Buckeye Firearms Association Seeking Donations To Buy George Zimmerman A New Gun

Originally posted by muse7
Let's see if you keep giving nuts like these more guns when god forbid, one of them guns down one of YOUR close relatives just for "looking suspicious".

Yup let's give a murderer more guns so he can gun down another unarmed teenager.

If this were true, you would be right. But the catch is, Martin wasnt murdered for looking suspicious. He was killed in self defense. There are thousands of other cases that end how you want: with innocents getting murdered. This however is not one of them.

Originally posted by muse7
Let's see if you keep giving nuts like these more guns when god forbid, one of them guns down one of YOUR close relatives just for "looking suspicious".

Yup let's give a murderer more guns so he can gun down another unarmed teenager.

You are absolutely nuts to want to give murderers guns. That is absolutely idiotic.


In Georges case he was found NOT GUILTY which is also called INNOCENT. As in innocent until proven guilty.


Lesson is. Kids don't assault strangers your life may depend on it.

Originally posted by riffraff

Originally posted by muse7
Let's see if you keep giving nuts like these more guns when god forbid, one of them guns down one of YOUR close relatives just for "looking suspicious".

Yup let's give a murderer more guns so he can gun down another unarmed teenager.

If this were true, you would be right. But the catch is, Martin wasnt murdered for looking suspicious. He was killed in self defense. There are thousands of other cases that end how you want: with innocents getting murdered. This however is not one of them.

Let's just say that for some reason Trayvon Martin looked suspicious to George Zimmerman, and he decided to stalk him. He ignored the advice from the 911 dispatcher NOT to follow him. If he had acted like a responsible Neighborhood watch leader then he would have waited for the cops to show up, but instead he decided to act as Trayvon Martin's judge, jury and executioner on that night.

But like I said..you keep giving nuts like these more guns..and you'll never know when its going to be YOU that looks suspicious to them.

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by riffraff

Originally posted by muse7
Let's see if you keep giving nuts like these more guns when god forbid, one of them guns down one of YOUR close relatives just for "looking suspicious".

Yup let's give a murderer more guns so he can gun down another unarmed teenager.

If this were true, you would be right. But the catch is, Martin wasnt murdered for looking suspicious. He was killed in self defense. There are thousands of other cases that end how you want: with innocents getting murdered. This however is not one of them.

Let's just say that for some reason Trayvon Martin looked suspicious to George Zimmerman, and he decided to stalk him. He ignored the advice from the 911 dispatcher NOT to follow him. If he had acted like a responsible Neighborhood watch leader then he would have waited for the cops to show up, but instead he decided to act as Trayvon Martin's judge, jury and executioner on that night.

I am sure that had Trayvon called the police, the dispatcher would have told him not to punch the "stalker" and let the cops handle it.

reply to post by Visitor2012


Are you sayingt that you will Deny the Exact same right to him that have been granted to you?

He was acquited. He is not a murderer by any stretch.

What do you have to gain by denying him his rights?

reply to post by jimmyx


Really?

There is No need to stretch this into something that it isn't.

Stop creating scenarios that are unrealistic.

Anyone want to take bets on how long till "he fears for his life" again? He knows exactly how to play the system now. Bad idea to give a wannebe cop stalker a gun in the first place.

reply to post by Logarock

I mean lets say you raise 100,000$, what will you do with the overage?

How about fighting against tighter gun restrictions.

I would call that Donation Well Spent.

reply to post by muse7

Yup let's give a murderer more guns so he can gun down another unarmed teenager.

Apparently you haven't been watching the news.

Those thousands of Death Threats are Not coming from children although they do in fact have the mentality of a child.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Anyone want to take bets on how long till "he fears for his life" again? He knows exactly how to play the system now. Bad idea to give a wannebe cop stalker a gun in the first place.

he may end up someday wishing he would have just been a good little victim and let Mr Martin beat him to death.

I think everyone that is attacking this has completely missed the whole point of this post.

It is NOT About Innocence or Guilt.

It is about the fundamental Erosion of OUR Constitutional Rights.

Every man has the Right Not to be tried for the same thing. Especially after he has been found NOT GUITLY by a jury of his peers.

Every Man has the Right to bare arms and to defend himself within the limits of the laws.

By denying him his freedoms you are in retrospect agreeing to have Your Freedoms Molested and Diminished.

Why would you agree to such a thing.

OR,. . .

Is it because it does not suit you to allow this man what Everyone has the Right to.

I would call that the Epitome of Hypocrisy.

How sad this is.

reply to post by muse7


Since when is Zimmerman a murderer...except in your head. He was found not guilty.

I'll grant you that he's a killer, but not a murderer. There is a difference.

Then again, I have some relatives who look suspicious and are. I'm sure the family and humanity can do without their gene-pool contribution.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Well, you did post it Shad, and I'm glad you did. It is showing the true Nazi's for who they really are. Those who supposedly think they know better. If they had their way, those of us clingers would all be in camps.

It grates their nerves to no end that their pitiful feelings are ignored in favor of the law.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
I think everyone that is attacking this has completely missed the whole point of this post.

It is NOT About Innocence or Guilt.

It is about the fundamental Erosion of OUR Constitutional Rights.

Every man has the Right Not to be tried for the same thing. Especially after he has been found NOT GUITLY by a jury of his peers.

Every Man has the Right to bare arms and to defend himself within the limits of the laws.

By denying him his freedoms you are in retrospect agreeing to have Your Freedoms Molested and Diminished.

Why would you agree to such a thing.

OR,. . .

Is it because it does not suit you to allow this man what Everyone has the Right to.

I would call that the Epitome of Hypocrisy.

How sad this is.

I'm quoting this just to make sure people read it

reply to post by TDawgRex


But, what is to be said about Each persons rights.

Those that attack this thread are entitled to the Exact same rights.

They are cutting off their noses despite their face. It makes no sense at all.

I don't give a Damn if they agree with the verdict or Not.

I Do give a Damn that they don't mind being violated if it will serve to violate someone else.

HOW IN THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

HOW IN THE HELL DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

It doesn't. But you put forth a conundrum that they can't reconcile.

So they reject it out of fear. They seem to think that if only we would stop caring about others, the world would be filled with unicorns and rainbows.

And they'd toss those that do not think like them into camps...just to be rid of us. It's happened before. Don't be fooled.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by rickymouse

 

This far from just giving the man another gun.

This shows that people believe in what is right.

Weather you agree or disagree people are entitled to certain freedoms.

Hey, I am a big supporter of our rights to bear arms. I am against people who have committed a serious crime while utilizing a firearm from ever owning a handgun. I am against a deranged individual buying a handgun or even a rifle. Just because I do not think all individuals, because of circumstances that are evident, deserve to have guns does not mean I am not backing our constitutional right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms was never meant to protect the rights of criminals or people while they are crazy. It is not an "all or none" rule to be a backer of the law. People think you have to support it with all your might or you are against it. That is irrational thought. I back the right of the honest and sane individuals in our society to bear arms. Just because someone had a nervous breakdown ten years ago does not mean they cannot have a gun if they are alright now. A person who used a gun to rob a gas station twenty years ago lost his rights for life to own a gun in my book, even if he was under the influence of a drug or booze. We are responsible for our actions no matter what mental state we are in.

We all have rights to our opinions as you stated. I will continue to back the right to bear arms but only with some limitations applied to it. Reasonable limitations.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


The A.C.L.U. should be seeking charges on the D.O.J. for violating Zimmerman's civil liberties. Is this the way the liberals are going to treat all Mexicans that will be American citizens when they pass amnesty?

The Hispanic population really should be watching this closely. How soon would this administration sell them out?

The A.C.L.U. and the D.O.J. are so out of line in this investigation. They should be investigating themselves for corruption. The most corrupt people in this world are in our own government.

Note to N.S.A. I was being coerced when I wrote this (sarcasm intended).

My personal view about the Zimmerman case is that he's a murderer who got away with it.

However, he's faced trial by jury and has been found not guilty. He walks, end of story - regardless of how anyone else feels.

Attempts at extrajudicial punishment by the federal regime in the United States against Zimmerman smack of extreme institutional arrogance and just illustrate how far that nation has fallen.

Does he deserve a weapon? My own feeling is no, he doesn't, but my own feelings in this case are as irrelevant as Obama's. If he's legally entitled to own and carry a gun then there's no legal reason why he shouldn't have one. One set of laws for all is the only way a free and just society can work.

reply to post by rickymouse


I agree with you completely.

No one who has committed a crime and has been convicted of that crime has the right to bare arms.

In fact that those laws were created protect US from those who disregard the law. Although they don't do much to keep someone with mal-intent from committing crimes with guns.

The reasonable limitations you speak of are law. It is nothing more or less than we already have.

I, like many others don't want to see tighter restrictions than we already have.

The second we compromise those laws in favor of tighter restrictions will be the day that we see the end of Our right to bare arms.

P.S. I do value your opinion weather you agree or disagree. Thanks.