As the 911 operator himself testified, they are not allowed to give orders, only make suggestions. If they give orders they open themselves up to liability if those were bad orders. The operator testified, and the recording verified that he told GZ, "you shouldn't do that."

Additionally, 911 operators are not God, law enforcement officers, your boss, or your parents. Their requests/orders/suggestions hold no legal force.

Given those two facts, a statement like "Zimmerman ignored orders" shows itself to be highly loaded and useless to any discussion.

Just for curiosity's sake, where is "around here?"

Specific to this case, GZ was carrying his gun concealed, so how would TM have been justified in beating him to death over a gun he didn't know existed?

Additionally, self defense laws in the US almost never make mention of a type of weapon. The type of weapons used by the aggressor and the defender don't matter, only threats of and reactions to great bodily harm. If the whole GZ/TM story had happened with only fists, it would have been no different in the eyes of the law.

Once you understand that the public education system is not concerned with public education, then decisions like this start to make more sense. Public schools have become a day care to relieve bad parents, a welfare program for otherwise unemployable people masquerading as "teachers," an efficient way to grow bureaucracy, and a tool for channeling government money to cronies. In that light, burning another $30,000,000 on a "solution" that will only further worsen the outcomes of public education makes complete sense.

You missed the mark on two related points, but your heart is in the right place:

First, the NRA is monstrously powerful not because of the gun industry support. I mean, they give a lot of money to the NRA, but it pales in comparison to the donations from 5,000,000+ members. Secondly, it's not the tech industry that needs to take note, it's people who need to take note.

Look at the SOPA internet blackout. It worked, not because some of the major tech companies grudgingly signed on late in the planning stage in order to not lose face, but because of all the people who pulled down their individual websites, wrote congresspeople, and got involved. People did that. Not the tech companies.

So yes, much can be learned from the NRA, and the first lesson is that it's the people who have the power, not the companies. An EFF with 5 million active supporters would be as much of a beast in Washington as the NRA is.

I know you think you're being a clever troll, but I'll dignify your comment with a response anyway:

It is understood that in America, we have four boxes for the defense of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. They are to be used in exactly that order.

The soap box is protected by our First Amendment. We can speak, organize, meet, protest, write, etc. The government has been attacking the first amendment at a slow pace since Bush Jr ("Protest zones"), and picked up the pace more recently, ie, AP phone taps.

The ballot box is our right to vote out bad politicians, vote in the ones we hope will be better, recall ones who have betrayed their promises, donate to and support politicians, and run for office ourselves.

The jury box is two-side: it is the rights we have when accused of a crime, and the rights we have as jurors. It is protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. As defendants we are protected against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, cruel or unusual punishment, and we have the right to a jury trial. As jurors, we have the right to nullify unconstitutional and unjust laws. These rights have been under attack in America for over a century, and the offensive has kicked into overdrive since the start of the War on Terror.

The cartridge box is our right to own modern weaponry, and is protected by the Second Amendment. The government has been attacking it with increased fervor since 1934. It constitutes the last defense of liberty, and any dictator knows you can't enslave people who are armed, thus the recent push to bar the ownership of modern weapons.

To directly answer your question: No, now is not the time when we're supposed to organize and overthrow the government, not by a long shot. Now is the time to do what we're doing here: talk, get mad, organize, protest, write letters, etc. Let your representatives know you're angry. When the 2014 elections start ramping up, support politicians you think will support what you support. Oppose politicians who went along with this mess. If you have the opportunity, sit on a jury and nullify the malicious prosecution of a law that has no business being a law. And if you like, if you're of the mind that one day in the future the first three boxes will be exhausted, buy a gun, or buy some more ammo, or take a training class.

All these things are your right as a human, but rights come with responsibilities. One of those is working as hard as you can through the current system, to solve your problems without bloodshed.

Not to be too overly ironic, but rape isn't a sexy crime. Legislators and prosecutors need to battle sexy crimes to get reelected, which is why we see the juxtaposition we have in this story. In some states (CA, MA, NJ) violation of their gun laws, even absent hurting anyone, will get your a longer sentence than rape will.

http://www.gunnews.com/new-jersey-gun-laws-punish-tx-man-for-legally-owned-guns/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChd6QchaU

If you're one of the advocates of continually increasing the size and power of government, then congratulations! We're reaping what you've sown.

When we let the government grow and grow and grow with no limits, no accountability, borrow uncontrollably, print money uncontrollably, raise the debt ceiling time after time, and continually increase the list of things we expect them to do for us, we end up with this: agencies so huge and powerful that they're always watching you.

A government big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take everything. Remember this the next time you're clamoring for another giant government bureaucracy that you hope will allow you to shed some more of your personal responsibility.

The statistics on this issue are rather inconclusive. They're all self reported, to start with. They measure households with guns, not people with guns, and the average size of a US household continues to drop (meaning gun ownership by person could be level or increasing, and the statistic would still says that ownership by household was going down). Several highly respected polling companies show results that are at odds with each other. Even NPR, which typically marches in lock step with the gun control agenda ran a story a few months ago about the discrepancies in polls of gun ownership.

Because I have a limp, old injury, I'm overweight, I'm in a wheelchair, or the younger assailants just flat run faster than I do. Retreat is not always an option, especially for the young, old, infirm, and for some females and a few males.

Get 2/3 of both houses of congress, and 3/4 of state legislatures, and strike the second amendment then. Go ahead. Small changes to gun law couldn't pass in a Democrat controlled senate with a president spending a huge amount of capital to push it. I'm sure you'll have no trouble amending the constitution to outlaw guns.

I did read the whole sentence. It ends with, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I would challenge you to not only read the amendment yourself, but read the rest of the bill of rights, and see what other rights the founding fathers thought that the "people" possessed inalienably. Ask yourself if you believe those other rights of people are associated with membership in an organized group, or were individual rights. It's all or nothing. Either "people's" rights are individual or collective contingent on some membership. (To save you the time, the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments all refer to these "people.") The writers of the constitution were lawyers and lawmakers; they knew words had meanings, and that you must use them consistently.

What's even more clear is their desire for individual people to be armed. Try these: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

No one who carries a gun believes it's a magical talisman against harm. It levels the playing field, and gives you more options that you have without one.

Several posters on this topic have explained why it wont work. And please don't resort to insults.

This is a long read, but the fact that you used the words "gun fan" and not "gun nut" or "gun crazy" makes me think you're not totally lost. It sums up why we gun owners and second amendment defenders don't trust even the pursuit of this technology. We know from history that it WILL be used as another attempt for gun control.

http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html

Yes. Being "extremely reliable" is not good enough for a gun you would use for self defense. If the smart tech is anything but 100% reliable, then it reduces the overall reliability, and I wont use it.

Popular self defense guns, like the Glock, are popular because they are very simple and very reliable. Glocks are used by 2/3 of police in the US because of it.

It's imagined.

If you have a gun, and a pool, your kids are 100 times more likely to drown in the pool than die by the gun. http://www.smartparentshealthykids.com/blog/?p=11

You really think it's not a scandal when the US government gives 2500+ guns to Mexican drug cartels, which are then used to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens (so far) and at least one US border patrol agent? Let's not even bring the issue of responsibility into it; no questions about how much Holder and Obama knew, or when they knew it, or why they never released the subpena'd documents congress demanded, or the illegal use of executive privilege to just make it all go away. Simply keep the question in terms of ,"the US government did it." Was it a scandal?

Please tell me what you would consider a scandal.

None of what you said changes the fact that private enterprise gives you options, while the government doesn't. If I don't like my medical care I can change plans, change doctors, do more preventative things on my own, go get care in a different country, etc. If I don't like my food I can order something different, eat at a different restaurant, cook at home, buy from a different supermarket, grow what I like to supplement the rest, etc. If I don't like my bank I can go to a different one, join a credit union, join an online bank, not use a bank (yes, it's possible), etc.

If I don't like the way the government is demanding I do something, my options are comply, or go to jail.

No one, except you, is trying to argue that private enterprise presents you with two options: eat this burrito or starve to death. But we all agree that this is exactly the way the government operates.