Posted on 07/17/2013 8:27:30 AM PDT by pinochet
A lawyer friend of mine suspects that the Zimmerman trial is a clever trick that has been designed by cunning liberals to strip Americans of their second amendment rights. You all remember Clinton's legalisms in 1998, saying that what happened between him and Monica Lewinsky did not meet the strict legal definition of sex.
According to my lawyer friend, it is easy for sneaky liberals to interpret the second amendment as giving Americans the right to own arms, but not the right to use them. Liberals may have figured out that going door-to-door to confiscate guns is too much trouble. You can just pass a series of laws, and interpret them in such a manner that makes the use of guns illegal. A gun will have no more usefulness than a piece of furniture. In many jurisdictions, it is illegal to fire a gun on a neighborhood, even if nobody gets hurt.
In order to move forward with their eliminationist programs, they must silence, disarm and immobilize us.
That’s the game.
The right needs to start every single discussion or argument from the question - When does the state have the authority to deny me the right to protect and defend myself and my family?
I really believe 2014 is going to be as much as a shock as 1994 was to the Dems all in response to their gun control push.
Also I don't know any law abiding individuals that are ready to be be disarmed in any manner.
“Exactly. The fact that Holder says we have a “Duty to retreat” says that he doesn’t think we have any right to defend ourselves at all.”
The racist Holder forgets that Trayvon had as much opportunity to retreat as Zimmerman. He was beating the snot out of Zimmerman. He could have gotten up an walked away.
Both made equally bad choices that resulted in Trayvon’s death.
I don’t think that the politicization of the Zimmerman case started out as a gun control case, but that is what it has evolved into.
Holder is using the totally unrelated, Stand Your Ground laws to draw the White anti-gun Democrats to support the government prosecution of Zimmerman. Holder is using the anti-gun lobby and the Black race baiters as political agitation, going into the Congressional elections. The Obama administration is doing everything that he can to divide the country and stir up partisan animosity, including the battle with Harry Reid over his horrible nominees.
What Obama is doing to the Senate Republicans is the same thing that the Democrats did to Rubio over immigration, force them to betray their base and cave to the Democrat agenda.
The Obama administration has turned into a Clown Posse, led by the Joker,and we don’t have a BatMan to save the day.
Would YOU comply with such a law if you owned whatever piece(s) you wanted? Not I.
Incorrect. Thast was changed some time ago. And BTW...it was Republican Governor Ed King who made that "duty to retreat" part of the law. Thank heaven it was changed.
MA General Laws, Part 4, Title II, Chapter 278, Section 8a:
In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
No.
One, there was nothing clever about the trial.
Two, the trial had nothing to do with guns except that a gun was the tool a man used to defended himself from death or serious injury.
Three. The MSM and Obama over estimated the general public ability to tolerate politic trials. There is extreme hard feeling dis- trust and outright anger that the Government pushed this to a trial.
Yes, and it’s working about as well as Fast and Furious.
Ditto that!!
‘Hand guns are outlawed in Britain. But rifles are not.’
Not quite right. Handguns are outlawed (or most, not all, but most) on the UK mainland. In NI and the ‘islands’ around Britain such as the Isle of Man, they are legal.
Rifles, shotguns are legal everywhere. On the mainland, semi-auto pistols (up to .22) are allowed. I have just bought one and now own a rifle, shotgun and pistol.
Scotland has 566 handgun licences. Not sure what England and Wales has, but given that Scotland makes up 8% of the UK population, you can have a guess. NI has supposedly 90% of all UK handguns licences. I have read an unofficial figure of 15000 handguns in the UK with NI having 12000 of that. Northern Ireland is the most liberal part re gun laws in the UK, guns are quite a-plenty, and it even has a form of concealed carry.
Most UK guns have always been rifles and shotguns, for sport and collection, handguns are a modern thing, fuelled by the popularity of 70’s/80’s films: Dirty Harry etc. Handguns, as stupid and kneejerk as the 1997 law was, were a small part of the UK gun numbers.
There are 2.3 million legal guns in the UK currently.
‘However, courts have made it illegal for a home owner to use a rifle against criminals who break into his house.’
Wrong. It is legal to kill, with a gun as long as its yours and legally owned, an intruder. You are taking the Martin case (which I will discuss in a second) and thinking his conviction means guns aren’t allowed. In fact, guns have been used in the UK since Tony Martin to injure and kill burglars/assailants, and all the owners of the weapons have been found to have used the weapon justifiably. No problem, no charges, go home and have a cup of tea.
‘In 1999, a British farmer, Tony Martin, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for defending himself from three violent criminals who had invaded his home. Mr. Martin shot one criminal dead with his shotgun. The dead criminal was a violent ex-convict, who had previously been arrested 29 times for numerous crimes, including assaulting a police officer.’
Right, to Mr Martin.
It has been explained here many times by we Brit freepers WHY he was convicted (one I opposed btw). He shot the burglars in the back at a distance, and as such, the court found that his actions did NOT come under the law as ‘justifiable defence’. I agree the case was a disgrace (although ironically the outrage has meant the law being tightened in FAVOUR of the homeowner).
Definitely an improvement. Thank goodness!
EXACTLY TRUE !! It's all part of "Team CRUMP" technique !!
Consider the fact that the Martin Family retained attorny Crump within 3 days of the assault.
Crump among other legal associates includes a 'publicist', a 'social engineer attorny', and well-connected with a major commercial advertizing company.
Within a couple of days the publicist arrainges TV and media exposure , and public concern and outrage of what happened
to a young black 'child' at the hands of a 'white man' who hasn't even been arrested.
Soon thereafter, through the publicist, connections are made with the commercial advertizing exectutive and Crump to sell the idea to government officials,
since it was packaged as a racial killing, and a 'white guy' as the instigator, and hasn't even been arrested or charged .
The DOJ / Community Response Services Team goes to Sanford ,Florida , examines the situation, and facilitates and organizes protests.
The "Defenders of .....(whatever)" are hired
The DOJ arranges "protest marchers" from 40 miles away to be bused in , even went to arrangeing police escort.
The protestors march arround Sanford police headquarters , demanding the chief step down ,even preventing access and obstructing .
Meanwhile , the 'social engineer lawyer' is Sterilizing , Sanitizing, and Homogenizing the bereaved family into a package of an ideal black family .
Her job is to clean up the package , remove gang affiliations, signs of discord in the family, eliminate any negative IMAGE !
After all is said and done, the "package " will sell itself , and there is money to be made from lawsuits !
A more accurate timeline needs to be made by someone..!!
The bad part is...if you read the first sentence carefully it means that if you use deadly force...no matter how justified...even in your own home...you WILL be arrested and charged. Unlike many such incidents in Texas and other more enlightened states.
True, but for PDRM, it is an improvement not to have to abandon your home to the intruder...
I don’t know about it being about taking the whole enchilada (the amendment itself), but it is definitely about passing anti-gun legislation and the focus seems to be SYG laws as the primary focus, and as the emotional tool to win voters, especially female and non whites, by painting it as a white man’s law.
Of course the government wants a duty to retreat
as recognized case-law, this gives them the excuse in no-knock raids that any resistance is unlawful regardless of the raid's own legitimacy.
Well, that excludes the national-level republican party which is leftist-in-nature.
Stop, Drop, and Cower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.