slim

I've been shocked the last few days over all the folks screaming for convictions when there's no evidence of a crime. Especially black people who are so careful to support the cause of withholding evidence from law enforcement via "stop snitching" campaigns and the like.I'll be sure to remind everyone of this shift in policy next time we have the "justice system isn't fair to young black men" debate.

This wasnt even a stand your ground case.
I cant believe how sheeple just gobble up whatever is spoon-fed to them by the media. Think, people! Do you really want less rights when it comes to self defense? Do you want it to be a law you cant fight back and have to rely on the government to keep you safe?
Come on!

Pay disparity comes from type of work and negotiations. That's why men also make more than women. It isn't racist, it isn't sexist, it's simply an interaction between an employee and an employer.
If you want to talk about racist hiring policies, lets start with affirmative action. Folks are preferentially hired based on nothing more than the colorof their skin. You can't discriminate based on skin color but somehow it makes sense to give preference?
When you tell people they're inferior and need "extra" help to get hired, you've set the standard of inferiority for them. No wonder they have so much difficulty negotiating equal pay. Once again, you folks are "feeding the animals" and making them forget how to hunt.

When you subsidize bad behavior, you can't be surprised when an increase in bad behavior is the result.

Mandela is absolutely right. If people are too busy out earning a living, they don't have time to shoot each other nor do they want to. They'd rather live a nice, peaceful life and be happy with their family like everyone else.

Problem we've had in this country for way too long is we've been feeding the animals. They've forgotten how to fend for themselves and can't hunt anymore. They will fight over food if there's not enough. When you visit a park or the zoo, there's a big sign that says, "Don't feed the animals." Funny thing is we turn right around and pay people to do nothing more than sit around in free houses watching TV, eating, and procreating.

Additionally, we've guaranteed natural selection end as well. No longer must a woman pick and choose who to mate with. The capable providers of stability and security necessary to ensure her offspring will grow successfully are no longer the fathers of the children but the state itself. When a man isn't required to be responsible for his children - and someone else picks up the slack - the burden of selection on the woman is nullified and children of all types will grow to reproductive ages themselves.

I say end all forms of welfare immediately. Give everyone a gun and ammo and let the problem sort itself out. Unlike the progressives in this country that think some people (often along color lines) aren't capable of making it without special help, I believe in these Americans to be resourceful and capable individuals who will pretty rapidly figure it out and make good on the freedoms they have.

They can do it. Let them try!

I've been shocked the last few days over all the folks screaming for convictions when there's no evidence of a crime. Especially black people who are so careful to support the cause of withholding evidence from law enforcement via "stop snitching" campaigns and the like.I'll be sure to remind everyone of this shift in policy next time we have the "justice system isn't fair to young black men" debate.

I'm a simple person.

Our colonial forefathers had privately owned canons.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I don't sugarcoat things here on VJ.

On facebook, I've learned there are many people out there who don't like hearing certain things and they won't reply with rational arguments (Yes, even those of you who disagree with my positions typically respond with rational arguments instead of simple name calling or the favorite facebook automatic response of, "You're a racist.") and only reply with emotionally-based name calling.

However, on facebook... there are a lot more pictures! Maybe I do look soft. Maybe I look like a healthy young man. Either way, there are those that get it and those who will likely misunderstand forever. Not hard to figure out which ones voted for Obama.

Interesting that addresses come up.

All those anti-gunners want to publicize the addresses of gun owners yet when someone puts a sign in their yard saying, "My neighbor doesn't own guns and I promise I won't use my gun to defend his house." they get all upset.

When you subsidize bad behavior, you can't be surprised when an increase in bad behavior is the result.

Mandela is absolutely right. If people are too busy out earning a living, they don't have time to shoot each other nor do they want to. They'd rather live a nice, peaceful life and be happy with their family like everyone else.

Problem we've had in this country for way too long is we've been feeding the animals. They've forgotten how to fend for themselves and can't hunt anymore. They will fight over food if there's not enough. When you visit a park or the zoo, there's a big sign that says, "Don't feed the animals." Funny thing is we turn right around and pay people to do nothing more than sit around in free houses watching TV, eating, and procreating.

Additionally, we've guaranteed natural selection end as well. No longer must a woman pick and choose who to mate with. The capable providers of stability and security necessary to ensure her offspring will grow successfully are no longer the fathers of the children but the state itself. When a man isn't required to be responsible for his children - and someone else picks up the slack - the burden of selection on the woman is nullified and children of all types will grow to reproductive ages themselves.

I say end all forms of welfare immediately. Give everyone a gun and ammo and let the problem sort itself out. Unlike the progressives in this country that think some people (often along color lines) aren't capable of making it without special help, I believe in these Americans to be resourceful and capable individuals who will pretty rapidly figure it out and make good on the freedoms they have.

They can do it. Let them try!

Is that why the Swiss had such a rough go of it?
No doubt you'd champion academia as the "authority" on why and how everything happened. Also no doubt they'd skip over why some countries get rolled every couple of years and others get dealt diplomacy. Perhaps you should skip the 101 class and rack up some late "cha-jes" at the library. How do you like them apples?
On buying/selling guns, the burden is on the buyer but the responsibility lies with the seller. Here in Ohio, I'm not legally allowed to sell to someone I have reason (there's that pesky word again!) to believe is prohibited. Typically a face-to-face meeting with ID check is all it takes to dissuade someone from making an illegal purchase.
A good way to weed out "shady characters" is to require a bill of sale and if that's still not enough, meeting at a gun shop or stepping over to one of those tables where a licensed person is selling guns (most tables at gun shows these days) and doing a NICS check is all that's required.
A progressive liberal buddy of mine who's been screaming to close the loop hole recently sold his rifle. I asked him if he did a background check since he's been championing the issue for quite some time. I'll let you deduce his answer.
Sellers aren't prohibited from doing a background check through a licensed individual. It's easy to meet at a gun shop or step up to the table at a show. Most dealers will only charge $20 or so to run the information and complete the 4473. But a random dude like me can't just call the FBI and get a background check on a random dude like you. How do we fix that?
Where we run into issues is most people don't feel the need to to run background checks when selling a gun. I sure as hell don't.
Why would I run a background check on someone I personally know? And when selling to a stranger, If I meet someone face to face and they show me their ID, I can simply cancel the sale if I feel they might be prohibited. The last thing I'd want to do is sell someone a gun that they're going to misuse. But to require a background check - government intervention into a transaction between two private citizens exercising a right guaranteed by the constitution - is borderline unconstitutional. Can you imagine if something like publishing a book required a background check? How about a protest? Need a background check for that?
Bottom line is you don't ask the government if it's OK to exercise your rights.
Now, that being said, I realize in today's modern America we've allowed a lot of people who aren't capable of being responsible with their rights to continue existing. (We even pay them to breed!) So, we feel like we have to have some sort of "system" in place so those of us who aren't responsible enough to guarantee our own safety and security feel like there are rules in place that keep us safe. We'll pay trillions of dollars a year to perpetuate that myth. I get it.
The simple explanation is it's your own fault. You bought the government's bullstuff that a background check would prohibit criminals from getting guns. Lets just pretend for a minute that we don't eat whatever's spoon fed to us by the ####### tube and we sit back like rational people for a minute. Never in a million years does a piece of paperwork prohibit something from happening in the real world. So, what we're left with is a broken system that some folks say we need to do more of.
Why on earth, if it's broken, would we do more of it? Sounds a lot like the fed printing more money to get us out of this fiscal crisis. Liberal logic at it's best!

When you subsidize bad behavior, you can't be surprised when an increase in bad behavior is the result.

Mandela is absolutely right. If people are too busy out earning a living, they don't have time to shoot each other nor do they want to. They'd rather live a nice, peaceful life and be happy with their family like everyone else.

Problem we've had in this country for way too long is we've been feeding the animals. They've forgotten how to fend for themselves and can't hunt anymore. They will fight over food if there's not enough. When you visit a park or the zoo, there's a big sign that says, "Don't feed the animals." Funny thing is we turn right around and pay people to do nothing more than sit around in free houses watching TV, eating, and procreating.

Additionally, we've guaranteed natural selection end as well. No longer must a woman pick and choose who to mate with. The capable providers of stability and security necessary to ensure her offspring will grow successfully are no longer the fathers of the children but the state itself. When a man isn't required to be responsible for his children - and someone else picks up the slack - the burden of selection on the woman is nullified and children of all types will grow to reproductive ages themselves.

I say end all forms of welfare immediately. Give everyone a gun and ammo and let the problem sort itself out. Unlike the progressives in this country that think some people (often along color lines) aren't capable of making it without special help, I believe in these Americans to be resourceful and capable individuals who will pretty rapidly figure it out and make good on the freedoms they have.

They can do it. Let them try!

I think anyone who simply throws caution to the wind and "trusts that everything will be alright" is delusional. I believe they have issues. Taking off the rose colored glaasses would help but they're not optical issues.
Trusting the military and/or law enforcement more than your common neighbor civilian is stupid. They're humans just like everyone else and just because they use firearms more frequently doesn't mean they make any better - or worse - decisions than anyone else.
Funny that knowing how to fight is a pre-requisite for following someone bit having a gun is going too far. I'd argue being a good citizen and concerned member of your community is all that's necessary to try stoppimg crime around your house.

Difference of opinion isn't indicative of mental health issues.
I think you guys are just as whacked because you trust your safety to someone else.

I think anyone who simply throws caution to the wind and "trusts that everything will be alright" is delusional. I believe they have issues. Taking off the rose colored glaasses would help but they're not optical issues.
Trusting the military and/or law enforcement more than your common neighbor civilian is stupid. They're humans just like everyone else and just because they use firearms more frequently doesn't mean they make any better - or worse - decisions than anyone else.
Funny that knowing how to fight is a pre-requisite for following someone bit having a gun is going too far. I'd argue being a good citizen and concerned member of your community is all that's necessary to try stoppimg crime around your house.

Absolutely.Nine times out of ten simply saying hello or making some type of verbal contact with a burglar or similar petty criminal is enough to deter the crime. GZ suspected TM was looking for things to steal. Asking him what he was doing would've most likely prevented that crime.
People keep saying "He only got out because he had a gun." For those of us who carry guns daily, there's no increase in motivation to attempt aggressive actions - if anythong there's an element of, "I should be more careful." - because carrying a handgun is defensive in nature. It's not there to do something, it's there in caze something happens.

Difference of opinion isn't indicative of mental health issues.
I think you guys are just as whacked because you trust your safety to someone else.

If TM would've kept walking instead of violently attacking GZ, it's likely we would've never heard of either of these clowns. Now, I'm not saying he was obligated to do so. If he felt GZ was threatening him and about to jump him or whatever, he had a right to defend himself. The evidence does not indicate that happened.GZ did not threaten TM by getting out of his vehicle, following him, talking to him, etc. If TM was threatened by that, he had the obligation to defend himself with an appropriate level of force - talking.
At the very root of this case is when force escalated to a point where someone could defend themselves with deadly force. There's evidence TM placed GZ's life in jeopardy by slamming his head on the ground. The only evidence of force applied by GZ before the shooting was following and "asking questions" - neither of which give someone the right to defend themself with any force at all.

I'm still surprised so many people are upset that our justice system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If there is no evidence of a crime, a not guilty verdict must be reached.
Are you folks considering what you're asking for here? You're implying the state, and jurors as well, should be holding citizens accountable for actions not based on evidence and proven in a court of law, but simply by how they feel about the situation.
In self defense cases, it's almost always a bad situation and that's why the facts and evidence is so important. Those of you who've pointed out there's no evidence of who started the initial confrontation are exactly right. There is none. And in that case, we always have to acquit the accused. If we don't, we're implying people should be convicted without evidence of a crime.
There is evidence the shooter was physically assaulted. There is none that he assaulted the deceased. Judge based on facts. Not conjecture, not feelings, and certainly not what Al Sharpton says might have possibly maybe could've taken place.
Facts. Only facts.

I live in reality. There are evil people in this world who could try to harm me. I'm comforted by the fact that I won't be placed in a situation where I need to hide and pray nothing bad happens while I wait on someone to come save me.
I have the option of defending myself. You should try it sometime. Personal responsibility is exteremely comforting.

I'm still surprised so many people are upset that our justice system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If there is no evidence of a crime, a not guilty verdict must be reached.
Are you folks considering what you're asking for here? You're implying the state, and jurors as well, should be holding citizens accountable for actions not based on evidence and proven in a court of law, but simply by how they feel about the situation.
In self defense cases, it's almost always a bad situation and that's why the facts and evidence is so important. Those of you who've pointed out there's no evidence of who started the initial confrontation are exactly right. There is none. And in that case, we always have to acquit the accused. If we don't, we're implying people should be convicted without evidence of a crime.
There is evidence the shooter was physically assaulted. There is none that he assaulted the deceased. Judge based on facts. Not conjecture, not feelings, and certainly not what Al Sharpton says might have possibly maybe could've taken place.
Facts. Only facts.

My wife is American here and Russian in Russia.

I'm American in both. 'merica. F'k yeah!

My wife is American here and Russian in Russia.

I'm American in both. 'merica. F'k yeah!

I was thinking of Fiduciary Instruments and said, "Boy, it must be nice to have a woman bringing money here!"

Took the other guys with guns 10 minutes to get there and stop this. 10 minutes. Boy, that's fast! Unless someone's shooting at you.
What you anti-gunners keep avoiding is the fact that the first person you call when someone is shooting at you is someone with a gun. Why do you insist on wasting money to have someone else handle your problems for you?