The following is my response to a comment left after one of the videos below… about a separate NRA for black Americans (watch them below for context):
“I find your defense of the NRA troubling, though. If this organization was truly consistent in advocating arming citizens regardless of race, then why isn’t it representatives or leadership (or even the majority of its members) speak up in defense of Trayvon Martin? If anything, he seems like the best possible factual example for anyone to use in order to argue that private gun ownership is necessary to prevent tyranny from the state and its agents (such as the police). If the NRA was truly honest in its conviction to arm people of all races, then I would expect them to argue in Trayvon’s defense, saying “This man should have been armed! He is an example of how minorities need to be armed in order to defend themselves against brutal, violent police racism.” Instead, it seems like more NRA members are coming to Zimmerman’s defense, if anything.” –Benjamin Chylla
It will never be the NRA’s responsibility or agenda to support the Left’s need to hold Race up as the only reason anyone ever fires a gun. “If the NRA was truly honest” ??? In this statement, you are showing, in public, that you are completely unaware that Trayvon was not an innocent bystander, not a victim, and not ‘unarmed’ — for the NRA to ‘support’ or ‘defend’ him in any way would make no sense… he was the attacker! Minus 30 points for your factless, baseless ideological argument.
The NRA’s current mission is to protect the right, currently guaranteed by law but constantly under threat by those who the law is supposed to protect us from (those people who don’t get the ‘equal protection’ concept) — for all Americans, regardless of race.
But pretending that Trayvon was the Good Guy means that you are either mal-informed, or are intentionally attempting to continue the agenda the Left has been tilting into for years, that when a black person gets shot, it MUST have been racially motivated — therefore, all resources must be brought to bear to criminalize any non-black who defends themselves.
You want to make this an argument that is won or lost based on the number of voices who agree with your version of the ‘facts’? Great — you won; more people in this country currently believe that Trayvon was innocent than those Americans who agree with the jurors determined in court. But, then, there’s the pesky facts that are going to keep getting in the way of that agenda…
I repeat: It will never be the NRA’s responsibility or agenda to support the Left’s need to hold Race up as the only reason anyone ever fires a gun.
You really hate the NRA so much that you’re willing to appear — in public — as a blithering idiot to lambaste them? It’s people like you that make me want to become a lifetime member.
LINK: “Professional Racists convince public that Race the issue in Zimmerman/Martin case, and that officials shorted investigation.” (WeAreTheVoicesInYourHead.com)
“If I am not mistaken, it was George Zimmerman who followed Trayvon all the way to his house, without even a reasonable suspicion of any crime taken place…after specifically being told by the police over the phone NOT to do so. So any argument that Zimmerman was the one acting in “self-defense” is nonsense.
And even, for the sake of argument, you want to point out that Trayvon pulled the first punch (even though he was technically complying with the “stand your ground” precedent), the use of a gun against him was not justified. Zimmerman was hardly even injured. Maybe if Trayvon had a gun (since he had the right to stand his ground), he could’ve simply pointed it at Zimmerman, told him to leave, and the whole thing could have been avoided altogether. This is the argument that the NRA often uses in order to explain how more guns will somehow lead to less violence, and they could’ve applied it to Martin just as easily as anyone else.
If I have to conclude that any ideology is counter-productive here, it would be the idea that the black criminals are somehow are more powerful because the Left is somehow “defending” them out of political correctness.” –Benjamin Chylla
“If I am not mistaken, it was George Zimmerman who followed Trayvon all the way to his house…” Factless. The testimonies show that Zimmerman walked perhaps a block and a half from his car — not even anywhere near Trayvon’s house. Did you read the transcripts? Did you even listen to the (unedited) 911 tapes?
“after specifically being told by the police over the phone NOT to do so” Factless. “We don’t need you to do that” is not a command… not even a suggestion… and the court conversations end up in basic agreement of this, from both sides. So… you DIDN’T read the transcripts…
“(even though he was technically complying with the “stand your ground” precedent)” Factless. Not only did NEITHER SIDE of the case use the SYG argument (or even bring up the definition of what SYG might have meant in this incident), it would only have been relevant if Zimmerman had found himself in a situation — even for a moment, and regardless of anything that might have happened up until that moment — where he would have needed to decide whether it would be more appropriate to run (to save his life), or fight (to save his life). Dragging out SYG shows, again, that you have formed your opinion based on rhetoric and media abuses of the truth, and without a legal understanding of what occurred that night.
“Zimmerman was hardly even injured.” Factless. I will take it from your statement that you have no way of reading a police or medical report, nor have you ever had your head bashed repeatedly on the concrete. I do, and I have…
“…he could’ve simply pointed it at Zimmerman, told him to leave, and the whole thing could have been avoided altogether.” Factless. Again, from an evident ignorance of the testimony and facts in evidence, you presume that Trayvon did NOT circle back and SEEK ZIMMERMAN OUT — which is what the evidence DOES say.
“This is the argument that the NRA often uses in order to explain how more guns will somehow lead to less violence, and they could’ve applied it to Martin just as easily as anyone else.” You are attempting to make Trayvon out as someone who needed to be ’empowered’ so that he would have as likely a chance to survive the encounter as Zimmerman did. Unfortunately, Zimmerman only pulled his weapon out after he had been beaten on the concrete repeatedly — which effectively quells any argument that Trayvon felt unequal or deficient in any way.
READ SOMETHING that didn’t start on HuffPo or Rolling Stone.