"If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon."

[Gaspar]

The people have been outgunned by the state for a couple of generations.  Expecting the citizenry to counterbalance the most advanced military in the history of the world with their handguns and hunting rifles and occasionally jury-rigged full-auto assault rifle is just . . . well, humorous. 

Perhaps.  But the threat of force and it's application are two very different things, and in this country, our military men and women "serve."  They don't view a role in the military as a position of power, or a means of access to a weapon so that they may exert force over those without.

Let me post the entire quote I mentioned above.

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State. – Heinrich Himmler

[heironymouspasparagus]

The people have been outgunned by the state for a couple of generations.  Expecting the citizenry to counterbalance the most advanced military in the history of the world with their handguns and hunting rifles and occasionally jury-rigged full-auto assault rifle is just . . . well, humorous.  

First, when people arm themselves to whatever level they see fit, counterbalancing the US military is never the first criteria on the list - at least not with any of the literally thousands of people I have sold guns to in the past, or associated with in hunting, target practice, or any scenario involving firearms over the last 50 years or so of personal experience.  IF it does find its way onto the list, it is ALWAYS somewhere AFTER 1) hunting, 2)self-defense, 3)target practice, or 4)gun collecting.  That puts it somewhere at number 5 or below - most of the time, it never makes the list.  What is TRULY humorous is the idea that anyone would believe that there are 150 million otherwise rational, law-abiding, decent citizen gun owners in this country would are motivated to own guns JUST to go up against the US military.  This is one of the arguments the anti-gun reactionary extremists use to try to justify their thought-lack-of-process, trying to imply that since it is impossible to beat tanks and such, everyone should just turn in their guns and sit down and shut up.

By the way, that is a whole lot like the people who throw up their hands and say since we cannot get 100% supply of electricity needs from solar (or wind, etc), it isn't worth messing with, so we should just build more nukes.  Both approaches are stupid.

As for "assault weapons" - well, concern about the looks of a gun is just an indication of how little real knowledge goes along with all the hysterical extremist propaganda.  In general, any person legally allowed to own a gun will only have a sem-automatic weapon - one trigger pull fires one round.  That new AF2011 may have some issues with current regulations, since two are fired with one trigger pull.  To LEGALLY own a full auto machine gun, certain hoops must be jumped through, including background checks, payment of large fees, and the fact that you must allow the ATF into your home for "inspection" at pretty much whatever time they deem appropriate.  You lose too many of your other Bill of Rights protections to suit me, so that is one of the biggest reasons I don't have or plan to have any.

If you have never fired a full auto, and you get the chance you really owe it to yourself to try it!  It is unbelievably fun!  And even someone like Anthony Bourdain (rabid anti-gunner) gained a new appreciation of the 'fun factor' when he visited Uncle Ted (Nugent) one time.

What we have lost as a piece of "tribal knowledge" and desperately NEED to re-learn is that promoting responsible gun ownership is the single best way to reduce gun misuse!

Not to mention that more and more of our kids grow up without shooting sports, so when they decide to become servants of society through military service, they are at a distinct disadvantage on the target range.  And even more so on the battle field.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Perhaps.  But the threat of force and it's application are two very different things, and in this country, our military men and women "serve."  They don't view a role in the military as a position of power, or a means of access to a weapon so that they may exert force over those without.

With the exception of the gang-bangers who join with the express purpose of gaining advanced military tactical training for use in the gang when they get back home....

Another reason for a draft!

[nathanm]

For someone who thought having to get a prescription for Sudafed was a restriction on liberty, I'm pretty surprised you think having to go to trial for self defense is a great idea.

I think that killing another human being is a big enough deal that I don't really find the argument that the killer might be inconvenienced by a fact finding to be persuasive in the least. Again, I think that the PDs office should be better funded so that people who don't have the money for a good lawyer don't get screwed.

In one instance, I'm buying medicine. In the other, I shot and killed a person. The two are not similar in the least.

[Conan71]

I think that killing another human being is a big enough deal that I don't really find the argument that the killer might be inconvenienced by a fact finding to be persuasive in the least. Again, I think that the PDs office should be better funded so that people who don't have the money for a good lawyer don't get screwed.

In one instance, I'm buying medicine. In the other, I shot and killed a person. The two are not similar in the least.

Yep, you are correct on your last sentence.

Your right to well-being and to protect yourself is a very essential part of liberty and one of the cornerstones of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.  Buying Sudafed without a prescription, not so much.

[patric]

Serve and protect. I guess you don't recall just last week when a cell phone call at 36th and Riverside may have saved a woman. Yes, the police got there in time.

Does that one count since they later revealed they had been watching the suspect as part of another crime investigation?

[nathanm]

Your right to well-being and to protect yourself is a very essential part of liberty and one of the cornerstones of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.  Buying Sudafed without a prescription, not so much.

And your assailant's right to live is also an essential part of liberty. Frankly, it shocks me that you have such a cavalier attitude towards killing that you don't think that people should stand trial when they kill someone. Or that you'd compare it to something as mundane as Sudafed.

[Gaspar]

And your assailant's right to live is also an essential part of liberty. Frankly, it shocks me that you have such a cavalier attitude towards killing that you don't think that people should stand trial when they kill someone. Or that you'd compare it to something as mundane as Sudafed.

[Conan71]

And your assailant's right to live is also an essential part of liberty. Frankly, it shocks me that you have such a cavalier attitude towards killing that you don't think that people should stand trial when they kill someone. Or that you'd compare it to something as mundane as Sudafed.

It's a matter of liberty and how I think you are totally ignoring one of the most basic tenets of personal liberty as it was laid out by the founding fathers.  I'm simply contrasting it to something as trivial as the meth law that you were so vehemently opposed to as if that were some sort of violation of personal liberty.  Ask an innocent bystander burned by a lab fire if the PE issue is really that mundane.

According to the law, I have a specific right to terminate the life of my assailant if I have reasonable cause to believe my life is about to be terminated or I face great bodily harm.  I have a legal right to open fire on someone breaking into my house.  Based on those laws, the assailant waived assumed the risk of dying and even possibly his/her right to live when he either aimed a weapon at me or kicked in my front door.

I simply don't think people should stand trial when they have protected themselves according to the law.  It's not as if those shootings do not undergo a legal review after they happen.

You can be certain the local 5-0 and the DA are going to conduct a thorough investigation to make sure I acted within the law before deciding whether or not to bring charges.  There are two notable cases in recent history- the Jerome Ersland case in OKC and the Kenneth Gumm case in Tulsa where upon further review, the DA believed the shooter did not act legally.  Ersland was convicted of murder, Gumm pled to manslaughter.

Certainly you don't think that the whole trial process would be a few day or couple of week's inconvenience, do you?  You don't seem to grasp what sort of disruption that is to someone's life- especially someone who acted perfectly legal in protecting themselves.

[Teatownclown]

Pick a label, CT...Zimmerman still shot an unarmed human being after seeking out and creating a confrontation with him.

In other developments today:The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.

One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.

The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.

The revelation is the latest salvo in a war of leaks meant to bolster each side amid rising tension over the shooting.

I can't wait until our state attorney general starts to micro manage over law enforcement officers. Florida and Oklahoma are twins.

[Conan71]

Pick a label, CT...Zimmerman still shot an unarmed human being after seeking out and creating a confrontation with him.

In other developments today:The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.

One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.

The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.

The revelation is the latest salvo in a war of leaks meant to bolster each side amid rising tension over the shooting.

I can't wait until our state attorney general starts to micro manage over law enforcement officers. Florida and Oklahoma are twins.

I read the same story.  There is one more manner of oversight over the cops, DA, and AG in this case: the grand jury.  If the grand jury decides there's enough evidence, Zimmerman will have his day in court.

[Gaspar]

I read the same story.  There is one more manner of oversight over the cops, DA, and AG in this case: the grand jury.  If the grand jury decides there's enough evidence, Zimmerman will have his day in court.

You know that's not good enough, right?

[Conan71]

You know that's not good enough, right?

Of course not.  The grand will be jury-rigged with a bunch of racist tea baggers.

[Teatownclown]

I'm all for a Grand Jury. It has the flexibility to go beyond just the murder. Political and police undue influence?
Just read where Zimmerman is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate judge and a mother who was a courthouse interpreter. I just wonder if he has not been arrested or charged because of influential favoritism.

More evidence is surfacing. Looks like there were witnesses who can draw a picture of bullying and brutality by George.

I recommend you boys stop giving Zoonyman the benefit of the doubt unless you're rooting for him. Leave doubt to the jury.

btw, careful, your racial bias' are showing....

[nathanm]

You can be certain the local 5-0 and the DA are going to conduct a thorough investigation to make sure I acted within the law before deciding whether or not to bring charges.  There are two notable cases in recent history- the Jerome Ersland case in OKC and the Kenneth Gumm case in Tulsa where upon further review, the DA believed the shooter did not act legally.  Ersland was convicted of murder, Gumm pled to manslaughter.

Certainly you don't think that the whole trial process would be a few day or couple of week's inconvenience, do you?  You don't seem to grasp what sort of disruption that is to someone's life- especially someone who acted perfectly legal in protecting themselves.

It should be a significant disruption to your life if you shoot and kill a person. This is not a trivial thing we're talking about here. In very clear cut cases where the castle doctrine applies, it's not as important, but it should be very clear that if you can reasonably retreat you should, even if you do have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if you are under threat of deadly force or great bodily harm.

Nobody is saying they should all be circus trials that take months, for crying out loud. If the case is clear cut, it can be disposed of quickly, even with a trial. If it's not, that's precisely when these things need to go to trial. If you don't trust juries to do the right thing, that's another problem entirely.