Ted Nugent on Piers Morgan re: Trayvon Martin case. People like me don't see color but let's

[spin]

24. That is true but it doesn't change the fact that gang violence ...

is an important problem that needs to get more publicity and needs to be addressed by law enforcement. Black on black crime is also a serious problem. Of course, such problems are a result of the failure of our educational system, our lost war on drugs and the outsourcing of quality jobs that pay a living wage to other countries. Law enforcement can't correct such problems and we currently have a battle between the two major political parties in our nation where both refuse any compromise and consequently make little progress on the major problems that hurt average and poor people.

But as I pointed out, these problems have nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin shooting and Ted Nugent was trying to divert attention from Zimmerman's actions and change the subject.

As a member of the NRA, a gun owner in Florida who has a Concealed Carry Permit and a registered Democrat from a long line of Democrats who worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh, I cringe every time I watch Nugent on TV defending gun rights and responsible ownership. He my be a good entertainer but he does more damage than good when he represents responsible gun owners. He might appeal to conservative Republicans but when he opens his mouth to support gun rights he is in my opinion a total idiot. I personally believe that entertainers should stick to their day jobs unless they have enough intelligence and knowledge to comment on the issues that our nation faces. Many don't. Ted is an example.

In my opinion, Ted should have pointed out that the Stand Your Ground law was written to eliminate the duty of a person to retreat if he was attacked or faced imminent attack by an individual who intended to inflict serious harm or to kill. The person who was the aggressor in such a situation should have the ability to inflict such injury. A reasonable man standing in the shoes of the person who utilized lethal force in the incident should also have believed that the threat was immediate and no other choices would have avoided injury or death. For example, the attacker was much larger or in far better physical shape than the individual who used lethal force or he was armed with a weapon such as a gun, a knife or a club which could have inflicted serious injury or death.

The original concept of the law was not to protect an individual who started a confrontation and refused to back off before it turned violent or an individual who chased down an individual and then confronted him.

Ted might have pointed out that in some cases the legal authorities or judges have misinterpreted the law and allowed a person who questionably used lethal force to walk away without arrest or prosecution. He might have agreed with me that the law should be rewritten in order to remove any ambiguities or confusion that would allow an individual to escape prosecution.

Having said that, I would like to point out that I realize that commenting on the Trayvon Martin shooting is premature as we really don't know all the details of the ongoing investigation. It's foolish to form an opinion on any such incident based on the reports by the media before an investigation is complete and our system of law doesn't allow the media to be the judge and jury in any case.

However assuming the information that I have gleaned from the news is accurate, I have reason to believe that the investigation by the Sanford police department was flawed and incomplete. Racism might have been involved or political influence could have been a contributing factor. Perhaps we will learn more details in the future.

Currently I believe that Zimmerman should be arrested and have his day in court in front of a jury. I fear that if this doesn't happen, there could be violence.