State v Zimmerman

[Tero]

Where is this claim that I want to hang Z?

No, this is a great case of bringing up what libertarians are doing to the country. They want everyone armed cause the Gubment can't keep you safe. Safe for you, to have the gun. But I want to take your hand guns away so I don't catch all your stray bullets when I go to Disney World with my grand kids some day.

The amendment gives you the right to bear arms. As long as we give you SOME arms, just like we give women abortion at under 20 weeks, we did not break the laws and supreme court decisions.

The Gubment gets to decide 200 years later how it is practical to give you the freedoms.

[Coito ergo sum]

Where is this claim that I want to hang Z?

"hang" metaphorically. You certainly spend enough time bashing the guy and suggesting that what he did was wrong and that it was his responsibility.

No, this is a hreat case of bringing up what libertarians are doing to the country.

civil libertarians?

They want everyone armed cause the Gubment can't keep you safe.

The government can't "keep you safe."

Safe for you, to have the gun. But I want to take your hand guns away so I don't catch all your stray bullets when I go to Disney World with my grand kids some day.

Disney World doesn't allow weapons. http://www.wdwinfo.com/tips_for_touring ... prohibited

Nobody is proposing handgun bans in the federal laws being proposed about guns. It's all assault rifle stuff. The President and the Democrats generally poo-poo the idea that "we are coming to take your guns away."

The amendment gives you the right to bear arms. As long as we give you SOME arms, just like we give women abortion at under 20 weeks, we did not break the laws and supreme court decisions.

The Gubment gets to decide 200 years later how it is practical to give you the freedoms.

Of course, and there is room for reasonable regulation of guns. The Zimmerman case is not about gun laws, though. No matter what the verdict, it has no impact on gun laws. A conviction of Zimmerman would not be an indictment of American gun laws.

[Tero]

Wrong you are! People will get elected based on their views on guns. The case is just the kind to bring to National Attention where gun fanatics end up in peace keeping operations with people they never met before. I hope the criminals get more guns, we are soon running out of criminals with guns. How will we be able to make realistic tv shows then?

(The above contains humor, note to Coito)

Your gun nut at DW will shoot me in the parking lot.

[Coito ergo sum]

The above was more bizarre than humorous. But, I did read your facetiousness.

If I thought it was in any way likely to be shot at Disney World, I wouldn't go. It's very safe there. People don't shoot each other in the parking lots. Nailbiters, though, do tend to live in fear of imagined dangers lurking behind every parked car. It's that sort of fear that makes people accept anything and everything that might give them the illusion of safety.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wendy Durival - started the neighborhood watch....

[Coito ergo sum]

O'Meara is skewering the prosecution's case.

If the jury convicts, I would be very surprised.

[Tero]

I'll give you the "assault gun" permit, by the way. If you show me you went to shoot moose, bear or elk every year. If there are no such game to shoot legally in your state, then no.

[Tero]

O'Meara is skewering the prosecution's case.

If the jury convicts, I would be very surprised.

He is sometimes convincing, but I never liked him. Reminds me of the prosecutor in the one jury case I was on (arson) the jury.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll give you the "assault gun" permit, by the way. If you shiw me you went to shoot moose, bear or elk every year. If there are no such game to shoot legally in your state, then no.

Well, as long as I can have a hunting gun, then whether I can have an "assault gun" (whatever you mean by that) is not my concern.

This Winchester .270 works well -- and has been popular for many decades --

Is that an "assault gun?"

[Coito ergo sum]

O'Meara is skewering the prosecution's case.

If the jury convicts, I would be very surprised.

He is sometimes convincing, but I never liked him. Reminds me of the prosecutor in the one jury case I was on (arson) the jury.

He is being very dry and matter-of-fact. And, he has been able to say "we can reverse the burden of proof here, and make me prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt, and you STILL could come back with an acquittal." Strong words.

[Tero]

That is why I put the quotes. I am not getting into another assault gun discussion. It's your concealed hand guns that the 2nd amendment never states.

[Coito ergo sum]

That is why I put the quotes. I am not getting into another assault gun discussion. It's your concealed hand guns that the 2nd amendment never states.

Then why is it so hard for you to make a coherent statement on the topic. You go from hand gun to "assault gun" to all over the place.

The 2d Amendment doesn't refer to any particular kind of gun -- however, at the time the 2d Amendment was written, there were handguns, and there were muskets. These were considered "arms." A handgun is an "arm," isn't it?

[Azathoth]

I will just leave this here

[Coito ergo sum]

[Coito ergo sum]

The prosecution just asked the jury to use their hearts..... seriously?

"I don't have any charts or six foot long time-lines...just use your common sense, and your hearts...."

Bwahahahahahahahahahhaha!

Translation --- I won't bore you with the evidence -- just feel in your heart that the man is guilty...

...and he's referring to Martin as a "child."

Prosecutors.... scary bunch, man. Scary bunch.