Self Defense with a firearm

[zeke]

Couldn't address the legit question in what I wrote eh?

Why am I not surprised. It is because you are one of the most dishonest, punk ass fuckers on this board.

And what is cool is that I can talk to you like a fucking dog. Smear you name all over the board. And as long as I don't physically attack you, its all good. Cool.

To bad we will never meet in person. Would be fun trying to provoke you into an attack so I could shoot your lying ass. And it would all be all right.

As long as my provocation wasn't physical and your retribution was physical, I can shoot and kill you.
Even if you just push me and say get the fuck out of here. When you touched me, I could kill you.

And call it self defense. LMAO. You are one stupid mother fucker.

Wow.. you got anger issues dude..maybe mental

-Geaux

[youtube]0OnpkDWbeJs[/youtube]

LMAO. What a bunch of fucking punks you all are. Stupid as well. And all live in this country. What a fucking shame.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I haven't argued in favor of gun laws, or against the 2nd Amendment. I'll argue that there needs to be a mass shooting at an NRA convention to give them a taste of what they push on society. The "shooter" wouldn't even need a gun. Just toss a string of firecrackers into the crowd, hit the deck, and let the gun monkeys kill each other.

But seriously, I'm arguing against stupid gun owners who champion stalking and murder as "justifiable homicide". It should be frightening to any sane person to read these comments from people who think that the 2nd Amendment is to defend liberty. Not one of these assholes has a shred of concern for Trayvon Martin's liberty? No, that's too much. These assholes just keep saying that Martin got what he deserved. It's disgusting.

Have you ever been to an NRA convention? Do you even know what the NRA is all about?

By the way, the NRA doesn't manufacture or sale any firearms.

The National Rifle Association's mission statement is as follows:

"To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms."

The NRA has been an advocate of firearm ownership since 1871 and recently has been taking on the unjust efforts of anti-gun proponents to prevent individual gun ownership and otherwise prohibit the exchange of lawfully obtained and transferred weapons. Please see their website for membership information or contact me as a referral to their organization as I am a life member.

In 1990 NRA Foundation Inc. was established a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological, and artistic context. Funds granted by The NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States, including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.

I am a life member of the NRA and I apologize to no one for that. I have never been to a national convention - but have taken (and taught) several safety classes sponsored by the NRA. I have a couple of friends that are NRA certified instructors and one, in particular, is a past national skeet shooting winner. Neither have ever killed anyone. Go figure.

These limp-wristed pussies that raise hell about the NRA are welcome to kiss my black ass.

They worry me about as much as a cloudy day.

Liberals seem to always ridicule what they don't understand while pretending to understand. The think the NRA sales guns and ammo. They never visited an NRA store to find out what is true because the truth really doesn't matter to them.

NRA store

 

[Little-Acorn]

On the contrary. Liberals DO understand the NRA, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And they hate it. That's why they fight against it so hard.

The U.S. is one of the few countries on earth whose constitution guarantees that people can be better-armed than their government. The govt may have fancier toys, but there are 1 million of them against 300 million of us.

But the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, honestly believed that ordinary people acting freely, however flawed, would exercise better judgment on average than a ruling elite, producing more freedom, prosperity, and safety than a King, Chairman, or Politburo. That's why they made sure that in the ultimate confrontation between the people and a bunch of government thugs, the people would have the edge.

Liberals fundamentally disagree with that opinion. They believe that the ruling elite will make better decisions than the people. Especially when they themselves, the liberals, are the ruling elite. So you always find them trying to disarm law-abiding people, while transferring more and more responsibility to government.

The 2nd amendment is the bedrock of the people's protection against these liberals. Naturally, it's something the liberal never stop opposing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would appear from the recent shooting at a Walmart that the left is opposed to self defense as well. A man was physically attacked and defended himself and people like Luddy call him a criminal.

So all the claims in the past about self defense not happening isn't the point, what they mean is no one should ever shoot anyone even in self defense.

Then we have the useful idiots that remind us some lefties own firearms. usually with the claim that because of that no one is trying to take them away.

How many examples do we need of high profile democrats demanding just that? A ban on firearms and a confiscation of privately owned firearms?

Add to that the refusal of some to acknowledge the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right not dependent on belonging to a militia. And further that it applies to the States.

A man throws a punch, the other man shoots him dead. What is wrong with this scenario?

You were there? You offered a witness statement to the police?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have been in fights in my life and never shot my opponent.

A fight and an attack are two different beasts.

Not when an attack turns into a fight. And no one appears to know what was said that started the fight. There are ways to prevent fights too.

What's your point?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes nutters! You must have the right to bear arms....to prevent your government from tyranny......while buying underwear at Wal Mart. It says so in the Constitution.

Oh! Wait! You think the constitution was referring to your personal safety? No wonder.

Non sequitur.
Until a person with your view has become a victim of violent crime, you have no clue what it is you're talking about.
You are simply towing an ideological line. So be it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

 

[Redfish]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

the jury had access to 100% of the evidence and testimony, they ruled not guilty.

this case would never have made even the local news but for the race issue. we are living in a sick society.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I Googled "shooting at Walmart". I couldn't believe how many hits there were.

I knew there was a real good reason I don't shop Walmart. Not only do they sell mostly Chinese junk, the people shopping there are crazy as fuck evidently.

I mean come on, getting in a fist fight at a service counter and then deciding you are getting your ass kicked so you pull your gun and shoot the guy. My bet is the guy with the gun started the fight. If he didn't, why did he leave the scene so fast?

Sounds like the guy who shot the kid in the car in FL. He just knew he was in the "right" for shooting. But he ran like a common criminal.

Fucking nuts.

You were not there. Your speculation makes you look foolish.

 

[kaz]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

Perfect summary. The fact is that the left can't make their case on facts because liberalism is illogical, so they make it by getting blacks, women, old people angry and scared.

Zimmerman seems like a despicable person frankly, but the left wants out judicial system to work based on politics and lynch mobs without evidence is scary, and sad.

 

[Redfish]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

Perfect summary. The fact is that the left can't make their case on facts because liberalism is illogical, so they make it by getting blacks, women, old people angry and scared.

Zimmerman seems like a despicable person frankly, but the left wants out judicial system to work based on politics and lynch mobs without evidence is scary, and sad.

sometimes it does, OJ was declared innocent by the first jury, Casey Anthony was found not guilty. The evidence in both cases proved their guilt but the juries issued politically correct verdicts.

 

[nodoginnafight]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

the jury had access to 100% of the evidence and testimony, they ruled not guilty.

this case would never have made even the local news but for the race issue. we are living in a sick society.

Having access to 100% of the evidence is a far cry from having access to 100% of all the information about what really happened.

The case should have been investigated. If the Sanford authorities had conducted an investigation, no one would have felt the need to draw attention to the lack of an investigation now would they?

Yes, there are people who make their living by taking a small piece of the full story and whipping the faithful into a frenzy over it. These folks are parasites and scum imho. And there are parasites and scum like this on the far right and one the far left.

But that doesn't change the fact that, originally, the Sanford authorities tried to sweep this under the carpet all too soon. There were some legitimate reasons to do a full and proper investigation. It was finally conducted (because of the pressure of public scrutiny) and they could not find enough evidence to convict. The end.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

People who pretend to know exactly how the Martin-Zimmerman thing went down are idiots. No one alive - except Zimmerman - knows exactly how it all went down. There was not enough evidence to convict - so there you go. It's over. My opinion is that both acted irresponsibly, but that's just me reading between the lines. And I'll be the first to admit, that's no more valid than any other opinions.

the jury had access to 100% of the evidence and testimony, they ruled not guilty.

this case would never have made even the local news but for the race issue. we are living in a sick society.

Having access to 100% of the evidence is a far cry from having access to 100% of all the information about what really happened.

The case should have been investigated. If the Sanford authorities had conducted an investigation, no one would have felt the need to draw attention to the lack of an investigation now would they?

Yes, there are people who make their living by taking a small piece of the full story and whipping the faithful into a frenzy over it. These folks are parasites and scum imho.

But that doesn't change the fact that, originally, the Sanford authorities tried to sweep this under the carpet all too soon. There were some legitimate reasons to do a full and proper investigation. It was finally conducted (because of the pressure of public scrutiny) and they could not find enough evidence to convict. The end.

The Sanford police immediately recognized that Zimmerman acted in self defense. No investigation was needed. The jury's ruling corroborated Sanford PD's initial findings.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would appear from the recent shooting at a Walmart that the left is opposed to self defense as well. A man was physically attacked and defended himself and people like Luddy call him a criminal.

So all the claims in the past about self defense not happening isn't the point, what they mean is no one should ever shoot anyone even in self defense.

Then we have the useful idiots that remind us some lefties own firearms. usually with the claim that because of that no one is trying to take them away.

How many examples do we need of high profile democrats demanding just that? A ban on firearms and a confiscation of privately owned firearms?

Add to that the refusal of some to acknowledge the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right not dependent on belonging to a militia. And further that it applies to the States.

A man throws a punch, the other man shoots him dead. What is wrong with this scenario?

in that small context, you'd be correct. However, that's not what happened.
There is quite a difference between getting one punched and being pinned to the ground and being wailed on...
Last line of defense is to use any means at one's disposal to avoid further physical injury.
So a person has to get a busted skull to make YOU feel better?
Screw you.
Inside of every liberal who has never been a victim of a violent crime is a gun/self defense advocate waiting to get out.
I find it appalling how you libs weep for the criminal and curse those who decide to not become statistics.

 

[nodoginnafight]

the jury had access to 100% of the evidence and testimony, they ruled not guilty.

this case would never have made even the local news but for the race issue. we are living in a sick society.

Having access to 100% of the evidence is a far cry from having access to 100% of all the information about what really happened.

The case should have been investigated. If the Sanford authorities had conducted an investigation, no one would have felt the need to draw attention to the lack of an investigation now would they?

Yes, there are people who make their living by taking a small piece of the full story and whipping the faithful into a frenzy over it. These folks are parasites and scum imho.

But that doesn't change the fact that, originally, the Sanford authorities tried to sweep this under the carpet all too soon. There were some legitimate reasons to do a full and proper investigation. It was finally conducted (because of the pressure of public scrutiny) and they could not find enough evidence to convict. The end.

The Sanford police immediately recognized that Zimmerman acted in self defense. No investigation was needed. The jury's ruling corroborated Sanford PD's initial findings.

Or the jury's ruling confirmed that the Sanford Police didn't dig up much evidence .....

Which could be the result of a half-hearted investigation.

Or it could be that just not enough evidence exists to know for sure one way or another - but you can't KNOW that until you TRY to find some evidence.

If you arrive at the correct conclusion without looking into any of the facts - that's just a happy accident.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Having access to 100% of the evidence is a far cry from having access to 100% of all the information about what really happened.

The case should have been investigated. If the Sanford authorities had conducted an investigation, no one would have felt the need to draw attention to the lack of an investigation now would they?

Yes, there are people who make their living by taking a small piece of the full story and whipping the faithful into a frenzy over it. These folks are parasites and scum imho.

But that doesn't change the fact that, originally, the Sanford authorities tried to sweep this under the carpet all too soon. There were some legitimate reasons to do a full and proper investigation. It was finally conducted (because of the pressure of public scrutiny) and they could not find enough evidence to convict. The end.

The Sanford police immediately recognized that Zimmerman acted in self defense. No investigation was needed. The jury's ruling corroborated Sanford PD's initial findings.

Or the jury's ruling confirmed that the Sanford Police didn't dig up much evidence .....

Which could be the result of a half-hearted investigation.

Or it could be that just not enough evidence exists to know for sure one way or another - but you can't KNOW that until you TRY to find some evidence.

If you arrive at the correct conclusion without looking into any of the facts - that's just a happy accident.

Did you see the trial?

Every piece of evidence was presented. That is of course you have evidence that wasn't presented.

Bottom line is, Sanford PD was right in their initial assessment that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.

I doubt you have anything that proves otherwise.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Sanford police immediately recognized that Zimmerman acted in self defense. No investigation was needed. The jury's ruling corroborated Sanford PD's initial findings.

Or the jury's ruling confirmed that the Sanford Police didn't dig up much evidence .....

Which could be the result of a half-hearted investigation.

Or it could be that just not enough evidence exists to know for sure one way or another - but you can't KNOW that until you TRY to find some evidence.

If you arrive at the correct conclusion without looking into any of the facts - that's just a happy accident.

Did you see the trial?

Every piece of evidence was presented. That is of course you have evidence that wasn't presented.

Bottom line is, Sanford PD was right in their initial assessment that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.

I doubt you have anything that proves otherwise.

Do you know the difference between "evidence" and "facts"?

Are you assuming that EVERY fact was placed into evidence.

Of course you're not - that would be stupid. Of course we all know that there are very few facts that are known about the case. Zimmermann is the only person alive who knows exactly how it all went down.

I don't pretend to know any more than any of the jurors - which is far from everything we'd need to know.

The undisputed fact is that the Sanford Police only conducted a real investigation because of the pressure applied by public scrutiny. If they had done their jobs and conducted a real investigation in the first place, odds are we would have never heard a thing about this case.

The fact that the jury did not have enough evidence to convict means the case is over. It doesn't mean the Sanford Police were correct in failing to investigate it the first time.