'Bout Time

[Christians4LessGvt]

No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.

Ha Ha....dont matter what you Control Freaks want.
The US Constitution says SIRS and tens of millions of other
law abiding American Citizens have the right to bear arms.
They knew way back when that future ControlFreakWhackjobs
would be born, and look here....here some of them are right in 3DHS.
Good luck changing the Constitution!
Reality sucks sometimes dont it!

[sirs]

No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm.

As flawed a reasoning as it is, your opinion, is duly noted

It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.

Yea, one who's had one, all these years, has never needed to pull it, brandish it, or shoot it.  Yea, really the iconic example of some supposed "gun nut".  Well done, B

 

The Constitution wasn't written so that odd people can become even more odd.
Gun nuts are odd enough as it is, let them own their guns, but don't let them walk around with them.

BSB

It is ineed a pleasure to help educate B, and other like minds on this subject. 
Be it the consitutional right for ANYONE (not convicted of a felony or found mentally unstable by a professional) can own a firearm. 
Be it that if Zimmerman is found not guilty of any crime, his right to own a firearm is immediately returned
Be it the FACT that locations with far more liberal gun laws and CCW's have far less violent crime than locations with far more severe gun restrictions
Be it that the Constitution is a literally a contract between the Federal Government and "we the people", as in every individual that walks this great country, not some nebulous "militia"
Be it that the Constitution is specifically a set of LIMITATIONS SET UPON THE GOVERNMENT, per those "dead writers' B was referring to earlier
Be it that the Bill of Rights Specifically is referencing INDIVIDUALS.  Every one of those rights, was specific to what the government was not allowed to do to an individual, without either some due process or some criminal act by the individual. 

The 2 most important, the 2 at the TOP of the LIST, to these "dead writers" was the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to own a Firearm.  And yet, folks like B will twist, contot, and proclaim how appaently only the 2nd most important amendment to the Constitution isn't really an individual right....it really belongs to some nebuolus "militia", that *surprise* he apparently is part of.  The rest of us can use harsh language as our defense

So endeth his AM lesson for today

[sirs]

No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.

Ha Ha....dont matter what you Control Freaks want.
The US Constitution says SIRS and tens of millions of other
law abiding American Citizens have the right to bear arms.
They knew way back when that future ControlFreakWhackjobs
would be born, and look here....here some of them are right in 3DHS.
Good luck changing the Constitution!
Reality sucks sometimes dont it!

Indeed

[sirs]

[Christians4LessGvt]

OUCH!
Again....if someone had broken my nose and was bashing my head into concrete
I would not hesitate to shoot them to prevent horrible injury or my own death!

[sirs]

The DA is going to have a mountain of a time getting a jury to convict on a 2nd degree murder charge, beyond a reasonable doubt

[Christians4LessGvt]

The DA is going to have a mountain of a time getting a jury to convict on a 2nd degree murder charge,
beyond a reasonable doubt

Sirs.....looks like a famous Harvard Law Professor agrees with you!



Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution:
"Not Only Immoral, But Stupid"

Friday April 20, 2012

With ABC News' release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans' head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was "so thin that it won't make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense."

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn?t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a "grave ethical violation," since affidavits are supposed to contain "all relevant information."

Dershowitz continued, "An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, "We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it.

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors," Dershowitz said, "and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it's not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?" 

Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral

[Plane]

    The injurys that Zimmerman had might prove that he was in a fight , and this presumably would have had to have happened before the fatal shot.

     Whether he had the right to expect the benefit of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law still depends on who threw the first punch.I expect witnesses who heard the shouting are going to be important  , whose voice did they hear ?

     If Mr. Zimmerman had not been armed , perhaps he would have died in this encounter and we would be hearing the story from the survivor Trayvon Martin. I imagine it possible that the "Stand our Ground" law might have also been invoked if Mr. Martin had been the survivor.

      Is a neighborhood watch stubstantially diffrent from a well regulated milita?

       I think it very unfortunate that people like Mr. Martin cannot safely walk about at night , no less than it is regrettable that Mr. Zimmerman cannot wander his own neighborhood at night either. Why did these guys start thinking each the other a threat?
     
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why did these guys start thinking each the other a threat?
=============================================
     
Zimmerman was clearly the cause of this,as he was looking for trouble and armed. When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,

If no one had been armed, odds are that no one would have died. Perhaps one of them might have been knocked unconscious.

[Christians4LessGvt]

     
When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,

And you know this how?

[Plane]

    It isn't possible to kill someone by smacking their head onto pavement ?

    If neither of them were armed I would expect Zimmerman to be the dead one, before the gun came into play he was the one on the underside of the pileup.

     This doesn't mean I have decided Zimmerman is blameless , I havn't seen anything yet that proves or even indicates who was most at fault.

     What would make Mr. Martin seem so suspicious to Mr. Zimmerman? Why would Mr. Martin think smacking Mr. Zimmerman was a good idea?

      I can't tell whether Mr. Martin thought he was being mugged, or just got really angry when confrounted.

[Xavier_Onassis]

    When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,


And you know this how?
=============================================
I heard the tape of the call Zimmerman made, of course.

He said he was going to follow Martin, and the 911 person said "we donlt want you to do that"

Then he followed Martin in his car, and got out of his car.

[sirs]

All of which was perfectly legal to do.  He was under no legal order or requirement not to

[Xavier_Onassis]

He should have stayed in his effing car and done as the operator told him. I am sure that that is opne thing that both Zimmerman and Trayvon's parents would agree with.

You, again, have a right to dine on blood sausages and Limburger cheese and fart in any elevator you choose.
That hardly makes it wise.It hardly makes you a hero.

[sirs]

shoulda, woulda, coulda.  He didn't have to.  He had no legal mandate not to.  period