Gun rights - for or against?

It doesn't matter how serious his injuries were, what matters is that he thought he was in danger on serious bodily injury or death.
By the way..... I'm not picking on your points to be an arse.... I do want to dispel the myths that greater size is always an advantage, and that an attacker must be armed with a firearm or knife to justify deadly force..... those are myths and could be deadly to a defender if they consider it.

A licensed Federal Firearms Dealer must do a background check at a gun show.
As a person who has attended over 100 gunshows since the age of 12, I have only seen a half dozen individuals walking around a gun show with a "for sale" sigm hanging on a shotgun.

Yes, perhaps I worded it incorrectly..... I think that ANY gun sale/trade at a gun show should have as a requirement, that both parties go through a NICS background check. There are places in all of the gun shows I attend that will run a NICS check for anyone that requests it. There will usually be a minimal charge for the service...
I was trying to sell a handgun at a gunshow, and was approached by a couple of rather seedy looking characters who wanted to buy it. I told them I would be happy to sell it to them, as long as they would go through a background check.... they declined, and walked away.

I don't think you are being oppositional just to be oppositional. I am not being oppositional just to be oppositional, either. I think the severity or lack of severity of his injuries is germane to whether or not deadly force should be used. Shooting Martin was a response out of proportion to the circumstances. Don't forget, Zimmerman knew the police were on their way.

I go to gun shows in the Dallas area, and the Lubbock area, and at every show I see people carrying handguns around for sale..... usually the ones wanting to sell long guns have the signs hanging on them... I'm sure other areas are different.

" when seconds count, help is minutes away. "
Anyways..... I watched this case as it was going on. What did come out was that:
Zimmerman did call 911
He had called previously over 40 times.
There had been many burglaries in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman was chosen by his neighbors to be the neighborhood watch captain.
Zimmerman had already exited his vehicle when dispatchers told him to stop following Martin.
Zimmerman did not chase Martin, he was only feet from his vehicle.
Martin did approach Zimmerman.
Martin did verbally and physically threaten Zimmerman.
Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground.
30 witnesses were interviewed, and few impeached Zimmerman's statement.
According to Zimmerman, Martin discovered the keltec 9mm on Zimmerman and declared Zimmerman was going to die. Martin made a move for the gun.
Zimmerman reached the weapon first and used it.
Zimmerman gave his statement with use of a voice stress test and found to be truthful.

I'm a law enforcement officer. Most crime guns I encounter are cheap raven arms or high points, with 100 mph tape wraped on them. I just don't think back ground checks or any legislation makes a difference. I think most felons get their guns from strawman purchases. I must be upfront and say that I don't believe that all felons should lose their 2nd amendment rights. They don't lose any other rights. I am one who believes all rights come from the creator, and are protected by our government. I am a right wing radical who believes that a person who has paid the entirety of their sentence, should re-enter society as they left it.
By the way.... I'm im favor of long prison sentences.

I agree. If a former criminal is seen fit to live among us, give him all the freedoms and rights associated with being a free man at a reasonable speed.

Exactly. A jury sees even more than I do and they tend to be composed of upstanding citizens with good judgment.

My experience as a juror had me come away with a renewed appreciation for our system. Very rarely now do I contest a jury's judgment.

I didn't watch the case, but it is rather obvious that this case was derailed in the media when race was brought in. If they had both been the same race, we'd have never heard of this case outside the Florida state line.

The jury system in this country is whack. That's why people like OJ Simpson and Bill Cosby go free even though they are most likely guilty
(OJ tried to make a run for it in the famous Bronco police chase.. Cosby has over 50 women claiming he saxually assaulted them).

If we had some sort of full-time, highly-qualified profesional juror system things might be very different! But instead we have folks who can't have any previous knowledge about a case, and can afford to get paid only $5 a day. -_-

I wish I could agree, but my impression is that criminals rarely change for the better. Some do, but most of them are recidivists. A person perfectly willing to break the law often has a mindset that is reckless and lacks any sign of compassion. Most of them would trade their grandma for an extra dime. No, I wouldn't trust a criminal even the back of a quarter.

A professional jury would be easily corrupted by bribes. Also, it would no longer be a jury of one's peers. It is better that some guilty go free than innocent be punished (although innocent people ARE sent to prison). What happens in our system is a defendant is found "not guilty". This is not the same as "innocent". This just means that the person MAY be guilty, but there is not enough evidence to convict a defendant. This is the best justice system possible. Jurors can't be paid a great deal, because then they may find for the prosecution rather than the defense.

What did he do -- beat them with his saxophone?

<tsshhhh>

( hardy-har-har - I couldn't resist... )

The same could be said about current jurors and judges (can be easily bribed). Professional jurors would be sequestered once the trial begins.

I don't have a problem with the legal system, just the jury system. If we are on trial we may well end up with a jury whose collective IQ is equal to a basketball score. The system is set up in a way that filters out the average hard-working citizen because they can't afford to forfeit several days of pay from their job. When I was chosen for jury duty it took two days just to figure out who would be chosen to be on the jury from about 50 of us, and those two days were unpaid. The case was settled before it went to trial.

So what we end up with are often retirees or housewives or the unemployed... I have nothing against those people but is that really who we would want deciding our fate if we were on trial? I'd rather have a pool of legally-trained, expert jurors who I know will be sequestered for the entire trial, have passed some sort of background check to prove they are not racist or biased and who are familiar with the law.

I disagree... what you propose would be a panel of paid judges. Corruption would be a "given"....

Jury of our peers.... that is the system set up to be the most fair to the person on trial. While it is not perfect (what system is?) it is certainly better than a bunch of paid pseudo-judges... IMHO

Sure, jurors can be corrupted. But it is far harder to corrupt random jurors than professional jurors. Just by the virtue of jurors being random people, and not professional jurists, random people are far less likely to convict defendants. I'm not completely sure how the selection process works, but I do know that people who work are not always excused. Teachers, for example, can put off jury duty until the summer but still must serve (in my county, anyway). The prosecuting and defense attorneys ask jurors questions, and if they do not like the jurors' responses, the juror can be excused from serving. I know I'll never serve on a murder trial as I do not believe in capital punishment, so I would be excused (after this revelation.

Lol, if I were on trial for my life, I'd probably WANT a jury of people with average IQs and not a bunch of super geniuses. The average people probably have more compassion than the people with high IQs.

I think something that is being overlooked is that the US founding fathers did not define our rights but they expressly described them to keep the government from abusing them.

All humans have the right to defend themselves from abuse, physical or governmental. The founding fathers explained the 2nd Amendment rights to make sure the people of the US were not slaves to their government such as happened in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China and countless other countries where people in power abuse the RIGHTS of their people and take their firearms away from them to keep them from overthrowing the tyranny.

All people have these rights. Abusive governments, that is, the people in power, deny these RIGHTS to protect themselves. An armed populace is the only restraint to a tyranny. Dictators know this which is why they make guns illegal.

Another obligation that the founding fathers counted on to keep the citizenry from killing each other was the religious and moral integrity of the people. They understood that without a religious and moral citizenry these rights would be abused, as has happened in our current culture.

The solution is not to ban guns so bad people won't use them. It is to remove or convert the bad people into law abiding citizens based on a personal respect for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

HEY! I'm a very compassionate person..... and I have a high IQ... at least I was told that anything over 50 was considered "high"....

do you think I've been misled? I've always wondered about that....