JoeyB Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Zimmerman had no way to retreat. If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle as told to do, if Zimmerman had not pursued the kid, as his Neighborhood Watch training taught, if Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, as he was advised not to do while on his Neighborhood Watch, none of this would have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Since the start of this thread, which was opened with a totally bogus video, there has not been one valid justification against limiting access to semi automatics or large clip magazines. Huh? Most are not trying to limit access to semi-automatic firearms. Most in the U.S. favor limiting access to assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 2nd Amendment has been throw in a lot, but it has not been as some kind of answer to Sandy Hook but more of "This is why you can't touch our guns" The 2nd Amendment is not an answer to Sandy Hook, nor meant to be. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to all U.S. citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 In a statement he gave to police the same night, quoted in his own written words: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.“ Florida prosecutors who later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the affidavit filed in April, special prosecutor Angela Corey wrote that Zimmerman kept following Martin through the gated community despite being told to stop. “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.” Thank you J! This is what i also think! He keept on following this kid, for one reson and onely one, TO kill him!!! Taking a human life like this man/kid/woman/older becuse you are [censored] at the system, (and this punks get away every time, quote zimmerman) fock no!!! Zimmerman had onely one think in his mind, to bring that punk down. For good! One thing i hate the most is when cevilians put on the role as police!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Not to change the topic but I am curious. Has anyone changed their views on guns and their role in society over the course of their lifetime?A good question & yes. Until my 30s, I was fiercely anti-gun. Anyone who knew me back then knew that, were it up to me, I would have confiscate ALL firearms, except those of the military & police. However, a number of things changed my opinion over the years, bringing me to the opposite side. But none more than an incident that occurred during the LA riots of the early 90s. CBS had sent a female reporter & camera crew out to cover the riots, setting up on a hill just outside the actual riot zone. Compounding the problem, by this time, the police (government) had decided to evacuate the city, leaving the innocent citizens to fend for themselves. It was an interesting scene, because they had set up the camera behind a group of soccer mom types (some with their kids) with the reporter, looking visibly shaken herself, asking the women what they were going to do when the riots & fire reached them? From their vantage point, you could see the actual line of smoke & fire splicing through the city below & working its way towards the position of the moms & CBS crew. 1 of the women, crying, said she did not know what they were going to do because she had forced her husband to get rid of his gun. That, for me, was the smoking gun that proved the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Thank you J! This is what i also think! He keept on following this kid, for one reson and onely one, TO kill him!!! Taking a human life like this man/kid/woman/older becuse you are [censored] at the system, (and this punks get away every time, quote zimmerman) fock no!!! Zimmerman had onely one think in his mind, to bring that punk down. For good! One thing i hate the most is when cevilians put on the role as police!!! Z, I don't think so. I think, and have no way of knowing for certain one way or the other, that Zimmerman was 'playing' policeman. He was armed, he was tracking a 'suspect', he radioed in to dispatch. By not following orders or established procedure and leaving his vehicle to continue following the 17 year old he made the situation. I think the teen turned on, or circled Zimmerman and the confrontation, verbal then physical, ensued. Zimmerman was likely getting his 6 kicked and pulled his weapon and fired. I do not think he intended that at all. But because he put himself where he didn't belong, he made a situation and the teen was killed. None of either one's history matters one bit. Neither knew the history of the other. All that does matter is that Zimmerman made the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Itd like in sweden a few years back. It was a bank hiest, robbers jumped in a car and drove away with money. One man and his six year old son saw all this and phoned 911 and said that they where following them by car in high speed throue town. A robber opens the window and fires a few round, what happens??? The six year old kid gets hit and dies directly in the car!!! Wonder if the fockt up father thinks it was worth it!!! Thats a huge idiot in my eys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txcollector Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Since the start of this thread, which was opened with a totally bogus video, there has not been one valid justification against limiting access to semi automatics or large clip magazines. The 2nd Amendment has been throw in a lot, but it has not been as some kind of answer to Sandy Hook but more of "This is why you can't touch our guns" I have seen a clean fob off...It's a mental illness issue not a gun issue...well excuse me but a mentally ill person is extremely more dangerous armed with a gun than any other domestic weapon And now we have come to a point where law abiding citizens are trying to justify murder..... And 700 Americans have died by gunshot since Sandy Hook. Ken Discussions about guns in this country will always be based on emotional reactions and not real facts. If emotions were left out it would be a simple case of political common sense. If someone bothered to look at actual facts the fierce, illogical and profit driven NRA positions wouldn't hold any water. However every time real life examples like the success of the Australian assault weapons ban comes up someone loud has to counter with some bogus anecdotal evidence (e.g. somebody somewhere that did not have a gun handy got shot therefore everyone needs a gun) or pure and simple lies as in the case of that video, to cling to their point. When even when someone like Scalia says assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment and there are some radicals out there that believe they have an argument, it just shows discuss is pointless. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjjoyce1 Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Indeed, let me rephrase what you said up there by inserting some "politically unfashionable issues": "There were unspeakable acts of violence and evil for people of certain colors (politically unfashionable issue), but at least in those days [leave it to beaver], us white folk lived simpler, happier lives and the fact remains that we didn't have to worry about mass shootings. Sure, black people were regularly hunted down like dogs (politically unfashionable issue). But nowadays society is more violent and coarser. And I blame it on widespread Federal programs aimed at equal opportunity for all." Sir, you have yet to explain your logic. The acts you speak of are in fact unspeakable, despicable acts. I do not suppose to speak from a platform from which I have no personal, emotional direct link. However, I have listened to many, enlightened and emotionally charged conversations with the man to my left in this pic. (your right side) He is not in step with your thoughts in regard to current times and issues Edited January 14, 2013 by cjjoyce1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 If I send you a T shirt can you get him to sign it for me Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Naaaaa this is all a fog to me! I dont belive a word that zimmerman says, its very sad that the other person is dead, the trial would be more intressting if he wasent dead! Did zimmerman have any marks on the face from the fight they had before he killed him??? @maxman, sorry mate but this zimmerman was out to kill, he was feed up with all the burglerys in HIS hood so he was on a kill rampage and this T guy took a bullet for it and died! I guess you got me mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike on a bike Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 txcollector, "political common sense" using that phrase in a sentence is an oxymoron no matter which side of the fence you are on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 I am educated, and can read the language. Now, let's "educate" you. In a statement he gave to police the same night, quoted in his own written words: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.“ Florida prosecutors who later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the affidavit filed in April, special prosecutor Angela Corey wrote that Zimmerman kept following Martin through the gated community despite being told to stop. “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.” So what? That has nothing to do with the incident with Zimmerman. NOTHING at all. Who cares?? That has nothing to do with the incident either. NOTHING. It is taken as an insult. And your further insult is taken as well. You don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, to any rational mind (insult intended) Zimmerman was "most likely to commit a crime", and he did. If he knew the police were on the way why did he pursue the 17 year old while armed and against what he himself said and wrote being told to stay in his vehicle? Thank you for well Informed and well researched response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Thank you for well Informed and well researched response. You are welcome. If I can be of further service, just ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomhorn Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 KB ... to answer your question, no I am not expecting to have to join a revolution. It will mainly be a symbolic personal politcal protest. As for your saying a valid justification hasn't been given, well I would respectfully disagree. It might not meet your definition of 'valid' but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Amendment includes the words 'shall not be infringed'. On it's face, that means the US Government isn't supposed to do anything that restricts in any way a citizens right to own arms. Forget restricting certain types of arms, even requiring registration, background checks, etc. in theory falls outside that. In 2008 the SCOTUS (in the Heller case) defined 'arms' with regards to 2nd Amendment as 'not specifically designed for military use, and were not deployed in a military capacity'. So in order to ban the types of guns and magazines the government is talking about banning now, it is likely going to have to successfully argue that the guns and/or magazines were specifically designed for military use. IANAL, but I'm not sure they can ultimately do that. No doubt the SCOTUS will have to take it up at some point as I have no doubt the NRA will file a lawsuit the second any action is taken. Now that's completely different from a 'moral' or 'logical' justification. Morally and logically I don't have an issue with banning the things being discussed. Ethically I do, because our Constitution says the government can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 I find this interesting..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/five-reasons-why-the-nra_b_2426402.html No tomhorn it is not valid, this thread would not be here if not for the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook, the 2nd is in no way a valid explanation/excuse or remedy for what happen there. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 You are welcome. If I can be of further service, just ask. Indeed you can be of further service. Thanks Joey. Do me a favor and take a walk through a all balck neighborhood and come back and tell us how nice of experience It was for you. Have fun.Jo Jo Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike on a bike Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ken, Not for nothing that is a lefty rag (Huffington post). They got their heads so far up the lefts a** they are coming out their mouths. I don't get my news there and if you find them a credible unbiased source pass the bottle I will need a lot to buy there sh*t!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Indeed you can be of further service. Thanks Joey. Do me a favor and take a walk through a all balck neighborhood and come back and tell us how nice of experience It was for you. Have fun.Jo Jo Mike Whoa Mike this is not and should be a racist discussion, if it becomes such I will lock it up. Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ken, Not for nothing that is a lefty rag (Huffington post). They got their heads so far up the lefts a** they are coming out their mouths. I don't get my news there and if you find them a credible unbiased source pass the bottle I will need a lot to buy there sh*t!. Ah but you forget I'm an Aussie whether it's Huffington or Fox News it doesn't matter to me, what matters is facts. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 I find this interesting..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/five-reasons-why-the-nra_b_2426402.html No tomhorn it is not valid, this thread would not be here if not for the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook, the 2nd is in no way a valid explanation/excuse or remedy for what happen there. Ken KB, on 13 Jan 2013 - 14:47, said: The 2nd Amendment has been throw in a lot, but it has not been as some kind of answer to Sandy Hook but more of "This is why you can't touch our guns" Again, the 2nd Amendment is not an answer to Sandy Hook, not an explanation/excuse or remedy, nor meant to be. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by our Constitution to all U.S. citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Whoa Mike this is not and should be a racist discussion, if it becomes such I will lock it up. Ken Not met to be racist Ken. But we In America know how dangerous it is for anyone to walk through a bad neighborhood. I hate racist no matter what the color of there skin is. But the truth Is that we have very scary places here In the US. So please don't lock this thread down. My comments were not to be racist but a reflection on how things are here In the US . I won't make anymore comments In this thread. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike on a bike Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ken, Facts are open to interpretation depending on which way you lean, that was my point. I am forced to get my news from RT the US outlets are all in their respective camps some not as overtly as other but they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Indeed you can be of further service. Thanks Joey. Do me a favor and take a walk through a all balck neighborhood and come back and tell us how nice of experience It was for you. Have fun.Jo Jo Mike I did so earlier this week, three times all tolled. Talked about it earlier in the thread, too. I did have fun. Mikey. But then I didn't wear a hood or robes at all. I had an uncle, now passed away, that was from Fayetteville. Garvin. He wore the purple robes. Maybe you heard of him. My Aunt, also gone a couple of years now, divorced his racist 6. She was a deputy sheriff in Fayetteville. And then there still are a whole bunch of my closest friends nearby. A couple still teaching at JFK, others training. None are racists. They know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ken, Not for nothing that is a lefty rag (Huffington post). Yep, they are far left. I am a Liberal, but I don't read their garbage either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ah but you forget I'm an Aussie whether it's Huffington or Fox News it doesn't matter to me, what matters is facts. Ken Ken, neither of those two deals in facts very much at all. But I understand that someone outside the country wouldn't know that. As was said earlier in the thread, and not meant in any way other than trying to give explanation: Anyone can pretty much say anything they like in this country. They can write it, they can broadcast it, they can try to sell it. But that in no way, shape or form means that it is true or not true. Determining the truth is for the individual citizen to do. Most times we're right, sometimes we're wrong. But then we fix the wrongs. And sometimes finding the truth is much like trying to separate fly poop from pepper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts