Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The problem is that gun rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, in very nearly as prominent of a spot (amendment #2) as freedom of press, speech, and religion. So the analogy would be that you are only allowed freedom of the press if you can pass a grammar test. Somehow I don't think anyone would even consider going for that, but lots of people see no issue in trimming away at gun rights.
Disclaimer: I am not a gun nut, and I personally believe that there should be far more stringent limits in place than we have today. I'm not even convinced that the right to own a gun should be in the constitution at all - but there it is, and until we decide to change the Constitution, that's what we're stuck with..
Add to the 2nd Amendment a recent Supreme Court decision (which both sides had avoided for years) that upheld the rights of Americans to own guns and cast aside the "well ordered militia" clause. I, too, am not a gun nut. Paraphrasing Dennis Miller: "When did the NRA get so bleeping cranky?" There was a time NRA was all about the joys of shooting and passing those joys down from father to son. And gun awareness and safety. Now it's a whole different ball game. After the Branch Davidians murdered ATF agents attempting to serve a valid warrant in Waco, Wayne LaPierre referred to them as "jack booted government thugs." These were law enforcement officers, attempting to do their jobs, gunned down in cold blood. I've always thought the vast majority of NRA members were disgusted by that language and that point of view. At least I hope they were.
Here in Phoenix, I occasionally see guys wearing guns squeezing the melons in grocery stores. It's vaguely unnerving. While I'm not suggesting anyone who posts here of this, it's apparant to me there's a confluence of effort between the anti-smoking and anti-gun types. Many really want total prohibition (a much tougher proposition with guns) but won't admit it. They rely instead on gradually increasing government regulations and hope, that like the frog, people won't notice the water's getting hotter and jump out of the pot.These situations aren't directly analogous, of course. In the case of guns, a total prohibition would still leave the millions of weapons alreaday out there. Confiscation on that scale would be, uh, complicated. The NRA bumper sticker that if you take guns away from "law abiding" citizens, only criminals will have guns has a definite ring of truth about it.
The worry here is a wave of murders, disguised as self-defense. What we're relying on are hypotheticals, conjectures and speculation. It seems to me the buried premise of these arguments is that, faced with a claim of "standing my ground," cops will just accept that at face value, clap the shooter on the back and head back to the barn (especially if the shooter is white and the victim black). In the Zimmerman case they hauled him into the police station, in cuffs, and questioned him. They questioned witnesses. And presumably eyeballed the body. An autopsy was performed. And, if needed, the backgrounds of the principals were investigated. All of this and more will come out at trial. It's true their initial conclusion was that Zimmerman had a legitimate claim of self defense. His subsequent indictment is a wholly political act, which Dershowitz has described at "criminal and stupid." However,that initial self-defense finding did not preclude subsequent charges based on additional testimony or evidence.
To me, the bottom line here is this case. This is the source of all the hyperventilating about "stand your ground." I confess, I'm a little uncomfortable with it. But the fact is, no jury is going to convict a citizen for failing to try to run away in the face of a bad guy with evil intentions, regardless of "stand your ground." If this case had been the racial reverse, I doubt we'd be having these conversations. We've been treated to fraudulent media coverage of the event, all designed to prove some point or another, without regard to elemental fairness. You expect that from race pimps, not from "legacy" networks.
Bottom line, if there's a real problem with "stand your ground," the legislatures that passed it can reconsider, based on facts, not surmises.
