Texas law professor calls for repeal ...

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

There are 12158 comments on the BizPacReview.com story from Nov 17, 2013, titled Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment. In it, BizPacReview.com reports that:

A professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law claims that the Second Amendment should be shelved and replaced with something else.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at BizPacReview.com.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4760 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
The point being made in the post you misread is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin. Is this a fact?
IRRELEVANT, as the case has already gone through the legal system. Thereby making ALL of your [supposed]'points' MOOT.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

THAT is a FACT. And one that you treasonous freaks will NOT alter. It WILL be fully restored. And our hired servants in government WILL return to serving We The People in a Constitutional fashion.

The LIEberal demonrat scam is OVER here in America.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4761 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
The point being made in the post you misread is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin. Is this a fact?
No it is NOT. He was not told to not follow him. It was suggested that he not, which he had every right to ignore. Dispatchers cannot order you to do anything. They are NOT police officers. I am not saying that following him was right. In fact, I have said on more than a few occasions in these threads that it was a pretty stupid thing to do. But just because it is stupid does not mean it is illegal. So again......who was the person who broke the law that night????? And don't feed me a bunch of assumed bullshit that can't be proven.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4762 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac who was pursuing him? The whole world, except for American gun-nuts, can see a problem here. The law is being applied as a 'special' law for gun-owners.
And what law would that be??? You don't have to be armed with a gun in order to defend yourself from a deadly attack......but it sure does help (as proven in this case).
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#4764 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac
Absolutely not. He couldn't see the HOLSTERED gun at that point.
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>who was pursuing him?
He wasn't pursuing him, he was merely keeping him in view until the cops arrived. If the thug hadn't attacked Zimmerman, the cops would have arrived, verified that the thug belonged there for the time being and sent him on his way home. They probably would have even reprimanded Zimmerman. His thug, racist mentality got him killed.

Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>The whole world, except for American gun-nuts, can see a problem here. The law is being applied as a 'special' law for gun-owners.
This is just too ASININE to address.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4765 Jan 28, 2014
2ndAmrght wrote:
<quoted text>
nothing was beaten since you have no proof that happened....I have busted every one your fabricated assertions.... MORON
Too bad that Zimmerman's version of what happened and the eye-witness's version are both consistent with the injuries that Zimmerman suffered that night, isn't it DUMBASS????

What have you got besides lies and fantasies??? NOTHING!!! You haven't busted anything here except your own chops, fuckstain!

LMAO!!!!!!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4766 Jan 28, 2014
2ndAmrght wrote:
<quoted text>
nothing was beaten since you have no proof that happened....I have busted every one your fabricated assertions.... MORON
IRRELEVANT and MEANINGLESS - just like >you<.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#4767 Jan 28, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
.....who was the person who broke the law that night?????
You've COMPLETALLY miss the point: If Martin broke the law, where was his right to stand his ground against the man pursuing him?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#4768 Jan 28, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be armed with a gun in order to defend yourself...
You didn't answer the question: Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac who was pursuing him?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4769 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
You've COMPLETALLY miss the point: If Martin broke the law, where was his right to stand his ground against the man pursuing him?
IRRELEVANT.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#4770 Jan 28, 2014
I said: Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac?
-
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely not. He couldn't see the HOLSTERED gun at that point.
-
So, Martin could only fear for HIS life if he could "see" an unholstered gun?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4771 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
I said: Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac?
-
<quoted text>
-
So, Martin could only fear for HIS life if he could "see" an unholstered gun?
MEANINGLESS.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

None of the side-tracking routines that you LIEberal demonrats have been using will be effective.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

That's is ALL there is to it.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#4772 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
I said: Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac?
-
<quoted text>
-
So, Martin could only fear for HIS life if he could "see" an unholstered gun?
How could he have feared an "armed" man without seeing the gun? Your wording insinuated that he knew Zimmerman was carrying. Besides, if you fear a man you keep walking away until you are forced to defend yourself. You do not turn around, run toward the man you supposedly fear and attack him.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4773 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
You've COMPLETALLY miss the point: If Martin broke the law, where was his right to stand his ground against the man pursuing him?
No.....YOU missed the point.

Martin had every right to stand his ground. He had every right to even ask Zimmerman a question. What he didn't have a right to do was attack someone just because he thought Zimmerman was a "creepy-ass cracka". If you believe Zimmerman actually attacked Martin first....fine....PROVE IT! If he did, I will fully agree with you that Martin had a right to defend himself. But being that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO THAT FACT, sorry.....it sucks to be Martin. Martin decided to assault a person who was prepared and willing to defend his own life, with deadly force if he felt he needed to, AND MARTIN LOST! Get over it and LEARN FROM IT!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#4774 Jan 28, 2014
Bob2bob too wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question: Didn't Martin have a reasonable fear that he was going to be murdered by an armed maniac who was pursuing him?
Again......I am not a mind reader. I don't know what Martin was in fear of, if in fact he was in fear at all. Since he had PLENTY of time to cover the remaining 80-100 yards to where he was staying but chose to NOT go there, I would have to say NO, he didn't fear for his life. He chose to confront the man who was following him which is NOT something someone would do if they were indeed afraid for their life. So I will ask you again........What proof do you have that Martin KNEW that Zimmerman was armed? I don't deal in rhetoric, Bob.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4776 Jan 28, 2014
GCDNW wrote:
<quoted text>
Not illegal to be black on a sidewalk,
This teenager was walking down the sidewalk minding his own business when he got jumped by the pedophile.

If he had been carrying a gun, legally, he could have shot the pedophile dead.

legally.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4777 Jan 28, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
No.....YOU missed the point.
Martin had every right to stand his ground. He had every right to even ask Zimmerman a question.
He had a right to shoot the pedophile zimmerman dead.

Using Florida's SYG law.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4778 Jan 28, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This teenager was walking down the sidewalk minding his own business when he got jumped by the pedophile.
If he had been carrying a gun, legally, he could have shot the pedophile dead.
legally.
IRRELEVANT. Case Closed.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4779 Jan 28, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
He had a right to shoot the pedophile zimmerman dead.
Using Florida's SYG law.
Utterly MEANINGLESS, just like you.

CASE CLOSED.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4781 Jan 28, 2014
2ndAmrihgt wrote:
<quoted text>
hey $-hitstain...keep trying..
A man who says he saw Trayvon Martin shot dead claims that the Florida teenager and his killer, George Zimmerman, were scuffling on the ground at the time with one on top of the other.
The first eyewitness account of the 17-year-old's final moments emerged on Thursday night more than a month after the boy lost his life in an altercation with a neighbourhood watch leader in a gated community in Sanford.
The anonymous man said he reported to police details of what he saw on the evening of 26 February, which included watching the gunman walking away from the fight apparently uninjured.
It contradicts an allegation from Zimmerman's father earlier in the day that the unarmed black teenager broke his son's nose during the incident and also left him with bloody injuries from slamming the man's head repeatedly on to a concrete pavement. The eyewitness says he saw no blood and that the entire confrontation took place only on grass.
IRRELEVANT and Utterly MEANINGLESS, just like you.

Zimmerman is FREE.

CASE CLOSED.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4782 Jan 28, 2014
2ndAmrihgt wrote:
<quoted text>
hey $-hitstain...keep trying..
He's your pal, AV.

Make sure you ask him about being a felon and carrying a firearm with his blessing.

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min woodtick57 228,908
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min THE LONE WORKER 199,498
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Patriot AKA Bozo 60,168
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 25 min True Judgement 2,113
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 36 min death by arrogance 286
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 37 min WasteWater 382
News Analysis: Clinton Turns Benghazi Hearing Into P... (Oct '15) 49 min Synque 84
More from around the web