Search This Blog

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Stand Your Ground

I haven't addressed this topic much. My overall thoughts on the Trayvon Martin case are sympathy for Zimmerman and his family since I believe he acted in self-defense (as his head wounds and full 911 tapes clearly show). They have been threatened and Zimmerman had a price put on his head. How is that legal in the United States? There are thousands of deaths among which are plenty of murder daily in the United States, why focus on this one? The press called Zimmerman white (which he is not) and politicized for the entire nation with some international attention to boot something that should have been left in the hands of the local law enforcement agency. Then the ever-campaigning president of the United States decided to take up racism as yet another weapon in his distraction arsenal. I truly feel sorry for the Zimmermans.
On to gun-laws. It seems pretty logical to me that if crime is a risk in a certain place that having a weapon for self-defense would deter crime. I know of plenty of gun-friendly places in the United States with very low crime rates, and plenty of places with anti-gun policies with rampant crime and plenty of guns regardless, but in the hands of the criminals. Maybe pro-gun policies enable responsible citizens to encourage lawful behavior from the more criminally minded? That's my conjecture. That may be too much logic for the Democrats. I know they like to proport the opposite effect.
I'm loving Ann Coulter's history lesson on gun laws from her article this week.
Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.
I certainly never learned that in union-run (I mean Democratic) public schools! Although I did know that Democrats were the ones depriving African Americans of their rights following the Civil War with segregation laws, etc. Further down her article she continues:
The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 -- passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant -- made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress' authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.
Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.

But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books. 
This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. 
Isn't that interesting? Democrats have historically been against guns because they wanted to control a specific population - they were racist, in fact. The same population they now prefer to control through government dependence. Keep 'em aiming on welfare instead of bettering their situation, so they'll keep voting Democrat to preserve their entitlements. Since Democrats are in charge of the national conversation (and national education) these inconvenient truths are conveniently erased from public memory. I'm willing to hazard a guess that no one is going to call them out on it in a way that receives national attention, either. Maybe if everyone learned to disbelieve what's in the press that would be more likely.
Coulter's premise for her article (history lesson) is as follows:
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.
And her conclusion?
Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense. 
Exactly. And the Trayvon case? Let the court do its job. It's not my place to judge and it's not yours either. In our country we believe people are innocent until proved guilty in court. Though the media have sure made you want to play judge anyway and drummed up some fictitious rumors of racism. The press just loves to manipulate your feelings to suit their causes (voting Democrat) rather than give actual facts.

2 comments:

  1. Hi I'm new to your site and have enjoyed your article. I'm one who clings to her bible and gun and old fashion values!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel sorry for the Martin family because their child is dead. I feel sorry for the Zimmerman family too because their life has been turned upside down as a result of George Zimmerman's poor judgement. The bottom line is that GZ used poor judgement when he continued to pursue TM even when the dispatcher told him not to. We don't know all the facts yet, but we do know that TM did not seek out GZ nor was he a threat to him until GZ pursued him. A fight obviously ensued, and the court will decide who really was "standing their ground". TM could have been standing his ground too, only he lost b/c he was only armed w/ candy instead of a gun. The court will need to decide what GZ's consequence should be for making a wrong judgement about this kid did nothing other than just look like he didn't belong there, or as GZ said, "was up to no good".

    I believe in a citizen's right to bear arms too, but this is an example of what happens when untrained citizens carry guns and get in over their head in scary, emotional, or subjective situations. Innocent people die. It's real.

    ReplyDelete