Moms make case for gun control

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Got a link to that?
So he would have never got out of his car if he wasn't armed. WTF does that prove?

Martin would be alive and we wouldn't be talking about this ... the gun gave Zimmerman a false sense of power and security. But surely your smart enough to figure that out - oh never mind!

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry wacko but last time I checked - it's courts that decide these things!

"Let me ask attention to an illustration nearer home. The only case in which there has ever existed a real necessity for the interposition of military force to preserve the peace in Massachusetts.(except in the days of 1775, when the people took arms, to put down the military,) was the "Shay's Rebellion;" and then, gentlemen who glorify the militia must remember the people armed themselves to suppress an insurrection headed by a militia officer, with militia men for the mass of his followers.

"Now, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen talk about the necessity of this volunteer militia, in order to prevent mobs in Massachusetts. Let me ask, Sir, how many there are of them? I understand that the whole number is not more than four or five thousand: or at the farthest, we may say seven thousand. Now, can any gentleman seriously suppose that the peace of this whole Commonwealth is preserved by this insignificant body men? Sir, it is the law-abiding, peace-loving, order-preserving citizens of Massachusetts, whom we are indebted for the feeling of which we enjoy."

- Francis W. Bird, June 20, 1853,[OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE CONVENTION, ASSEMBLED MAY 4TH, 1853, TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE Commonwealth of Massachusetts VOLUME SECOND. BOSTON: WHITE
& POTTER, PRINTERS TO THE CONVENTION, 1853.]

So much for your 'militia' theory, eh traitor?

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
So the real question is, why has no one been killed by a machine gun even though there are more registered machines guns than ever before?

Probably because the perp has difficulty stealing machine guns and people that pay fifteen grand or more to legally own a fully automatic weapon aren't into drive by shootings or knocking off liquor stores to sustain a drug habit.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>The operative word being "tightly regulated"!

Correct, but your point is invalid. There are more machine guns now in the hands of the public than ever before, yet as you stated, no shootings with machine guns.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry wacko but last time I checked - it's courts that decide these things!

Here you go, traitor-troll. Put THIS in your pipe and SMOKE IT:

"The section which declares that no law shall restrict the right of the people to bear arms, whether in defense of themselves or of the State, was read a second time.
"Mr. RARIDEN said he would like to know from the gentlemen who reported this section whether it was the intention to permit or prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons. He preferred the language of the old Constitution. He would move to strike out the section and insert the corresponding section of the old Constitution.
"Mr. OWEN said he would suggest to the gentleman from Wayne that if he wished to prohibit the carrying of weapons it would be necessary to change the language of the old Constitution. For if it were declared by Constitutional provision that the people should have the right to bear arms, no law of the Legislature could take away that right."

- Dec. 31, 1850, Afternoon Session.[REPORT OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION THE STATE OF INDIANA. 1850. VOLUME II. H. FOWLER, OFFICIAL REPORTER TO THE CONVENTION. A.H. BROWN, PRINTER TO THE CONVENTION. INDIANAPOLIS, IND 1850.

GAME OVER, traitor-troll.

GunShow1 wrote:

<quoted text>
"Let me ask attention to an illustration nearer home. The only case in which there has ever existed a real necessity for the interposition of military force to preserve the peace in Massachusetts.(except in the days of 1775, when the people took arms, to put down the military,) was the "Shay's Rebellion;" and then, gentlemen who glorify the militia must remember the people armed themselves to suppress an insurrection headed by a militia officer, with militia men for the mass of his followers.
"Now, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen talk about the necessity of this volunteer militia, in order to prevent mobs in Massachusetts. Let me ask, Sir, how many there are of them? I understand that the whole number is not more than four or five thousand: or at the farthest, we may say seven thousand. Now, can any gentleman seriously suppose that the peace of this whole Commonwealth is preserved by this insignificant body men? Sir, it is the law-abiding, peace-loving, order-preserving citizens of Massachusetts, whom we are indebted for the feeling of which we enjoy."
- Francis W. Bird, June 20, 1853,[OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE CONVENTION, ASSEMBLED MAY 4TH, 1853, TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE Commonwealth of Massachusetts VOLUME SECOND. BOSTON: WHITE
& POTTER, PRINTERS TO THE CONVENTION, 1853.]
So much for your 'militia' theory, eh traitor?

Living in the past perhaps makes for good theater ...

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Living in the past perhaps makes for good theater ...

You don't comprehend legal precedent, do you traitor-troll? Nor apparently do you understand prima-facie EVIDENCE.

That quote, by a LAW-MAKER, >PROVES< our governments have been engaged in an ongoing CONSPIRACY to VIOLATE We The People's Constitutionally SECURED RIGHT.

Take a hike, traitor-troll. Your Constitutionally PERVERSE 'gun control laws' are OVER.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Martin would be alive and we wouldn't be talking about this ... the gun gave Zimmerman a false sense of power and security. But surely your smart enough to figure that out - oh never mind!

Once again, do you have a credible link that shows he said that?

He thought he had an encounter with one of the possible criminals that were robbing homes in the complex. If I were dealing with a potential criminal, I wouldn't have exited the vehicle either unless I knew I could protect myself in the event of an attack.

It still has no bearing on the case. The idea that he felt more secure getting out of his car doesn't make him a murderer.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry wacko but last time I checked - it's courts that decide these things!

Did I ask what the courts would decide? No. I asked Yahoo what HE thought turned this action from self-defense into murder.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry wacko but last time I checked - it's courts that decide these things!

Spoken EXACTLY like someone whose OPINION doesn't have a leg to stand on and CAN'T prove his case.

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Spoken EXACTLY like someone whose OPINION doesn't have a leg to stand on and CAN'T prove his case.

When has that ever stopped a LIE-beral? ;)

GunShow1 wrote:

<quoted text>
When has that ever stopped a LIE-beral? ;)

true that

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>The operative word being "tightly regulated"!

Just so you know Mr. Spock. That's two words not one.
Yer jes like Slick Willy. He kept getting in trouble because he thought "harass" was two words.

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think you're on the side of evidence son... well, not all of it anyway.
Just what you want to accept.
My position has been to let the justice system do it's job.
So far, Zimmerman has killed. So for that part, it's up to the prosecution to try and prove whatever case or options they have. And if the defense will be claiming self defense, that's fine also.
But the affirmative defense will put the the case in their court as far as proof goes.
Because at that point, the defense will have to overcome the dead body.

Uh what????
The prosecution MUST PROVE it was homicide.
The defense merely has to create reasonable doubt.

The big burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they have no proof of homicide - at least none that has been leaked or released to the media and blogisphere.

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>The biggest difference here is the thinking of an adult versus a child.
Zimmerman should have known better.
Martin actually left Zimmerman behind.
Again, you're great at 20/20 hindsight and analyzing what each could have done.
But the bigger burden there will be on Zimmerman, unless he's going to claim some sort of mental issue. And I just don't see that happening.

You are incorrect.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution sir.

d pantz wrote:

Zimmerman is dumb and should do time and not be allowed to carry. He broke the rules of the neighborhood watch, and didn't follow the instructions of the dispatcher.

What "instructions" by the dispatcher? Is a dispatcher a police officer?
What rules of neighborhood watch were broken?

GunShow1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Because they are to expensive to use in crime, traitor-troll. We already went through this on another thread. And now you are lamely contending the same here? After I kicked the SNOT out of you on the other thread?
"They were NOT "strictly regulated" in 1934, traitor. They were prohibitively TAXED, in order to make it difficult for the average citizen to own one. And then future sales to civilians were UNCONSTITUTIONALLY banned in 1986. Although with the right FFL License, they are still MANUFACTURED TODAY."
"Then how come my friends, which have owned MACHINE GUNS, CANNON, and various other DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES. And some of them for well over TWENTY YEARS. Have NEVER ha a visit from the BATF? It's NOT about the "safety", it's about the MONEY, dunce."
"Do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to shoot a machine gun? Or how long it takes to load a magazine? Or to clean it after firing, so that it will keep functioning correctly? Or how difficult it is to find parts for them anymore? Yeah, I didn't think so.
"Criminals don't use machine guns, because they are a MAJOR PAIN to fire and maintain. And criminals are criminals because they are to LAZY to work.
Find another talking 'point', traitor."
http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TIOOJ2V09UCFQ...

Well you know how it is GS1, they think "automatic" literally means that the inanimate object kills sans an operator.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL ... unlike you at east I have one ...

Too bad no one ever taught you how to use it.

spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
The tax at $200 is chickenfeed, an M-16 is light weight, easily maintained and a child could operate it. Why, you as a gunloon sure are ill informed?
In the gunloons fantasy world, the 2nd Amendment is hallowed ground and needs to be absolute – NOTHING in this world that is absolute. The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a bunch of words on a piece of paper put together by a bunch of middle-aged, upper-class white guys some 220 years ago.

Interesting.
You make the mistake of thinking that those words create inalienable rights. You are wrong of course.
You fools fail to grasp what an inalienable right is and how they are enforced.
They are rules, laws of nature herself Mr. Spock.
You fail to grasp the little fact that when it comes to enforcing one's personal inalienable right to life when under attack from another - someone will die no matter what words are scrawled on a piece of paper. Most likely it will be you - the attacker - like Trayvon Martin.

You are also incorrect in saying "NOTHING in this world that is absolute.".
I asure you sir, that you will die. THAT sir, IS an absoluite in this life.
:<)
Inalienable rights have nothing to do with words or paper or governing bodies of men and women Mr. Spock.
THAT is exactly what makes them "absolute" sir.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Got a link to that?
So he would have never got out of his car if he wasn't armed. WTF does that prove?

It proves that Mr. Spock has no clue what constitutes proof, evidence, and facts.