NRA - Responsible for countless gun murders

The NRA is a vast money-makaing organizations. It literally needs to fight to survive and thus must fight even common-sense restrictons on firearms and self defense since the overreaching ones are long gone in states where it has a lot of political power. The good news is you don't have to pay to go to Westworld or Fantasy Island for a legal gunfight. You can go to Florida and pretty much the rules of the western movie are the law. "Smile when you say that pardner!"
 
Leave it to the douche left to capitalize on tragedy for political gain. You pieces of crap cant let the bodies assume room temp before you are scheming for an angle. Sickening.

I have heard the 911 tapes and i have to tell you the person screaming for help for 45 seconds before the first shot seems to be the voice of a young black male. I'm not an expert, but if this is true, Zimmerman was fighting with the young man who was trying to get away......and then shot him. IM sure voice experts could easily put this to rest, but if what i think is true, that Zimmerman is a murderer and should die in the hole.

That said this has nothing to do with stand your ground or NRA. Stand your ground is clearly has to do with giving the benefit of doubt to a private property owner in a situation where the're being attacked. Zimmmerman wan not on his private property and from the tapes it appears he was the one who was attacking trevon.

And again a link to Media matters.......Really?!
 
Hooklahoma, you and I must read the law differently. Prior law gave people ample ground to defend themselves, defend their homes and defend their families. What "stand your ground" does expands the situations in which people can justifiably use deadly force into any situation where they feel threatened no matter where they are or what sorts of opportunities they have to retreat to safety. Again, the local police felt that even though he was fighting in a situation he provoked, Zimmerman could walk because he was not required to retreat in a confrontation in which he felt himself in danger of imminent bodily injury. What this case will decide is whether this is merely bad law -- giving Zimmerman the impression he could do what he did -- or horrifically bad law that empowers people to confront, start a fight then gun down the person who gets violent in their own defense.
 
Crockett if that's true than Im aganst it and I will never give a dime to the nra again. A man should never be given carte blanche to use deadly force on neutral ground if they did not try to extract themselves from the situatiuon. I will research the law and get back to you.
 
Well speaking for the center, I absolve Rush, Santorum and Gingrich of all responsibility on this one. For sure local law enforcement was lax. I'll admit that the jury is out on whether the Florida legislature created a really really bad law or whether the police chief misunderstood what the law is.
 
Zimmerman may well have been getting his *** kicked. But he got into a situation where he was getting his *** kicked by confronting and scaring the hell out of a kid he outweighed by nearly 100 pounds walking home with a bag of skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea. Obviously Zimmerman and local law enforcement didn't know at the time that the youngster was a good kid from a good family -- probably thought he was a "gansta" up to no good. I think Florida law will allow Zimmerman the use of deadly force even though he started the confrontation by being a knucklehead and ignoring law enforcement instructions. A kid died because Zimmerman started a violent confrontation he lacked the training to handle. I believe Florida law protects Zimmerman from criminal liability and his insurance company for civil liability on this one.
I'm comfortable being on the other side of the NRA on whether that's good law.
I'm betting though, that Zimmerman can be prosecuted by the feds for for violating the young man's civil rights and at least he'll have to pay his attorneys and live in infamy.
 
There could have been a totally different outcome in the Gabby Gifford shooting had the 9mm Glock 19 pistol, and the 31-round magazine the shooter used been outlawed under the old assault weapons ban. Instead, what was banned was the manufacture or importation of new magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Why does the NRA feel so strongly about making assault weapons accessible to everybody? This is what enrages me the most..
 
Umm ... Roger ... how could the NRA, which is an abstraction that exists only in the minds of men, be responsible for murder?

Organizations don't kill people. People who are members of various organizations do, though, and they are responsible for the murders they commit.
 
One shot killed this kid. One. The type of gun does not matter. And th
A different law would not change the fact this kid is dead. You really think Zimmerman thought about that when he shot an unarmed kid? His lawyer will say Yes, but anyone w common sense knows different.

The subject should be about what is Justice for the situation and who exactly qualifies for a neighborhood watch.
 
Hooklahoma -- are you saying the NRA didn't lobby to protect the interests of those who wanted the extra capacity magazines? Newdoc, are you sayinng that without the "stand your ground" law police in this case would have backed off after the shooting and felt they had no ground to prosecute? Do you think there would be "stand your ground" laws without the NRA? Do you guys love the NRA so much that you think people are crazy and stupid because they don't agree with it?

Do you guys think the only appropriate legislative response to gun violence is to make it easier for more people to arm themselves and be prepared to kill in self defense?
 
The Second Amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
President George Washington, farewell address to "The People of the United States", 1796
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In arguing whether the NRA is or isn't wrong for lobbying against restrictions on magazine capacities, we are looking at symptoms and enablers of gun violence rather than at the fundamental causes that incline people to shoot innocent fellow citizens in the first place. Using the founding fathers as my sources, I submit that the decline in morality and religious (primarily Christian) foundations in the United States has led people to [believe that they are entitled to] engage in anything they want to, including killing other people.
 
Actually criminals are responsible for murders. Some of those criminals may in fact be NRA members but I'm willing to bet it is an extremely small percentage. Therefore I would argue that an overwhelming percentage of murders in the U.S. are committed by people completely outside the NRA.
 
Many of those criminals don't become so until they commit murder.
The proliferation of guns and the violence that often attends them will be the end of our civil society.
 
I don't have a problem with more morality and fewer guns because decreasing morality and a whole bunch of guns doesn't seem to be working.
 
I was friends with a geologist who traveled in China extensively during the 1960s and 1970s. He said there were no locks on the hotel room and the only fear of theivery was from fellow westerners. The honesty and personal non-violence are part of the culture there and in Japan. Of course, both of those countries there are histories of state-sponsored violence, which their culture seems to find OK. In short, while I'm in favor of reasonable gun control, it's not fair to blame gun laws for differing murder rates. It's the people and attitudes that are at the root problem, and availability of guns and guns with big magazines just increases killing efficiency. I think "stand your ground" is a futher step towards legitimizing violence.
 
_______________________________________________
Your argument basically boils down to a belief that common citizens can't be trusted with dangerous weapons, and that only agents/officers of government should be entrusted to use lethal weapons in a legal/moral manner.
_______________________________________________________

I think common citizens should be able to protect their homes and personages while minding their own business but not empowered to start a fight then blow somebody away when they start losing the fight. I believe someone should have extenisve training and be an officer of the state to pursue and confront suspected bad guys with deadly force -- especially since law enforcement officers tend to be better trained and chosen in part because they have the temprament and cool-headedness to be able to handle potentially violent situations in a competent manner. They typically have tools and experience to escalate in a gradual fasion when confronting unarmed suspects -- hand to hand, pepper spray, night sticks, tasers -- so that needless tragedies are a less likely outcome. From what I've read, George Zimmerman wasn't/isn't an evil man -- he just put himself in a situation he wasn't qualified to handle. Even if he avoids criminal conviction, Florida law making him feel empowered to confront with deadly force did him no favors. And even if we think the best of Zimmerman -- that instead of being a racist killer he was merely an overexuberant negibhorhood watch volunteer who got into a situation where he saw the only alternatives as being badly beaten or killing a kid -- I don't think it good public policy to have no consequences for stupidly escalating a conflict. Somebody's dead who would be alive had he listened to the dispatcher or gone into the situation without a deadly weapon. I think there are winning the lotto odds against a 150 pound kid beating to death with his bare fists the 230 pound Zimmerman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top