Witness the unfolding campaign to strip your rights

| March 23, 2012

There’s a new angle in the campaign to strip you of your rights to defend your self with the Constitutional tools afforded to you. In the wake of the Martin shooting in Florida comes a recent op-ed piece by Tom Brown for Reuters masquerading as reporting the “case” being built for the deconstruction of so called “stand your ground” laws.

On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first “Stand Your Ground” law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.

Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen’s yard, about 10 feet (3 meters) from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

Now living in Hawaii, Rosenbloom said he had been unaware of the growing outrage over last month’s shooting in Sanford, Florida, of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain.

The language in the rest of the article only grows more grotesque. Then again this is the same agency which employs “journalists” to “embed” with insurgents in Iraq then has the audacity to complain when they’re caught in the cross fire.


This morning the Christian Science Monitor ran an Op-Ed by NYU professor Jonathan Zimmerman, titled Where’s the Trayvon Martin petition about gun control?. It pretty clearly lays out, what I think will be, the strategy they’ll use going forward, race card and all.

…we need to ask whether any private citizen should be carrying a concealed weapon, and whether “Stand Your Ground” measures make people trigger-happy. And most of all, we need to think about the most common victims of our lax gun laws: African Americans.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media

Comments (205)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. insipid says:

    Yes, let’s all mourn and pity the real “victim” in the whole Martin tragedy, the NRA. I mean without the stand your ground law how else was Zimmerman going to defend himself from an unarmed black teenager whom he outweighed by 50 pounds and who, unlike Zimmerman has no criminal past, unless he’s able to shoot him with a 9mm? I mean of course Zimmerman felt threatened, the guy was walking around HIS neighborhood all black and all. What else could he do but shoot him?

    Really? You guys are going to defend the ‘stand your ground’ law? Your going to defend the right to shoot without feeling threatened, the right to committ cold blooded murder and get away with it? This is the party of law and order?

    This law gives more protection to dogs then it gives to people. And it makes the victims of a fatal shooting the presumptive guilty party. If you can’t agree that this is a bad law then you have fully earned the perjorative “gun nut”. Cause this is fucking nuts.

  2. insipid says:

    I also like the way you managed to expand the definition of “rights” to not only include the right to own a gun (which is bullshit all by itself) but now you’re claiming that you should have the right to shoot and face no consequences. A right that Zimmerman would have had if it weren’t for the witnesses getting all uppity and going to the media and all.

  3. J.M. says:

    Definition of INSIPID
    1: lacking taste or savor : tasteless
    2: lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : dull, flat

    You are certainly living up to your name. What can we do, trolls are gonna troll.

  4. Claymore says:

    I also like the way you managed to expand the definition of “rights” to not only include the right to own a gun (which is bullshit all by itself) but now you’re claiming that you should have the right to shoot and face no consequences

    That’s an interesting strawman you have there…care to defend it?

  5. J.M. says:

    Read the article I linked to below. A man has been shot in the head and killed during the filming of an amateur rap video in Philadelphia.

    Are you going to start posting on rap music sites that it’s time to ban rap videos too, huh? There is no Constitutional right to rap music. Or as Blooomburg would say; It’s time to close the music video loophole. Yes, i’m making fun of you. Because you have not said anything worth taking seriously.


    For those who are capable of serious discussion on this, I would like to point out that there are more innocent people mistakenly shoot by law enforcement then by legally armed citizens. And since the Supreme Court has ruled that police officers are not obligated to actually protect people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), I would make the argument that we need less cops and more armed citzens.

  6. Hondo says:

    Insipid: So, the right to own a gun is “bullshit”, eh? That’s not what the Constitution said the last time I read it.

    The rest of the drivel you posted above is so ludicrous as to be not worth addressing. All it is is another example of your penchant for “hit and run” excrement-hurling. But I must admit it’s sort of amusing at times – much the same way that watching monkeys at the zoo fling dung can be amusing.

    Please go elsewhere – then expire after consuming rather than throwing fecal matter.

  7. J.M. says:

    No disrespect intended, but I think you were a little overly harsh. There is no call for what you said. The monkeys don’t need to be associated with insipid, what did they ever do to you?

  8. Claymore says:

    More to the point, JM, if insipid had taken a few moments to actually read and comprehend the original post, there isn’t a single sentence in it that 1) defends Zimmerman, 2) advocates the wanton shooting of “scary brown people”, 3) suggests that actions don’t have consequences. The point of the post is that, once again, the left will seize this tragic opportunity to further erode Constitutionally protected rights and overturn laws designed to make average citizens bow down to their government overlords. As Rahm Emmanuel so eloquently stated, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. A young man, full of promise is dead, and the vultures are circling before his killer can even be fully investigated. It’s disgusting.

  9. Claymore says:

    That should have read: “The point of the post is that, once again, the left will seize this tragic opportunity to further erode Constitutionally protected rights and overturn laws designed to keep average citizens from having to bow down to their government overlords.”

    …need coffee. 🙂

  10. NHSparky says:

    It’s insipid, people. Unless Dear Reader has approved and endorsed it, he’ll bitch, whine, and call us all racists for daring to even question Obumbles.

    Meanwhile, more guns are turning up in Mexico….

  11. NHSparky says:

    And for the record, insipid–nice to see you regard the Constitution as “bullshit”. Further, I don’t know of anyone here who has defended Mr. Zimmerman’s actions. But the “duty to retreat” bullshit (and that’s exactly what it is) in your vaunted liberal paradises only serves to embolden criminals. How’s that working out for ya?

    Remember, when seconds count, 911 is only minutes away–unless you live in my town, then it’s about 2 1/2 HOURS.

  12. Hondo says:

    J.M. – you’re right. I formally apologize to monkeys everywhere. I shouldn’t have dragged them into this.

    While their behaviors appear similar, there is a key difference. Monkeys actions are due to instinct. Insipid’s actions appear to be due to willful ignorance.

  13. AW1 Tim says:

    You know, if the troll had been paying as much attention to recent Supreme Court rulings, as he is to leftist propaganda posing as journalism, he would have known about the “Heller” case and it’s ruling.

    SCOTUS affirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

    Interestingly enough, a Federal Court recently ruled that a portion of Maryland’s restrictive CCW permit laws was unconstitutional. The courts are slowly, but surely, dismantling the draconian laws that some states still insist on clinging to.


  14. Adam_S says:

    Um its also important to remember that as of right now it seems like Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with what happened. Stand Your Ground gives you the right to defend yourself if confronted with violence, not the right to follow someone you deem suspicious and to then confront them. This is a case of poor police work, not a bad law. But I’m sure insipid is either too ignorant to understand that or unwilling to let a tragedy pass without trying to exploit it for political purposes.

  15. Old Tanker says:

    I’m sure insipid can see the modern equivalent of a lynch mob in Florida right now too. That’s right, a lynch mob. If Zimmerman had been black or had the victim been hispanic this would have barely registered….The circus surrounding this is what pisses me off. I certainly won’t defend Zimmerman, it sure looks like he over reacted but dayum, can we let the courts do their thing?

  16. NHSparky says:

    unwilling to let a tragedy pass without trying to exploit it for political purposes

    And in doing so, he pulls page one out of the Rahm Emmanuel playbook, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Especially if it can be used to grow nanny-state government oversight.

  17. DaveO says:

    The victim is Trayvon Martin.

    I understand insipid wants to victimize all of Florida by stripping its citizens of the Right to Life; and insipid’s personal friends in Al “Kill-the-Jews” Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party (sponsored by Attorney General Eric Holder: ‘When f*ck you just doesn’t say enough!’) and similar braintrusts would like to ensure law-abiding Floridians and visitors are easy targets.

    trolls gotta troll, and be thankful insipid doesn’t get paid by the word count.

  18. UpNorth says:

    Well, judging by the times of insipid’s posts, we can judge with certainty that the crack house closes at about 3 a.m.
    Oh, and what Hondo said in #6.

  19. Doc_B says:

    Note that insipid has performed his, obligatory, Jug Headed, drive-by of 10 year old, quasi sophomoric regurgitation and has split the scene. I agree….guys like insipid have no place owning a firearm. If they are that careless with their verbiage, imagine what would happen if we gave this mental Barney Fife a bullet.

  20. Dave says:

    If you read the original article, the bozo that wrote it says Florida has been in the top 5 for violent crime for 30 years – and then blames it on a law that was passed 7 years ago.
    The most notable aspect of that whole situation is that NO BODY wants to hear more than has already been told. On the surface, Zimmerman looks to be an idiot – but the cops on the scene seemd to find some merit in what he claimed. Seems to me both sides of the story should come out – if he was being attacked by a bag of Skittles, that’s one thing – the kid jumped him and slammed the edge of the tea can in his eye or whatever, that’s another kettle of fish. Point is – no one knows.

  21. Spigot says:

    @ Insipid: You’re obviously very passionate in your hatred of firearms, the 2nd Amendment, those of us who own firearms and who have stood watch to protect and preserve this nation and the documents that define it.

    Tell you what: I’ll send Jonn my home address, and give him permission to pass it to you. Then, you just need to reach down, check your ball sack, and then come to my house, and take my firearms away from me. Yes…physically remove them from my house…all of them, and all my ammunition. And don’t worry, I’ll have them all locked up in my gun safe…IOW, I won’t shoot your sorry, Bitch ass, because I know I won’t need to.

    I’ll just kick your sorry Bitch ass all over my front yard, for the neighborhood’s (and my) amusement.

    What do you say…Bitch?

  22. Powerpoint Ranger says:

    Insipid, go eat a heaping bowl of dick. You don’t give a shit about the kid, his family or seeing justice done. You and your ilk have been holding on to the same tired anti self-defense bullshit for decades now. The minute you see an opening, you dive down like a starving vulture and start picking at the bones. Unfortunately for you, you aren’t even a good enough raging blowhard to make a career of it.

  23. NSOM says:


  24. UpNorth says:

    Then there is this: “”The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John”. This is from one of the 911 callers. The article goes on, “John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot”.
    “And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”.

    The whole article is here, http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4
    And the New Black Panthers have been heard from. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032312-Controversial-flyer-targets-George-Zimmerman

  25. Adam_S says:

    Too bad that Christian Science bullshit article doesn’t bother to research anymore into the idea that African Americans are the victims of lax gun laws. I wonder what percentage are killed by other African Americans and what percentage obtained these weapons illegally.

    Of course that’s totally irrelevant to them because this isn’t about protecting anyone, its about removing a fundamental right from the vast majority of law abiding citizens because of the actions of an extremely small minority of jackasses and criminals.

  26. Valerie says:

    @15 Zimmerman is bi-racial being part hispanic.

  27. insipid says:

    @21- Spigot “What do you say…Bitch?”

    I would say, you sound like a crazy person. Really, very crazy. I did not even come close to saying anywhere in my post that i think anyone should come for your guns. I’m actually kind of agnostic on gun laws. I think guns do damage, but they mostly kill gun owners, so culling the herd as they say.

    All i did was express a legal opinion that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone a carte blanche right to own guns. I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd. I have heard ALL the arguments to the contrary and none have persuaded me from this belief nor have they even come close. And i’m sure nothing i say is going to convince you against the individual right interpretation. Fine. We’ll agree to disagree.

    But just because a government can make laws doesn’t mean they should. I don’t think you should pick your nose and eat it, something i’m sure you do quite often. But i’m not going to ask the state to make a law against it, enjoy your boogers as you enjoy your gun.

    But simply because I stated an oppinion on guns contrary to yours you feel that justifies a post inviting us to engage in violence? Let’s assume that you can beat me up, hospitalize me, kill me, whatever. You’d really want to do all that ove?r my having an oppinion contrary to yours on the Constitution? Apparently the 2nd amendment is SO sacred to you that you’ll destroy anyones first amendment rights to have an opinion on it contrary to yours.

    For whatever it’s worth, there’s not an opinion you can state on this board or anywhere else for that matter that would cause me to have the desire for violence.

    You know why? I’m not a crazy man. Really, get help.

  28. NHSparky says:

    Wow, insipid–you telling someone else to get help when you’re so far around the bend you’re not even visible anymore?

    Projection–you’re doing it WAY too well.

  29. Adam_s says:

    He doesn’t want to kick your ass because you disagree, he wants to kick your ass because you are an asshole and an ignoramus douche. Did i mention you are an asshole?

  30. malclave says:

    Can we get rid of the rights to free speech and due process while we’re at it?

  31. Adam_s says:

    Oh and if you.would read other writings by the people who.wrote the constitution it would be pretty clear to you what they meant.

  32. malclave says:

    All i did was express a legal opinion that the 2nd amendment does not give everyone a carte blanche right to own guns. I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd.

    So is it your legal opinion that all of the other references in the Constitution to “the people” also apply only to the National Guard, and not to other citizens?

  33. Hondo says:

    Insipid: it’s a free country, and you’re entitled to be a turd-throwing practitioner of ignorant drive-by drivel posing as commentary if you like. But you really should read up on the law in this area. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and has held that firearm ownership is indeed an individual right under the 2nd Amendment. See DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The former case held that the individual right to firearms ownership on Federal enclaves is indeed guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The latter case held that this right cannot be prohibited by state or local governments, thus extending this right to all US states and territories.

    You and your liberal brethren need to simply accept the fact that you’re wrong on this issue, and STFU. The SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution in this area, and its decisions are final. I don’t particularly care if you like that fact or not. It’s now the freaking law – everywhere in the US.

    And there’s a fairly good chance that one of several cases currently working their way through the Federal court system will soon confirm that the right to concealed carry is similarly guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. If and when that happens, I certainly I would like to be in a position to see your face when you first learn that’s now the law nationwide.

  34. insipid says:

    Here’s what I’m not getting: How is speaking out against the “stand your ground” law tantamount to an assault on the 2nd amendment?

    Is it the basic contention of this board that the 2nd amendment not only gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms but also forbids the state to make any laws restricting how you use these weapons?

    You really think that a law that allows someone to use lethal force because of feelings is a good law? Do you really believe that the 2nd amendment is so encompessing that not only are you allowed to own all the guns you want, but you can shoot anyone who you feel threatened by, anywhere you want? That a hella interpretation of the 2nd Amendment!

    I think we should be able to agree here that the police fucked up. Here are TWO witnesses that the police say SUPPORTED Zimmerman.


    Does that sound like they support Zimmerman to you?

    The fact is that the ONLY person who had a toxicology report done that night was Trayvon, the unarmed kid who was far smaller than the shooter. Does anyone here want to say that this seems right to them?

    If Zimmerman had run over Trayvon with his car there’d certainly of been a toxicology report done on him. But because he shot Trayvon you’re all ok with him just stating that he did it because he “felt threatened?”

    What this law does is encourage people to keep shooting untl the unarmed person is dead. Why? Because then the only person who can state whether or not the person was ACTUALLY threatened is the shooter.

    Fine you all want to own guns. Have as many as you want. Keep one in the boot, five on each holster one in the hat whatever. But if you use one of those guns to kill an unarmed man you should have to be able to justify that killing by doing more than saying “I felt threatened”. At the very least you should have to prove that you WERE threatened. In some way. Anyway.

    I mean is there anyone on this board that can state- preferably without ad hominems- how i’m being unreasonable?

    Perhaps if George Zimmerman went to trial he’d be able to prove that he was threatened somehow. In which case, fine. Let him live his life. But THIS idiotic law says that he doesn’t even have to do that. That all he has to do is tell cops that he had this feeling and he gets to go home. Right now, three weeks later, he STILL hasn’t been arrested, he STILL has his gun, all because of this idiotic law.

    What’s funny is that so many of you love to make fun of “bleeding hearts” wanting to take this and that from hard workers to give to poor people becaue of some “sob story”. But right now your defending George Zimmerman’s “right” to shoot an unarmed man because he “felt” scared. So legislating to give people stuff based on “feelings” is horrible, but legislating to kill people based on feelings is fine.

    Again, i’m not saying that you can’t have guns, just that you have to think before you use them. Again, how is that unreasonable?

  35. UpNorth says:

    Malclave, I guess that “the right of the people” only applies to what liberals tell the rest of us it applies to.
    Oh, and insipid, you didn’t express a legal opinion>, you just expressed an ignorant opinion. Then you went on to confirm your ignorance.

  36. insipid says:

    Oh, Jeez Hondo i didn’t knwo that the SCOTUS were Kings now that i’m not allowed to diasgree with. Sorry. Does that mean that the folks arguing against Roe V. Wade should STFU as well or are only “liberals” not allowed to disagree with all-holy SCOTUS?

    But again, i’m not sure how you’re conflating the “stand your ground” law with the Second Amendment. Do you really believe you should have the “right” to shoot an unarmed man simply because you “feel” threatened?

  37. malclave says:

    You really think that a law that allows someone to use lethal force because of feelings is a good law?

    The only people I’ve ever heard say that are supporters of abortion.

  38. insipid says:

    No, i didn’t express a “legal opinion”. I can if you want to but really i DON’ want to talk about the 2nd amendment. Not because i can’t but if you want to believe i “chickened out” fine go right ahead.

    What i’m talking about is the “stand your ground” law. That’s it. Focus. Do you REALLY think THAT’S a good law? And do you really think an assault against that law is akin to an assault against the 2nd?

  39. UpNorth says:

    Oh, and insipid, “the unarmed kid who was far smaller than the shooter”? Some reports say that Trayvon was 6’2″, Zimmerman 5’7″ or so.
    And, you really ought to brush up on the law. Zimmerman, if he goes to trial, doesn’t have to prove anything. The state, in a state case, would have to prove he wasn’t threatened. Do some research on guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why don’t you?

  40. malclave says:


    So #27 was not you?

  41. UpNorth says:

    Insipid, you really are non-compos mentis. In #27, you posted, “All i did was express a legal opinion”.

  42. insipid says:

    @37- If Trayvon Martin were attached to George Zimmerman for life support i would argue that George Zimmerman would have the right to disconnect Trayvon. That would be more analogous to Abortion.

    This is someone killing an unarmed man and- thus far- facing no consequences for it. No grand jury, no questioning, no trial. All because of this law. Do you honestly think that’s right?

  43. UpNorth says:

    @#42, please catch up on the news. The case will be referred to a grand jury. Also, he was transported to the police department the night of the shooting, and questioned.

  44. insipid says:

    Yes, Up North. You got me. Rejoice at your conquering of the liberal. I probably should of used the term legal argument. Either way my point remains. I can trot out Miller and a whole bunch of other cases prior to Heller and McDonald and you can shout at the rooftops about the singular importance of the word Person and i can shout just as loudly about the overwhelming importance of the word militia and at the end of the day we’d be right back to where we started. You and i disagreeing. I will stipulate that right now the SC agrees more with you. I think they’re wrong. That’s life.

    But can’t we at least agree that repealing the “hold your ground” law is 1. not really applicable to the 2nd amenmdment in that it doesn’t infringe on the right to OWN a gun just effects what you do with it and 2. The law- or the way the police applied the law in this case- is dumb?

  45. UpNorth says:

    And, perhaps you’d like to peruse the police reports of the incident. Pay particular attention to page 7 and page 8. The injuries to Zimmerman are noted in the report. It kind of blows your statement, “Right now, three weeks later, he STILL hasn’t been arrested, he STILL has his gun, all because of this idiotic law”. Seems the gun is in the custody of the Sanford PD.
    For your info, http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

  46. Claymore says:

    I believe that it only applies to the militia or, today, the National Gaurd. I have heard ALL the arguments to the contrary and none have persuaded me from this belief nor have they even come close

    Then you’re a fucking retard. To believe this, you have to completely divorce yourself from the unalterable fact that all 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights are individual freedoms. You’d have to read the entirety of the BOR, and conveniently skip past the 2A as a guaranteed right of the citizen, and believe it was invested in the Federal government to dispense when it called up the militia. If that is your view, then you need to mix up a batch of Jim Jones koolaid and take a big swig.

  47. Hondo says:

    Insipid: you’re not only an idiot, but you’re also a liar. a You specifically said above, in comment 2, that the right to own a gun was “bullshit all by itself”. Those are your exact freaking words, referring specifically to the right of an individual to own a firearm. Now that numerous persons have pointed out to you that you’re legally 100% in error on that point, in post 38 you’re trying to claim you weren’t really talking about the legality of firearms ownership, but only about the “stand your ground” law.

    There’s a good reason you don’t want to talk about legal opinions here. It’s called “Oops – they caught me, so I’d better change the subject fast!”

    Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, son. I’m damn well old enough to tell the difference between the two.

  48. malclave says:

    This is someone killing an unarmed man and- thus far- facing no consequences for it. No grand jury, no questioning, no trial. All because of this law.

    You have yet to demonstrate that.

  49. streetsweeper says:

    Hey insipid! Do you want to know why the majority of freedom loving American’s support conceal carry and gun rights? Simple actually, because a cop is too damn heavy to carry…. 🙂

  50. insipid says:

    @43- But the only reason why ANY of that is happening is because of witneeses coming forward and public outrage. If it weren’t for that George Zimmerman would be free to buy another gun and he’s still free to “neighborhood watch.”

    Here’s some incontovertible facts 1. We know that Trayvon had no criminal record and was, in fact committing NO CRIME at the time he was killed. 2. We know that Trayvon was followed by this man for several blocks. 3. We know that Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend almost the entire time. 4. We know that George Zimmerman was at one time arrested for assaulting a police officer. 5. We know that Trayvon was never arrested in his life. 6. We know that the cops did not act on the testimony of several witnesses 7. We know that George Zimmerman was significantly larger than Trayvon 8. We know that Trayvon was given a toxicology test and not Geoerge. 9. And we also know that George Zimmerman was injured somehow in the incident.

    Now i know that no case is open and shut. And maybe if i were sitting on the jury and i heard ALL the evidence I’d say that George Zimmerman should go free. But you CAN’T tell me that this case should not of- at the very least- gone to a grand jury. And yes, i do recognize that it is FINALLY now going to trial. But you can’t tell me that it’s right that a public outcry was necessary in this case.

    And you can’t tell me that a law that states that legal force is ok based on a “feeling” is ok. I’m sorry, as much as you want to make this a 2nd amendment fight it isn’t one. This law is just a dumb law.