech just like the guy with the "Don't re-nig" bumper stickers. Rights protect unpopular positions, not popular ones.

We have the best legal system available and this man will be investigated as thoroughly as possible I am sure and I will stand by our system's decision.

Martin was clearly afraid of this man, he even confessed his fear to his girlfriend on the phone! If he had shot and killed Zimmerman he would probably have been arrested and convicted for murder, yet events have proved that fear to be very justified. What Zimmerman did appears from here to be very wrong. I hope he must pay some serious penalty.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

... and wouldn't have happened if George Zimmerman was not legally permitted to carry a gun.

Before people in Florida were allowed to carry guns (1986) the murder rate was HIGHER, that means MORE people were murdered. Perhaps THIS boy would not have been killed (speculation, because if Zimmerman IS a criminal then why would he be following a gun law? You think someone that can commit murder will not violate a misdemeanor gun law? Seriously?)but many more would have been. This is a fact, it is not a theory. The same result has been seen in every state that allows concealed carry. This incident has NEVER happened in Vermont though anyone can carry a gun, no permit necessary. So please pack your anti-civil rights sentiments and take them away. The 2nd amendment is settled law.

As for what a "well regulated militia" means today, please refer to the "Heller Decision", SCOTUS 2008 and read. You may also refer to dozens of other lawsuits decided since Heller as regards the right to keep and bear arms. Most recently, this past week, regarding the carrying of concealed handguns on the campus of the University of Colorado. So if you want to know what it means in 2012, the answers are all there for you.

[luckytxn 2,263]

What part of "well-regulated militia" applies to modern-day life in the USA?

You're definitely not well-regulated, but certainly are militant.

As part of my First Amendment rights, I'm expressing my opinion that SCOTUS took liberties with the wording of the Second Amendment and dragged it well beyond its original intent.

And to me they didn't take it far enough. This is a sacred right we have. The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. That gun right has saved many citizens from harm. I prefer to have mine own protection. I would like it more than hiring enough police officers to stand on every corner armed to ensure my safety to walk around in public.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Martin was clearly afraid of this man, he even confessed his fear to his girlfriend on the phone! If he had shot and killed Zimmerman he would probably have been arrested and convicted for murder, yet events have proved that fear to be very justified. What Zimmerman did appears from here to be very wrong. I hope he must pay some serious penalty.

Zimmerman had a right to carry and a right to defend himself. The story is now he did not just whip the gun out and shot the kid but reasonably waited till hewas getting his azz kicked. At that point he would been to stupid to not use his rights. He may have been killed and this story would be useless to the anti guns nuts if the tables were turned.

Just a few days ago this was a white, racist, KKK, crazed for thirst for black man blood. Now everything is the opposite of what we were led to believe. Get over it, they both were in the wrong. I hate that we were being played so badly on this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305

[james&olya 1,121]

I can see a possible rationale for a decline in murders since in theory an attacker might be more reluctant to accost someone if he has reason to fear the victim might be armed. But how could that affect suicides. It doesn't make sense and leads one to suspect the numbers are screwy on the whole thing!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I can see a possible rationale for a decline in murders since in theory an attacker might be more reluctant to accost someone if he has reason to fear the victim might be armed. But how could that affect suicides. It doesn't make sense and leads one to suspect the numbers are screwy on the whole thing!

The 1991 study was titled, "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia."

Gun control laws do work. The gun lobby, much like the tobacco lobby did in decades past, puts a lot of money into pseudo research to "prove" guns save lives.

Edited March 26, 2012 by ☼

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Martin was clearly afraid of this man, he even confessed his fear to his girlfriend on the phone! If he had shot and killed Zimmerman he would probably have been arrested and convicted for murder, yet events have proved that fear to be very justified. What Zimmerman did appears from here to be very wrong. I hope he must pay some serious penalty.

Criminals fear armed victims. Perhaps Martin was a criminal??? I mean we can all speculate, James. "If" and "probably" ???? Are you writing this James or did someone hijack your keyboard?

"Appears from here" is not the standard by which to remove a person's freedom and put him in prison. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" after a trial by his peers is. I do not think you would suggest we change that standard. Would you?

For an indictment one needs only "probable cause to believe" a crime was committed. So far even that standard has not been met. I do not think you are suggesting going directly to the penalty phase and skipping the indictment and trial phases. Are you?

My hope is that justice is served. If that means justice is that Zimmerman walks, then so be it. If it means he is imprisoned for murder, so be it. Let the system work.