Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Ray From Cleveland]

Black Lies Matter doesn't think period.

Much like these uneducated football players, what they display is that they don't understand our laws. If they knew anything about our justice system, our laws, authority, they would not be protesting anything because they would be somewhat less ignorant.

But they are ignorant and that's what they are trying to tell people. They have no idea how much they are being controlled by the MSM and their brainwashing. They don't realize that their actions are controlled by whoever it is pulling their strings at the time.

While there certainly are instances where the police were very wrong to shoot a person, the police are not the big problem. Gangs and guns are the big problems.

And gangs will always have guns no matter what laws you make unconstitutional or not.

Yes, but they will have and use them much less. That is why countries with strong gun control don't have lots of shootings. Without the arms race, gangs have them less.

No, they will not have much less of them. They will have the same amount just like they have recreational narcotics which is the breeding ground for gang violence. Their only use for guns is for protection during illegal drug transactions.

Guns get them more jail time. They have them however because everyone has a gun. In countries with gun control they don't have them because they don't need them and don't want the extra jail time.

They get more jail time now for carrying guns. It doesn't stop them one bit.

 

[Brain357]

Don't understand command economics or free markets, right wingers.

What part don't you understand?

You seem to be arguing that the 2A was to secure a free state, and that the part about rights is irrelevant. Then, you go off onto an argument that the Founders were communists (command economics) and the purpose of the Amendment was to keep control of the economy in the hands of the government, I think. It's not really clear what you are arguing at this point, other than the right wing doesn't get it.

What part don't you understand?

You seem to be arguing that the 2A was to secure a free state, and that the part about rights is irrelevant. Then, you go off onto an argument that the Founders were communists (command economics) and the purpose of the Amendment was to keep control of the economy in the hands of the government, I think. It's not really clear what you are arguing at this point, other than the right wing doesn't get it.

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed for that purpose.

Necessary when you don't have a standing army. Not necessary when you have the words strongest military.

 

[Brain357]

While there certainly are instances where the police were very wrong to shoot a person, the police are not the big problem. Gangs and guns are the big problems.

And gangs will always have guns no matter what laws you make unconstitutional or not.

Yes, but they will have and use them much less. That is why countries with strong gun control don't have lots of shootings. Without the arms race, gangs have them less.

No, they will not have much less of them. They will have the same amount just like they have recreational narcotics which is the breeding ground for gang violence. Their only use for guns is for protection during illegal drug transactions.

Guns get them more jail time. They have them however because everyone has a gun. In countries with gun control they don't have them because they don't need them and don't want the extra jail time.

They get more jail time now for carrying guns. It doesn't stop them one bit.

Like I said, guns are everywhere. A little extra jail time doesn't seem so bad compared to death.

 

[Brain357]

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Black Lies Matter doesn't think period.

Much like these uneducated football players, what they display is that they don't understand our laws. If they knew anything about our justice system, our laws, authority, they would not be protesting anything because they would be somewhat less ignorant.

But they are ignorant and that's what they are trying to tell people. They have no idea how much they are being controlled by the MSM and their brainwashing. They don't realize that their actions are controlled by whoever it is pulling their strings at the time.

While there certainly are instances where the police were very wrong to shoot a person, the police are not the big problem. Gangs and guns are the big problems.

And gangs will always have guns no matter what laws you make unconstitutional or not.

Yes, but they will have and use them much less. That is why countries with strong gun control don't have lots of shootings. Without the arms race, gangs have them less.

No, they will not have much less of them. They will have the same amount just like they have recreational narcotics which is the breeding ground for gang violence. Their only use for guns is for protection during illegal drug transactions.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

Yea and I’m asking why did they not go with a standing army??? I’ve asked this many times, you keep dancing around it.

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

No, that’s not at all why, they talked about it in extensively, and the reason was a standing army (that government had control of) was a threat to free society. And even when they did institute a standing army not too long after, the debate was never should we replace the militia with the standing army, it was is the militia made up of citizens strong enough to stand up to a standing army if need be. And the standing army almost didn’t happen.

Here’s what the founders actually said (not what your guessing and hoping they said to fit your reality).

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
(This is where the 2nd ammendment comes into place)

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

“It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
—Joseph Story,

“second way to cope with the peril to liberty of a standing army is to counter its existence with an armed citizen’s militia which stands outside of the control of the government. That was the constant theme of the Whig pamphleteers from the 1690s on, as they sought to check the power of government. Indeed, one of the important grievances that produced the Glorious Revolution had been the King’s attempt to disarm the Protestants; the subsequent English Bill of Rights, forced on King William, had specifically guaranteed their right to arms. And, as Bernard Bailyn has shown in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, those Whig pamphleteers, such as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, were among the foremost intellectual influences on the Americans. The latter writers, particularly in their Cato’s Letters, a series widely reprinted in the colonies, argued that the defense of the realm was best entrusted to the armed body of the citizenry, rather than a standing army. They argued both that this was a superior form of national defense and that it was the best means of protecting the people’s liberties against the state’s usurpation:

“[W]hen a Tyrant’s Army is beaten, his Country is conquered: He has no Resource; his Subjects having neither Arms...nor Reason to fight for him.”

“[A]nd therefore it is fit that Mankind should know...that his Majesty can be defended against them...without Standing Armies; which would make him formidable only to his People....”

“When the People are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is [the King’s] Army.” “

Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment - William F. Marina

We have a second ammendment, for a reason.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And there are places with fewer guns that have more crime than us. In case you can't see, the US is flagged by a red line:

View attachment 158537

Yes they are called 3rd world countries. Economic and political instability can play quite a roll on crime.

So what? I thought you said crime is directly related to the amount of guns people had. I guess you were wrong. Guns were never the problem. Thats why until the Ferguson effect, violent and gun crime has been on the decline since the mid 90's.

Yes and Ferguson is a direct result of too many guns. Police shoot lots of people because they themselves are shot. This happens because we have too many guns and leads to unrest and higher crime rates.

There was only one gun involved in Ferguson and that was the gun of the officer who shot an attacker. It had nothing to do with too many guns no matter how you try to spin it.

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

 

[Brain357]

George Washington on militias:
In a letter to his nephew, Lund Washington, plantation manager of Mount Vernon, General George Washington writes on this day in 1776 of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.

In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

Washington blames militia for problems - Sep 30, 1776 - HISTORY.com

 

[Brain357]

Yes they are called 3rd world countries. Economic and political instability can play quite a roll on crime.

So what? I thought you said crime is directly related to the amount of guns people had. I guess you were wrong. Guns were never the problem. Thats why until the Ferguson effect, violent and gun crime has been on the decline since the mid 90's.

Yes and Ferguson is a direct result of too many guns. Police shoot lots of people because they themselves are shot. This happens because we have too many guns and leads to unrest and higher crime rates.

There was only one gun involved in Ferguson and that was the gun of the officer who shot an attacker. It had nothing to do with too many guns no matter how you try to spin it.

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Black Lies Matter doesn't think period.

Much like these uneducated football players, what they display is that they don't understand our laws. If they knew anything about our justice system, our laws, authority, they would not be protesting anything because they would be somewhat less ignorant.

But they are ignorant and that's what they are trying to tell people. They have no idea how much they are being controlled by the MSM and their brainwashing. They don't realize that their actions are controlled by whoever it is pulling their strings at the time.

While there certainly are instances where the police were very wrong to shoot a person, the police are not the big problem. Gangs and guns are the big problems.

And gangs will always have guns no matter what laws you make unconstitutional or not.

Yes, but they will have and use them much less. That is why countries with strong gun control don't have lots of shootings. Without the arms race, gangs have them less.

No, they will not have much less of them. They will have the same amount just like they have recreational narcotics which is the breeding ground for gang violence. Their only use for guns is for protection during illegal drug transactions.

View attachment 158546

So what. Show me the exact correlation between guns and those statistics. We are a very diverse country. So if you want to make comparisons, make it to our white crime to those other countries because most of our violent and gun crime comes from minorities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what? I thought you said crime is directly related to the amount of guns people had. I guess you were wrong. Guns were never the problem. Thats why until the Ferguson effect, violent and gun crime has been on the decline since the mid 90's.

Yes and Ferguson is a direct result of too many guns. Police shoot lots of people because they themselves are shot. This happens because we have too many guns and leads to unrest and higher crime rates.

There was only one gun involved in Ferguson and that was the gun of the officer who shot an attacker. It had nothing to do with too many guns no matter how you try to spin it.

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

 

[Brain357]

While there certainly are instances where the police were very wrong to shoot a person, the police are not the big problem. Gangs and guns are the big problems.

And gangs will always have guns no matter what laws you make unconstitutional or not.

Yes, but they will have and use them much less. That is why countries with strong gun control don't have lots of shootings. Without the arms race, gangs have them less.

No, they will not have much less of them. They will have the same amount just like they have recreational narcotics which is the breeding ground for gang violence. Their only use for guns is for protection during illegal drug transactions.

View attachment 158546

So what. Show me the exact correlation between guns and those statistics. We are a very diverse country. So if you want to make comparisons, make it to our white crime to those other countries because most of our violent and gun crime comes from minorities.

Gun control.

 

[Brain357]

Yes and Ferguson is a direct result of too many guns. Police shoot lots of people because they themselves are shot. This happens because we have too many guns and leads to unrest and higher crime rates.

There was only one gun involved in Ferguson and that was the gun of the officer who shot an attacker. It had nothing to do with too many guns no matter how you try to spin it.

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There was only one gun involved in Ferguson and that was the gun of the officer who shot an attacker. It had nothing to do with too many guns no matter how you try to spin it.

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

 

[Brain357]

Yes it does. Ferguson wasn't about one event. That was just the last straw. The police shoot way more people here than in other civilized countries. And sometimes that person should not have been shot. We also have cases like Trayvon Martin where some concealed carry idiot shoots an unarmed child and gets away with it. These things happen because we have too many guns, they don't happen in countries with good gun control.

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Yes, I do think it's good. It served as an example of what might happen to you if you decide to physically attack another citizen. I think it's good that we are allowed to use deadly force against such attacks.

Want to remain alive? Don't attack anybody. Simple as that. I understand liberals fail in logic, but it's about time liberals started to understand and obey our laws.

 

[Brain357]

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Yes, I do think it's good. It served as an example of what might happen to you if you decide to physically attack another citizen. I think it's good that we are allowed to use deadly force against such attacks.

Want to remain alive? Don't attack anybody. Simple as that. I understand liberals fail in logic, but it's about time liberals started to understand and obey our laws.

Yes you think a child being killed by a guy who was harassing him is good. Creepily following kids is good. Well lots of people don't agree with you, and that leads to unrest. And again it started because some child killing coward had gun courage. Too many guns.

 

[Rustic]

So I guess you would have been happy if Trayvon just killed Zimmerman because he had no protection?

See, your response here is exactly what I'm talking about: leftists have no idea of our laws. Zimmerman was attacked and had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Under Florida law (and our state as well) a person in such a situation has the legal right to use deadly force. That's why Zimmerman is a free man today. And again, it has nothing to do with too many guns.

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Martin was just a fucked up gang Banger and deserved to fucking die you asshole… LOL

 

[Brain357]

Zimmerman was an armed adult who harassed a child and then when getting his ass kicked killed him. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage caused this death. Too many guns.

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Martin was just a fucked up gang Banger and deserved to fucking die you asshole… LOL

Yes if you don't like how a black child looks it's ok to harass and kill him. This leads to unrest and increases crime. Too many guns.

 

[Rustic]

He didn't harass anybody. He spotted Martin and immediately called the police. He ran after Martin to keep an eye on him for police arrival. There is no law that says you can't follow somebody.

Martin was in the process of felonious assault. Zimmerman had every right to stop that crime against him.

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Martin was just a fucked up gang Banger and deserved to fucking die you asshole… LOL

Yes if you don't like how a black child looks it's ok to harass and kill him. This leads to unrest and increases crime. Too many guns.

It has nothing to do with firearms, people kill people not firearms. Firearms have no control over people. Martin is taking a dirt nap deservedly so… Jack weed

 

[Brain357]

Yes treated him like a criminal when he was doing nothing wrong. He should have minded his own business, but gun courage led to a death. Too many guns.

He didn't treat him any way. Martin was a stranger in the complex and Zimmerman knew it. Martin fit the description of people who were breaking into homes in that complex. Martin acted strangely; like he was high or something. Toxicology reports backed that up.

Martin ran and Zimmerman gave up the chase. He was on the phone with a police dispatcher for a minute or two returning to his vehicle. When Martin seen that Zimmerman hung up, he physically attacked Zimmerman.

You can't attack people because they followed you. That's illegal. It was felonious assault and that's a crime in our country.

Zimmerman was an adult treating a child like a criminal and following him creepily. Thanks to gun courage a child who was doing nothing wrong died and you think that is good. What a hero.

Martin was just a fucked up gang Banger and deserved to fucking die you asshole… LOL

Yes if you don't like how a black child looks it's ok to harass and kill him. This leads to unrest and increases crime. Too many guns.

It has nothing to do with firearms, people kill people not firearms. Firearms have no control over people. Martin is taking a dirt nap deservedly so… Jack weed

Yes grown men should harass and kill unarmed children. What a man you are.