Area gun sales, fears rising

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: North Port Sun 7,568

Gun stores in Charlotte County have experienced increased sales since Election Day as local gun owners brace for an anticipated restriction of gun laws following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Full Story
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4222 Feb 1, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a liberal socialist that thinks government handouts can go on forever, would think self cannibalism could be self supporting.
Thanks for the laugh! You made my day!
lol! Actually, if you had comprehended the post, HIO claimed he preferred to kill his food.

I simply indicated he should start with himself, there by being self supporting.

You're probably unfamiliar the the Escher drawing. But that's ok. For many it's conceptually hard.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4223 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You're still clueless aren't you? Deaf, dumb and blind... and all by choice!
Woohoo!
I proved you a liar again..........ROTFLMAO

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4224 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Lying again I see son.
Once again you are claiming your opinion is fact..........Thanks for proving you are a liar again..........LOL

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4225 Feb 1, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has stated he should be freed, period, without due process.
I saw a post that stated the police didn't arrest Zim until after all the knee jerk outcry of the media misled public.
I've seen posts that stated that the released information on collected evidence matches Zim's story.
I haven't seen anything like your twisted perception of "Zimmerman supporters".
You criticize people for comparing the evidence to Zim's story. You forget. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Zim is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People look at the evidence matching Zim's story as reasonable doubt that he's guilty. At least in the court of public opinion.
This moron claims the burden of proof is on the defense..........I am sure you have seen her claim as I have reposted it many times...

But what the heck..........
.
.

On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...

Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4226 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>As I said, I have a dead body, the weapon that killed him, the admission of the shooter. It's already stacked high.
It's up to the defense to prove their case. This is why the syg hearing will be interesting. And since Zimmerman has already lied to a judge on this case, the presumption that his "story" matches take on less credibility.
No law against shooting a punk that breaks your nose and then continues the assault..........LOL

Tons of evidence proves that happened..........

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4227 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Really? Then by all means show me what, let's just start with three posters, have "proved" me wrong on son.
Telling me what you believe and showing me the facts.. it'll be interesting to see if they match!
here ya go troll..........LOL

.
.
.

.

On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...

Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4228 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Really? Then by all means show me what, let's just start with three posters, have "proved" me wrong on son.
Telling me what you believe and showing me the facts.. it'll be interesting to see if they match!
Here is another troll..........ROTFLMAO

.
.
.

.

Post 46994 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...

The moron Yea claims Zim got a doctors note but did not see a doctor…………ROTFLMAO

Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep and that is not a crime when you are beaten as bad as Zim was......

Moron yea wrote.
lol! Wow. Getting a doctor's note for work and not seeking medical attention.

Maybe he meant getting beaten to within an inch of not going to work! That's much more plausible.

@

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4229 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Really? Then by all means show me what, let's just start with three posters, have "proved" me wrong on son.
Telling me what you believe and showing me the facts.. it'll be interesting to see if they match!
How about this one troll..........LOl
.
.
.
.

.

Yea says Zim is guilty with ZERO evidence………..LOL
Post 47036 here……http://www.topix.com/for um/us/politics/TKPEED6J6ONM651 R6/p1975

Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in your dreams..........
.
.
.
.
Prove that Zim attacked the perp.....
The 911 tape supports the fact Zim had a right to follow the perp.........215 suspect.......so the act of following the perp is not going to be a issue for the jury.....
For a conviction you will need to convince a jury that a big, strong, scary looking, drug using, foul mouthed foot ball playing tough guy did not attack Zim..........
But Zim attacked some skinny puny little boy..........But this boy was able to toss Zim on his back withe a single blow to Zims nose that broke it and blackened both eyes and then Zims head bounced on the ground at least three times
Then the poor kid fell down on his knees.......A inch from the gun.....
Then the evil monster security meanie killed the poor boy in cold blooded murder..........
Even a all black jury would be tough on believing that whopper
Unless you have something that proves another reality??

Yea wrote
Zimmerman killed him with his loaded weapon. I'd say that's about as clear a definition as one can get.

We all know Zimmerman left his vehicle with a loaded weapon and specifically stalked Martin. After all, there was no one else there.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4230 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Here's what I was responding to since you want to "change" direction....
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
They should tone down their race-baiting rhetoric PERIOD. They got a black man with almost no experience in federal politics elected to the most powerful position in the world. Mission accomplished.
And Z lied about money. What evidence do you have that the events of that night did not happen as he says it did??<quoted text>
I simply said Romney had done. Unlike you, I clearly know the difference.
As for Zimmerman and YOUR demand for me to "...prove it wasn't done in self-defense beyond reasonable doubt....", that's the defense's job. The prosecution isn't going to do YOUR work for you so. It's up to defense to place that doubt. And that assumes it gets beyond the syg hearing (which you CLEARLY blew by!)
You claim there's a TON of reasonable doubt? Fine, son, fine. O'Mara can go ahead and present it if it gets to that point.
So I really don't understand what you're bellyaching about.
I haven't blown by anything. I have stated in previous posts that it might not ever make it to trial.

And you REALLY need to check the law, pal. The defense DOES NOT have to prove innocence. All they have to do is raise "reasonable doubt" that it was not murder. The prosecution does NOT get that option. The prosecution doesn't get to go into court and say "you did it....prove us wrong". That is a luxury only available to the defense. Hence the phrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty". And I am not "bellyaching" about anything. I am simply saying that if you want to keep insisting that Zimmerman is this malicious murderer who killed this killed in cold blood...fine. Present your evidence to back it up, or STFU about it. Because as of yet, you haven't presented shit.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#4231 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>As I said, I have a dead body, the weapon that killed him, the admission of the shooter. It's already stacked high.

It's up to the defense to prove their case. This is why the syg hearing will be interesting. And since Zimmerman has already lied to a judge on this case, the presumption that his "story" matches take on less credibility.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was debating a special needs individual. I'll leave you to your own little world.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4232 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I proved you a liar again..........ROTFLMAO
lol! I don't see how son.

But I'm sure in that vacuum between your ears, you believe it to be be true!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4233 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you are claiming your opinion is fact..........Thanks for proving you are a liar again..........LOL
lol! You know what? You may have a point. This is what you said...

"But virtually every supporter of the dead punk claims Zim is guilty and needs to go to jail with out any evidence..... "

Perhaps you can get "virtually every supporter" and prove your point that"...Zim is guilty and needs to go to jail with out any evidence..."

But until then, I think I'm free to call you a liar once again son!

Woohoo!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4235 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
here ya go troll..........LOL
.
.
.
.
On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...
Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.
That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!
????????

I know you're trying to make a point my little eunuch. But it appears you don't know what it is!

Woohoo!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4236 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I don't see how son.
But I'm sure in that vacuum between your ears, you believe it to be be true!
Everyone here understands you would not see how..........We all know you are a moron/liberal.........LOL

.
.
.
.
.On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...

Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

#4237 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Really? Then by all means show me what, let's just start with three posters, have "proved" me wrong on son.

Telling me what you believe and showing me the facts.. it'll be interesting to see if they match!
I'm not going to waste my time. Your previous post proves you never can accept being wrong.
I'm not the first poster to tell you the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Facts were provided to back that up. You still insist on stating that the burden of proof is on the defense.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Legal_burden_of_ ...For example, if the defendant (D) is charged with murder, the prosecutor (P) bears the burden of proof to ...

Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

A "legal burden" or a "burden of persuasion" is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defenses except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution.

So, if you will admit you are wrong about the burden of proof being on the defense, I will supply the three posters who proved you wrong and what they proved you wrong about.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4238 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You know what? You may have a point. This is what you said...
"But virtually every supporter of the dead punk claims Zim is guilty and needs to go to jail with out any evidence..... "
Perhaps you can get "virtually every supporter" and prove your point that"...Zim is guilty and needs to go to jail with out any evidence..."
But until then, I think I'm free to call you a liar once again son!
Woohoo!
Yes once again you prove that you are a moron/liberal..........

Virtually everyone of you moron/liberal supporters of the dead black punk claim Zim is guilty..........With ZERO evidence..........ROTFLMAO
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4239 Feb 1, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't blown by anything. I have stated in previous posts that it might not ever make it to trial.
And you REALLY need to check the law, pal. The defense DOES NOT have to prove innocence. All they have to do is raise "reasonable doubt" that it was not murder. The prosecution does NOT get that option. The prosecution doesn't get to go into court and say "you did it....prove us wrong". That is a luxury only available to the defense. Hence the phrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty". And I am not "bellyaching" about anything. I am simply saying that if you want to keep insisting that Zimmerman is this malicious murderer who killed this killed in cold blood...fine. Present your evidence to back it up, or STFU about it. Because as of yet, you haven't presented shit.
Sure you have, son. The prosecution needs to go to court and prove THEIR case beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the dead body...

They have the weapon...

They have the confession...

Now it's up to the defense to show it was justified. But if you believe all the defense has to do is show up, then fine. I won't argue with you. I'm sure the prosecutor will argue they don't want to have the verdict overturned due to incompetent defense.

BTW, the only one "...insisting that Zimmerman is this malicious murderer who killed this killed in cold blood..." is you. Again, you need to assign my position in order to make your case.

You keep skipping right past the FACT I've already said I want justice to take over. Why can't you actually quote that fact for a change? At least it would be accurate.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

#4240 Feb 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>????????
I know you're trying to make a point my little eunuch. But it appears you don't know what it is!
Woohoo!
yes you have proven over and over again that you are just a ghetto hood and not smart enough to read.........LOL

But you do provide hours of entertainment.......

Tell us again how the burden of proof lies with the defense..........
.
.
.

.

.

.

On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...

Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4241 Feb 1, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was debating a special needs individual. I'll leave you to your own little world.
lol! Actually, I'm in the real world son.

I have no idea what world you're in and I'm sure you don't either...

Such idiots.

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/P...

"...Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.

During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward...."
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#4242 Feb 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
yes you have proven over and over again that you are just a ghetto hood and not smart enough to read.........LOL
But you do provide hours of entertainment.......
Tell us again how the burden of proof lies with the defense..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law lib ray showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p...
Yea wrote.
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.
That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!
lol! Son, you're such an idiot. And clearly damn proud of it too!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,192,592
Netanyahu speech exposes partisan and diplomati... 6 min INFIDEL 72
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Limbertwig 172,377
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Jacques Ottawa 185,113
High court takes up major fight over health law... 2 hr phil shifley 9
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr LIbEralS 33,989
DC's 'truth, honor' rally tests Glenn Beck's power (Aug '10) 11 hr ritedownthemiddle 4,128
More from around the web