Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Uh, guys, what do you think of the calls for widespread organized violence if Zimmerman is let off? It seems like a pretty serious threat to me, and yet very few people seem to be taking it that way.
I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been Endarkened^
I've been having this debate today with guys in my unit. In my opinion, if Zimmerman is let off, I think south florida will riot. Possibly Atlanta.
But I think it's not terribly realistic to say that it's going to be massive 1992 LA riot scale rioting. I don't believe that. In my opinion it's also a good 50/50 that Zimmerman will be hit on the manslaughter charge.
edited 13th Jul '13 5:41:02 PM by Barkey
I just want to quote this for emphasis. The fact that this charge is there confirms that it was, in fact, an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons tend to require a very expensive tax stamp to the ATF to purchase legally, which is booked and can sort of serve as "registration" because the record of the tax stamp is kept on the books. I don't know if he legally paid for the gun, because I'm not familiar with Oregon gun laws. That mention of unlawful possession suggests that he did not buy it legally. Also, regarding the restraining order, if he had actually been charged with any sort of domestic violence crime at any point, the Lautenberg Amendment would have came into play. I have a distinct feeling that someone was asleep at the wheel on this one. He had previously threatened people with guns, he was an admitted drug addict and had not been booked for possession or use of illegal narcotics, and was possibly involved in DV, or at least a restraining order, during which the judge noted that he owned weapons and had a substance abuse problem and and erratic anger issues. As to the characteristics named. If the weapon really was automatic, then yes, it was an assault rifle. That's one of the requirements for use of that term. "Assault Weapon" is not a real term with any real applications or definitions. It's a Democrat buzzword for "Rifles that make me think of soldiers more than hunters" and is highly objective.
So he fell through the cracks?
DumboDr. Cornel West: I love Obama and pray for his safety. But he is a war criminal.
edited 13th Jul '13 5:48:07 PM by deviantbraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016This is ridiculous ! These things happen all the time and the media doesn't talk about them, but this one case being blown out of proportion by news networks like CNN is threatening to provoke riots?! Ok, so at work, the guy in charge , captain peters, won't let anyone change the channel from CNN. ALL they have been talking about for my entire internship is this trial. Sure they occasionally cover stuff like Egypt, which I think deserves more coverage, but the majority is this trial
edited 13th Jul '13 5:52:53 PM by Xopher001
Only problem is, there isn't actually anything wrong with the law on this matter. People are just charged up because they were sold a false, emotionally charged version of the story of what happened, and they're fitting subsequent evidence into that story even when the subsequent evidence completely demolishes that story.
I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been Endarkened
Er, No.
Theyre pissed because laws like stand your ground are the kind of idiotic law mostly favored by gun owners and gun enthusiasts and pretty much nobody else.
and the subsequent evidence actually says we have no fucking idea who swung first and we certainly cant be sure that zimmerman was justified in shooting someone, nor is the potrayal of trayvon as "some evil gangster monster who deserved to die" accurate either.
This isnt some open and shut case either way. Its that a stupid law allowed a guy to get off with at least a manslaughter if not a second degree murder on the technicality that stand your ground legalizes that.
edited 13th Jul '13 7:40:26 PM by midgetsnowman
the issue is also that the woman who fired a WARNING SHOT got 20 years in prison.
zimmerman killed a kid and got off scot free.
There's a disconnect there that's problematic.
edited 13th Jul '13 7:41:10 PM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"You know guys, their is a chance Zimmerman is actually innocent.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The Best And Worst Twitter Reactions To The George Zimmerman Verdict
The warning shot case is what really gets me. It would be one thing if she also got off, then it wouldn't matter. But the fact that she got 20 years for that crap and Zimmerman didn't get anything for killing someone really shows you what's what in America. If Trayvon had instead been Travis the white guy we would've seen a WAY different outcome here.
This.
If anything incites riots, it'll be black people rightly angry that a black wioman fires a warning shot and gets jailed for a good third of her lifespan, while a white man shoots a black guy in questionable circumstances lethally and gets nothing.
edited 13th Jul '13 8:07:48 PM by midgetsnowman

I just want to quote this for emphasis. The fact that this charge is there confirms that it was, in fact, an automatic weapon.
Automatic weapons tend to require a very expensive tax stamp to the ATF to purchase legally, which is booked and can sort of serve as "registration" because the record of the tax stamp is kept on the books.
I don't know if he legally paid for the gun, because I'm not familiar with Oregon gun laws. That mention of unlawful possession suggests that he did not buy it legally.
Also, regarding the restraining order, if he had actually been charged with any sort of domestic violence crime at any point, the Lautenberg Amendment
would have came into play. I have a distinct feeling that someone was asleep at the wheel on this one. He had previously threatened people with guns, he was an admitted drug addict and had not been booked for possession or use of illegal narcotics, and was possibly involved in DV, or at least a restraining order, during which the judge noted that he owned weapons and had a substance abuse problem and and erratic anger issues.
As to the characteristics named. If the weapon really was automatic, then yes, it was an assault rifle. That's one of the requirements for use of that term. "Assault Weapon" is not a real term with any real applications or definitions. It's a Democrat buzzword for "Rifles that make me think of soldiers more than hunters" and is highly objective.
Definition of an Assault Rifle:
In other words, it has to be automatic or burst capable, and be magazine fed with a centerfire cartridge.
edited 13th Jul '13 5:39:40 PM by Barkey