Scared of the Trayvon Martin case. Few are addressing the real issue directly. Some are inching towards the issue at hand slowly, but for an outright case of self defense under a statute that most gun nuts worked hard on, poor George Zimmerman is not getting the support he deserves from those most supportive of armed self-defense.
Perhaps they don't like the poor choice of those acting in self-defense, perhaps they don't like the idea of a young black thug being the perpetrator, but even the un-telegenic have a right of self-defense.
Gun nuts usually run from the race issue. The NRA especially. They usually hide behind the standard crime is not a race issue, blacks are the usual victim of black crime, yada, yada, yada. But just as you can't yada, yada, yada sex, you can't yada, yada, yada the black race war on whites. Sometimes it might be wise to ignore the race issue, but they aren't just ignoring the race issue, they are refusing to come to George Zimmerman's defense and refusing to come to the defense of self-defense openly and forthrightly.
First, The Truth About Guns. For this gun nut, its all about the sugar. Perhaps the blogger is being cynical, approaching with baby steps, but it is uncertain.
The Truth About Guns April 6, 2012
On the face of it and by his own admission, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claimed he did so out of self-defense. Legions of professional pundits, armchair analysts, community organizers, gun control advocates and opportunistic politicians have rejected Zimmerman’s explanation. They maintain that the “real” cause lies elsewhere: an inherently dangerous mixture of latent racism and lax gun laws. But the actual culprit in this case is far more subtle. The killer is . . .
Sugar. That’s right, sucrose.
Trayvon didn’t venture out of an apartment in Sanford, Florida, at night, in the rain, to go in search of a comic book or the latest edition of Sports Illustrated. He went to the local 7-11 and bought a package of Skittles and a bottle of Arizona Iced Tea.
For a group that legitimately justifies the political use of guns; a Constitutional response to either the failure of government to protect its citizens or the threat that government poses to liberty, the real issue is the dog that did not bark. George Zimmerman was acting as citizens should. He was taking an active part in his community, its defense, yet the gun nuts are only addressing the issue gingerly. Sure, they could fear that if it turns out that Zimmerman is the proverbial Klansman, it could be bad for gun rights. But that is not likely. It may have been wise to hold back at the beginning of the controversy, but all of the important facts are out. Yet gun nuts are either silent, or ostentatiously claiming they have no opinion, like the dean of the gun nuts, Mike McDaniel, who at one time was promoting a deranged drug addict as the public face of gun rights. He takes the Dragnet angle:
Stately McDaniel Manor April 4, 2012
In this series, I’ll refrain from making absolute pronouncements of innocence or guilt; possibilities and probabilities based on what is known, probably. I suspect that what will be most useful for most Americans is explaining how to rationally consider and to put into context what is currently known, and what is likely to occur.
Just the facts, ma'am. Nothing wrong with that. Caution is advised at all times and there is no objection to a little political jujitsu, use the execrable Dr. Martin Luther King's words against your enemies when it works. Even Rainbow Confederates serve their purpose, if not to just disconcert the enemy. No race issue here. Just a rational review of the facts for McDaniel. But leave out the issue of black on white crime. Whistling past the graveyard.
Except that the facts are in. There is no issue to discuss. The Sanford Police Department and the county District Attorney's Office conducted an investigation, they reviewed the evidence and found that Zimmerman acted in lawful self-defense. Under Florida law there was nothing they could do. In fact they were prohibited from bringing any charges and faced personal liability if they did because Florida specifically protects and prohibits charging an individual who lawfully used deadly force in self-defense. In fact Zimmerman has a case against the SPD because he was arrested at the scene and brought in handcuffs to the police station. An interesting aside especially when the Justice Brothers are claiming that Zimmerman was not arrested.
Case closed. But gun nuts are hedging their bets. Might be a good strategy, maybe there is something out there that could blow the case up, but there still is no evidence that Zimmerman is the mythical Klansman that the Justice Brothers have wet dreams about.
Perhaps describing the junk food diet of minorities on food stamps is code, and it could certainly be, but I just don't know. Especially in such an open and shut case. The Sanford Police Department report is pretty clear. No witnesses contradicted Zimmerman's account. It was a very straight forward case of self-defense. Not pretty, but shootings never are.
David Codrea of the War On Guns, and someone who attacked this site when it dared to mention that blacks and Hispanics vote consistently for anti-gun politicians of color, is remarkably silent on the issue. Of course, he appears to be terrified of the mau mauers.
Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars, usually so vocal on all aspects of gun rights is only gingerly approaching the issue. He usually tries to boost his anti-racist credentials, but for the most part he has ignored the issue. But he has had some hints at a race war...but no clear defense of Zimmerman. One wonders.
Perhaps rightfully so, all those wobbly RINOs who claim to support the Second Amendment will probably sell that out at the first demand from the Justice Brothers.
But, again, the facts are in. Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. And in any event, according to the law, the mindset of the person acting in self-defense is irrelevant in such a case. The only issue legally is whether George Zimmerman, or anyone else in a similar situation, acted objectively reasonably given the facts of the particular situation as that person experienced them. No Monday morning quarterbacking in self-defense cases.
Even Klansmen have a right of self-defense. Even wannabe gangstas like Trayvon have a right to self-defense. Especially under Florida's strong self-defense law. But in this case there is no need to equivocate or hold back. Zimmerman acted rightly. He might be indicted, most likely Federally, but he is innocent of any crime. And the gun nuts should embrace their creation, Stand Your Ground, and openly defend George Zimmerman, a gun owner of color. Just like their plaintiff was in their Chicago case, Otis McDonald. Gun rights groups deliberately sought out a plaintiff of color because they thought that would be good public relations. Otherwise all they worked for could be undone by Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder. And it ain't a coincidence that both are hostile to self-defense, using firearms, or the Second Amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that both are black. Blacks are hostile to the Second Amendment. Not all blacks, just most. That is just how they vote.
And now with a man of color using a gun to defend himself, they gun nuts are hesitating. Why? What do they fear? Are they so uncertain? Do gun rights still hang by a thread? Are the defenders of the Second Amendment so uncertain? Is there a lack of faith? Have they built their house on sand?