Wow. Do you have any proof that Zimmerman defended himself? Does he have diabetes and was concerned that he might eat Martin's skittles? What a horrible time to consider such a horrible law. If anything, this incident should show everyone how flawed a law is that provides citizens a way in which to legally murder.

Jose, if you had ever broken your nose, you'd know it's impossible to do without a lot of bleeding. Zimmerman's clean shirt proves he was lying through his teeth. Unlike Switzerland, we are a nation of immigrants, and unless you are an American Indian, your family was the beneficiary of a generous immigration policy. I believe we have a right to own arms, but you are deluding yourself to think that guns in the hands of amatures are good for self defense. More often than not, it's someone in the family that ends up shot.

The reason for the Swiss law on ownership of guns is because they have no standing army, only a citizens' militia. That, by the way, was the rationale behind the Second Amendment, written at a time when the USA, too, had no standing army. The Second Amendment says as much, a clause always overlooked by the NRA.

Now, why would you say that? Have they threatened you in any way? So would you prefer our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms be taken away from us?

For your answer, please read this: "If one who is not the first assailant is in a place where he has a lawful right to be and is put in apparent danger of his life or of suffering great bodily harm, he need not attempt to escape but may lawfully stand his ground even to the taking of his assailant's life." Smith, 404 Ill. at 354, 88 N.E.2d 834.

This is established case law in Illinois.

So Abigail, your answer is yes then? A broken nose is "great bodily harm?" Who gets to decide what is great harm? A punch to face now means you deserve the death penalty. To me (obviously just my opinion) the only time this law can even remotely justify murdering another person is when they have a weapon and are threatening your life. In this Florida case, we don't know what happened. Maybe Martin was hitting him. So the 17 year old deserves to be shot to death. What awful logic.

I do understand how they work, and I understand the law as you quoted it. But my statement still stands. Two people get into it over...whatever. One hits the other in the face and the other pulls his gun and shoots him because he is allowed to. Sounds like we live in a civilized country shooting unarmed people.

And you are not quite right about the permit and training for a few states as well. Just FYI

"Among U.S. states, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit" So that can be "guns in the hands of amateurs." Responsible gun owners don't bother me one iota. To me the stand your ground law isn't quite right as it's drawn up because lots of innocent people could get shot. Last I checked we don't have the death penalty in America for a fist fight. Your run of the mill citizen shouldn't be allowed to hand that down either.

It's good hear people referring to the Constitution and holding our leaders to it's original intent. The Founding Fathers original intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government to only a few duties because they regarded centralized power as dangerous. About 80% of the federal budget is spent on un-Constitutional programs, per the original intent of the document and the Founding Fathers.

Are you on board with cutting out almost all federal programs to get us back to the original intent of the law? Or are you one of those people that constricts the freedoms guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment to fit your own personal views, while at the same time letting the federal government run wild taking over every corner of our country by interpreting various clauses like "welfare", "necessary and proper", and "inter-state commerce" to mean the federal government can pass any law it wants?

Which is it? You don't get both.

Terry, changing the 2nd amendment because now we have automatic weapons is difficult. But since no changes have been made, the law stands as-is. It's all about the law and what is law at this time. Haranging on that if only our founding fathers knew what is going on now, they would have made this law stricter does no good--the law is the law. Live with it.

You forgot Mr Loughner as well. Who legally purchased and carried his gun to the gathering where he shot up the place. I'm sure there are other examples as well. And we do have wild west style shootings non stop in he inner cities and with gangs. This shouldn't be a problem that as nation we say "let's make sure everyone is armed, that'll fix it." People love to talk about how the criminals aren't getting them legally so why hurt the law abiding folks. Somewhere down the line the gun went from a legal channel to an illegal one. Someone messed up. So we should just turn our backs and carry a gun and hope we can kill them before they kill us? It's a horrible mentality to have and just leads to more shooting deaths.

I don't really want sweeping gun control and am a fan and participant of hunting, but the NRA and the right don't ever really offer a good solution to stopping gun violence in the cities other than shoot them first. I watch the news every morning and hear about random kids dying from stray bullets. Guns are deadly weapons first...it's what they have been designed to do since their inception; kill animals and kill people. If I need to deal with greater restrictions on gun ownership to help curb that problem, so be it.

Where did you get your data?
In 2010, the top 5 states for gun murders per 100,000 people are Wash DC (more than double the next closest, no right to carry), LA, MO, MD, SC.

Oklahoma = 20th
Alaska = 27th
Arkansas = 15th
Nevada = 17th
Mississippi = 8th

Florida = the only state with no data in the chart I found
Illinois = 24th

Are you making this stuff up?

"form a more perfect union" is part of the pre-amble. It has no legal weight. Not even liberal activist judges use that as a loop-hole to let laws through. The 10th Amendment says it all.

Agree with you, McCloud. Convicted felons are not allowed to own or possess firearms, but they do so all of the time, Gang-bangers pass guns around to their fellow gang members like candy. With all the shootings done by criminals as shown on the nightly news, one would think that the good citizens of our country should be able to own and possess a firearm for their own protection since the police cannot be everywhere. I personally have a FOID card and therefore the right to own a firearm in the state of Illinois. I don't want to be waiting 5 minutes or so for the police to arrive to protect me from a gun-toting burglar. Taking away my right to own a firearm will never, ever take the firearms away from criminals, or stop criminals from using them on honest, law-abiding citizens.

Pro-gun advocates seem to cling to their steel like a baby to their mother, and it's never about sport or hunting on these posts. It sounds like a school yard fight. He has it so why can't I? How is this not just throwing fire on a burning house to put it out? Greater restrictions can lead to disarming criminals. It would take time, but as many numbers show it has helped dramatically in Australia. With greater restrictions on everyone, less guns would get stolen and the black market would shrink. Law abiding citizens could still own and keep guns. But require serial number checks every couple of years to make sure your gun is still in your possession. I know this will just spark people moaning about more bureaucracy, but the answer shouldn't have to result in more murder.

Clever point. Well taken and thanks for participating in the discusion.