1.       The situation in my article is when a man that is an employee for Kroger shoots another man as he is trying to rob the store. This is a great example of how the 2nd amendment can be used to keep our nation strong and safe. It also is stating how this situation is going to affect the coming up vote on a bill that would allow licensed gun holder to carry on college campuses.

2.       No final word has been given as to if he will be fired or not but as Kroger’s store laws for their employees prohibits guns in a work environment he will probably be fired. The fact of the matter is they would be in a situation where people say they wouldn’t support Kroger if they kept him on staff and others saying if they fire him they will never come back at Kroger’s again.

3.       This would be an article on the second amendment that allows people the right to bear arms. Essentially this amendment gives us as US citizens the right to carry guns for the safety of us and others around us.

4.       We see that this guy’s rights have been violated due to the fact he might be fired because of him carrying a gun into his work place and using for safety precautions. Now while that is a violation of our rights he was violating the rules and regulations of his work so in a way he did break rules. I still see it as being bad that they would even consider firing him because not only did he save lives but he also saved the stores money.

5.       I disagree with the ruling if they were to fire him because he is using his rights for the use they were intended. The founders didn’t just make up this stuff they had legit reasons for why they would add such things into the government they were creating. All they wanted was everybody to have the right materials to keep them safe and not scared to go out into society.

6.       Yes, because the Supreme Court is used to protect these rights and as citizens if we are punished for using our rights we then have another right in which we can use to sue or otherwise counteract to their ruling. As the Supreme Court they are put there to protect our rights as citizens and we should use them whenever we feel as if we have be denied or punished for the use of our rights.

7.       The Bill of Rights isn’t totally clear on everything because they didn’t take the time to add every right we have into the document but that is why we have the 9th amendment which is where we have rights that aren’t even stated. Now while people start thinking ok I can just make up a right that is then not true do to the fact we have to limit the extent in which we allow the 9th to go to. That is what the Supreme Court is there to do because they are there as Constitution wizzes.

8.       The Antifederalists would disagree if he got fired because they believe the power should be with the people and if they were to take that right away they will see it as overpowering and overusing their abilities. So they would disagree if any of the 10 amendments were to be denied to a person on a state because they fought vigorously to get a Bill of Rights and if they knew it wasn’t working the way they wanted they would be mad.

     On the Frontier, the settlers of the Pioneer generation were self-reliant enough to know how to fight back against outlaws who threatened their lives and the safety of their small frontier towns.  They were self-reliant enough to fight-back even to the point of pursuing specific criminals who were repeatedly threatening their lives.  The settlers would also form vigilance committees and pursue criminals without the help of law-enforcement, whose influence was very weak in those days.

     The pioneers would band together as vigilantes (not lynch mobs) to stop the crime spree of notorious criminal gangs.  The pioneer generation was used to having it rough in life.  They had to survive the harsh elements, wild Indian attacks, and victimizations by outlaws, while struggling to build towns from the ground up.  So fighting crime was simply one more difficult responsibility they had to adopt for their survival.  It was just as much the doing of these pioneer vigilante groups—and not only of the Texas Rangers or Pinkerton Detectives–that the lawless West was tamed.

     Furthermore, good men who were dangerous to the criminals were called, “bad men”.  Not “bad” in the sense of being thugs but “bad” in that they were bad choices for real criminals to mess with.  Good-guys were called “bad-men” because they were tough and, when necessary, deadly—to the outlaws.  Some of these good-guys were called “man-killers” (i.e. “gunfighters”) because they were so skilled with a gun that they continually walked away alive from violent conflicts with outlaws.

     Today, however we have too many people who think that surrendering to, and appeasing, street thugs is the better, safer thing to do, so as not to antagonize the criminal into doing greater violence.  We also have idiot Democrats like Bill Clinton who use Trayvon Martin’s shooting death as an excuse to advocate repeal of “stand your ground” (“stand”) laws.  Repealing those laws paves the way for reinstalling “duty to retreat” laws, which state you must run away from the criminal who is trying to murder you so as not to harm him.  What kind of phony nonsense is that?!?!??!

     When “retreat” laws were in effect, they completely negated the individual’s  right to self-defense and demanded that you help the criminal endanger your life further by retreating from him (so he can chase and kill you from behind).  There was this real-life incident where a guy and his girlfriend were confronted by a criminal wielding an ice pick.  The thug was hiding from the police and threatened the couple.  Thinking surrender was the safest option, the couple surrendered.  The thug tied them up, then proceeded beat the woman’s boyfriend in front of her.  Then the thug raped the woman in front of the boyfriend.  The only thing equally as repulsive as the crime committed was the easy surrender of the couple. 

     Both the surrender advocates and the “retreat law” advocates have views that are variations on the “slave mentality” mindset—rather than the self-defense mindset.  The slave mentality is the attitude of Roman slaves who feared to rebel against their oppressors because their oppressors will victimize them more.  It’s the attitude of weaklings and cowards.  The couple in the above crime incident surrendered and still were victimized.  It shows how much of our society has strayed from the tough pioneer qualities of toughness and self-reliance. 

     The only thing closest to the “bad” men of Frontier times are today’s law-abiding gun owners who because of their realistic and ongoing concealed carry training are willing and able to save cops from thugs, protect themselves personally from thugs, protect their families and the sanctity of their homes from burglars, and thwart crimes-in-progress.  That’s why we need “stand” laws and other laws that protect our right to own and use firearms.

     However, merely owning guns and training only once a year do not make owners “bad men”.  Ongoing and realistic training is the key.  Not starting trouble but dealing with it when innocent lives are at stake (yours, your loved ones, and cops’ lives) is also key. 

     Let’s hope that the pro-surrender advocates and the restore “retreat” law advocates do not get their way.  You, the reader, can help defeat them by writing your political representatives and urging them to pass or uphold pro-second amendment laws, like “stand your ground” laws.   

As they travelled through the jungle early this year, the small team from Funai did not dare try to stop the loggers; the vehicle was too large and the loggers were most certainly armed. All they could do was video the lorry and add the film to the growing mountain of evidence showing how the Awá – with only 355 surviving members, more than 100 of whom have had no contact with the outside world – are teetering on the edge of extinction.

It is a scene played out throughout the Amazon as the authorities struggle to tackle the powerful illegal logging industry. But it is not just the loss of the trees that has created a situation so serious that it led a Brazilian judge, José Carlos do Vale Madeira, to describe it as “a real genocide”. People are pouring on to the Awá’s land, building illegal settlements, running cattle ranches. Hired gunmen – known as pistoleros – are reported to be hunting Awá who have stood in the way of land-grabbers. Members of the tribe describe seeing their families wiped out. Human rights campaigners say the tribe has reached a tipping point and only immediate action by the Brazilian government to prevent logging can save the tribe.

The Survival International will launch a new campaign this week to highlight the plight of the Awá, backed by Celebrity Colin Firth. In a video set for release on Wednesday, Mr Firth will ask the Brazilian government to take urgent action to protect the tribe. The 51-year-old, delivers an appeal to camera calling on Brazil’s minister of justice to send in police to drive out the loggers.

The Awá are one of only two nomadic hunter-gathering tribes left in the Amazon. According to Survival, they are now the world’s most threatened tribe, assailed by gunmen, loggers and hostile settler farmers.

Their troubles began earnest in 1982 with the inauguration of a European Economic Community and World Bank-funded programme to extract massive iron ore deposits found in the Carajás mountains. The EEC gave Brazil $600m to build a railway from the mines to the coast, on condition that Europe received a third of the output, a minimum of 13.6m tons a year for 15 years. The railway cut directly through the Awá’s land and with the railway came settlers. A road-building programme followed, opening up the Awá’s jungle home to loggers, who moved in from the east.

It was, according to Survival’s research director, Fiona Watson, a recipe for disaster. A third of the rainforest in the Awá territory in Maranhão state in north-east Brazil has since been destroyed and outsiders have exposed the Awá to diseases against which they have no natural immunity.

“The Awá and the uncontacted Awá are really on the brink,” she said. “It is an extremely small population and the forces against them are massive. They are being invaded by loggers, settlers and cattle ranchers. They rely entirely on the forest. They have said to me: ‘If we have no forest, we can’t feed our children and we will die’.”

But it appears that the Awá also face a more direct threat. Earlier this year an investigation into reports that an Awá child had been killed by loggers found that their tractors had destroyed the Awá camp.

“It is not just the destruction of the land; it is the violence,” said Watson. “I have talked to Awá people who have survived massacres. I have interviewed Awá who have seen their families shot in front of them. There are immensely powerful people against them. The land-grabbers use pistoleros to clear the land. If this is not stopped now, these people could be wiped out. This is extinction taking place before our eyes.”

What is most striking about the Funai undercover video of the loggers – apart from the sheer size of the trunks – is the absence of jungle in the surrounding landscape. Once the landscape would have been lush rainforest but now it has been cleared, leaving behind just grass and scrub and only a few scattered clumps of dying trees.

Such is the Awá’s affinity with the jungle and its inhabitants that if they find a baby animal during their hunts they take it back and raise it almost like a child, to the extent that the women will sometimes breastfeed the creature. The loss of their jungle has left them in a state of despair. “They are chopping down wood and they are going to destroy everything,” said Pire’i Ma’a, a member of the tribe. “Monkeys, peccaries, tapir, they are all running away. I don’t know how we are going to eat – everything is being destroyed, the whole area.

“This land is mine, it is ours. They can go away to the city, but we Indians live in the forest. They are going to kill everything. Everything is dying. We are all going to go hungry, the children will be hungry, my daughter will be hungry, and I’ll be hungry too.”

In an earlier interview with Survival, another member of the tribe, Karapiru, described how most of his family were killed by ranchers. “I hid in the forest and escaped from the white people. They killed my mother, my brothers and sisters and my wife,” he said. “When I was shot during the massacre, I suffered a great deal because I couldn’t put any medicine on my back. I couldn’t see the wound: it was amazing that I escaped – it was through the Tupã [spirit]. I spent a long time in the forest, hungry and being chased by ranchers. I was always running away, on my own. I had no family to help me, to talk to. So I went deeper and deeper into the forest.

“I hope when my daughter grows up she won’t face any of the difficulties I’ve had. I hope everything will be better for her. I hope the same things that happened to me won’t happen to her.”

The Survival campaign reflects growing international concern over the plight of the world’s remaining indigenous tribes. Earlier this year the Observer revealed how police were colluding with tour operators in India’s Andaman Islands to run human safaris into the jungle heartland of the protected Jarawa tribe. A video showing half-naked Jarawa women and girls dancing in return for food caused outrage in India and around the world. Further revelations followed, exposing human safari’s in Orissa, India, and Peru, where tour operators are profiting from the exploitation of Amazon jungle tribes.

Meanwhile, drug traffickers are posing a threat to other Amazon tribes. Last year a previously uncontacted tribe was photographed from the air close to the Peru-Brazil border only to go missing a few months later after a gang of drug traffickers overpowered guards protecting their land.

The Brazilian embassy in London referred requests for a response to the president’s Human Rights Secretariat, which did not respond. However, Brazil has recently been able to point to research that shows it has been making progress in tackling illegal logging. The country’s National Institute for Space Research estimates that 6,238 sq km of rainforest was lost between 2010 and 2011, down dramatically from the 2004 peak of 27,700 sq km. The same year, Brazil pledged to cut deforestation by 80% by 2020.

The year-on-year fall last year was 11% and in March Brazil’s forestry department raided and closed down 14 illegal sawmills on the borders of the Awá’s land. Even so, the figures also show that two states recorded sharp rises in deforestation, and illegal logging is destroying the Awá’s jungle at a faster rate than that of any other Amazon tribe.

In a statement, Survival urged the Brazilian government to give more support to Funai and to increase its efforts to shut down illegal activities in the Awá’s territories. “Timing is crucial, and the timing of this is now, because while all hope is not lost an entire people are on the verge of being lost, most critically the uncontacted Awá. And we have a moral responsibility to act. EU and World Bank money has helped fund huge projects in Brazil that have exploited the Awá’s land resources and made infrastructure ripe for developers.”

Guns should be kept at home. I don’t see any need to run around with a gun all the time.

It’s true. Absolute rights are simple. Absolute Free Speech means anyone can say anything, anywhere, anytime… An absolute Right to Bear Arms means people can bear any arm, anytime, anywhere… Neither idea is workable, in my opinion.

Some things are so basic they’ve never been recorded as rights, as best I can tell. The Right to Breathe isn’t recorded in the U.S. Constitution. I suppose that’s an absolute right. It’s also an unrecorded right.

The best policy in my opinion is to keep guns home.

The Right to Free Speech is not absolute. It’s easy to think of a facetious example. A person cannot poison a drink, offer it to another, and say “It’s OK. Have a drink.” It’s no defense to say “I was exercising my Right to Free Speech when I made the statement, It’s OK. Have a drink.”

The Right to Bear Arms is similar. It isn’t absolute. I have no Right-to-Fire-A-Cannon-Anytime-I-Choose.

His weapon is the most advanced of its day – a musket. He can get off a shot, maybe, then he must reload, which will take at least a minute, at which point the sixteen hostages who have not been shot will subdue him and take him to the nearest lunatic asylum. This is pretty much a worst-case scenario from the era of the Second Amendment, and even that one is pretty unthinkable.

Today, of course, the perpetrator has an AK-47 or two that he bought legally at a gun fair and can wreak untold damage before he (hopefully) shoots himself rather than face prosecution.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the Constitution; I “get” the Second Amendment: if the Supreme Court says owning a gun has nothing to do with the militia, then I guess I have to live with it.

But while many of the Constitution’s provisions have withstood the test of time, some have not. Take, for example, the three-fifths compromise which counted slaves as 3/5th of a white male for purposes of determining Congressional seats. Or the Nineteenth Amendment, which by and large prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages. I could go on, but need not. For all of the stock which so-called “strict constructionists” place in the founding document of our republic, you can find dozens of exceptions that are simply inapplicable in today’s society.

The Second Amendment did not foresee assault weapons under every bed. It probably didn’t anticipate a neighborhood watch vigilante gunning down an unarmed man in “self defense”, nor a meth-lab proprietor who could kill the police chief and wound five cops in a peaceful New Hampshire town before being subdued. Or a lone gunman who could kill dozens in a high school or college classroom.

You want a rifle to hunt? Fine, if you must. Not really fair, in most cases, but it is an American tradition. You want a hand gun to defend your home? OK, if you can prove you are responsible enough to handle it. After my rotator cuff surgery, I had a physical therapist on Long Island whose twelve year old son killed himself with his father’s gun. Ask her what she thinks of the Second Amendment. On second thought, don’t.

But we need to live with the right to bear arms. The NRA has largely been successful in resisting firearms regulation as “creeping infringement” of their rights. We also have the right to drive cars and fly planes, but no one would be foolish enough to say that these dangerous practices should not be licensed, or that those potentially lethal instrumentalities should not be safe to operate. Please, dear NRA, what makes guns different? Do we protect gun owners’ rights at the expense of keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of psychos? Why do you need an assault rifle to protect your homestead? Or hunt? What’s so bad about a short waiting period to obtain a firearm?

The NRA also claims that that concealed weapon laws and the like prevent crime, as anti-intuitive as it may seem. Ask the 72 police officers gunned down in the line of duty last year whether that is true. Oh wait, you can’t. Ask the families of the victims at Virginia Tech, or Columbine, or dozens of other mass-murder sites where legally-obtained guns resulted in many hundreds of innocent deaths; not to mention those from drive-by shootings, crossfire incidents, even family disputes in our gun-crazy culture.

You want a gun and can prove you are responsible, again I say fine. But the glorification and even beatification of the gun culture, spearheaded by the NRA and the media, has already taken us too far down the path of societal self-destruction.

At this point, I should probably duck and cover.

     A provision of Castle Doctrine legislation, “stand your ground” laws state that you don’t have to retreat from an attacker, that you can stay on your home or neighborhood premises and fight to defend yourself.  That law replaced “duty to retreat” laws, which stated you must run away from your would-be murderer, so you do not kill him.

     Leftists use the Martin case to urge repeal of “Stand your ground” laws which implies a revival of “retreat” laws.  Retreating from your would-be murderer means not being able to use your gun to protect yourself.  This in turn negates the right of self-defense.  One example, of how liberals are arguing the “retreat” viewpoint is ex-President Bill Clinton.  

     In Jake Tapper’s article, “President Clinton Hopes Trayvon Martin Case Leads to Reappraisal of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws”, Clinton made a presumption that George Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood, despite saying he wants to wait for the facts.  Referring to his portrayal of Zimmerman, Clinton stated that civilians without law enforcement training but who are armed with guns will murder in cold-blood—because of the “stand your ground” law.  

     That, of course, represents the false claim long made by liberals.  It’s false because a lack of police training and the mere possession of a gun do not transform conscientious citizens into cold-blooded murderers.  Lacking such training, civilians have their commonsense and deeply ingrained conscience that prevents them from becoming murderers.  In fact, the data on shooting incidents between citizens and criminals shows that gun-owning citizens have thwarted crimes, protected themselves and protected their families from burglars.  There are even cases where concealed carry permit-holders saved the lives of cops who were about to be murdered by thugs.  So, time and again we see law-abiding gun owners continue being law-abiding.  They don’t become the crazed murderers that dumb liberals say they will become.

     Clinton’s concern about “Stand Your Ground” law “encouraging” murders reflects a poor understanding of that law.  That law does not encourage murders.  It protects self-defense killings.  “Stand your ground” law enables a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in his own self-defense–and protects him from being unjustly prosecuted for doing so.  If you commit murder, “Stand” laws wont protect you from incarceration.

     If citizens do not become crazed murderers merely by owning guns and lacking specialized training, and “Stand” laws do not encourage murders, then Clinton’s idea that “Stand” laws need reappraisal is baseless.  It remains baseless even if it later turns out that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood.  “Stand” laws do not protect murderers. 

     Despite liberals’ grasping for any old excuse to oppose them, “stand your ground” laws are based on the principled and practical realities of self-defense.  The principle is that a Man has a right to defend his life.  The practical reality is that a potential victim can only implement his right-to-self-defense by “standing his ground” in order to successfully end the thug’s murder attempt.  That is true because the attack on the law-abiding gun owner’s life may be too sudden for him to “retreat”.  When “retreat” does become a split-second option, the victim may be placing his life in greater danger by retreating.  That is because running from an attacker has gotten victims chased and attacked from behind.  This is the type of situation that former “duty to retreat” laws demanded potential victims put themselves in.

     Imagine a bat-wielding thug chasing you, as you retreat.  Then, he hits you from behind with a bat (bats have a longer reach than one’s arms).  He hits you in the head multiple times until you are severely injured or dead.  Because “retreating” from an attacking thug, as demanded by “Retreat” laws, increases the danger to your life, “Retreat” laws violate one’s right to self-defense.  That is more true considering that it becomes harder for someone to defend himself from a lethal attack while fleeing.

     By contrast, “stand your ground” laws protect your right to self-defense because they protect you from legal penalty whenever your survival depends on “standing your ground”.  “Standing your ground” is essential to defending your life.  If “retreat” laws penalize you for “standing”, then “retreat” laws also wrongfully punish you for defending your life.  So, we must maintain “Stand” laws and never revive “Retreat” laws.    

     Furthermore, a man has a right to stay in his own home, neighborhood or workplace when a thug confronts him.  A free man belongs there, the thug does not. 

     Ignoring the fact that “Retreat” laws violate our right to self-defense, some critics think that “Stand” laws will obscure to what extent (if any) a gun-owner has escalated a situation  to an unjust shooting.  If that is the case, then the gun owner could be using excessive force or committing murder.  Yet, his actions at the “shooting” moment may still appear—the key word is “appear”–to fit the “Stand” law since he, technically, stood his ground and shot his “attacker.” 

     However, this is not a real problem.  That’s because in any shooting incident, cops and lawyers still have to investigate and review the evidence.  In the process of doing so, they may discover that Zimmerman did escalate the situation by deliberately provoking Martin into attacking, just so he can have an excuse to shoot Martin.  In which case, Zimmerman’s shooting Martin is murder.  IF that is the case, then “Stand” laws will not, in actuality, apply to Zimmerman’s illegal act.  Therefore, “Stand” laws will not protect Zimmerman from punishment.  “Stand” laws do NOT say that you have the right to scare your attacker into attacking, then shoot him.  Instead, “Stand” laws state that you have a right to stand your ground and use reasonable deadly force to save yourself from your would-be murderer (i.e. self-defense).  Hence, there is no real obscurity involved. 

     While paranoid and unthinking critics worry about hypothetical “obscurities” regarding “Stand” laws, it is necessary to point out the real problem with repealing “Stand” laws.  Repealing “Stand” laws gets those people who really did shoot a thug in self-defense incarcerated and treated like murderers—simply because they “stood their ground”.  With “Stand” laws you can prevent actual self-defense shooters from being unjustly imprisoned.  Lawful gun owners should not lose their right to “stand” and fight in self-defense just because there are criminals out there who will escalate a confrontation and murder. 

     Upholding “stand your ground” laws means that your life is of value, that you have the right to defend it, that you have a right to stay where you have a legal right to be.  Replacing those laws with “duty to retreat” laws means your life isn’t worth dirt, that you must endanger your life further by running from the criminal who threatens your life, that not killing your would-be murderer is more important to the courts than your right to save your own life and that, in effect, the courts protect the criminal’s “freedom” to murder or “burglar” you more than your right to self-defense.  So readers you decide which of those views/laws you will support.      

The facts of the case are being weighed in the courts, by lawyers and judges. The authorities have made there investigations and a jury of a persons peers will make the decision of guilt and innocence. But the court of public opinion will always be the most powerful of them all. No matter what the outcome of the case, the person of presumed guilt, will never be free.

From the media and print reports, George Zimmerman, a want to be lawman, lawfully licenced to carry a gun, went on his rounds and volunteered to watch a residential area. He was vigilant and had made several calls to the authorities, to report activity in the area. But why did a volunteer watcher, carry a gun? Was he a paid rent a cop? Was he employed as a night watchman? We don’t know, and the facts are not clear, but we now Wait for the court to figure it out.

Trayvon Walker, a young teen out for a walk back to his house. Skittles hoodie and soft drink in hand, what happened, to become a threat to George? Was it race? Was it the hoodie? We don’t know but some thing set off a violent chain of events, that caused the Death of a person.

There is still a racial divide in the world and the USA. Slight and some what unnoticed but in effect. Whites object to the Black race and what they represent. And to the Court of public opinion, The accomplishments of one race over the other don’t make a difference. Because I am right and you are always wrong. So what do we as rational human beings do to avoid the Court of public opinion, form becoming judge jury and executioner?

We must look at each other as human not color. We must act human accomplish goals and not give up because of what some one said or the color of your skin. If you are in a rut climb out don’t continue to travel in the same rut for lifetime. If race is to be over come then the people themselves have to set the example and effort to change the public opinion of the perception of that race. I found out the more black males are in Bachelor degree programs than in the prison system. I was wrong in my perception.

So it is the perception of the people, that is the problem, rather than the facts . So we must find common ground on which to stand, and remove the predigests of race. And do unto others as we would want others to do to us.If we remember this , and love one another, then the big problems of the world would go away. And the Court of Public Opinion could adjourn forever.

Will brandishing a weapon make you appear to be bigger, stronger and more macho than you really are? According to researchers the answer is yes.

In a unique experiment, researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles asked hundreds of Americans to guess the size and muscularity of four men based solely on photographs of their hands holding a range of easily recognizable objects, including handguns. None of the images was of Clint Eastwood, or some other western hero or bad guy.

The research determined that waving a weapon makes a man appear bigger and stronger. The research also suggests there is an unconscious mental mechanism that gauges a potential opponent and then translates the magnitude of that threat into the same dimensions used by animals to size up their adversaries: size and strength. However, the scientists caution, appearances are not always what they seem and making such judgments can have poor outcomes – to say the least.

A Gun, A Drill Or A Saw – How Is The Macho Guy?

To prove their theory the researchers recruited volunteers form multiple sources. From one source, 628 individuals were asked to look at four pictures of different hands, each holding a single object: a caulking gun, electric drill, large saw or handgun. The individuals were then asked to estimate the height of each hand model in feet and inches based solely on the photographs of their hands. Participants also were shown six images of progressively taller men and six images of progressively more muscular men and asked to estimate which image came closest to the probable size and strength of the hand model.

Study participants consistently judged the gun-toting men pictured to be taller and stronger than the men holding the other objects, even though the experiment’s four hand models were recruited on the basis of their equivalent hand size and similar hand appearance.

On average, participants judged pistol packers to be 17 percent taller and stronger than those judged to be the smallest and weakest men — the ones holding caulking guns. Hand models holding the saw and drill followed gun-wielders in size and strength.

How About A Squirt Gun?

Concerned that their findings might be influenced by popular culture, which often depicts gun-slingers as big and strong men, the team conducted two more studies using objects that did not seem to have a macho image: a kitchen knife, a paint brush and a large, brightly colored toy squirt gun. In the initial round, a new group of 100 subjects was asked to evaluate the danger posed by each of the objects (which were presented alone, without hands holding them). They then were asked to pick the type of person most associated with the object: a child, a woman or a man.

Not surprisingly, individuals rated the knife most dangerous, followed by the paintbrush and squirt gun. But where the most lethal object in the earlier studies — the handgun — would likely have been associated with men, participants in this study most often associated the most lethal object — the kitchen knife — with women. The paintbrush was most often associated with men, and the squirt gun with children.

In the final round of tests, a new group of 541 individuals was shown male hands holding the knife, paint brush and squirt gun and was then asked to estimate the height and muscularity of the hand models. Once again, men holding the most lethal object — in this case, the kitchen knife — were judged to be the biggest and strongest, followed by those holding the paintbrush and the squirt gun.

So, what should the average person take away from this study? Don’t judge a book – or gun-holding image – by its cover? When it comes to guns, looks can be deceiving? Perhaps that when it comes to guns size really doesn’t matter, but common sense certainly does.

Click here for more articles by The Writin’ Cowboy.

2. Physically removing the arms of 310 million people is just as likely as abolishing guns.

3. Many newcomers don’t understand that.

4. Duck.

5. It’s a useful word.

6. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

7. Forget that many countries in the Old World control guns.

8. This isn’t the Old World.

9. Buy a round-trip ticket if that’s a difficult concept.

10. Avoid arguments with people bearing .357 Magnums or Uzis.

11. Gun control is a disaster.

12. No right, including the Second Amendment, is absolute. Study history.

As racism continues to raise its’ ugly head,  the question arises as to how a society as well educated and economically advantaged as ours, segregation continues in any way.   However, statistics on the FBI’s website, www.fbi.gov give validity to the fact that it does.

Blacks murder more than 1,600 whites each year.

Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate white’s murder blacks.

Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites under 18.

About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white.

Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites, although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1.

On a per capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crime than whites.

Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.

Of the 6.6 million violent crimes, 20% (1.3 million) were interracial.

Of the 1.3 million interracial violent crimes, 90% (1.17 million) are black against white.

According to: http://carlie1230.tripod.com/id2.html

“Racism has been part of America’s history since the land was first discovered by Columbus in 1492. People are not born being racist just as they are not born knowing right from wrong.  Racism is said to be something that is learned, according to Murray from the American Psychological Association.  Another contributing factor to racism is social and economic status.  People are often judged by where they live, how much money they make, what type of car they drive and so on. “

We all feel the pain of the parents that lost their young son in Florida.  There can be no justification in his death.  However, the cries for justice are stimulated by media coverage that does not contain all the facts.  Was the shooter as much a victim as the teen?  We do not know.  However, we do know that creating a chaotic event out this loss will not resolve any issue of racism, but rather proliferate it.  It will not bring back the mother’s child.  It will not erase the gunshot that took so much.  It will not bring forth the truth.  Black leaders taking the platform to induce their words of hate, vengence and power will not heal the hurt.  Rather, they should be reaching out in peace to ensure this does not happen again to any child of any color.