Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense


This reflection comes not from a legal expert on Florida laws concerning self defense, but from a thoughtful observer forming impressions of news commentary and reports from the recent trial of George Zimmerman, charged (but ultimately found not guilty) with second degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

WSB pundit Erick Erickson explained Florida law concerning self defense like this, "In Florida, if you feel someone is threatening your life, you have the right to kill that person, even if you started the fight." Erikson went on to say, "In this case it looks as though George Zimmerman may have provoked Trayvon Martin." Of course, we'll never know who provoked whom. Does George Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin amount to a provocation? Is it illegal to follow someone? Surely it is not. No one likes being followed, but being followed in of itself does not give us the right to charge after our pursuer and beat him bloody. After all, beating someone up is illegal; our laws call it assault. Certainly, if a person is being assaulted, the thought may cross his or her mind that their life is being threatened. If so, we have legal protection (in Florida) to kill the person threatening our existence. Without having read the law in question, I've noticed no one has challenged this interpretation of it.

Our judicial system is fair. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecution can not prove its case, the defendant must go free. Whether or not the acquitted gets what he or she truly deserves is a separate matter. The question is, Did the defendant get a fair trial?  People may speculate on the composition of the jury and how their backgrounds may have biased the verdict. Yet, the jury needed to decide whether or not Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder (or at the last minute, manslaughter). For a guilty verdict, the evidence had to show some degree of intent to kill. The jury did not have the evidence or the eyewitness testimony to show that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon Martin. Therefore, their verdict of not guilty was the only reasonable outcome based on the conditions of a fair trial.

The evidence, such as it was, supported Zimmerman's testimony of self defense. He was being assaulted. The pictures taken after the event prove his assertion that Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head. Those lacerations look as though someone ran a cheese grater down the back of his head. He claimed he'd been knocked down, and that Trayvon had straddled him and was pummeling him from above, smashing Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk. It's difficult to imagine how Zimmerman could have received the cuts and scrapes on the back of his head, if he (rather than Trayvon) had been on top in the fight.

The person on the top or the bottom of a fight is a crucial component in determining who had the opportunity to stop the fight and who had the opportunity to keep it going. The person on top can decide whether to get off and end the fight, whereas the person on bottom can only defend his or herself. For the bottom fighter, there is no retreat. There is nowhere to retreat to. Since the evidence more conclusively showed Zimmerman to be the bottom fighter, and the prosecution could not prove otherwise, we have nothing to contradict his testimony of acting in self defense. Killing in self defense can not convict a defendant of second degree murder or manslaughter in Florida. Therefore, the jury had no legal or ethical choice other than to acquit George Zimmerman.

It is disappointing to see so many people, some of them famous, who want to take away the people's right to proper self defense. Due to the Zimmerman verdict, Stevie Wonder has declared that he will no longer perform in any state that has a "stand your ground" law. In other words, Stevie Wonder is protesting against the American people having the right to defend themselves and their families from harm. Are we to believe Stevie applies that same standard to his own life? Does Stevie have bodyguards? If so, are they not armed and ready to kill to protect him from an assailant?

Are there any celebrities who do not or have not had either full time or part time armed bodyguards on their pay roll? Are celebrities arrogant enough to think they are the only people important enough to require armed security? What world does Stevie Wonder live in?

What kind of world would we live in if our right to self defense was taken away from us? What kind of America would we have? Certainly, we would not have the America we know and love? We would not have an America of fair trials or juries of our peers. If such sentiments ought to be important to us, than our media culture and our president have failed us horribly in the circumstances surrounding the Zimmerman trial, and its aftermath.

The first NBC report of Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call deleted a crucial segment of the conversation he'd had with the dispatcher. As edited, the segment featuring the dispatcher asking Zimmerman about the suspicious person's race disappeared, making it appear that Zimmerman, without prompting, said to the dispatcher, "He looks black." Such malicious tampering with the 9-1-1 conversation shows a major media outlet that is irresponsible, going out of its way to fan the flames of racial turmoil in this country.

All of the media coverage I witnessed about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, displayed only pictures of Martin as a twelve-year old boy, five years prior to his death! Are we to believe no pictures of Trayvon Martin have been taken in the last five years? To this day, I have not seen a single picture of Trayvon Martin showing him to be anywhere close to what he looked like near the time of his death! Yet, all pictures shown of George Zimmerman have been recently taken. Why have NBC, ABC, CNN, and others not shown us photos of a twelve-year old George Zimmerman? If asked, they would undoubtedly say such photos bear no relevance to this case. However, the photos of the twelve-year old Trayvon Martin bear relevance because the real purpose is to play-up the image of his fragile innocence! There was nothing fragile about the adult-sized figure who used a concrete slab to smash the back of George Zimmerman's head! Such is the detestable, reprehensible bias through which our media culture spins the news before our impressionable minds.

Few Americans are under the spell that our media is unbiased and fair. But in times when our society is rife with divisions, we should be able to look to our president for a message of unity and shared values. Presidents have historically given us what we want from them in times of pain and conflict. Reagan's speech following the explosion of the space ship Challenger, healed the nation in a moment of grief. JFK's address following the Bay of Pigs fiasco showed America it was led by a real man, one willing to accept personal responsibility for his mistakes. Unfortunately, in the days following the verdict of the Zimmerman trial, President Barack Obama botched his opportunity to play the presidential role of nation healer and uniter. Instead, he has come down hard in his sympathy for Trayvon Martin and has expressed disappointment of the jury's verdict of not guilty regarding the second degree murder charge against George Zimmerman.

The president's bias was apparent long before the trial took place. His most memorable statement following the death of Trayvon Martin was, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." No one would have accused the president of bias if he'd followed up that comment with something like, "and I'd want my son to have a fair trial like the one George Zimmerman deserves as an American citizen." Of course, no such quote regarding Zimmerman came from the president. Mr. Obama's one-sided thinking of the case is undeniable in statements like, "I could have been Trayvon Martin thirty-five years ago."

The president's press commentary in the days since the announcement of the Zimmerman verdict has amounted to an outpouring of sympathy for Trayvon Martin coupled with an accusation that our criminal justice system is biased in favor of whites against blacks. Although the president began last Friday's address by acknowledging that the jury produced the only reasonable verdict under the conditions of our judicial system, he showed his displeasure in every other statement he made about the trial and the circumstances surrounding it.

President Obama's entire address asserted that our judicial system, and by extension the Zimmerman verdict, is racially biased, and that a double standard is applied in favor of whites against blacks. The president summarized, "All that contributes to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that from both top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." It is one thing for cultural figures such as Al Sharpton to say something like this. It is a travesty for the president of the United States to say something like this. He is supposed to be above the fray. He is supposed to stand for all Americans, not just one racial or ethnic group. He is not supposed to take sides in a judicial case. He is not supposed to play politics with judicial matters.

What's worse, the president of the United States is wrong even in the things he said about our criminal justice system in that address. How do we the people know that if Zimmerman were black and Trayvon white, the outcome would have been different? NBC and ABC do not report on those kinds of cases! As far as high profile cases go, if our judicial system was racially biased shouldn't O.J. Simpson have been convicted in the murder of his ex-wife? I'm not saying O.J. was guilty or innocent. I'm just pointing out that if the president's logic were true, O.J. should've been convicted in that case. How about Jay Z's alleged role in the stabbing death of someone he had altercation with in a club, some years ago? If our judicial system was biased against African Americans, why was Jay Z not convicted? Or how about Michael Jackson? I happen to believe he received a fair trial in his final go around with the judicial system over accusations of sexual child abuse. He received a fair trial because the prosecution could not prove his guilt. Yet, if President Obama's words are to be true, Michael Jackson's racial identity should have convicted him. Yet, none of this logic is demonstrably true, not in the twenty-first century. 

The inescapable conclusion a fair observer can make is that the president of the United States is racially biased in his own interpretation of the American judicial system and that he is fanning the flames of racial turmoil in this country by backing it with the force of the Oval Office. Moreover, the president's attorney general has pledged himself to the cause of overturning "stand your ground" laws across the states. The Obama administration does not want the American people to have the right to defend themselves and their families, with the necessary means, from those who would do them harm.

In the concluding remarks of Friday's address, the president linked his twin themes of a racially biased judicial system and of his opposition to the American people's right of self defense as follows: 

"I just ask people to consider that if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he had felt threatened. And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, than it seems to be that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."

In this time of great social anxiety, the American people need to be told the truth by our media institutions. We are not getting it. In this time of great division, the American people need uniting leadership. We are not getting it from the White House. In this time when Americans need confidence that we have the right of self defense from those who would do us harm, the Justice Department of the federal government is against us.Thus is the revealed legacy of the Zimmerman trial and its aftermath.

Patriot Thought







13 comments:

  1. Jason,

    You say that your Justice system (sorry your judicial system) is fair. (Its good that you did not put justice system because what happened in the T. Martin case was anything but justice. Florida rights overrides any common sense argument that is clear as day. While it was not illegal for Zimmerman to follow T. Martin and stalk him for being suspicious -Really was it necessary? Do you think that if a White male (or female) with nice clothes was walking around and Zimmerman was told by the cops to stop following them, he would have obeyed. If you say race is not a factor in the American justice system you are just be blinded by your 'American Rights' and the bias and loopholes it provides.

    Was it common sense for Zimmerman to follow T. Martin? NO for sure it was not. The guy was suspicious (guilty or not if Zimmerman did not follow him there would never have been a killing) but really to follow a guy you are scared of in the first place...so scared that you needed to place a call to police and be told specifically not to follow but you did? Now I think someone was just gungho and trigger happy.

    Was it smart for T. Martin to be walking around in Florida at dusk after buying red bull (or whatever) and candy back to his relatives house wearing a Hoodie as a black guy?

    Was it smart for someone like Zimmerman who had been a criminal already before to be given a weapons permit and be head of community security and deliberately disobey orders not to follow, actually end up following T. Martin?

    Was it smart for T. Martin to have pummeled (as the defense claims) and beat the living daylights out of Zimmerman (as the defense also claims but really could not show any proof how someone who was being sat on and pummeled and punched and had his head smacked against the ground could have pulled out a gun and shot) as he lay there? NO because no good could have come from it and really no good did come as we know know.

    Please look at Zimmerman's past and tell me honestly that if T. Martin was Zimmerman and if Zimmerman was T. Martin do you really think that T. Martin would be a free man today? If you really think so then lets just agree to disagree and end it at this. However, if you say well....maybe not then ask yourself why the reality in American is that people of colour are getting the short end of the justice system. Racial profiling is not a thing of the past and I can give you first hand accounts of this if you have time someday.

    Indeed Zimmerman was in the wrong because an individual is dead and dead is dead and it hurts? Or should we agree with man made laws and whatever the verdict ignore all the other logical and common sense factors and so who cares that a young man has lost his life as long as the law has shown the way?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America. However, the stories that make up hollywood as mere fiction and not reality. As educators we know that the greatest works are works that have impact on a society because of their representation of reality and society at its truest sense. It is here that proof points that the mindset of the people of American is still not ready to trust their neighbours. It is here that a society allows for a man carrying a gun (legally) and shooting an unarmed teenager (legally and rightfully so as pointed out by the justice system) that shows that indeed trust and collaboration in your country is definitely not defined by what is in a person's heart but rather the colour of his pigmentation. In my country we often say that if Gandhi saw the pitfalls of the economic, social system of India today he would probably suffer a heart attack. Unfortunately I feel the same that if your forefathers and contemporary heroes like Dr. King, JF Kennedy etc say the state of affairs in America today especially in regards to the way races relate to each other they would also turn in their graves. America needs to learn from this case. T. Martin and Zimmerman will actually be a focal point of race reconciliation the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is so much written here that it is difficult to know where to begin to comment and adding Donald's thoughts on top make the discussion even more interesting. I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

    In this particular case, Jason makes a great point about convicting a person where there is no evidence. Maybe the laws do need to be changed (or clarified), but I would think it is much worse if the law isn't followed merely because people feel like it was wrong. In the Zimmerman case, there was plenty of doubt both ways and it would have been a tragedy to put a man in prison with no real proof. In the US, innocent until proven guilty is a better option in my mind than guilty until proven innocent. The latter happens all the time in China (often with tragic results).

    On the other hand, as one with a cross-cultural marriage, I feel a lot of empathy towards minorities in the US (or anywhere else). It is much easier to go about daily life as a white person--a fact which I was reminded of each time I went through customs with my Chinese wife and am still reminded of when I go shopping or spend time with friends (even Christian friends) who do not have mixed-race marriages. It's no surprise then, that the closest friends my daughters have found at school are not white Americans, but from other countries (India, Honduras, and Turkey). So, while maybe President Obama should have been more balanced on his thoughts concerning the Zimmerman-Martin verdict, I think it was fantastic that he discussed being a black man in the US. Being able to identify with the plight of America's black men and then direct that with a vision to see things improve could go a long way towards smoothing over race relations.

    Many white people are struggling with this feel of having race being used to discriminate against them . . . it's like they're not used to it. Welcome to the world of a black person (and other minorities). That feeling of being judged by the color of the skin is something most white people have been immune to in this country since it's inception. It's not an excuse for the discrimination. Discrimination is evil and it would be great if it didn't happen.

    Maybe Donald is correct--maybe this leads to reconciliation. I fear that in the short term at least, it will only widen the divide.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will,

    I think your remarks are very balanced and reasonable. I particularly like your views regarding the justice system. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard, and I believe the jury adhered to that. Despite how they might have felt about it personally.

    I also feel the media did much to inflame racial tensions and that much of their coverage was distorted (as we saw in the altered conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher). Calling Zimmerman a "white Hispanic" was also questionable, failing to mention that his mixed race background includes black ancestry on his mother's side. His personal background did not indicate that he was a racist at all, as the FBI and the local police department concluded. Nor was the prosecution ever able to step forward and prove that Zimmerman had racist motives.

    Chris Crady

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do any of you understand that when you are on community watch program the thing that you do is watch anyone that is walking around and if thier face is covered by a hoody so no one can see who you are, RED FLAGS go up immediatally. If you were watching the bands about the news, then you would also know that T. Martin fingerprints and only his prints were found on a slimjim in the bushes the next day. This also proves that the Chief of Police knew what he was doing when he did not press charges against Zimmerman. Then another politician had to put himself in the same place that he should not have been, our Governor. Now we have another large bill for court and all the extras that went with that. George Zimmerman is not WHITE for all you peeople that don't know this, but please don't hold that against him too. If I were in his situation I would have done the same thing for self preservation. That was an exelent commentary about that situation Jason A.

    ReplyDelete
  6. possibly the best balanced view I have seen on this. You can look up these facts unlike most of what the media has fed us. Oh do you know how to LEAN. Travon Did!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, this case is (was) definitely very very interesting. It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society. We will never know the truth about what happened. People can call Zimmerman a racist all day and we will never know for sure. People can suspect and label T. Martin all day and we will never know for sure. However, what we can know for sure are a couple of things:

    A) Equality is far from reality in America (whichever way you look at it) but many people claim inequality is a thing of the past.

    B) A Boy's life has been taken away at the barrel of a gun. (Shame on America for this)Whether or not Zimmerman was guilty in this day and age a developed country that has no qualms instilling morality around the world still upholds ridiculous gun laws? Really? The life of an individual (especially someone like T. Martin) to be taken away is a tragedy and America should be mourning that it came to this (Black or White, Non0supporter or Supporter of T. Martin/Zimmerman)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

    Rather than asserting an ideology, you should pay more attention to the facts of the case. The jury did so and reached a conclusion based upon evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Donald,

    I agree that this was a tragedy. But it was caused far more by T Martin's attack on Zimmerman, than any mistakes that Zimmerman may have made. It's also tragic that drugs were found in Martin's system and that he was no longer the cherubic young man that the media portrayed him to be. None of this takes away from his death, but it shows that there may be other factors in American culture that are as deadly as racism. In fact, it is not clear that racism played a major role in the confrontation between T. Martin/Zimmerman. The only possible remark that could be construed as racist was made by Trayvon himself.

    I don't agree with you concerning the gun laws, although I respect your opinion. The truth is that violent crime (including homicides) is now 50% of what is was 20 years ago in the US. This rate is consistent with gun related crime. The interesting thing is that there are more guns in circulation now, particularly with the adoption of concealed and carry laws that permit more guns in public places. Whatever our views on this may be, it does not appear that liberalized gun laws led to an epidemic of violent crime. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The crime rate went down.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jason I thought you did an excellent breaking this apart. I agree with you wholeheartedly that in a court of the prosecution from the state of Florida did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did this with intent to kill. I concur while we may agree/disagree with the verdict, the system worked. There has to be over 95% assurance that Zimmerman did it with intent to kill. It wasn't proven.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is an old axiom we learn in law school. "Bad facts make bad law." I suggest, bad facts are immaterial to public policy. Be wary of reading too much into the verdict. Juries are inherently unpredictable. Race, stand your ground, burden of proof? Who knows? The verdict, the truth like it or not, is not guilty. There are no other truths to take away from the case. All other issues deserve study, but not in the context of the case. Legal cases are about winning and truth often is sacrificed. So, lets explore the bigger issues without mentioning Zimmerman or Martin. Otherwise arguments are flawed as they are based on unproven assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If our president intended on directly fomenting discord and division among the American people, he could not have done a better job, which begs the question whether that was his intent to begin with. Obviously, at least in my view, that is exactly what happened.

    Good article. Obama is there to continue to divide America. This is calculated.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been thinking about what Chris and Donald were discussing concerning rights and corruption and gun laws. And then I decided to do a comparison in homicide rates between China and the US. China has a no gun policy. Based on almost all charts, graphs, and statistics list, the facts are similar. The US's homicide rate is about 5 per 100,000 people. China's is 1 per 100,000. Rates for other crimes are similar. So while China has fewer so called 'rights', it is a much safer place to live. I wonder to myself which is worse?

    ReplyDelete

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.