with the millions of c.c. licenses out there I guess we should hear a story everyday about one getting drunk and shooting at his girlfriend and hitting you. How many times have you been hit this week? Number one, you don't drink and carry. I think that's even against the law. Number two, you don't shoot unless you are in fear of your life. I believe to do otherwise is against the law. Number three, I drove all over today and did not see any guns on the streets. I did see people. Maybe you meant, GET ALL OF THE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS! Unless a person carries it, a gun cannot get out on the street (other than maybe in a tornado or something). Tell you what, you go to all the bad guy houses and ask for their guns...then go to the gubmint and ask for all their guns...only THEN may you come ask for mine. Read the 2nd Amendment. If you don't understand it, ask for help. If you don't like it, there is a whole word of countries out there that will be glad to keep you unarmed.
I had already said that cinemark does have armed guards in some of their theaters...then I asked you if there was an armed guard in the Aurora theater that night. Cops can go almost anywhere and most cpz's can authorize an armed guard but many do not. So I ask again, was there an armed guard at the Aurora theater that night or did the theater make sure that no law-abiding citizen would have protection from a nutcase?
911: "Are you following him." Zimmerman: "Yes." 911: " WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT." Zimmerman: "OKAY" ....some more conversation... Zimmerman: "HE RAN" .....some more conversation.... 911: "what's your apartment number?" Zimmerman: "It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, ----> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE KID IS. <-------"
And it continues that Zim tells them to meet at his truck near the mailboxes. Zim was at or near his truck when Trayvon(tm) apparently came back to "get him some". If Trayvon(tm) was running and had gotten away, why did he come back to Zim? So it is NOT plain that Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Trayvon(tm). It appears that Zim was doing as the dispatcher asked. You do realize that Trayvon(tm) was no longer the sweet little 12 y.o. the media likes to post pictures of, right?
Like I said, I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish.
Also, you do realize that link you gave is a highly edited version, right? The actual call was around 4 minutes.
Your last line was a fairly intelligent statement so I will respond to it. I never said there can't be laws. There is a law against murder. If someone murders they should be put to death....sooner rather than later. speed limits, passports and drivers licenses are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
normally I would have been offended by the first line but I considered the source
This article is not about Zimmerman but since you asked...From the scant amount of evidence released so far it would appear that Zimmerman acted purely in self-defense. I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish. You do realize if Zimmerman were black this would be a non-story, right?
Although I personally would prefer to surprise the bad guy, I have nothing against open carry. A holster is one of the safest places in the world for a handgun
billy- never said that which you imply I said. There was armed security at the century theater that night? I totally missed that...so did everyone at the theater. I guess cinemark does provide armed security at some of its theaters but did not in Aurora, CO. Not "anyone", but I would advocate for permitted concealed carriers.
I do see conflicting reports. I'm sure it will come out in court. He obviously knew the police would be coming. My main point was that he most likely knew cinemark's policy of being certain that only bad guys may have weapons (they don't keep it a secret).
Any random list can be made alphabetical in a matter of seconds (on a computer) and updating would be real time, not daily/weekly. I am against the "defacto" gun registration of calling in and giving all the personal info of law-abiding citizens when all that is needed is a list of those who are prohibited from owning a firearm. I have already said that local or state could monitor ffl's for compliance so you don't have to worry that Expert Outfitters(c) is selling guns to bad guys on the sly. I also mentioned that the reason people are on the list is not given so you don't have to worry about someone being outed as only a loony as opposed to a criminal. The biggest thing I have against new laws is that when they don't work then the lefty loons will want more, more, more until they get the confiscation they truly want. It's the lefty loonies fault that these criminals and loonies are on the street to start with so they can deal with THAT. It is backwards. If you want to protect children without stomping on the Constitution then lock up the criminals for long terms instead of 2-5 for murder and put the violent loonies in a nuthouse and keep them there. As I've said before...if what is proposed (as far as background checks) would save 1 kid I'd have nothing against it. But it won't. They will still get the guns (or other lethal devices) to do their deeds. Get them off the street or arm enough good citizens to blow them away when they start their rampage. That is the only answer that will save lives and that was proven at the Oregon mall.
1) upin can also be used by people like me to avoid the unnecessary, infringing delay. In my case there is nothing to appeal. After the first delay, for whatever reason, it should have been straightened out on their end. I always give ssn. 2) right, but you insist that it is a gfz and Sandy Hook was a gfz. I call it a cpz and that is exactly what it was until the cops showed 26 bodies later (not blaming them).
You bring up the CT state law. I agree that is fact. But you forget about fact based in reality. The reality is that most schools (at least until now) had/have a policy of "no guns" even by those teachers, etc. who have permits. That is changing but the perp KNEW it was unlikely he would meet with opposition. And the second he KNEW that opposition was present (the cops arrived), he killed himself. Same thing with the CO law. I take your word that the law is fact. But then there is that facts based in reality problem again. The state allows, but cinemark(c) which owns the century theater totally bans guns. The perp passed several theaters that had guards and/or no cpz posted to go to the century. He did not have anything close to a bullet-proof vest on if that's what you are implying. He was wearing a tactical vest. The ceo of tacticalgear.com admitted it was purchased through his site. This is what he had. http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urb... Maybe all these shootings in cpz's are coincidence? But I truly doubt it since these guys have the objective of racking up body counts. So they go to places that not only have cpz posted but also have policy against anyone carrying or very unlikely that anyone would be carrying.
yeah, upin...that might have been it. I still wonder though....Are YOU saying there were NO guns in the gfz school that day? Are YOU saying that the shooter did not have the upper hand at protecting himself when the teachers tried to rush him?
And as far as putting the onus only on criminals and violent loonies... Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.
Concealed-carry classes, permits on rise in Valley
with the millions of c.c. licenses out there I guess we should hear a story everyday about one getting drunk and shooting at his girlfriend and hitting you. How many times have you been hit this week?
Number one, you don't drink and carry. I think that's even against the law.
Number two, you don't shoot unless you are in fear of your life. I believe to do otherwise is against the law.
Number three, I drove all over today and did not see any guns on the streets. I did see people. Maybe you meant, GET ALL OF THE PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS! Unless a person carries it, a gun cannot get out on the street (other than maybe in a tornado or something). Tell you what, you go to all the bad guy houses and ask for their guns...then go to the gubmint and ask for all their guns...only THEN may you come ask for mine.
Read the 2nd Amendment. If you don't understand it, ask for help. If you don't like it, there is a whole word of countries out there that will be glad to keep you unarmed.
April 14, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
I had already said that cinemark does have armed guards in some of their theaters...then I asked you if there was an armed guard in the Aurora theater that night. Cops can go almost anywhere and most cpz's can authorize an armed guard but many do not. So I ask again, was there an armed guard at the Aurora theater that night or did the theater make sure that no law-abiding citizen would have protection from a nutcase?
911: "Are you following him."
Zimmerman: "Yes."
911: " WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT."
Zimmerman: "OKAY"
....some more conversation...
Zimmerman: "HE RAN"
.....some more conversation....
911: "what's your apartment number?"
Zimmerman: "It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, ----> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE KID IS. <-------"
And it continues that Zim tells them to meet at his truck near the mailboxes. Zim was at or near his truck when Trayvon(tm) apparently came back to "get him some". If Trayvon(tm) was running and had gotten away, why did he come back to Zim? So it is NOT plain that Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Trayvon(tm). It appears that Zim was doing as the dispatcher asked. You do realize that Trayvon(tm) was no longer the sweet little 12 y.o. the media likes to post pictures of, right?
Like I said, I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish.
Also, you do realize that link you gave is a highly edited version, right? The actual call was around 4 minutes.
April 14, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Don’t be fooled into believing deceit of gun-show loophole
Your last line was a fairly intelligent statement so I will respond to it. I never said there can't be laws. There is a law against murder. If someone murders they should be put to death....sooner rather than later.
speed limits, passports and drivers licenses are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
normally I would have been offended by the first line but I considered the source
April 12, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
billyc1943
Look up.....over your head ^. It's a bird....it's a plane...no, it's sarcasm. http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
This article is not about Zimmerman but since you asked...From the scant amount of evidence released so far it would appear that Zimmerman acted purely in self-defense. I am reserving final judgement until all the evidence is given. But feel free to jump to any ideological conclusions you wish. You do realize if Zimmerman were black this would be a non-story, right?
Although I personally would prefer to surprise the bad guy, I have nothing against open carry. A holster is one of the safest places in the world for a handgun
April 12, 2013 at 9:56 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
Yes billy, you are so smart. that is exactly what I meant.
April 10, 2013 at 5:45 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
billy- never said that which you imply I said. There was armed security at the century theater that night? I totally missed that...so did everyone at the theater.
I guess cinemark does provide armed security at some of its theaters but did not in Aurora, CO.
Not "anyone", but I would advocate for permitted concealed carriers.
April 9, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
I do see conflicting reports. I'm sure it will come out in court. He obviously knew the police would be coming. My main point was that he most likely knew cinemark's policy of being certain that only bad guys may have weapons (they don't keep it a secret).
April 9, 2013 at 6:40 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
Any random list can be made alphabetical in a matter of seconds (on a computer) and updating would be real time, not daily/weekly.
I am against the "defacto" gun registration of calling in and giving all the personal info of law-abiding citizens when all that is needed is a list of those who are prohibited from owning a firearm. I have already said that local or state could monitor ffl's for compliance so you don't have to worry that Expert Outfitters(c) is selling guns to bad guys on the sly.
I also mentioned that the reason people are on the list is not given so you don't have to worry about someone being outed as only a loony as opposed to a criminal.
The biggest thing I have against new laws is that when they don't work then the lefty loons will want more, more, more until they get the confiscation they truly want. It's the lefty loonies fault that these criminals and loonies are on the street to start with so they can deal with THAT. It is backwards.
If you want to protect children without stomping on the Constitution then lock up the criminals for long terms instead of 2-5 for murder and put the violent loonies in a nuthouse and keep them there.
As I've said before...if what is proposed (as far as background checks) would save 1 kid I'd have nothing against it. But it won't. They will still get the guns (or other lethal devices) to do their deeds. Get them off the street or arm enough good citizens to blow them away when they start their rampage. That is the only answer that will save lives and that was proven at the Oregon mall.
April 8, 2013 at 9:46 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
1) upin can also be used by people like me to avoid the unnecessary, infringing delay. In my case there is nothing to appeal. After the first delay, for whatever reason, it should have been straightened out on their end. I always give ssn.
2) right, but you insist that it is a gfz and Sandy Hook was a gfz. I call it a cpz and that is exactly what it was until the cops showed 26 bodies later (not blaming them).
You bring up the CT state law. I agree that is fact. But you forget about fact based in reality. The reality is that most schools (at least until now) had/have a policy of "no guns" even by those teachers, etc. who have permits. That is changing but the perp KNEW it was unlikely he would meet with opposition. And the second he KNEW that opposition was present (the cops arrived), he killed himself.
Same thing with the CO law. I take your word that the law is fact. But then there is that facts based in reality problem again. The state allows, but cinemark(c) which owns the century theater totally bans guns. The perp passed several theaters that had guards and/or no cpz posted to go to the century. He did not have anything close to a bullet-proof vest on if that's what you are implying. He was wearing a tactical vest. The ceo of tacticalgear.com admitted it was purchased through his site. This is what he had. http://tacticalgear.com/blackhawk-urb...
Maybe all these shootings in cpz's are coincidence? But I truly doubt it since these guys have the objective of racking up body counts. So they go to places that not only have cpz posted but also have policy against anyone carrying or very unlikely that anyone would be carrying.
April 8, 2013 at 9:22 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment
yeah, upin...that might have been it.
I still wonder though....Are YOU saying there were NO guns in the gfz school that day?
Are YOU saying that the shooter did not have the upper hand at protecting himself when the teachers tried to rush him?
And as far as putting the onus only on criminals and violent loonies... Would that not be better than delaying/inconveniencing/infringing on a law abiding citizen's Rights??--- I was wondering where you might stand on a "LIST" like that as opposed to the current backa$$wards way of doing it.
April 7, 2013 at 8:38 p.m. permalink suggest removal