McCain calls for review of 'stand your ground' laws

[GandD 5,966]

F, beat me to it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

(CNN) - Sen. John McCain, who lost in 2008 to the first African-American elected to the White House, said President Barack Obama's speech about race relations was "very impressive" and agreed that "stand your ground" laws should be re-examined, including those in his own state of Arizona.

"The 'stand your ground' law may be something that may needs to be reviewed by the Florida legislature or any other legislature that has passed such legislation," McCain said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Arizona is one of 30 states that have such laws, which give individuals certain legal rights in cases of self-defense. The law in Florida has come under scrutiny recently during the trial of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin last year during a confrontation.

Asked if he thinks Arizona should review the law, McCain said: "Yes, I do."

"And I'm confident that the members of the Arizona legislature will, because it is very controversial legislation," he told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.

McCain said he didn't agree with fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who argued Friday the Obama administration is calling for a review of "stand your ground" laws as a way to further its agenda against Second Amendment rights.

"Isn't it time for America to come together?" McCain asked. "I'd rather have a message of coming together and discussing these issues rather than condemning.

"I respect (Cruz's) view, but I don't frankly see the connection," he added.

McCain said that while American society has made progress on racial issues, the recent tensions over the Trayvon Martin case have "highlighted the differences that remain."

"What I got out of the president's statement, which I thought was very impressive, is that we need to have more conversation in America," he said. "I need to talk to more of my Hispanic organizations in my state. I need to talk to more African-American organizations."

The longtime senator pointed to the economic disparities between African-Americans and other demographic groups, citing the city of Detroit, which he called a "wasteland," as an example.

"What's the majority of the population in the city of Detroit? Who suffers the most? Obviously we know the answer," he said of the city that filed for bankruptcy last week.

The main point that can be drawn from the president's speech on Friday, McCain said, was that "we've still got a long way to go."

"And I think the president very appropriately highlighted a lot of that...as only the president of the United States can," he said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/21/mccain-calls-for-review-of-stand-your-ground-laws/?hpt=hp_t3

I know you believe Republicans are always right, Penny, but in this case he is wrong. Or I should say just making political noise.

SYG laws are a state issue, they are not Federal and the Feds have no control or authority over SYG laws. It is not within the purview of the Federal Government to review state SYG laws.

This is a scripted speech. Not that there may not be some congressional hearings on the matter to continue the puppet show, but nothing will come of it because nothing CAN come of it.

Homicide is not a federal offense unless you kill a federal agent or commit homicide on federal property. There is no SYG law on federal property. There is nothing for them to review.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What does this article, or this speech, have to do with any federal involvement? He thinks his state should review it.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Penny Lane

[Karee 4,191]

What does this article, or this speech, have to do with any federal involvement? He thinks his state should review it.

Yeah I read it twice. I still can't find the part about the Federal Govt. changing any stand your ground laws. Maybe I need to read it again, but I doubt it. I suspect later we''ll see a post about how the Federal Govt. tried to repeal stand your ground and failed, while at the same time NRA membership went up 1000%.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yeah I read it twice. I still can't find the part about the Federal Govt. changing any stand your ground laws. Maybe I need to read it again, but I doubt it. I suspect later we''ll see a post about how the Federal Govt. tried to repeal stand your ground and failed, while at the same time NRA membership went up 1000%.

Yeah, some people feel the need to respond before actually reading what they're responding to. It's a weird way of doing things.

[Karee 4,191]

Yeah, some people feel the need to respond before actually reading what they're responding to. It's a weird way of doing things.

It's called shoot first, ask questions later.

[RGinWA 816]

I know you believe Republicans are always right, Penny, but in this case he is wrong. Or I should say just making political noise.

SYG laws are a state issue, they are not Federal and the Feds have no control or authority over SYG laws. It is not within the purview of the Federal Government to review state SYG laws.

This is a scripted speech. Not that there may not be some congressional hearings on the matter to continue the puppet show, but nothing will come of it because nothing CAN come of it.

Homicide is not a federal offense unless you kill a federal agent or commit homicide on federal property. There is no SYG law on federal property. There is nothing for them to review.

Oh gawd...not reading again.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's called shoot first, ask questions later.

That never goes poorly!

[RGinWA 816]

That never goes poorly!

Yeah...that's worked out well for the Sanford taxpayers.

[Karee 4,191]

That never goes poorly!

Apparently that tactic works well with online debating as well. I think I'll try that. Next time someone complains about the embassy in Tokyo, I'll go off on them and tell them the embassy in Caracas is awesome.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You'd think they'd learn that while that gets you the nomination, it kills you in the actual election because you look like a nut to the rest of the country.

Well, this went quickly OT. I guess because few can actually discuss the implications of a US Senator discussing state SYG laws.

I am not a Republican so I cannot comment on their strategy. It occurs to be that being more like Dems is not the answer, being exactly like Dems would definitely not be the answer. I also do not put so much stock in the Presidency which is, by design, fairly impotent. I mean Obama could not get a simple background check bill passed after 20 children were gunned down because Republicans and 4 Democrats blocked it. He has not closed Gitmo, Obamacare is a shambles by his own admission, no environmental action and he cannot even get judges appointed because the Repubs shut him down. Are all of you babbling about the importance of a President for the Repubs while they rip off Obama's head and spit down his neck in congress?

Do you think Republicans and Conservatives ran Detroit into backruptcy also?

Only if we imagine some infinite power the President simply does not have would I think the Republicans would want to lose their base. It is very likely they can regain control of the Senate, at least keep filibuster control of the Senate and keep the house in 2014. Where does that leave the almighty Dem President? If I were Republican I would not suggest giving up ones principals to obtain the White House, which they probably would not obtain anyway. The best chance a President has to make real change is in SCOTUS appointments. SCOTUS seems pretty stable for now unless someone croaks off unexpectedly. The only really old guys are liberals which Obama would replace with liberals...so what? Even then it is extremely rare for SCOTUS to overturn their own previous rulings.

Again, I am not Republican, my principals are far from theirs but I would never change mine to get the Presidency. The Presidency just is not that important. I always vote for a loser in the Presidential election. Reagan was the only Repub I voted for and possibly Phil Graham in TX but he initially ran as a Dem, I do not remember if I was still there to vote for him after he switched. Long ago and far away. I would have because I liked his principals.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Too much typing, not enough reading.

I would have because I liked his principals.

Who were his principals?

[GandD 5,966]

Well, this went quickly OT. I guess because few can actually discuss the implications of a US Senator discussing state SYG laws.

I am not a Republican so I cannot comment on their strategy. It occurs to be that being more like Dems is not the answer, being exactly like Dems would definitely not be the answer. I also do not put so much stock in the Presidency which is, by design, fairly impotent. I mean Obama could not get a simple background check bill passed after 20 children were gunned down because Republicans and 4 Democrats blocked it. He has not closed Gitmo, Obamacare is a shambles by his own admission, no environmental action and he cannot even get judges appointed because the Repubs shut him down. Are all of you babbling about the importance of a President for the Repubs while they rip off Obama's head and spit down his neck in congress?

Do you think Republicans and Conservatives ran Detroit into backruptcy also?

Only if we imagine some infinite power the President simply does not have would I think the Republicans would want to lose their base. It is very likely they can regain control of the Senate, at least keep filibuster control of the Senate and keep the house in 2014. Where does that leave the almighty Dem President? If I were Republican I would not suggest giving up ones principals to obtain the White House, which they probably would not obtain anyway. The best chance a President has to make real change is in SCOTUS appointments. SCOTUS seems pretty stable for now unless someone croaks off unexpectedly. The only really old guys are liberals which Obama would replace with liberals...so what? Even then it is extremely rare for SCOTUS to overturn their own previous rulings.

Again, I am not Republican, my principals are far from theirs but I would never change mine to get the Presidency. The Presidency just is not that important. I always vote for a loser in the Presidential election. Reagan was the only Repub I voted for and possibly Phil Graham in TX but he initially ran as a Dem, I do not remember if I was still there to vote for him after he switched. Long ago and far away. I would have because I liked his principals.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

[Karee 4,191]

Too much typing, not enough reading.

Who were his principals?

Or his VIce-Principals?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That your wife, mrrobj?

Trompe Le Monde can show you how reverse image search works, Penny. Then you can use some of your time to investigate his avatar, you can even get a bunch of other Canadian and Brit members to help. Unless they just really don't care what mrrobj says.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Not at all. I am about to go to bed.