On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:46:40 -0400, Congoleum Breckenridge
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 3:54 PM, Doug wrote:
GUN CONTROL: A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.



How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?


One of these brand new off the shelf, collapsible Paratus Rifle
available in 308

Check it out .... I want one, or maybe two. (Swmbo has to have one as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nm1g--T0uGo

MSRP $5,615

Right proud of their rifles arent they?

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:46:40 -0400, Congoleum Breckenridge
wrote:


Check it out .... I want one, or maybe two.

I can't get one of these sigh

KRISS SUPER V VECTOR 45 ACP SMG FULL-AUTO TEST WITH TDI SUPPRESSOR
ROCKETS !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6dO8TQ_7mY

Web site:

http://www.kriss-usa.com/products/sub-machine-guns/smg-45-acp
--

On 2012-08-12, Gunner Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:46:40 -0400, Congoleum Breckenridge
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 3:54 PM, Doug wrote:
GUN CONTROL: A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.



How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?


One of these brand new off the shelf, collapsible Paratus Rifle
available in 308

Check it out .... I want one, or maybe two. (Swmbo has to have one as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nm1g--T0uGo

That was long. I could assemble an AK-47 in 18 seconds.

i

Ah! Nice! What kind of accuracy can one expect from one?

And the price? Ive not seen one of those before. California...tends
to make me not bothering keeping up on that particular subject.


Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 2:17 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:


Businesses do not pay sales tax for things they buy to use in the
normal course of business. If I am a maker of candy, I don't pay sales
taxes in Indiana for sugar, the hairnets my employees use, the vats I
use to make the candy, the cartons I put it in, etc.
So,. Indiana there isn't really a double taxation of sales tax and
property taxes, addressing the concerns above.
--

I believe you would not pay sales tax on the sugar or the cartoons,
but expect you would pay sales tax on the hairnets and vats. The idea
is that you do not pay sales tax on things which are resold, but that
does not include hairnets and vats. Indiana could be the exception,
but most states do not have a sales tax goods on goods that are
resold, but do have a sales tax on things that are not resold.

Dan
The hairnets would be taxed, but the vats would come under Indiana's
exemption for equipment used in manufacturing.

A quick google check shows a lot of states have a similar exemption,

Indiana, by the way repealed its inventory tax. they started phasing it out
in 2002. I think it was completely eliminated by 07 or 08.

Paul K. Dickman

On 8/10/2012 11:41 PM, gunnerasch wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:32:46 -0400, Doug wrote:

Doug wrote:

Car is more useful to me on an everyday basis but both can kill.

Um, ok.

Next time we're having an argument, I dare you to pull your car out from
the kitchen drawer and run me down with it.

It never occurs to gun-nuts that it's a lot harder to kill someone with
a car than it is with a gun, but they still want to make the case that
it's ok for guns to be a common consumer product because they're
theoretically just as safe (or dangerous) as cars (as long as nobody is
handling / driving either one at any given moment).

Its far easier to kill you with a quart of gasoline and a match than
with a gun or car.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You stupid impotent ****wit.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:09:20 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:46:40 -0400, Congoleum Breckenridge
wrote:


Check it out .... I want one, or maybe two.

I can't get one of these sigh

KRISS SUPER V VECTOR 45 ACP SMG FULL-AUTO TEST WITH TDI SUPPRESSOR
ROCKETS !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6dO8TQ_7mY

Web site:

http://www.kriss-usa.com/products/sub-machine-guns/smg-45-acp

Rate of fire is far far too fast for much of anything handy.

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

On Aug 7, 8:18*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Get the government boot off the corporate neck?

* *get the morons out of office, no matter what party they belong to.
The first requirement to run for office should be a good work history,
followed by a full disclosure of their personal and family medical
history. *All grades, from grade school forward be made public. *IOW,
demand the 'transparency' we were promised in 2008.

So when do Romney's tax returns become available?

TMT

On Aug 7, 7:40*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Might help with the economic depression, too?

* *Real jobs are better than welfare, any day.

Not all of them.

Pay an employee a nonliveable wage and society suffers.

TMT

On Aug 7, 8:31*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 8/7/2012 7:58 AM, HeyBub wrote:





The Daring Dufas wrote:

Some years ago I came up with an idea for NDC, National Disaster
Corps. Young people who didn't care for the military could join The
NDC and get the same sort of benefits for serving the country armed
not with a gun but a shovel and a hard hat. Like The Peace Corps but
with heavy equipment. The corps could be organized like the military
and even work with the military for transportation and basing. Heck,
there are empty bases all over the place they could work out of. I
would imagine that The NDC would be more welcome in certain parts of
the world than the military in times of disaster. ^_^

It's extremely likely that those who shun the military would also be adverse
to hard work, so your idea - a good one in theory - would wither from lack
of participation.

A lot of people young and old joined The Peace Corps because they wanted
to help their fellow man not kill him and blow things up.
We have an incredible military maned by some of the finest folks
you would ever want to meet but their mission is to kill the enemy
if necessary. There are people who want to serve their country in
some capacity but don't care for death and destruction but have a
moral compass that steers in another direction. There are also those
like me who tried to join the military but were disqualified on medical
grounds. Because someone is a conscientious objector doesn't mean
they're a lazy slacker. I do believe a lot of military medics became
medics because of their religious beliefs and I doubt if any of them
were lazy cowards. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said.

So why don't Peace Corp volunteers get the benefits that vets do?

TMT

On Aug 7, 8:37*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in messagenews:auydnTQQdsMFirzNnZ2dnUVZ_s6XnZ2d@earth link.com...

* *GUN CONTROL: *A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.

No we wouldn"t.

The mass shootings are what happens when the common man gets a gun.

TMT

On Aug 7, 2:54*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:37:21 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"





wrote:
We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

* GUN CONTROL: *A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And annual psych testing.

TMT

On Aug 7, 3:13*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?
--

LOL...another one who shouldn't own a gun.

TMT

On Aug 7, 4:22*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

* *Free AK47s & ammo for gang bangers? *Armed dopeheads? *people with a
violent history too? *No thanks. *There is a segment of any population
that can't safely handle any weapon.

Recent mass shootings indicate that segment are crazy WHITE guys.

TMT

On Aug 7, 4:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's extremely likely that those who shun the military would also be
adverse to hard work, so your idea - a good one in theory - would
wither from lack of participation.

A lot of people young and old joined The Peace Corps because they
wanted to help their fellow man not kill him and blow things up.

Or they wanted sex with the indigenous people.

We have an incredible military maned by some of the finest folks
you would ever want to meet but their mission is to kill the enemy
if necessary. There are people who want to serve their country in
some capacity but don't care for death and destruction but have a
moral compass that steers in another direction.

Huh? I'd be surprised. Very surprised. There are any number of jobs where
one "can serve his country."
* Teacher
* Nurse
* Legal representative for the downtrodden
* Public health worker
* Abused child mentor
etc.

There are also those
like me who tried to join the military but were disqualified on
medical grounds.
Because someone is a conscientious objector doesn't
mean they're a lazy slacker. I do believe a lot of military medics
became medics because of their religious beliefs and I doubt if any
of them were lazy cowards. ^_^

There is no longer such a thing as a "conscientious objector."

Today medics and Marine corpsmen are volunteers. Unlike in WWII, today's
medics also carry arms, must qualify in their use, and kill the enemy if
they get the chance.

And the enemy loves to kill them...medics make easy targets.

TMT

On Aug 7, 4:54*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

* *Free AK47s & ammo for gang bangers? *Armed dopeheads? *people with a
violent history too? *No thanks. *There is a segment of any population
that can't safely handle any weapon.

And most of them already have weapons. Of course they didn't obey the
laws when buying them, and the fact that they are using or pushing drugs
that are also illegal shows their disregard for the law.

--
Steve W.

That include alcohol usage?

Of course it does.

TMT

On Aug 7, 5:09*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
The difference is that I can choose not to shop at Walmart. I can't choose
not to pay US and state taxes.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in messagenews:6nd2285hahg9pkret5ef1as8t4m4nj7rno@4ax .com...
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:01:55 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Get the government boot off the corporate neck?

snip

But then who gets the corporate boot off the citizens'
necks, and the socio/psychopaths and criminals out of the
executive suites (and the citizens' pockets)?

Sure you can...go live in another country.

TMT

On Aug 7, 9:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:18:26 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:14:10 -0500, misanthrope
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 6:17 AM, Thomas wrote:

Why the **** do you guys change the topic header? I have no idea where
I left off yesterday. Birmingham blizzard?

It is only stormin mormon who top posts and changes topic headers. *I
think he does it to annoy most posters in a.s group, in spite of the
fact that he has been repeatedly asked politely to stop doing both.

Don't be bashful. *He does it for attention. He is an attention whore.

I didn't think Mormans allowed prostitution.

You haven't spent time in Salt Lake City.

TMT

On Aug 7, 9:57*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:
And most of them already have weapons. Of course they didn't obey the
laws when buying them, and the fact that they are using or pushing drugs
that are also illegal shows their disregard for the law.

* *No reason to make better weapons available, though.

Guess you haven't noticed that they already have the "better weapons"

When you don't worry about the laws it's VERY easy to get full auto
weapons on the street, and usually much easier in locations with
stricter gun laws. That is because the feel good laws that are in place
lull the masses into thinking that "It can't happen here, the laws
prevent it"

--
Steve W.

Cite please.

I think you are full of ****.

TMT

On 8/15/2012 10:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:57 pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:
And most of them already have weapons. Of course they didn't obey the
laws when buying them, and the fact that they are using or pushing drugs
that are also illegal shows their disregard for the law.

No reason to make better weapons available, though.

Guess you haven't noticed that they already have the "better weapons"

When you don't worry about the laws it's VERY easy to get full auto
weapons on the street, and usually much easier in locations with
stricter gun laws. That is because the feel good laws that are in place
lull the masses into thinking that "It can't happen here, the laws
prevent it"

--
Steve W.

Cite please.

I think you are full of ****.

TMT



He is. The numbers of crimes committed using fully Automatic weapons or
Selective fire weapons in the US is so small as to be nearly nonexistent.

You are much more likely to be struck by lightning or win the Lottery
than ever face an automatic weapon unless you are messing with the military.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The mass shootings are what happens when the common man gets a gun.

Yes, only the elite like Dianne Feinstein should be allowed to possess
firearms.

On 8/15/2012 10:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:37 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in messagenews:auydnTQQdsMFirzNnZ2dnUVZ_s6XnZ2d@earth link.com...

GUN CONTROL: A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.

No we wouldn"t.

The mass shootings are what happens when the common man gets a gun.

TMT


Wrong, there is nothing "common" about the mentally ill who commit
horrendous crimes. A firearm is like any other tool which can be used
for good or evil purposes. I have noticed that for some odd reason,
there seem to be more insane mass shootings when Democrats are in power.
It makes me almost believe conspiracy theorists who think that
somehow Democrat operatives are recruiting crazy people and pushing them
into committing those horrible crimes. O_o

TDD

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:03:43 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/15/2012 10:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Aug 7, 8:37 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
We'd be a lot safer, if the common man were also armed. The criminals seem
to be armed, regardless of any laws.

How about if we require all adults to be armed, and just make it illegal to
shoot other people?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in messagenews:auydnTQQdsMFirzNnZ2dnUVZ_s6XnZ2d@earth link.com...

GUN CONTROL: A steady grip, aim carefully and squeeze gently so you
don't jerk the weapon.

No we wouldn"t.

The mass shootings are what happens when the common man gets a gun.

TMT


Wrong, there is nothing "common" about the mentally ill who commit
horrendous crimes. A firearm is like any other tool which can be used
for good or evil purposes. I have noticed that for some odd reason,
there seem to be more insane mass shootings when Democrats are in power.
It makes me almost believe conspiracy theorists who think that
somehow Democrat operatives are recruiting crazy people and pushing them
into committing those horrible crimes. O_o

Contrary to what's reported, *by* Democrats.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Aug 7, 9:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:18:26 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:14:10 -0500, misanthrope
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 6:17 AM, Thomas wrote:

Why the **** do you guys change the topic header? I have no idea where
I left off yesterday. Birmingham blizzard?

It is only stormin mormon who top posts and changes topic headers. *I
think he does it to annoy most posters in a.s group, in spite of the
fact that he has been repeatedly asked politely to stop doing both.

Don't be bashful. *He does it for attention. He is an attention whore.

I didn't think Mormans allowed prostitution.

You haven't spent time in Salt Lake City.

You're an idiot.

"David J. Hughes" wrote in
:

On 8/15/2012 10:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:57 pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:
And most of them already have weapons. Of course they didn't obey
the laws when buying them, and the fact that they are using or
pushing drugs that are also illegal shows their disregard for the
law.

No reason to make better weapons available, though.

Guess you haven't noticed that they already have the "better
weapons"

When you don't worry about the laws it's VERY easy to get full auto
weapons on the street, and usually much easier in locations with
stricter gun laws. That is because the feel good laws that are in
place lull the masses into thinking that "It can't happen here, the
laws prevent it"

--
Steve W.

Cite please.

I think you are full of ****.

TMT



He is. The numbers of crimes committed using fully Automatic weapons
or Selective fire weapons in the US is so small as to be nearly
nonexistent.

You are much more likely to be struck by lightning or win the Lottery
than ever face an automatic weapon unless you are messing with the
military.



the anti-gun folks intentionally try to get people confused about automatic
versus semi-auto firearms. many people still think the 1994 Assault Weapon
Ban was about machine guns,when it had nothing to do with them,automatics
were already strictly regulated.

there is SO much that TMT thinks he knows about guns that simply isn't
true.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Aug 7, 3:13*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?
--

LOL...another one who shouldn't own a gun.

TMT

Guns are what gave you the freedom you to spout your tripe. Who are
you to tell me or any other person about what they should own. Did
somebody put you in charge of something?

Another Google user heard from.

FOAD
--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:12:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:14:03 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Aug 7, 3:13*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?
--

LOL...another one who shouldn't own a gun.

TMT

Guns are what gave you the freedom you to spout your tripe. Who are
you to tell me or any other person about what they should own. Did
somebody put you in charge of something?

Too Many Trolls is the furthest left moron to ever post to this group. Like
all rabid leftists, yes, he thinks he owns you.

Another Google user heard from.


FOAD

If only.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:55:11 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

"David J. Hughes" wrote in
:

On 8/15/2012 10:25 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Aug 7, 9:57 pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"Steve W." wrote:
And most of them already have weapons. Of course they didn't obey
the laws when buying them, and the fact that they are using or
pushing drugs that are also illegal shows their disregard for the
law.

No reason to make better weapons available, though.

Guess you haven't noticed that they already have the "better
weapons"

When you don't worry about the laws it's VERY easy to get full auto
weapons on the street, and usually much easier in locations with
stricter gun laws. That is because the feel good laws that are in
place lull the masses into thinking that "It can't happen here, the
laws prevent it"

--
Steve W.

Cite please.

I think you are full of ****.

TMT



He is. The numbers of crimes committed using fully Automatic weapons
or Selective fire weapons in the US is so small as to be nearly
nonexistent.

You are much more likely to be struck by lightning or win the Lottery
than ever face an automatic weapon unless you are messing with the
military.



the anti-gun folks intentionally try to get people confused about automatic
versus semi-auto firearms. many people still think the 1994 Assault Weapon
Ban was about machine guns,when it had nothing to do with them,automatics
were already strictly regulated.

there is SO much that TMT thinks he knows about guns that simply isn't
true.

That's true of a *lot* more than guns. He's a militant leftist know-nothing
(redundant, I know). Just ignore the twit.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:48:50 -0400, "
wrote:

Too Many Trolls is the furthest left moron to ever post to this group. Like
all rabid leftists, yes, he thinks he owns you.

If he thinks he owns me; then he is a bigger fool than I thought.
--

On Aug 9, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:04:44 -0500, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:44:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. * Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

In this case, *would you prefer a gun or a car?

Car is more useful to me on an everyday basis but both can kill.

A car is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your head in.


And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.

Your point?

TMT

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.


Ask George Zimmerman about that. He would beg to differ with your
contention.
--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Aug 9, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:04:44 -0500, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:44:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. * Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

In this case, *would you prefer a gun or a car?

Car is more useful to me on an everyday basis but both can kill.

A car is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your head in.


And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.

Tell that to Travon, moron. God, you really are stupid.

Your point?

That you're a certifiable idiot. Your point is squarely between your
shoulders. what a moron

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:21:33 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.


Ask George Zimmerman about that. He would beg to differ with your
contention.

Don't ever expect Too Much Troll to make sense. He has none.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:22:35 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:48:50 -0400, "
wrote:

Too Many Trolls is the furthest left moron to ever post to this group. Like
all rabid leftists, yes, he thinks he owns you.

If he thinks he owns me; then he is a bigger fool than I thought.

Think harder. But don't worry, he'll soon show us all how stupid he really
is. He can't help it.

On Aug 16, 10:09*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Aug 9, 8:29 am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:04:44 -0500, "Doug" wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:44:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

In this case, would you prefer a gun or a car?

Car is more useful to me on an everyday basis but both can kill.

A car is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your head in..

And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.

Tell that to Travon, moron. *God, you really are stupid.

Your point?

That you're a certifiable idiot. *Your point is squarely between your
shoulders. *what a moron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you seen the show on cable, "The First 48"? They
follow homocide investigators around? They recently had
an update on a murder case from Miami. I remember seeing
it a year or so ago. Basicly they found a guy stabbed to
death on the street in the middle of the night, no witnesses,
no one knows what happened. Eventually the
investigation showed that what happened was you had
two guys breaking into a truck to steal the radio. The
owner saw it from his apartment, got a kitchen knife,
went downstairs and chased after the two. He caught
up with the one in the street. They had a grainy
surveilance video that showed him chasing the guy down
the street, then the two coming into contact. Hard to
see exactly what the interaction was at that point, but
the victim then staggers away.

So, the stabber initially denies the whole thing,
saying he was never there.
Eventually under questioning he changes his
story, saying that he did stab the guy, but the
guy had turned around and raised his hand
toward him, so he pushed him away with one
hand and stabbed him with the other.

They charged him with 1st degree murder.
He lawyers up and now claims self defense under
the "stand your ground" law. It went to a judge
for a hearing to see if the charges should be
dismissed. At that hearing the guy tells yet
a third story, now saying that the victim swung
a bag containing radios at him and he acted
in self defense.

The interesting thing is that the judge bought it
and dismissed the charges. So, here you have
a guy actually chasing down the unarmed victim, clearly
being the aggressor at that point, with only his
word that the victim swung a bag at him and the
judge found SYG applied. If any similar
standard is applied with Zimmerman, there
should be no question that he gets off.

Another rather strange thing, I thought, is that
the police brought no other charges. I mean
WTF? In FL you can stab someone in claimed
self defense and then leave them to bleed to
death in the street without calling 911? I
would think there would be some lesser
charge that would cover that, no?

Of course one difference here is also that
the "victim" had committed a car burglary
that instigated the whole thing. I don't know
what FL law says about the right of someone
to pursue someone who has done that. But
I found it an interesting application on SYG.
For sure if you did this in NJ or NYC you
would go to trial.

"gunnerasch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.
--

I don't have a problem for non-violent felons being armed
I have no need to fear someone sent to jail for not paying his taxes
On the other hand, people convicted of violent crimes should not be going
through a revolving door system of justice so that they can come out and
commit more violent crimes


So you consider a battered wife who ultimately killed her abusive
husband a violent felon?


sigh
Now where did I write that ?
Self-defense is NOT a "Crime", now is it ?

wrote in message
...
On Aug 16, 10:09 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Aug 9, 8:29 am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:04:44 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:44:06 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if
you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

In this case, would you prefer a gun or a car?

Car is more useful to me on an everyday basis but both can kill.

A car is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your head
in.

And a gun is useless if someone has you on the ground bashing your
head in.

Tell that to Travon, moron. God, you really are stupid.

Your point?

That you're a certifiable idiot. Your point is squarely between your
shoulders. what a moron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you seen the show on cable, "The First 48"? They
follow homocide investigators around? They recently had
an update on a murder case from Miami. I remember seeing
it a year or so ago. Basicly they found a guy stabbed to
death on the street in the middle of the night, no witnesses,
no one knows what happened. Eventually the
investigation showed that what happened was you had
two guys breaking into a truck to steal the radio. The
owner saw it from his apartment, got a kitchen knife,
went downstairs and chased after the two. He caught
up with the one in the street. They had a grainy
surveilance video that showed him chasing the guy down
the street, then the two coming into contact. Hard to
see exactly what the interaction was at that point, but
the victim then staggers away.

So, the stabber initially denies the whole thing,
saying he was never there.
Eventually under questioning he changes his
story, saying that he did stab the guy, but the
guy had turned around and raised his hand
toward him, so he pushed him away with one
hand and stabbed him with the other.

They charged him with 1st degree murder.
He lawyers up and now claims self defense under
the "stand your ground" law. It went to a judge
for a hearing to see if the charges should be
dismissed. At that hearing the guy tells yet
a third story, now saying that the victim swung
a bag containing radios at him and he acted
in self defense.

The interesting thing is that the judge bought it
and dismissed the charges. So, here you have
a guy actually chasing down the unarmed victim, clearly
being the aggressor at that point, with only his
word that the victim swung a bag at him and the
judge found SYG applied. If any similar
standard is applied with Zimmerman, there
should be no question that he gets off.

Another rather strange thing, I thought, is that
the police brought no other charges. I mean
WTF? In FL you can stab someone in claimed
self defense and then leave them to bleed to
death in the street without calling 911? I
would think there would be some lesser
charge that would cover that, no?

Of course one difference here is also that
the "victim" had committed a car burglary
that instigated the whole thing. I don't know
what FL law says about the right of someone
to pursue someone who has done that. But
I found it an interesting application on SYG.
For sure if you did this in NJ or NYC you
would go to trial.

Could be there is a law stating that the use of deadly force is OK to stop a
person committing a felony

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:09:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:

Of course one difference here is also that
the "victim" had committed a car burglary
that instigated the whole thing. I don't know
what FL law says about the right of someone
to pursue someone who has done that. But
I found it an interesting application on SYG.
For sure if you did this in NJ or NYC you
would go to trial.

Could be there is a law stating that the use of deadly force is OK to stop a
person committing a felony


Florida is a Castle Doctrine state.

"...The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who
forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is
there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use
any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place
you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a
criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your
ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly
force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or
great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right
repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall
not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for
injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges
and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus
on protecting victims."

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
--

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:09:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:

Of course one difference here is also that
the "victim" had committed a car burglary
that instigated the whole thing. I don't know
what FL law says about the right of someone
to pursue someone who has done that. But
I found it an interesting application on SYG.
For sure if you did this in NJ or NYC you
would go to trial.

Could be there is a law stating that the use of deadly force is OK to stop
a
person committing a felony


Florida is a Castle Doctrine state.

"...The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who
forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is
there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use
any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place
you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a
criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your
ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly
force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or
great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right
repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall
not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for
injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges
and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus
on protecting victims."

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
--

Not what I was talking about
I was trying to point more specifically to any statute that defines the how
and when of using deadly force, Such laws were typically in effect before
Castle Doctrine and usually remain unchanged by it.
Note also that Castle doctrine does NOT give you the right to aggressively
"go forward" as opposed to retreat, to kill someone.
Self-defense by definition rarely covers, if ever, pro-active mad
pre-emptive acts

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:31:11 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm
--

Not what I was talking about
I was trying to point more specifically to any statute that defines the how
and when of using deadly force, Such laws were typically in effect before
Castle Doctrine and usually remain unchanged by it.
Note also that Castle doctrine does NOT give you the right to aggressively
"go forward" as opposed to retreat, to kill someone.
Self-defense by definition rarely covers, if ever, pro-active mad
pre-emptive acts


I don't recall any laws ever in Florida that allowed a person to chase
down and kill a person. If you later catch the guy with your property
and he starts acting the fool when you catch him you can stand you
ground (now) and administer justice on the spot.

"HUFF... HUFF... I had to stand my ground for a half mile before I
caught up to him."
--