How Trayvon Martin shooting is relevant to AS rights
Under the law before the new 2005 "Stand Your Ground" Law, any "person who tries to avoid the fight at all costs" would have already been protected from facing punishment. The 2005 "Stand Your Ground Law" removed ANY AND ALL duty to "try to avoid the fight". For instance, in the 2011 SAAVEDRA case, the judge noted (page 8 ): "Under current Florida law, the Defendant had no duty to retreat, but, even so, the evidence clearly shows that the Defendant did, in fact, retreat in several ways and was legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force."
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf
Individuals with autism are 50 times more likely to be shot by a private citizen than shot by a police officer.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths ... elease.pdf
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html
Calling such homicides by private citizens as "Stand Your Ground" Self-Defense shootings with complete Immunity is outrageous.
When a "legal gun carrier" uses the gun in the commission of a crime, the "gun carrier" has just lost the rubric of "legal gun carrier", so a deceptive polemic is stating that no "legal gun carrier" has committed any criminal gun act.
Some "pseudo" would-be SYG'ers go as far as to make claims like:
"I can change reality with my words; it's called persuasion, lobbying and activism",
as during when they try every tool of verbal prevarication they think will might work in twisting the truth to fit to their point of view. When I noted in one response that the manipulation of words had tended to result in incorrect facts, to absurdities, I received the response:
"As a rule I don't like to club baby seals, it's unseemly and tiring on the wrists, but if you insist on nipping at my heels all the time I might just indulge you,"
Mod. edit to correct misquote and restore omitted text: "In plain English: Keep insulting me personally and I will return the favor."
and, a majority of people at a local university I asked about the intensity of the remark, took it as a threat of deadly violence.
No SYG from wrists concerns then, but any SYG with free speech & right to political opinions, etc., leads to third-party involvement desired suddenly by the bully with the tendency to indulge in clubbing baby seals.
Tadzio
The solution: For individuals with high functioning autism & aspergers to arm themselves with handguns for self-defense against armed private citizens.
Here you go Tadzio, since your selective understanding of idioms seems to still be troubling you so much, go ahead and fill this out and submit it:
[img][800:1129]http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9dcm5xqreo5xnf4/images/1-01ece685d9.jpg[/img]
I'm sure people will take your claims far more seriously if put into this form.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Many individuals with autism and/or aspergers (esp. any with any record of "meltdowns" or "fits" or "social withdrawals") are barred from possession of firearms. "Private" publications advise government law enforcement and social workers/health-care how to deprive 5150's and many others of gun possession rights in California over even minor DSM-IV labels (and elsewhere, with CA as a model).
Google "autism disqualifies gun possession?" for widely ranging viewpoints. For instance:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... ted-mental
versus
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/show ... p?t=365030
Tadzio
[img][800:1129]http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9dcm5xqreo5xnf4/images/1-01ece685d9.jpg[/img]
I'm sure people will take your claims far more seriously if put into this form.
references
I agree completely, especially having personally upbraided CCL in another thread over essentially the same thing; stereotyped and inaccurate views of US culture and norms. I would add that even within gun culture there are widespread differences, with rural gun owners trending more towards hunting and incidental defense, and urban ones more towards competition and specific defense. Sometimes this divide is referred to as gun cultures 1.0 and 2.0, though there is plenty of mixing as well. I'm a 2.0 guy myself, being primarily interested in handguns and self defense specific guns, but I also really like certain historical guns like old buffalo rifles and flintlock blunderbusses.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Many individuals with autism and/or aspergers (esp. any with any record of "meltdowns" or "fits" or "social withdrawals") are barred from possession of firearms. "Private" publications advise government law enforcement and social workers/health-care how to deprive 5150's and many others of gun possession rights in California over even minor DSM-IV labels (and elsewhere, with CA as a model).
Google "autism disqualifies gun possession?" for widely ranging viewpoints. For instance:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... ted-mental
versus
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/show ... p?t=365030
Tadzio
California has some pretty strict gun laws.....Or so I've heard. However, Asperger Syndrome is classified as a neurological disorder and is not a mental illness. I checked the RCW in my state of WA and there is nothing barring an aspie here from legally purchasing and possessing a firearm. The only thing that would disqualify you from the 5150 is if you were involuntarily committed to the loony bin. If that doesn't apply to you than you most certainly CAN own a gun legally.
Yep, you can also get a CCW as a diagnosed Aspie. I'm pretty sure that involuntary commitment is the standard nationally, if there are any states that have further restrictions on firearms ownership having to do with diagnosed medical conditions then I'm not aware of them. AFIK the disqualifies are felonies, DV convictions, involuntary commitment, dishonorable discharge, and being under a restraining order or indictment. The forms you fill out also make you attest that you're not an illegal drug user or a straw purchaser along with a number of other things, but again nothing about medical conditions.
By the by, you really should read up on us CCW holders before making posts portraying us as menaces to the autistic; we're much, much more law abiding than the general public and less of a danger to anyone on the spectrum than say, the police.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Hi AspieRogue,
Here's one book of a few "civil" moves officials often use "Using Civil Remedies for Criminal Behavior: Rationale, Case Studies, and Constitutional Issues" by Peter Finn, Maria O'Brien Hylton, National Institute of Justice, pages 27-30 (MEU technicality on page 28, 1st column):
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... 0+sworn%22
Tadzio
Dox, the world does not revolve around your damn guns. The Democratic agenda is not based on "to take away Dox's guns." It is not a central concern for any reasoning human being to take away your damn guns. The subject of this discussion is the Stand your Ground law, which has no relationship whatsoever with your damn guns. The only reason that the subject of your guns comes into your mind is that you have a paranoid delusion that every discussion remotely related to guns is a discussion about your "right" to own guns. Pull your head out of this fantasy world you seem to live in, and try to focus on the actual subject of this discussion.
And yet, somehow, discussions such as these almost inevitably gravitate towards the question of: "Well, what exactly constitutes reasonable firearms ownership anyway?" More often than not, this is due to the fact that certain people cannot emotionally detach themselves enough to focus solely on the root of the problem in cases involving the suspicious use of lethal force, therefore making it a political rather than a legal issue.
With that being said, perhaps there's a bit more to his apprehensions than "paranoid delusions" or armchair psychiatry?
Did you actually read any of my posts in this thread Delaney? I've posted about why I think the fear of SYG is overblown, and I've responded to other people's posts, and that's about it. If you're going to attack me, at least try and make it have some bearing on what I've actually said.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Did you actually read any of my posts in this thread Delaney? I've posted about why I think the fear of SYG is overblown, and I've responded to other people's posts, and that's about it. If you're going to attack me, at least try and make it have some bearing on what I've actually said.
The problem with SYG laws is that they are gaping wide open to abuse, and this has been demonstrated in spades by the Zimmerman/Martin case. The law is flawed. The law needs to be rethought. If you would like to make a statement that Florida's SYG law is flawless as it is presently and not in need of being rethought on any level, go ahead and make that statement. It would save us a lot of time. Instead of pursuing this topic further, I could simply label you a candidate for institutionalization at the nearest mental hospital and call it a day.
Hey, I just suggested you take a moment for abstract thought! Oh, the horror! The horror! How could I subject you to such torture!
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/de ... d-enacted/
Hey, you could probably think about this a lot more clearly if you could manage to separate "when liberals mention guns, they are thinking of taking away my guns" from, "we have a law now that says you can kill someone just because you happened to be feeling uncomfortable." There is a really big difference between these subjects.
Yeah, yeah... Sticks and stones, and all that...
Love you too, sweetheart.
