There seems to be a grave misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I may not be a constitutional lawyer, but there are a few things I do know.
In general, the 2nd Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not grant the right to use a gun to seek revenge or relieve frustrations against others.
Over the weekend in Florida, Michael Dunn, 45, was at a gas station and asked a group of teens in a car to turn down the music that was blaring from the car. He said he heard threats from the teens and thought he saw a gun in the car. Dunn grabbed his gun and opened fire on the teens in the car, killing 17-yr-old Ron Davis. Dunn said he felt threatened. No guns were found in the car.
Last night on the show I talked about a homeowner in Minnesota who shot and killed two teens who had invaded his home on Thanksgiving Day. The 18-yr-old girl was shot and as she lay on the ground he shot her several more times in the chest. Her 17-yr-old cousin was shot and after falling down the stairs, the homeowner then shot him in the head as he lay on the floor. David Smith, 64, faces two counts of second-degree murder.
A few months ago, a retired firefighter in Texas had a confrontation over loud music with a neighbor across the street from his home. He walked across the street and shot and killed his neighbor. He was convicted of murder.
All of these cases bring to mind the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. What must be defined in all of these cases is whether the gun owners can prove they actually felt threatened. Laws allow lethal use of a gun in the presence of a direct and immediate threat.
The homeowner in Minnesota will have to convince a jury that he felt threatened even after both of his victims had been shot and were lying on the floor. David Smith admitted that he probably fired more shots than necessary.
In Florida, Michael Dunn, who asked that teens in a car at a gas station turn down their blaring music will have to prove that he felt an immediate threat from the teens, which will certainly reach beyond verbal threats.
The right to own a gun in America carries with it the responsibility to use your gun at the right time and in the proper manner – period!
The 2nd Amendment does not protect macho or vigilante mentalities and does not allow gun-owning citizens to use their guns to seek revenge or vent frustration.
Just so you're aware...you've become the laughing stock of the internet with this little, vitriol and ignorance fuel diatribe. Keep it up...we need a good laugh every day.
Try sticking to whatever it is you do best and leave the thinking tothe smart people.
I'd say that's common sense
...most any gun owner would agree. This isn't a statistically significant percentage of the shootings, and you're just stating the obvious.
More complex than at first glance
I'm afraid that you have a couple of things wrong here. First the 2nd Ammendment doesn't "grant" rights. It guarantees them. The right already pre-existed the formation of the State and thus can't be granted by anyone. We all have them.
Second, it is not up to the defendant to "prove" that they felt threatened. It is up to the State to prove otherwise. Innocent until proved guilty.
Next it is very hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone who felt threatened. If "fir[ing] more shots than necessary" is proof of murderous intent then I'm afraid most police officers who use their firearm in self-defence would be guilty of murder by your standard. You shoot to stop the threat, that may take 1, 3 or more shots - especially when you consider that mosts shots miss their mark - even at close range.
The issue of self defence is legally, and psychologically complicated. I suggest a short video which can help enlighten the general public as to why "stand your ground" laws have been enacted:
Thanks for taking time to respond. We will simply disagree on some of these things. In the context of what I wrote, the words 'grant' and 'guarantee' carry the same intent. And yes were are innocent until proven guilty, but in a court of law, and this may be semantics, the defendant will have to stand up to the prosecution's claim that it was not self-defense. Word it how you like, but he will have to ultimately demonstrate (prove) that he was not threatened. I realize that the 2nd Amendment is a religion to many. I totally support the 2nd Amendment, but I DO NOT support those who take advantage of their right to own a gun and use ownership of a firearm to feed their macho, vigilante mentality. If that's not you, then don't take it personally. We don't know the facts in any of these cases. On talk radio we do what you do with your friends, we talk about what's in the news. Thanks to all for listening.
The Constitution DOESN'T GIVE RIGHTS!!! You are very misinformed and for that reason I cannot finish this article. Before you preach to people on the Bill of Rights it would help if you understood the basic fundamentals. "In general the 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms..." COMPLETELY INCORRECT. The amendments do not grant any rights. What a simpleton......
People are going to kill people know matter what they have all kind of tool's . Anything will work.