States infringing on 2nd Amendment rights


In response to the letters from Carin Gordon and Jane Samples concerning guns.

Let it be known that we have had semi-automatic weapons since 1892.

Why didn’t we have any problems with them for 120 years? Answer — because the freedom of speech amendment did not really include freedom of expression. Now we have Hollywood with filthy rappers, filthy satanic movies and violence subliminally feeding your child’s brain.

Carin obviously is unarmed. Her derogatory diatribe against white males and claiming women and minorities are being picked on holds no merit. When I graduated from WSU, women and minorities, whom were less qualified than I. got jobs ahead of me because of the quota system.

Approximately 25 percent of the woman in Walla Walla are packing iron and had to be fingerprinted and pass an FBI background check to receive their concealed carry permits.

The NRA has a women on target program several times a year teaching women gun safety and how to shoot. The Wa-Hi rifle team, which just won first place in the nation, gets support from the NRA.

Carin then states, “(T) he NRA has been working to undo all those gun laws state by state.” Wrong — it is trying to make it safe in New York because of the new law stating you can only have seven rounds in your magazine. The gun that won the West, the 1873 Winchester, holds 15. Even the police are against this. The NRA is also against the new law in Colorado that limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds and so are the sheriffs.

Jane Samples seems to have ignored the incident in which a white mother was pushing her baby in a stroller and two black kids, 13 and 15, shot and killed the baby. Ironically she is upset with Zimmerman, who was getting beaten to death by this other “child.”

A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The states are infringing.

John Neel

Walla Walla



NewInWW says...

What a wonderful piece of satire! The author's depiction of the aggrieved, somewhat racist, somewhat misogynistic, white male, clutching his gun and Bible, is simply spot on.

Or did I misunderstand?

Posted 11 August 2013, 10:32 a.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

You didn't misunderstand, it's the familiar death-rattle of a slowly dying (in) breed.

Posted 11 August 2013, 12:20 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

It seems a number of people place all the blame in all the wrong places. Which is understandably because they are part of the give me, give me generation.

Posted 11 August 2013, 3:20 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

" A well regulated militia ( the military) being necessary to a free state ( the Government) ..." was deliverately enucleated from the 2nd amendment, as it reads at the entrance of the NRA headquarters in Washingto DC. How conviniently self-serving!

Oh, those 47% parasites who contribute nothing to this Country, the "give me, give me" who get a pension from the Government, and then bite its hand in return! I wonder who are they!

No objection to teaching gun safety to adults...but, what's wrong with sensible background checks for gun purchases? Isn't that part of gun safety?

Posted 13 August 2013, 1:33 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Paco, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia was NOT the military, but the general adult male population. A free state did NOT refer to the government but to the nation. And the phrase, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" does not LIMIT the right only to members of the militia, but only explains why the right is important to the nation.

Here's a sentence that is grammatically the same:

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be abridged."

Does that sentence mean that only registered voters have a right to keep and read books? Of course not. It only explains WHY it is important to the State that the people's INHERENT right to keep and read books must not be infringed. Remember that the Bill of Rights was not intended to grant rights. These rights were all considered inherent in human beings. It was intended to reinforce that the new government was not to attempt to infringe them.

Posted 14 August 2013, 11:43 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Where is the outrage over the racial aspect of this latest Oklahoma shooting?
It involved three black men.... they shot a white man....

Posted 22 August 2013, 4:52 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Of course this latest crime is outragious! I understand you're trying to change the subject... or what ecxactly are you trying to do? What's your point?

Posted 22 August 2013, 6:14 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

paco - did you just wake up? Change the subject? The letter was 2nd Amendment, referencing guns and relating to the Zimmerman-Martin trial - where is all of your cronies that were crying for racial hatred? What about the kids that shot the baby in the stroller? DUH!

Posted 23 August 2013, 6:09 a.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...


Posted 23 August 2013, 3:59 p.m. Suggest removal

MyFamNews says...

What most of you, Trayvon was a thug, folks are missing in your comparisons, is that for over 40 days, the authorities in Florida refused to investigate and/or charge the man who did the shooting. There is no similarity to Oklahoma.. In most jurisdictions, suspects are arrested and crimes investigated. Sometimes, we just blame the victim for being there and getting shot. Thugs (2-black, 1-white) have been arrested and charged.

Posted 23 August 2013, 8 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Nope.... It just seems to me, that most of the people who think guns are so terrible are the same type of people who "know" for a fact that the death of Travon Martin was a race hate crime.
With this question, I am attempting to see if that same group of people are having the extreme outrage with this crime!

Posted 22 August 2013, 9:43 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Your not going to hear a peep out of these people. It's really a tragedy in America.

I'm wondering if the tragedy in Spokane (the WWII Vet being beaten to death by two teens) will make it to the front page of the U-B or will be found in the obits section?

Posted 23 August 2013, 6:05 a.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Well, Zimmerman is half latino. I doubt race-hate played a role on his murdering this inocent boy. He was an armed, aggrieved,
angy vigilante with premeditated intent to teach a lesson to those "punks", with his gun . Just listen to his 911 enraged rant . He was on a mission to take it upon himself...and then got away with murder, period.

Posted 23 August 2013, 4:25 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Paco... You agree with me? Really? This is a first time for everything I guess....
I wont go into innocent or not here and now.. But you and I agree... I don't see a race card in the Zimmerman case.

Posted 23 August 2013, 4:34 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

Not "race-hate", but certainly profiling.

Posted 24 August 2013, 2:14 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Trayvon Martin hadn't yet learned the rules about being black in America. He didn't understand that "stand your ground" laws were not written with African-American males in mind as the ones standing their ground. Just look at the reaction from conservative white America. He was the one being stalked at night on his way home by a stranger, but he is portrayed as the aggressor. He didn't know the rules.

I would offer [this short video clip][1] as an example of what I am talking about.


Posted 24 August 2013, 6:51 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

fatherof5 - question? Were you acquainted with either party? Were you in the area of the altercation? How do you know what the mindset of Trayvon Martin was? Have you actually read the "stand your ground" laws to be able to decide if they were only written for a specific group of people? With your link are you indicating that Safeway only hires racists?

In that respect shouldn't you have started your comment with "Careful - these are just inflammatory assumptions"?

Posted 25 August 2013, 2:34 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Ideally, "stand your ground" laws wouldn't be written with anyone's race in mind. In Florida, although blacks are only 16% of the population, they are 37% of the "users" of the law, and their success rate at using it is slightly better (64%) than the success rate of whites (62%), so even if their race wasn't in anybody's mind when the law was written, it has served black people just as well as white people

Martin is portrayed as the aggressor because there's substantial evidence that he was the initiator of the physical confrontation. That's how most people define aggression.

Like mosr women, I've been followed on the street myself any number of times, including at night, in somewhat scary surroundings by men making lewd remarks, and it never occurred to me that the lawful solution was for me to turn around and attack the follower, before he had actually made a threatening physical move against me. Nor would "stand your ground" laws have gotten me off the hook if I had.

By the way, it was risky and probably foolish behavior for me to walk around alone at night in scary surroundings, but I hope you agree that the blame would still have rested on my attacker if I had been attacked. Right?

In the same way, it was risky and probably foolish behavior on Zimmerman's part to follow Martin, but it still was not his fault that Martin attacked him. Even if Zimmerman 'profiled' Martin racially as a possible burglar and preemptively follow him for that reason, that did not entitle Martin to 'profile' Zimmerman as a possible challenger and preemptively punch him, knock him to the ground and pound his head on the pavement.

And who, exactly, is this "conservative white America" that supposedly speaks with one voice? Conservative white people in America don't have a single spokesperson or even would-be racial representatives a la Sharpton/Jackson/NAACP. Remember the dangers of "sweeping stereotypical stuff about essentially half of all Americans."

Posted 26 August 2013, 1:15 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Zimmerman was an aggrieved, angry man embolden with the shield of "stand your ground" law and a mighty gun. Just listen to his 911 angry rant, which clearly depict his premeditation to " teach a lesson to those punks". He was on a mission all along. He killed an inocent boy.

Due to the absence of witnesses, he and his lawyers had free camp to concoct an attack by Martin, when in fact, the angry, aggrieved, premeditated one was Zimmerman... and he got away with murder.

Posted 26 August 2013, 7:32 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

*Based on your statement: *Due to the absence of witnesses*
You assuming that he got away with murder.... Based on the evidence you have been given.... By the media... Only the media.... If you evidence is different than presented in court, than that is different... But, otherwise... you are in the same boat we are... knowledge filtered by media!

Posted 26 August 2013, 9:21 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

paco - Do you really believe your clairvoyant? In that case, maybe you could explain how a toddler in a stroller provoked a thug to shoot and kill him or how an Australian ballplayer on a jog provoked 3 thugs to shoot and kill him and how an 88-year-old WWII veteran standing 5 foot tall could provoke 2 thugs to beat him to death? Maybe you could take a peek in your crystal ball and enlighten the populace.

Posted 27 August 2013, 8:41 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Paco, I agree he was aggrieved. Wouldn't you be, if burglars were treating your neighborhood like their personal toy box? I agree he was angry. Wouldn't you be, if your local police seemed powerless to stop said neighborhood burglaries? Wouldn't you want to teach a lesson to those burglars? If you were a neighborhood watch captain, wouldn't it be part of your job description to be on a 'mission' to spot possible burglars?

If the burglars had been reported to be white and Martin had been white, none of Zimmerman's supposed feelings about them would have seemed unreasonable to anybody. If the burglars had been white, Zimmerman probably would not have followed a black man. The fact that Martin was black is the only fact you seem to need to know to convict Zimmerman, if only in your own mind, of premeditated murder. You weren't there; you can't possibly KNOW whether he concocted an attack, but you BELIEVE it whole-heartedly. Paco, sadly, there's nothing operating in your thinking about this case but pure bigotry.

Posted 27 August 2013, 9:51 a.m. Suggest removal

wwguy7 says...

Please don't refer to Martin as an "innocent boy." Do innocent boys have cell phone videos of fights they are watching and laughing at, and cell phone pictures of guns and marijuana? Open your eyes.

Posted 29 August 2013, 8:18 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Well said!

Posted 29 August 2013, 8:52 a.m. Suggest removal

NewInWW says...

There's "substantial evidence" that Martin was the initiator of the physical confrontation?

Posted 27 August 2013, 6:32 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Yes, there is.

1. The statement of Zimmerman. Yes, it is self-serving, but it is still evidence.

2. The statement of Martin's friend that Martin, not Zimmerman, initiated the verbal confrontation. That shows that Martin was willing to be confrontational. In most people's experience, someone who is willing to initiate a verbal confrontation is more likely to follow through physically than someone who isn't even willing to launch a verbal challenge.

3. The fact that the injuries on the respective parties are consistent with Zimmerman's story. The one who lands the first punch usually has the element of surprise going for him; Zimmerman was a big guy and if he swung a surprise punch at Martin, there should have been some physical mark on Martin. Instead, all the injuries were consistent with Martin being the only one who landed any punches or caused any damage to his opponent. And the broken nose suggests it was Zimmerman who was 'sucker punched.' Once a fight starts, people usually protect their heads/faces.

4. The fact that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew the police were on their way and could arrive at any moment. It makes no sense that Zimmerman, knowing that, would initiate a physical assault against Martin that, for all he knew, could be witnessed by the police as well as neighbors. If he believed Martin was a burglar or a thug, he would expect that Martin had little to lose by engaging in a fight with him and could be illegally armed. He (Z) on the other hand, had plenty to lose.

5. At least one of the neighbors testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, straddling him, and pounding on him. Who is winning a fist-fight doesn't prove who started it, but it shows that the winner is capable of fighting effectively. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was capable of fighting effectively without his gun. His boxing instructor testified he was not yet considered good enough at boxing to even go in the practice ring with anyone. If they were being accurate in their self-assessments (a big "if" in the presence of testosterone), Martin would have had a good opinion of his fighting skills and Zimmerman a poor one, which makes it slightly more likely that M would be willing to initiate a physical confrontation than Z.

No one of those items is conclusive of what happened, and each of them is open to different interpretations, and there are other items of evidence or inference that tend in the opposite direction. But in combination it all is "substantial evidence" or a logical inference therefrom that Z did not initiate the physical confrontation. It's certainly more than enough to create reasonable doubt. I wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened. And neither do you, or anybody else commenting on this topic.

Posted 27 August 2013, 7:12 p.m. Suggest removal

NewInWW says...

1. Zimmerman's statement was surely self serving.
2. Launching a "verbal" confrontation isn't that same as attacking. As for the balance of your statement, in most people's experience someone who gets out of his car, with a gun, to follow you is hardly seeking to avoid confrontation.
3. You keep claiming that injuries indicate who started the physical interaction. Can you point to anything credible that supports you? Zimmerman could just as easily grabbed Martin's sleeve, with Martin reacting. Your notion of "evidence" is certainly not accepted by anyone with legal training.
4. Again, Zimmerman, armed, followed Marin, not the other way around. Again, if Zimmerman grabbed Martin's sleeve, your entire construct falls apart - and nothing in the record (other than Zimmerman's story) details how the confrontation started. Finally, if Zimmerman knew the police were on their way, why leave his car, with his gun, unless he was pumped up on testosterone?
5. I agree, "[w]ho is winning a fist fight doesn't prove who started it." You should have stopped there before attempting to psychoanalyze them. In point 3, Zimmerman was a "big guy," now in point 5 he's suddenly (despite his martial training and his gun) afraid of the teenager?

As I asked before, what "substantial evidence?" You've trotted out a bunch of nonsense and tried to stitch into into an airtight case. Any experienced trial lawyer would have laughed at your "substantial evidence," or as with your definition of "dictator," your definition of "substantial" isn't in any dictionary I've ever seen.

Posted 27 August 2013, 9:37 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

newinww - the verdict of the jury was "Not Guilty". End of trial.

Posted 28 August 2013, 9:39 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Unlike Paco, though, who's already convicted Zimmerman of premeditated murder, I wasn't trying to "stitch [anything] into an airtight case." As I've said whenever I've commented on this case, I have no idea who initiated the physical confrontation, all I know is that there is enough to create reasonable doubt that it was Zimmerman. Apply your own legal training, which I assume you have as you are so ready to assume others don't, and tell me: Can you really disagree with that statement?

1. Like it or not, self-serving statements are still evidence. The trier of fact decides how much weight to give them.

2. True, it's not the same as physically attacking, but it does show a confrontational mindset rather than a conciliatory or avoidant one. People draw inferences from such behaviors. You can't draw any inference about MARTIN's mindset from the fact that Zimmerman was armed, because Martin did not know that when Z got out of his car.

3. Yes, it's possible Z grabbed M's arm. Do you have any substantial evidence that he did? Again, the nature and distribution of the injuries are evidence. Although they don't prove who started the fight, they prove conclusively that Martin fought. Other than the gunshot that ended the fight, there is no similar conclusive evidence that Zimmerman fought at all.

4. Why leave his car? From the photos I've seen, Martin had moved into an area that was not accessible or visible from the street. To keep him in sight, Z had to leave his car. Once he lost sight of M, he would not be able to tell the police, when they arrived, were M was, nor would he be able to see if M entered a home, possibly to burglarize it.

5. But "psychoanalyzing" someone is exactly what juries do, when they have no choice but to decide who started it and when there's only circumstantial evidence to work with.

I'm not an experienced criminal law trial attorney, but Zimmerman's counsel both were, and they not only didn't laugh at what I call "substantial evidence" they stitched it into an acquittal.

It occurs to me that some of the inferences I've drawn from the evidence, and which you find laughable, may be based on the differences between men's and women's experiences with fist-fights. Women very rarely are involved in such incidents. Maybe my inferences, which apparently were shared by the jury, are based on lack of experience. In which case it was a serious error for the prosecution to agree to an all-female jury.

But I'll ask you, again, where is your "substantial evidence" that Z instigated the physical confrontation, much less your proof of that beyond a reasonable doubt?

Posted 28 August 2013, 10:26 a.m. Suggest removal

NewInWW says...

Unlike you, I have not claimed there is "substantial evidence" that one or the other of them started the fight because there isn't any. This appears to be another case in which I'm following the ordinary meaning of "substantial," and you've got your own, somewhat idiosyncratic, definition of the same word.

Posted 28 August 2013, 11:44 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I'm following the ordinary meaning of substantial as "having substance", i.e., more than ephemeral or a mere scintilla. You seem to be trying to tie it to a standard of proof such as "clear and convincing" or sufficient to overcome all other evidence. In the context of a criminal trial, that seems eccentric to me, where all Z had to do was introduce evidence of self-defense (which in this case the prosecution itself introduced) and the burden shifted to the prosecution to overcome the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the evidence of self-defense was clearly enough to impose that burden on the prosecution, it seems obvious that at least in that context it carried some substance.

If the evidence does its job of creating reasonable doubt, then that evidence has substance. It need not prove anything to be substantial.

If you agree that there's no substantial evidence that Zimmerman started the fight, then you must agree that the acquittal was reasonable, and that Paco's claim that Zimmerman "got away" with premeditated murder is therefore hogwash. Which is where this whole discussion started.

Posted 28 August 2013, 12:18 p.m. Suggest removal

NewInWW says...

Ah, you do like your escape hatches. I can see that in any future discussion, I'll need to ask you to define how you're using any significant words.

That said, I don't think, even applying your notion of "substantial," there is substantial evidence that Martin started the fight. At best you've woven together a series of speculations to come to the conclusion you like.

Given that Martin was conveniently dead, and that the police weren't terribly interested in how he got that way, I don't think the acquittal was incorrect. That's not to say that a crime wasn't committed, it is to say that no crime was proven in the courtroom.

As for what Zimmerman "got away with," I don't think we have enough facts to form a conclusion. I personally don't think Zimmerman set out to kill Martin.

Posted 28 August 2013, 3:48 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I think you are speculating about what conclusion I like. Personally, I think it was foolhardy and dangerous for Zimmerman to leave his car and follow Martin. I'm of the perspective that carrying a gun, which I do from time to time, creates a special responsibility to avoid situations where you might have to use it, not a rationale to go into them because you're armed (unless that's your sworn duty, as with police).

And what you call speculations I call inferences. But I certainly agree with you that we don't have enough facts to form a conclusion. I don't envy the jury its job of doing just that.

Posted 28 August 2013, 8:52 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment