House To Vote On Trayvon Amendment

A

azmastablasta

New member
A yes vote qualifies each person for a free Arizona ice tea and a package of Skittles I presume.

House to vote on Trayvon amendment

By Stephen Dinan

May 8, 2012, 04:37PM

House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.

The amendment, which would withhold some grants from states that have such laws, will come as part of the House's debate on the Commerce Department spending bill.

"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

Florida's law, which allows residents to use force in response to an attack without first having to retreat, has come under scrutiny after the nationally-polarizing death of teenager Trayvon Martin. George Zimmermann, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has been charged with murder in the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/
 
Quote:
"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted.

What an asinine statement! Claims of self defense may have tripled since the law allowing such claims in court passed but dumocrats want to claim that deaths have tripled. Apples to oranges! Typical liberal drivel to justify further intrusion into our lives by the central government.

Quote:Florida's law, which allows residents to use force in response to an attack without first having to retreat, has come under scrutiny after the nationally-polarizing death of teenager Trayvon Martin.

Why don't the dumocrats back off and let justice play out in Fl. where the incident occurred? When the truth is sorted out in court, we just may find out that Zimmerman was indeed "retreating" to his car as requested by the 911 dispatcher and as he claims to have been doing. If that is the case, the stand your ground law would be irrelevant!

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: hm1996 Quote:
"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted.

What an asinine statement! Claims of self defense may have tripled since the law allowing such claims in court passed but dumocrats want to claim that deaths have tripled. Apples to oranges! Typical liberal drivel to justify further intrusion into our lives by the central government.



Yeah... Actually they just reported on the local news the other night that Justifiable Homicides were up 150% in the state of Florida. However... they also noted that violent crime was the lowest it had been since the early 70s, and that is not on a per capita basis... If one looks at the difference in population then and now, Stand Your Ground has made a remarkable difference!

According to the US Census Bureau, population here in 2000 is 2 1/2 times what it was in 1970. For the violent crime rate to have dropped to 1970s levels that tells me that the law has a positive impact.

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/florida.pdf



Originally Posted By: hm1996Quote:Florida's law, which allows residents to use force in response to an attack without first having to retreat, has come under scrutiny after the nationally-polarizing death of teenager Trayvon Martin.

Why don't the dumocrats back off and let justice play out in Fl. where the incident occurred? When the truth is sorted out in court, we just may find out that Zimmerman was indeed "retreating" to his car as requested by the 911 dispatcher and as he claims to have been doing. If that is the case, the stand your ground law would be irrelevant!

Regards,
hm



Actually I don't foresee this legislation going ANYWHERE... Except maybe to the Supreme Court. The Republicans will shoot it down, 1.) Because it's a direct afront to second ammendment rights. And, 2.) Because it basically states that law abiding citizens have to consent to being victimized or the state's funding is going to be withheld. That's extortion, plain and simple!!!

 
Why do I not find it odd that Ellison is Black and Grijalva is Latino? Sounds like they be plotting against the white folk, the legislation could be declared racist as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Actually I don't foresee this legislation going ANYWHERE...

Oh, I think you are correct there. It will not get out of the house but just the idea that those arrogant (**% proposed it just demonstrates their disdain for the constitution and bill of rights.

Regards,
hm
 
The problem is, they have no leader. If they had a leader that stood firmly behind the mandates of the US Constitution, we would not have this problem. But when the yo-yo that is supposed to be leading them, isn't leading them, and he has no respect for the constitution either, you can't expect much else hm.
 
Years ago an old man here in the community said that when a man turns 40,if he has not been in trouble,has a pretty clean record,the county gov should issue him a pistol and require him to carry it at all times.He would not be a law officer,just to protect people wherever he happens to be during the day.What do you all think of that idea?
 
Back
Top