Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.

One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.


And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.


And it doesn’t stop in Florida, the 15 other states who passed similar laws were all done on a bipartisan basis as well.
Via Daily Caller:

Bronco wrote:

Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.

One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.


And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto.

The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively.


And it doesn’t stop in Florida, the 15 other states who passed similar laws were all done on a bipartisan basis as well.
Via Daily Caller:

HI54UNI wrote:Shooter was in the other guy's driveway. Stand your ground doesn't seem like a plausible defense to me.

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Shooter was in the other guy's driveway. Stand your ground doesn't seem like a plausible defense to me.

Same applies to Zimmerman. He was nowhere near his own domicile...

Col Hogan wrote:This is a hot topic on a weapon forum I check out...everyone feels this idiot went out of his way to pick a fight and is 100% wrong...

That doesn't mean the law is wrong...but the shooter is!!!

BlueHen86 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:This is a hot topic on a weapon forum I check out...everyone feels this idiot went out of his way to pick a fight and is 100% wrong...

That doesn't mean the law is wrong...but the shooter is!!!

I don't like the law. Often the best form of self defense is to avoid trouble, sometimes avoiding trouble means waking away. While most smart people know this there are too many idiots that will "stand their ground" just because some law says that they can.

I'm not questioning the right to own or carry firearms, I just don't think using them should be the first option.

Col Hogan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I don't like the law. Often the best form of self defense is to avoid trouble, sometimes avoiding trouble means waking away. While most smart people know this there are too many idiots that will "stand their ground" just because some law says that they can.

I'm not questioning the right to own or carry firearms, I just don't think using them should be the first option.

Some people are idiots and will try to abuse any law...they are usually found out...

Such an idiot does not invalidate the law or the need for it...avoiding trouble is the #1 successful method of self-defense...

Remember, the true weapon is the grey matter between your ears...the tool (for example, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun) should not be the issue...

BlueHen86 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Some people are idiots and will try to abuse any law...they are usually found out...

Such an idiot does not invalidate the law or the need for it...avoiding trouble is the #1 successful method of self-defense...

Remember, the true weapon is the grey matter between your ears...the tool (for example, a baseball bat, a knife, or a gun) should not be the issue...

The problem with this law is that the idiots can be found out and still walk. The law legailizes their idiocy.
There is no need for this law, lots of places don't have it, and they are doing fine.

Col Hogan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
The problem with this law is that the idiots can be found out and still walk. The law legailizes their idiocy.
There is no need for this law, lots of places don't have it, and they are doing fine.

I disagree that "they are doing fine"...as long as there are people like Martha Coakley in power, laws like this are needed...she wanted to charge a security guard who killed a maniac as he tried to stab a doctor to death...the madman ignored orders to stop stabbing the psychologist so the guard shot him...Coakley ruined the guard's life by launching a six month investigation, saying she could not condone the guard's action...

Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts...

93henfan wrote:So we're all in agreement that this tard should hang, no?

BlueHen86 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote: I disagree that "they are doing fine"...as long as there are people like Martha Coakley in power, laws like this are needed...she wanted to charge a security guard who killed a maniac as he tried to stab a doctor to death...the madman ignored orders to stop stabbing the psychologist so the guard shot him...Coakley ruined the guard's life by launching a six month investigation, saying she could not condone the guard's action...

Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts...

I'm not familiar with that case, but in general I think correcting one mistake (Coakley) with another (stand your ground) is an overreaction. Security guards and police shouldn't need a "stand your ground law" to enable them to do their job.

Col Hogan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm not familiar with that case, but in general I think correcting one mistake (Coakley) with another (stand your ground) is an overreaction. Security guards and police shouldn't need a "stand your ground law" to enable them to do their job.

I used one example...how many would you like me to post...I can have a dozen in ten minutes...

As I said, as long as we have people like (insert Coakley or any of the dozens of anti-2a politicians) in office, we need these laws...and like idiots in the opening post, we need to convict people who try to abuse these laws...