George Zimmerman back in the news: another shooting incident

[M14 Shooter]

Let's start with what you characterized as the most ignorant and dishonest statement ever made at USMB:
"There is no gun control in this country"
True or not True (that is, is there gun control in the United States)?

Unarguably true.

Therefore, if there is gun control, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is currently infringed.
True or not true?

Not necessarily true; it is possible for a gun control law to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mmmm, example please.

-Laws against felons, etc, owing guns do not infringe on the right to arms because the right to arms was removed from them thru due process.
-Narrowly tailored laws that are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest do not infringe on the right to arms because they pass the strict scrutiny test.
-Laws against using a gun to commit murder, et al, with a gun do not infringe on the right to arms because there is no right to commit murder.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's start with what you characterized as the most ignorant and dishonest statement ever made at USMB:
"There is no gun control in this country"
True or not True (that is, is there gun control in the United States)?

Unarguably true.

Therefore, if there is gun control, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is currently infringed.
True or not true?

Not necessarily true; it is possible for a gun control law to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mmmm, example please.

-Laws against felons, etc, owing guns do not infringe on the right to arms because the right to arms was removed from them thru due process.
-Narrowly tailored laws that are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest do not infringe on the right to arms because they pass the strict scrutiny test.
-Laws against using a gun to commit murder, et al, with a gun do not infringe on the right to arms because there is no right to commit murder.

These read as if they are cut and pasted from court opinions. If so please cite the source.

However, your admission that some people are denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control an "arm", because of a strict scrutiny test is interesting. Who promulgated this test, when and where? Has it been argued and found to be Constitutional?

If so, there is precedent for an individual state to find a compelling state interest to restrict ownership, possession and the custody and control of a firearm by anyone who enters said state, or is a permanent residence of said state.

Thus it can be argued, that guns purchased legally and used for mass murder in CT. AZ, CO, etc., are dangerous weapons and a compelling state interest in the security of the state requires that anyone who seeks to own, possess, etc a weapon ought to be investigated and licensed if they desire to exercise their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody or control a firearm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These read as if they are cut and pasted from court opinions. If so please cite the source.

These are not cut and pasted.

However, your admission that some people are denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control an "arm", because of a strict scrutiny test is interesting.

They CAN be, should the requirements be met.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If so, there is precedent for an individual state to find a compelling state interest to restrict ownership, possession and the custody and control of a firearm by anyone who enters said state, or is a permanent residence of said state.

What precedent is that - what is the name of the case?
Has it been reviewed and upheld by the federal courts?

Thus it can be argued, that guns purchased legally and used for mass murder in CT. AZ, CO, etc., are dangerous weapons and a compelling state interest in the security of the state requires that anyone who seeks to own, possess, etc a weapon ought to be investigated and licensed if they desire to exercise their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody or control a firearm.

You can -try- to argue that, sure. Please proceed
In doing so, please understand that Strict Scrutiny presupposes that a restriction is unconstitutional until state proves to the court that said compelling interest exists, that said restriction will meet that interest, and that said restriction is the least restrictive means to achieve said interest

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm assuming most of us agree that a state government experiencing gun violence - in terms of gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters has a compelling interest in preventing such events.

We may8 also assume a state which requires only those persons who want to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun, to be licensed as said state has a compelling interest to restrict only those unlicensed from own, possessing, etc. a gun.

Thus a background check - criminal and civil records - and the completion of a gun safety course + an administrative fee might be all that is required to obtain a license. These requirements seem to meet the narrow tailoring requirement and limit the ability of gun ownership to those never convicted of such crimes as domestic violence, child abuse or molestation, other crimes of violence, drug or alcohol commitments or detained as a danger to themselves or others, civilly.

Of course a gun license is not the panacea, but it will open the door to new laws which restrict the sale of guns to those not licensed and punish those who are licensed, those who sell, loan or give a gun to an unlicensed person. Yes there are loop holes, but only the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them.

A license, IMO, meets the standard as a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored and least a minor restriction within the standards of strict scrutiny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm assuming most of us agree that a state government experiencing gun violence - in terms of gang warfare, drive-by shootings, mass murders at schools, restaurants and movie theaters has a compelling interest in preventing such events.

You base your argument on an assumption? You cannot show said compelling interest thru jurisprudence?

We may8 also assume a state which requires only those persons who want to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun, to be licensed as said state has a compelling interest to restrict only those unlicensed from own, possessing, etc. a gun.

How does licensing prevent drive-by shootings, et al?
If you cannot show how licensing will prevent these shootings, how then can you argue that license is the least restrictive means to achieve your assumed compelling interest?
If there are loop holes, and the dishonest and criminal element will exploit them, how can you argue that licensing will achieve your compelling state interest?

Remember - Strict Scrutiny presupposes that a restriction is unconstitutional until state proves to the court that said compelling interest exists, that said restriction will meet that interest, and that said restriction is the least restrictive means to achieve said interest

 

[Yurt]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

i'm not surprised you find this funny

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It's the other way around. The wacko Apperson is obsessed with Zimmerman and wants a confrontation. He is seeking fame. I put him on the level of John Lennon's killer Mark Chapman.

What do John Lennon and George Zimmerman have in common, keeping in mind that GZ is far more infamous than famous?

 

[JimH52]

George Zimmerman armed with gun in latest incident cops - NY Daily News

“By every fact we have uncovered through the investigation, Apperson acted in self-defense,” attorney Mark Nejame told The Daily News on Tuesday. “He was in fear of George Zimmerman.”

It will be interesting to see how this comes out.

 

[EverCurious]

Well Mark Nejarne is his lawyer, of course that's what he's saying, if he wasn't saying that he wouldn't be a lawyer long.

 

[Steinlight]

It looks like the rumors are true, he is impervious to bullets.

 

[Politico]

What is this thread number 70?

 

[JimH52]

What is this thread number 70?

And you are here....,.,Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like WC was not really interested in an "open honest debate" about gun control after all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like WC was not really interested in an "open honest debate" about gun control after all.

What makes you believe so, or do you and this is a simple way to bug out?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Is it possible that left wing anger encouraged by the liberal media declared open season on not only George Zimmerman but every Police Officer in the Country?

Zimmerman has a history of issues with that guy. This is just the type of person Zimmerman is. He'll be in another gun incident soon no doubt.

Zimmerman = moth
gunfights = light

Zapp, zapp!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like WC was not really interested in an "open honest debate" about gun control after all.

What makes you believe so, or do you and this is a simple way to bug out?

Well... you haven't responded to my last post on the issue, so....?
George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[2aguy]

Let's start with what you characterized as the most ignorant and dishonest statement ever made at USMB:
"There is no gun control in this country"
True or not True (that is, is there gun control in the United States)?

Unarguably true.

Therefore, if there is gun control, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is currently infringed.
True or not true?

Not necessarily true; it is possible for a gun control law to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mmmm, example please.

Here you go....it is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime...that is controlling guns and does not infringe on anyones right to own and carry a gun for protection.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like WC was not really interested in an "open honest debate" about gun control after all.

What makes you believe so, or do you and this is a simple way to bug out?

Well... you haven't responded to my last post on the issue, so....?
George Zimmerman back in the news another shooting incident Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sorry, I have a life, a wife, two sons and a dog, tow cars, two homes and friends, all more important by far than this forum.

My last post comported the information I learned from you into an argument for a state to have the power - or at least the opportunity - to require those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, Did you miss that and response? If so I'll search it out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's start with what you characterized as the most ignorant and dishonest statement ever made at USMB:
"There is no gun control in this country"
True or not True (that is, is there gun control in the United States)?

Unarguably true.

Therefore, if there is gun control, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is currently infringed.
True or not true?

Not necessarily true; it is possible for a gun control law to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mmmm, example please.

Here you go....it is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime...that is controlling guns and does not infringe on anyones right to own and carry a gun for protection.......

LOL

 

[2aguy]

Unarguably true.

Therefore, if there is gun control, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is currently infringed.
True or not true?

Not necessarily true; it is possible for a gun control law to not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mmmm, example please.

Here you go....it is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime...that is controlling guns and does not infringe on anyones right to own and carry a gun for protection.......

LOL

Why is it that the only method to actually control guns...arresting and locking up criminals, is the one thing you libtards don't want to do....instead you focus on creating legal and financial hurdles for law abiding citizens to own guns that won't stop criminals from getting guns, but will afford you the opportunity to jam up the law abiding gun owner...

Funny where you nuts focus your efforts......someone might think you don't care if criminals get guns but simply want to scare law abiding citizens from getting guns.......

the left is bat shit crazy.............