Are we losing?

The article is more of the same... Simple speculation. Nothing can come of this case until the case is decided (which it has not been).

"They" are constantly jumping to conclusions and trying to eliminate all of our gun rights, wbgs. This is nothing new or different. Remember when the Senator was shot in Arizona? Or VA Tech? Or Columbine? The anti-gun crowd and mainstream media even invent tragedies when nothing serious is going on in order to hype the uninformed up about getting rid of legally owned firearms and legislating away our right to legal self defense.

While it's good to pay attention to what the media is putting out there, please take what you read (especially from "news" sources and internet) with a grain of salt.

There was a similar (if not the same with a different URL) article linked in another thread. Honestly, if you read a lot of the comments, I'd say more than half the posters believe the author is completely BSing the audience. Those that disagree with he asks in replies "do you have a concussion, perhaps?"

Also, if you look at the logic of many of the comments, 80% of those pro-gun are using logic, and most of the anti-gun seem to be running off emotion.

Still, we need to "stand our ground", because if the only voice is that of the anti-gun, then the antis will win.

I think "they" use ANY act to try and take away/ destroy the 2A.

Never waste a tragedy to further your own agenda

Look around, and see what state legislatures have bills pending to repeal SYG or Castle Doctrine. I know AZ has none. Mostly sound and fury, with nothing of substance.

I read this piece earlier today.

It is too early to tell, but the Gifford shooting and the Zimmerman case don't help our cause.

I think Nancy Pelosi would have blocked the reprocity bill regardless, as she is a true gun-grabber.

Hopefully, the Zimmerman case will be settled favorably and we can all move forward.

There is one problem with anti-gun movement.

Their support is an inch deep and a mile wide. I think most of it is astroturf. Further research is needed.

Loughner and Zimmerman were troubled individuals who somehow creeped through the safety netting. Both acted irrationally.

Even Pelosi was smart enough to know that another run at an AWB would kill the Dems.

I see gun rights as being similar to religion; each party saying that all others are wrong, which limits objective and rational dialog about either.

No.

wannabeagunsmith said:

Correct, as conservatives we wait until the smoke clears before trying to change anything, but t"they" immeadiatly jump to conclusions and start trying to replaceSYG with "duty to retreat".

Click to expand...

This would only happen if SYG were misapplied to cases that it is not relevant to. There is nothing more harmful to a law than to be put into practice in front of the public in a way which demonstrates its failings.

We will never lose (depending on your interpretation of the word) . There are to many dollars in the gun lobby and taxes to be levied on gun sales (the only positive market in this economy it seems) and ammo. It will never be make so that the government would banish a form of taxation on its docile consumers.

There will always be people who dont understand firearms and their uses... We need positive media coverage...

no one will take the 2nd Amendment seriously until "the people" use their arms to rein in the federal government.

I see two likely outcomes...

1 - Zimmerman is found not guilty of any crime; SYG law worked.
2 - Zimmerman is found guilty of a crime and convicter; The legal system worked.

Neither of the outcomes should have any bearing on the SYG law.

Let me put it this way -- when I retired from the Army, I joined a political party (which I couldn't do on Active Duty) and have been working for Civil Rights ever since. That includes the Second Amendment. And I don't plan to stop because of this media-and-politico-fueled lynch mob.

SYG laws are irrelevant to gun possession. Gun owners have little to lose if they're repealed -- the issue is mostly symbolic. If there were no SYG laws, concealed permit holders would be more careful to retreat as far as possible before shooting. That's about it as far as practical effect.

And I don't plan to stop because of this media-and-politico-fueled lynch mob.

Click to expand...

Amen.

The MSM is just rabid about this case. There was a column in either Time or Newsweek (I forget which) which asks about the SYG law, "What kind of law allows a man to shoot an unarmed, helpless child and get away with it?" Got that? Martin is now an "unarmed, helpless child."

I also watched an interview on TV of a witness to the incident. The interviewer asked her, which one was on top when she heard the shot. She replied, after some hesitation, "The bigger one." The interviewer then promptly repeated, "The bigger, Hispanic man was on top." That's not what the witness said, but it may well be what she now remembers due to confabulation resulting from the interviewer's mischaracterization of her answer to give the impression that Zimmerman was on top of Martin when he shot him. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

As long as there are men and women like us that believe that the 2A is a right and a necessity and not a luxury, then the "fight for the right to bear arms" will not be lost. The laws come and go and views change with each generation, but that piece of paper that is labeled the Bill of Rights, is our creed. Many of our friends, family, and fore fathers have layed down their lives to protect these rights and as long as the country is free, there are people who want to protect them.

SYG laws are irrelevant to gun possession. Gun owners have little to lose if they're repealed -- the issue is mostly symbolic. If there were no SYG laws, concealed permit holders would be more careful to retreat as far as possible before shooting. That's about it as far as practical effect.

Click to expand...

Actually, they have a great deal to lose -- and this case is a prime example.

We carry guns because we might have to use them. And what happens after a self-defense shooting is a grave concern. This case shows how political pressure can result in you being prosecuted, and even if acquitted, you will be in debt for the rest of your life for the cost of your defense.

The clearer we make the laws of self-defense, the freer we are.

Shoobee wrote:

Loughner and Zimmerman were troubled individuals who somehow creeped through the safety netting. Both acted irrationally.

Click to expand...

It sounds as if you've already bought into the MSM spin on this story (the Martin/Zimmerman case).

Similarly, so have all those who think it's about the SYG law. That law applies only when there is an option to retreat, and under the SYG law one is not compelled to exercise that option.

But when you're on the ground and your assailant is pounding your head on the pavement (even if you precipitated the confrontation), retreat is not an option, and the SYG law does not enter into it, nor is such a law even needed to justify deadly force in self-defense.