The right to Hunt People - Has the Constitution Overstepped its Bounds?

Has the Constitution overstepped its bounds by giving people the right to hunt other people? This is the fundamental question in the FLA Trayvon Martin Case, where a youth was being followed by a man with a gun, for no other reason than being young and black, and defended himself the best he could honorably with his fists, (like any real man would) but was shot and killed after winning the fight with the man that stalked him like a deer. I believe in the right to have guns for hunting animals, and handguns for defense at home, as well as open carry and limited concealed carry for dangerous areas and authorized personnel. But I also believe that the "Stand Your Ground" laws and the Second amendment rights with no limits are achaic and should be limited in scope, because they have been outdated by technology tghat allows mass killings within seconds to anyone that wants to. The Bottom line is, IF LANZA DIDNT HAVE A GUN, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KILL NEARLY AS MANY. PHYSICALLY HE WAS NOT NEARLY AS MUCH A THREAT. Also, without knowing who will go postal, the only way to control gun violence is to control who has the authority to have these WMD's. Should the US Constitution be like a BIBLE, infallible, and HOLY? Or is the outside chance possible that the people writing it with good intentions were wrong or the info they had has been outdated.. What do you think?

reply to post by sensible1


You conveniently left out a lot of facts there didn't you? Along with adding a lot of sensationalized garbage I might add......

reply to post by sensible1


The Constitution can not overstep it's bounds, however people can in their application of it. Having said that, your question is somewhat ridiculous. Zimmerman was not acting lawfully when he decided to pursue Trayvon Martin, therefore Florida's Castle Law did not apply. Also, Florida's Castle Law is not the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. In fact, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government, and Zimmerman was in violation of a state law, and this fact nullifies your original point.

reply to post by seeker1963


Zimmerman's own account says he followed Trayvon and was attacked by him, and shot him. Zimmerman says he initiated the following, and that he thought he looked suspicious. Zimmerman himself says there was no confrontation or incident before he followed Trayvon with a gun.. What would you do if someone was following you with a gun? Would you fight him if you could? Would you run? Would you cry out for help?

A dude in China stabbed 22 kids the other day. None of them died (I believe) but he could have easily gone for their jugulars and killed every single one of them. I saw a story on Yahoo yesterday about a guy that blew up a large portion of a school back in the early part of the last century, and would have blown up the whole thing if he hadn't screwed up his wiring. There are other ways to kill on large scales, and most of them are more effective than a single man with a rifle could potentially be.

Man Stabs 22 in China

Wikipedia: Bath School Disaster

And, yes, I believe Zimmerman was overzealous in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin, but at the point he fired his weapon he was clearly defending himself. I believe the prosecutors have overcharged and won't be able to get a conviction because of it.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by sensible1

 

The Constitution can not overstep it's bounds, however people can in their application of it. Having said that, your question is somewhat ridiculous. Zimmerman was not acting lawfully when he decided to pursue Trayvon Martin, therefore Florida's Castle Law did not apply. Also, Florida's Castle Law is not the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. In fact, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government, and Zimmerman was in violation of a state law, and this fact nullifies your original point.

Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41
A dude in China stabbed 22 kids the other day. None of them died (I believe) but he could have easily gone for their jugulars and killed every single one of them. I saw a story on Yahoo yesterday about a guy that blew up a large portion of a school back in the early part of the last century, and would have blown up the whole thing if he hadn't screwed up his wiring. There are other ways to kill on large scales, and most of them are more effective than a single man with a rifle could potentially be.

And, yes, I believe Zimmerman was overzealous in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin, but at the point he fired his weapon he was clearly defending himself. I believe the prosecutors have overcharged and won't be able to get a conviction because of it.

He was defending himself after being attacked by the PREY he was stalking for no reason. If you follow someone with a GUN, they have a RIGHT to defend themselves with their fists, or whatever they have. It was Trayvon defending himself from an armed stalker, not Zimmerman... But the second amendment rights he has gave him the "right" (he says) to shoot him.

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41
A dude in China stabbed 22 kids the other day. None of them died (I believe) but he could have easily gone for their jugulars and killed every single one of them. I saw a story on Yahoo yesterday about a guy that blew up a large portion of a school back in the early part of the last century, and would have blown up the whole thing if he hadn't screwed up his wiring. There are other ways to kill on large scales, and most of them are more effective than a single man with a rifle could potentially be.

Man Stabs 22 in China

Wikipedia: Bath School Disaster

And, yes, I believe Zimmerman was overzealous in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin, but at the point he fired his weapon he was clearly defending himself. I believe the prosecutors have overcharged and won't be able to get a conviction because of it.

edit on 19-12-2012 by 5K3P7IC41 because: added links

You have made my point. If this guy had a 2nd amendment, he'd be LANZA wouldn't he? Wrong laws kill.

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Then the debate would be "Did Trayvon have a right to kill him in defense..?" A good debate.... If he was stalked, the answer would likely be "YES"

reply to post by 5K3P7IC41


Tell me, if Zimmerman was folowing you with a gun, what would you do? Anything different than Trayvon?

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Then the debate would be "Did Trayvon have a right to kill him in defense..?" A good debate.... If he was stalked, the answer would likely be "YES"

You're not trying very much to hide your obvious bias in this, are you? Between your first post filled with misinformation and opinions and this post saying, "YES" Martin would have been justified beating Zimmerman to death, you've clearly shown which "side" you are on here. You're not looking for input, you're looking to argue.

reply to post by sensible1


So by your nonsensical logic, following a person warrants death.

Yet your entire post is some made up fairy tale about the Constitution "over stepping" its bounds. Then you proceed to dilute your post with non truths and a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between Federal Law, Constitution Rights, and State Law.

You are unable to separate fact from sensationalism.

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Then the debate would be "Did Trayvon have a right to kill him in defense..?" A good debate.... If he was stalked, the answer would likely be "YES"

No, it wouldn't. You can't kill someone because they're following you and asking why you're there. That's essentially harassment, and harassment hasn't killed anyone I've heard of yet.

Originally posted by sensible1
reply to post by 5K3P7IC41

 

Tell me, if Zimmerman was folowing you with a gun, what would you do? Anything different than Trayvon?

I'd probably run through a clump of trees in a zig zag pattern. Especially after realizing I was in much better shape than Zimmerman.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by sensible1

 

So by your nonsensical logic following a person warrants death.

Yet your entire post is some made up fairy tale about the Constitution and State Laws. You are unable to separate fact from sensationalism.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Doom and Gloom because: (no reason given)

Sorry , but if someone is following me, and I think they have a gun, I am going to kill them. Call it fantasy if you want to...

Originally posted by GMan420

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Then the debate would be "Did Trayvon have a right to kill him in defense..?" A good debate.... If he was stalked, the answer would likely be "YES"

You're not trying very much to hide your obvious bias in this, are you? Between your first post filled with misinformation and opinions and this post saying, "YES" Martin would have been justified beating Zimmerman to death, you've clearly shown which "side" you are on here. You're not looking for input, you're looking to argue.

He was being followed with a gun by a civilian who had no right to to harass him and was armed. Trayvon had more of a lawful license to kill than Zimmerman.

You're looking at the whole situation backward.

It isn't the fact that this mad man had a gun. It's the fact that those who should have been able to defend the defenseless, couldn't, because they were unarmed.

This is what happens when you arm criminals and nutjobs better than you arm your citizenry. This is what happens when you give an inanaimate object a life, and a personality, and teach people to be afraid of it, instead of teaching them its proper place and use, en masse.

Sorry , but if someone is following me, and I think they have a gun, I am going to kill them. Call it fantasy if you want to...

Why did you even start a thread, you are obviously in support of self defense and a person having the ability to take the life of another?

Sensible, i don't want to appear rude, but this thread is half baked, and unfortunately, so too are your arguments.

The point is, most mass murders, especially those involving guns as the weapon of choice, happen in areas where there are tough, stringent even, anti-gun restrictions in place.

The latest attrocity, in Sandy Hook school, is another example of a place attacked that was in a GUN FREE ZONE!

If you wanted to kill people, a lot of people, would it be logical (not rational, but logical) to choose a place where there are armed security, armed staff or armed passers by that could take you out with their weapons before you'd even got started on your killing spree?

This is exactly why 9/10 of the last massacres took place in so-called gun free zones.

If they were not gun free zones, the latest git would have probably not got to the school door without being challenged, let alone be able to murder with impunity.

By the way...apparently the school has now got armed guards...too late for those poor kids, but at least it's showing a little more common sense now.

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by GMan420

Originally posted by sensible1

Originally posted by 5K3P7IC41

Originally posted by sensible1
Without the 2nd amendment, this ex-con would not have the right to a gun... and he lost the fistfight. The second amendment was the reason there was a murder..

You're assuming that Martin wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman to death.

Then the debate would be "Did Trayvon have a right to kill him in defense..?" A good debate.... If he was stalked, the answer would likely be "YES"

You're not trying very much to hide your obvious bias in this, are you? Between your first post filled with misinformation and opinions and this post saying, "YES" Martin would have been justified beating Zimmerman to death, you've clearly shown which "side" you are on here. You're not looking for input, you're looking to argue.

He was being followed with a gun by a civilian who had no right to to harass him and was armed. Trayvon had more of a lawful license to kill than Zimmerman.

Martin was being followed by someone who was monitoring that area for crime. Someone who had every right to ask him why he was there. You don't have the right to kill someone for asking you questions. Period. Martin was not shot until after he attacked Zimmerman for ASKING HIM A QUESTION. Again, YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE FOR ASKING YOU A QUESTION. I'll agree that Zimmerman should have just let the cops come and take care of things but Martin was the aggressor in this scenario AFAIC and you only want to see him as a poor victim that was stalked by a gun waving lunatic.