Tagged: silverfiddle Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 12:54 PM on 03/22/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gun laws, , , , silverfiddle, ,   

    The Tragedy of Trayvon Martin 

    I was just about to do a post on that poor young man that was shot murdered in Florida.  I happened to read SilverFiddle’s take on the incident and there is no way that I could say it any better:

    A Stupid Gun Owner is a Dangerous Gun Owner

    Responsible gun owners and defenders of the right to self-defense must demand the prosecution of George Zimmerman

    Police in the central Florida town of Sanford have said that 28-year-old George Zimmerman says he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense during a confrontation in a gated community. Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist. (US News)

    Neighborhood vigilante George Zimmerman murdered young Trayvon Martin.  I don’t see how a reasonable person could reach any other conclusion. News outlets are blaming Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, but that’s just agenda reporting.

    Nothing in that law green-lights what Zimmerman did. He was flat-out wrong. Criminally wrong. You can’t just go chasing law-abiding citizens down the street at the point of a gun.

    Zimmerman told a police dispatcher that the teen was “up to no good” because he was walking through his neighborhood “just walking around, looking about” with his “hands on his waistband.”  Does the idiot have kids? That’s what teens do!

    Zimmerman chased after Martin, complaining to the dispatcher, “These a******s always get away.”

    Hell yeah!  When a gun-toting man is chasing you, you’re going to try to get away. Of course Martin’s going to run. He probably thought Zimmerman was a pedophile or some kind of crazy person. He had every right to run. He also had a right to turn around and “jump” Zimmerman “from behind” (how do you get jumped from behind by someone you’re chasing? Zimmerman is lying.)

    When someone chases you down and assaults you, you have a right to fight back. Too bad the kid didn’t end up kicking the dumb bastard’s head in.

    Critics are calling for a repeal of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in the wake of the killing, but that is like calling for the repeal of driving automobiles every time a pedestrian gets run down.

    The perpetrator was not “standing his ground,” he was chasing down an innocent young man who was just trying to get back to his house before the second half started. If anything, had the kid killed Zimmerman, that same law would have protected him.

    This is a tragedy. It is assault with a deadly weapon and murder. And Florida’s Stand Your Ground law needs to stand.  It will protect potential victims from assaults by people like George Zimmerman. 

    The Martin family deserves justice for their son.  Mr. Zimmerman needs to be charged and tried.  Let a jury of his peers decide what his punishment will be.  The city/town of Sanford also deserve a new police chief, one that will follow the letter of the law.  This case is screaming for an arrest and he should be doing just that.

    Although, I do want make another point that Silverfiddle didn’t cover in this, the fact that media is purposely fanning the flames of racism by reporting incorrectly that Mr. Zimmerman is white.  That is not a small point when charges of racism are flying around so freely.    Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic.  

    You should also go and read DaTech Guy’s take on this as well.  He makes some very good points too.  The numbers of black on black crime that don’t seem to generate all the outrage that this case is generating.  It is very possible that Mr. Zimmerman had some issues with race.  It is also very possible that he has some issues with aggression and anger management that had nothing at all to do with race.  I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that until more evidence is presented.  But he needs to be arrested and charged.  Let a jury decide his fate.  

    Rest in Peace Trayvon.  

    • signpainterguy 6:30 PM on 03/22/2012 Permalink | Reply

      No surprise the media is pushing their anti-gun agenda. Nor is it surprising the racial aspect is given prominence ! At this point, Most all I`ve read and heard has been second and third hand, well into the realm of opinion with more than a dash of bias involved, so I can`t form an honest opinion on Zimmerman`s actions.

      One thing I`m finding a little odd in this; calling a Hispanic person “white”. My local newspaper`s w/s runs a police blotter photo gallery which labels everyone`s race. They call Hispanics “white”. I always thought of Hispanics as, well, Hispanic !

      • just a conservative girl 7:10 PM on 03/22/2012 Permalink | Reply

        There are multiple classifications of Hispanic. Hispanic isn’t a race, so they broke it out. Next time you fill out some form where you asked those kind of questions look at it. I can’t remember how exactly they break it out but they do.

        • signpainterguy 11:30 PM on 03/22/2012 Permalink | Reply

          I have seen that breakout, in fact, but the police blotter makes no distinction. Without regard for extra distinguishing features such as skin color, Indian or Encan ancestery or more European – Spanish features, they are all referred to as “white”. I am just making a point, not trying to change the story`s validity. It just seems odd to me.

    • Dave Knittel 11:02 PM on 03/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Was Zimmerman driving a well marked security vehicle or his personal vehicle?

      • just a conservative girl 6:41 AM on 03/27/2012 Permalink | Reply

        I don’t think that has been made clear. But since this was a volunteer neighborhood thing, more than likely his own car. I doubt the kid new he was part of a neighborhood watch. Which would explain why he would be scared. If someone in a car was following me as I walking in a neighborhood I wasn’t overly familiar with I would feel threatened too.

  • just a conservative girl 3:22 PM on 10/02/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , silverfiddle, , the rule of law   

    I’m Team Fuzzy 

    There is much going around the blogosphere regarding the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.  I am not at all interested in hearing about the people who say he was innocent.  He clearly was not.  He was very clear that his intentions were to not only to kill Americans, but to bring this country to its knees.  There is more than enough video in both English and Arabic to back up it up, these are not claims, but simply the proof.  The man was terrorist scum.  That isn’t the real issue, though. 

    The real issue is how the kill happened.  The U.S. and Yemeni government worked in tandem to bring the man down.  The details of exactly what happened are still a little fuzzy, but it seems like it was a joint effort that culminated in his death.  But, what is not fuzzy is the lack of due process in the U.S. Court system. 

    Silverfidlle, a very smart blogger and true conservative feels that this was a legal and righteous kill.  He lays out some very interesting facts to back up his claim:

    Awlaki Renounced his Citizenship

    Finntan did his usual yeoman research and provides the following results (Finn’s words are italicized):

    Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality.

    “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.”

    “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;”

    “performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

    “committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of Title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of Title 18, or violating section 2384 of Title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    Ok, I can buy that as a matter of law his actions lead one to believe that he has given up his American citizenship.  But, does President Obama alone get to make that determination?  Wouldn’t this have to go in front of a court?  I say it should have. 

    Fellow Potluck blogger Fuzzy and Fiddle had a going back and forth about this issue.  They decided to each do a post to describe their viewpoints in a more logical and easier to follow way then going back and forth from just the comment box on Fiddle’s earlier post.  Here is a taste of what Fuzzy has to say:

    The rights I care about are ours, those granted us in our Constitution.  Those deliberately withheld in that glorious document of “negative liberties” from the federal government, in this case, from the executive branch.  If you read the Constitution (and I know anyone reading this has done so, more than once. And recently), you know that nowhere in that document is the executive branch granted the right to issue death warrants on American citizens.  No where.  It’s not there.  There’s no if the citizen is really evil clause, no if the citizen has killed “x” number of people exemption, not in any circumstance.  And the founders knew a thing or two about traitors.  Yet they still didn’t vest in one person, not even the president, the power to try, convict, sentence, and hang (or otherwise execute).

    We know why they didn’t.  They didn’t trust one person, they trusted the people.  They knew from personal experience what tyranny looked like, how it manifested . . . and how to keep it at bay.  And we know something that even they didn’t, we know about progressivism, about the insidious baby steps toward tyranny.  We pride ourselves in having awakened, and rightly so, we have.

    Fiddle has laid a good case based on laws and logic.  I get what he is trying to say.  What I don’t get, what I am having a hard time understanding, is how is it that President Obama got to make the decision, all on his own, that said scumbag was indeed guilty of the crimes and did renounce his citizenship?  That is not just the job of the president to make those choices.  While I am sure that there were some lawyers involved in discussions of this, but no court was involved.  The likeliest scenario is that those lawyers are administration lawyers who are paid to protect the president, not the American people.  Fiddle goes on to say that indicting him would have muddied the waters, but getting him declared an enemy combatant wouldn’t have so muddied.  That was not done.  His citizenship was not revoked in an open and legal fashion as it should have been. 

    For those of you who are afraid to speak up on these issues because you maybe accused of being soft on terrorism are being shortsighted.  Terrorism is a danger to this country, that cannot be denied.  But I firmly believe that we are more at risk in this country if we walk away from our constitutional principles and the rule of law. 

    Allowing any chief executive the power to decide for him/herself who is and who is not an enemy combatant is a slippery slope that we should not be allowing.  It wasn’t all that long ago that returning war vets and members of the tea party were classified as potential terrorists by our own government.  By overlooking the rule of law in this case is only asking for trouble down the road.  We have to demand that our president, regardless of party, be responsive to the rule of law.  When they are not, we need to demand an answer of why not. 

    Therefore, in this case, I must be team Fuzzy.

    • fuzislippers 8:20 PM on 10/02/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, JACG for this post. It beautifully summarizes both viewpoints.

      The problem with the he gave up his citizenship thing is that we don’t know if he said the things he did “with the intent to give up his citizenship.” It’s pure, and reckless, speculation. If that’s the criteria, then what’s to stop this president from saying that because the TEA Party doesn’t like his version of “who we are,” we, by speaking out against tyranny, are renouncing our citizenship in “his America”? This isn’t about one incident, it’s about the power this president just took upon himself (as you explain so clearly).

      We’re either for the Constitution, always, or we’re not. We don’t get to pick and choose which parts we like and which we don’t. Isn’t that our primary complaint against the progressives? Well, guess what, a progressive just violated our Constitution, setting a very dangerous precedent, and there are constitutional conservatives who support that. We’re in real trouble in this country, much much worse than I’d imagined.

    • Dave Lindesmith 10:11 AM on 10/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Revolutionaries always shift from codified law to personal preferances, this radical in chief is the epitomy of ‘Man not Law’ in doing what needs doin. I’m a fuzzy as well, not because he the terrist in focus didn’t need taken out; but because an unstable decision maker can turn round and come for political detractors. If I remember 30’s,40’s and 50’s Russian style, it was that goverment shifted from Law rule to Joe’s decision. I think the radicles in our present have the same agenda. I use to say that evil is so boring, it’s repetitive in the extreem. This group of extreem politicos in and around the O are more scarry than O. Were not Russians and will not just lay down for order.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc