If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Think a pack of Skittles looks like a gun? If you're holding a gun, probably   (newsinfo.nd.edu) divider line 1323
    More: Interesting, University of Notre Dame, Journal of Experimental Psychology  
•       •       •

22824 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2012 at 4:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-23 10:04:59 AM

WTF Indeed: Wait? Are you telling me that personal responsibility becomes vastly more important in states with conceal/carry laws? Cause the NRA says it's like the old West that if everyone had guns there would be peace, and I know this is a fact because there was never any gun violence in any western I ever saw.

/For conceal/Carry laws
//Thinks the NRA is screwing up it up for everyone.


This is one of the reasons I can't support them. Lifelong collector/comp shooter, just don't agree with their logic that you must go for all to get some. All I hear at ranges are people crying about Obama and how he's going to take everyone's guns. Here's a hint, maybe you should stop fighting for BS like same day sales of handguns, no background checks, against docs reporting psychological issues that typically would make one insane, etc. They need to focus on conceal carry for people with strict standards of issue (no violent felons, not insane, etc.), and all guns should be legal, including full auto, as long as you fit the criteria. So tired of the NRA butting heads with anti gun people on issues that just make sense like waiting periods and crap. They lose all credibility in my book. And yes, I do appreciate them for when they actually do fight for the issues I mentioned are important and valid, they just need to stop the BS arguing about BS stuff that isn't even important unless you're a felon who wouldn't pass a background check and who needs a gun today.
 
2012-03-23 10:08:00 AM

FarkinHostile: When you're racist every black/hispanic/white/asian person looks like a criminal/thug/jackboot/student.

Or something.



So, the shooter sees a criminal/thug/jackboot/student when he looks in the mirror? I guess that applies in this case, but I doubt that's what he sees.
 
2012-03-23 10:09:18 AM

Aldon: s2s2s2: Separation is not necessary for the shooting to have occurred.

Sure, I said they could have been struggling for the gun and that is the only scenario I can think of that would exonerate the gunman. I also think that could be easily dis-proven (if it is not the case) with forensic evidence. I also haven't heard that as a defense yet, but it could ultimately be the case and could have been what happened.


Either way, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, and Martin deserves that Z sees an attempt at conviction.
 
2012-03-23 10:09:39 AM

HotWingConspiracy: HAMMERTOE: Tbh, if a 15 y/o black guy is sitting on top of you, pummeling you, you might not even look for a gun. Notice how all the pictures they publish of Treyvon are from when he was 12... My son is 15, and every bit as tall and big as I am.

So farking what?

Fatty McMurder had 80 pounds on the kid.


I don't know enough about what happened to have an opinion, by 80 lbs of fat is not exactly helpful when you're fighting a 15 year old unless you manage to sit on him.
 
2012-03-23 10:16:57 AM

rufus-t-firefly: ChuDogg: 1) The altercation between Zimmerman and Martin occurred as Zimmerman walked back towards his truck after the 911 call, not in pursuit of Martin fleeing.

Your first conclusion conflicts with what the police say Zimmerman told them.

Link (new window)

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Your map shows the altercation occurred nowhere near a corner, which is where you normally see street signs. Did Zimmerman "step out" and walk across the block to check a street sign when there was some guy who was apparently armed walking around (remember his comments about Martin's hand in his waistband.

So, either Zimmerman lied to the cops, the cops are lying, or your analysis is still incomplete.


Im gonna go with "media getting it wrong" on that. Problem is, we don't have the police report. So we don't know exactly where this assertion that Zimmerman stopped to read the sign. The police may have asked him why he stepped out of his vehicle, and he responded that he had to check out the street sign. On the 911 call, you can see zimmerman is really confused on getting an address for him and giving directions to go past the clubhouse, and apparently pretty poor at multitasking.

So he stepd out of his vehicle, Martin flees around the building, Zimmerman assumes he is trying to escape, follows him to give the dispatcher directions to intercept him at the rear entrance thinking he's long gone.

As far as the location, look at the video of the crime scene. There is literally no other location in the complex that can match the description. It sure as hell wasn't by the road. Unless someone can pinpoint on the map another area where the buildings line up like that (there is only one other area that had buildings back to back like that, the very south of the community, but it doesnt match zimmermans directions from the clubhouse)

If you can find the address, you can probably find out who 'John' is.
 
2012-03-23 10:22:21 AM

s2s2s2: Aldon: s2s2s2: Separation is not necessary for the shooting to have occurred.

Sure, I said they could have been struggling for the gun and that is the only scenario I can think of that would exonerate the gunman. I also think that could be easily dis-proven (if it is not the case) with forensic evidence. I also haven't heard that as a defense yet, but it could ultimately be the case and could have been what happened.

Either way, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, and Martin deserves that Z sees an attempt at conviction.


I agree. There are a few things that bother me about this case, it sure seems on the surface to have been handled badly by the police at the beginning, but I think they are doing the right things now.

I'm also afraid of pressure to convict Zimmerman before the trial. I can understand the pressure from his parents but the public should know the police now need some time to collect and process the evidence or he could get off on a technicality.
 
2012-03-23 10:23:58 AM
Also I keep up with these threads and posts for people who have good insights, but i cant keep up w the million assertions that constantly get refuted only for some other poster to come 20 mins later.

I dont know how many times I can say that the only two eyewitnesses saw zimmerman on bottom screaming, and the Cooper girls didn't see anything until after the shooting, amd their observations after the shooting confirm the eyewitness is correct
 
2012-03-23 10:25:54 AM

Doink_Boink: HotWingConspiracy: HAMMERTOE: Tbh, if a 15 y/o black guy is sitting on top of you, pummeling you, you might not even look for a gun. Notice how all the pictures they publish of Treyvon are from when he was 12... My son is 15, and every bit as tall and big as I am.

So farking what?

Fatty McMurder had 80 pounds on the kid.

I don't know enough about what happened to have an opinion, by 80 lbs of fat is not exactly helpful when you're fighting a 15 year old unless you manage to sit on him.


Sorry, 15 year old kid 80 # your junior punching you is not a reason to 1) Fear for your life 2) use deadly force.
 
2012-03-23 10:33:08 AM

ultraz: A: Make sure there are not wittiness
B:Rape Rape use rubber, Kill W Pistol have permit 1 shot only.
C:Scratch your face both sides with her nails
D: Plant meth pipe roll in her hand first none of your own evidence on it.
E: Place your walled in her hand
F: Make sure she's black


I once walled in a girls hand. She wasn't happy. She slapped me with that hand, and I got my own wall on my face. Do you know how hard that is to get out of a beard?
/is that what the kids are calling it now?
 
2012-03-23 10:33:40 AM

ChuDogg: If anyone cares (which I doubt) I consolidated all my posts into one as it pretty much addresses 99% of the common posts that are in an infinite feedback loop in all these threads.




All right, I'll bite and play amateur lawyer to this post:

1) John heard the shot but did not witness the shooting. Period. There is no evidence that Martin was *still* on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. other than Zimmerman's own assertions.

2) You are putting assertions in the mouths of Ms. Cutcher and Ms. Mora. They did not see the fight between Martin and Zimmerman, but I think that Ms. Cutcher, at least, would bristle at the idea that her claim that it was Martin who was screaming was a "backwards rationalization" or "speculative." She seems pretty sure about what she said she heard.

3) I don't think that the police call you linked is what you say it is. The caller's first words were, "I just heard a shot behind my house." By all appearances the call was made *after* the shooting.

4) Martin's father wasn't present at the scene of the shooting.

5) The dispatcher's exact words to Zimmerman regarding the pursuit of Martin were, "we don't need you to do that." Ambiguous in context, but if someone from the police department tells me that I don't need to do something, it could be interpreted as an order in context.

Your conclusions are plausible, but given the evidence we have so far, I could draw other conclusions. BTW, in your "scenario 3," Martin, according to Florida law, would have had the right to use force up to and including deadly force to defend himself from Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.
 
2012-03-23 10:35:47 AM

sprawl15: Are you just moving the goalposts again because you're psychologically unable to say "my bad" and move on with your life? You are the kind of person that gives gun owners a bad name.



Do you want to keep losing this argument or should I stop being awesome?

1) I don't give gun owners a bad name.

2) California played games with the legal system.....once legal SKS rifles that were registered during the grace period were suddenly declared illegal, and people had to turn them in. Why don't you understand that?

3) Since you refuse to answer my question as to whether or not you agree with the ban, I will assume that you do.
 
2012-03-23 10:39:51 AM

sprawl15: Are you just moving the goalposts again because you're psychologically unable to say "my bad" and move on with your life? You are the kind of person that gives gun owners a bad name.



And I know you want to keep taking about the registration periods, but if people were forced to turn them over after the fact, that is STILL an example of people's firearms being taken away.

Since you seem totally okay with rights being taken away as long as there are convoluted registration periods, would you be okay with a law that only allow women to have abortions if they had to pre-register for them during a certain time period.
 
2012-03-23 10:55:19 AM
@tirob

1) nobody witness the shooting, so i dont know why this was so forcefully asserted (period!). The point is that there is pretty clear evidence to show that Zimmerman was on the ground screaming, and I encourage you to listen to the 911 calls again, it's pretty clear that zimmerman was not an active partipant in a "fight" but was lying helpless om the ground screaming.

2) They did not witness the altercation nor who was screaming, period. (Hey this is fun!) Really, their speculations on why it "just had to be" Martin are really as valid as any internet detective. She might bristle at that, but that's why she is not leading an investigation, we have neutral third parties for that who have at least 2 witness that state zimmerman was on the bottom and the one screaming.

3) the call *was* made after the shot, nobody said otherwise. But he was the only caller who mentioned he witnessed the fight. Now compare voices to 'john' in the video.

4) Nobody said that Martin's father was at the crime scene and nobody said he was required to be to recognize the sound of his son's voice.

5) The city manager has already stated it was only a suggestion and not a lawful order. Plus, based on my geoanalysis (my opinion), i would say this occurred after he rounded the edge of the complex and could no longer see Martin. So he stopped, made arrangements to meet the police, but realized he Martin could be anywhere as he got off the phone. He could have been attempting to comply with he dispatchers suggestion.

Most of the previous posts assumed a large timegap between the 911 call and the altercation, one that must have included a scenario in which zimmerman continued to hunt down and persue Martin. As i shoe in my analysis (my opinion), it was probably only a few seconds that Zimmerman and Martin engaged.

6) I've speculated that this could be a scenario where both could legitamatly claim self defense. If Zimmerman attempted to restrain or otherwise intimidate Martin, he would have had the right to use force. However, that right would have ended when Zimmerman was on the ground screaming for at least 45 seconds. I wouldn't necessarily blame Martin, our fight or flight response doesn't just switch off like that, but it would now open the door for Zimmerman to legally use his weapon as a last resort to end the sustained beating.
 
2012-03-23 10:57:23 AM

Aldon: Doink_Boink: HotWingConspiracy: HAMMERTOE: Tbh, if a 15 y/o black guy is sitting on top of you, pummeling you, you might not even look for a gun. Notice how all the pictures they publish of Treyvon are from when he was 12... My son is 15, and every bit as tall and big as I am.

So farking what?

Fatty McMurder had 80 pounds on the kid.

I don't know enough about what happened to have an opinion, by 80 lbs of fat is not exactly helpful when you're fighting a 15 year old unless you manage to sit on him.

Sorry, 15 year old kid 80 # your junior punching you is not a reason to 1) Fear for your life 2) use deadly force.


He might have been 15 in the pictures you saw on TV but I assure you he was 17 at the time of the beating.
 
2012-03-23 11:00:29 AM
Just in case anyone else is confused regarding the SKS ban in California:

Link (new window)

1st article: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit2.shtml

Suit seeks to block firearms ban: Owners may be charged unless they turn in or disable assault weapons

By Ramon Coronado Bee Staff Writer (Published Dec. 14, 1999)

A class-action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court challenges potential prosecution of California assault weapons owners who registered their weapons during a grace period extending from March 1992 to July 1998.

Without the court's help, up to 2,000 assault weapon owners who registered during the six-year period face fines or prosecution if they don't relinquish, disable or transfer their firearms out of California.

The suit claims those gun owners will be penalized for following rules that have changed since former Attorney General Dan Lungren was replaced by Bill Lockyer.

"This is about licenses which these people were given and now the new attorney general wants to take away," said Chuck Michel, a San Pedro attorney who filed the suit Friday.

The dispute has its roots in a controversial 1989 law that banned numerous assault weapons but allowed existing owners to keep them if they registered with the state by 1991, a deadline that later was extended to March 1992.

Once the deadline expired, Lungren provided an indefinite grace period to owners who subsequently stepped forward and registered.

That grace period ended in 1998, when a San Francisco judge ruled that it should not have been offered, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.

"The deadline is a deadline, and a judge told us that what Dan Lungren did was illegal," Barankin said.

The late registrants have been informed by Lockyer that they can't keep their weapons in California beyond Dec. 31 -- unless the firearms are inoperable. Their existing registrations will be null and void.

The class-action lawsuit, which named Lockyer as a defendant, challenges the crackdown and claims the owners are being penalized for following rules that changed on them.

The affected owners, who had their guns before the bill's passage in 1989, were "induced" by assurances from Lungren that they had a "second chance" to register without fear of prosecution, Michel said.

Most of those failing to register on time did so out of confusion over the law rather than willful defiance, the suit said.

Michel seeks to have a judge find that the late registrants are in compliance with the weapons law and should therefore be allowed to retain their firearms.

Judge Joe S. Gray has scheduled a Jan. 28 hearing on the class-action suit, Michel said.

The state Department of Justice has estimated that there are about 300,000 assault weapons in California, 80 percent of them still unregistered, according to the suit.

Parts of the 1989 assault weapons law were declared unconstitutional by a state appeals court in Sacramento and have been appealed to the California Supreme Court.

That appeal may be moot, however, because the 1989 assault weapons ban was amended by the state Legislature through a bill signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis this summer.

The new legislation prohibits "copycat" weapons that were renamed or modified to skirt the original 1989 law, which listed specific models covered by the statewide ban.

As of Jan. 1, people already owning guns that fall under the new definition will be given a one-year grace period to register their weapons with the state.

That grace period does not affect the late registrants in the class-action suit, Michel said.
 
2012-03-23 11:04:00 AM
Now, I'm not advocating the following scenario, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens:

A black fellow, who happens to be a good shooter, a Florida resident and a CCW holder, puts on a concealed bullet proof vest and holsters his .45 tactical.

He then finds Mr. Zimmerman. Follows him in his car. Pursues him on foot when he tries to flee. Corners him, and confronts him - hotly asserting his 1st ammendment right to let Mr. Zimmerman know just how little he thinks of him. If Mr. Zimmerman reaches for his crappy 9mm, reacts beligerantly, yells, heck - even twitches - then it's obvious that our hypothetical shooter is in fear for his life. After all, Mr. Zimmerman is an admitted killer who finds even unarmed black people so threatening that he reacts with deadly force.

It would obviously be a case of self defense when this hypothetical shooter puts a 230grain hollowpoint through Mr. Zimmerman.

Right?
 
2012-03-23 11:12:33 AM
I see that the mob is still herping the derp and ignoring the facts of the case as well as Florida law. Keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-03-23 11:14:49 AM

The_Sponge: sprawl15: As I said, only for those that weren't licensed. And, as I said, there were amnesty periods to allow the weapon to be licensed. That's how grandfather clauses work, it's not the state's fault when someone's too lazy to take advantage of three amnesty periods over more than a decade to register their firearm as an assault weapon.


It's the state's fault for creating a bunch of lousy gun control laws that infringe on the rights of legal gun owners and set them up for failure. As much as I hated Clinton's so called "assault weapons" ban, at least it didn't go as far as what California has done. Pre-ban models were legal to own and sell after the law passed.


And licensing and registration only serves to create a system that can be abused later on.

Do you agree with California's law on this matter? Should those rifles be banned?

Oh...and it is completely messed up that I would be committing a crime in California if I brought over my firearms that are legal in Washington.


States' rights?
 
2012-03-23 11:17:48 AM

The_Sponge: And I know you want to keep taking about the registration periods, but if people were forced to turn them over after the fact, that is STILL an example of people's firearms being taken away.


No, it's not. You don't seem to know how grandfathering works. To grandfather a gun, you generally register it as such so the state knows to leave you alone if you have such a weapon. The 'turn ins' were implemented as yet another form of amnesty for the laziest and stupidest gun owners so their guns that they refused to register wouldn't get them arrested.

The_Sponge: Since you seem totally okay with rights being taken away as long as there are convoluted registration periods


You're really, really determined to try to make my correction of you into a martyrdom. You're barking up the wrong tree, hoss.
 
2012-03-23 11:18:40 AM

MythDragon: dj_bigbird: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK.

Stop! Neighborhood watch!


I use a different pistol...

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAMPEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW CLICK.
[majorballistics.com image 640x229]


FTFY

/most calicos are .22 Long Rifle
 
2012-03-23 11:21:24 AM

Brainsick: States' rights?



States don't have the right to go against the Bill of Rights.
 
2012-03-23 11:22:23 AM

sprawl15: You're barking up the wrong tree, hoss.



Yeah....okay tough guy.

Read the article I posted and get back to me.
 
2012-03-23 11:23:32 AM

Kit Fister: MythDragon: dj_bigbird: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK.

Stop! Neighborhood watch!


I use a different pistol...

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAMPEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW CLICK.
[majorballistics.com image 640x229]

FTFY

/most calicos are .22 Long Rifle


I shot beside a fellow that had the exact calico pictured. It was a 9mm.

The most impractical 9mm I've ever seen.
/out of production for a reason.
 
2012-03-23 11:24:45 AM

sprawl15: You're really, really determined to try to make my correction of you into a martyrdom.



....and you still refuse to say whether or not you agree with the ban.
 
2012-03-23 11:36:57 AM
the triumphant return of Batmanuel
 
2012-03-23 11:37:45 AM

The_Sponge: Read the article I posted and get back to me.


The article says nothing different than what I've been explaining to you all thread. Did you read it?

The_Sponge: ....and you still refuse to say whether or not you agree with the ban.


My opinion on the ban is irrelevant to your factual misrepresentation of it. Sorry. I can think it's the greatest thing ever or the worst thing ever, and it won't change the fact that the SKS rifles in question were banned in 1989 instead of 2000, and that grandfather clauses were implemented and multiple amnesty periods allowed. You're misrepresenting reality. Period. Maybe you should re-read your own post?

The_Sponge: Owners of certain SKS models were forced to turn in their rifles before January 1, 2000....or face criminal charges.

 
2012-03-23 11:39:55 AM

The_Sponge: Brainsick: States' rights?


States don't have the right to go against the Bill of Rights.


Yet they have the right to pass laws that allow this (new window)to happen; what an interesting world you must live in...

/you can't have your cake and shoot it too
 
2012-03-23 11:45:25 AM

sprawl15: My opinion on the ban is irrelevant to your factual misrepresentation of it. Sorry. I can think it's the greatest thing ever or the worst thing ever, and it won't change the fact that the SKS rifles in question were banned in 1989 instead of 2000, and that grandfather clauses were implemented and multiple amnesty periods allowed. You're misrepresenting reality. Period. Maybe you should re-read your own post?

The_Sponge: Owners of certain SKS models were forced to turn in their rifles before January 1, 2000....or face criminal charges.



There were owners who were forced to turn them in after California decided to play games with their rights....what is so hard to understand?

I love it how you're willing to accept rights being taken away as long as people can be grandfathered-in.
 
2012-03-23 12:00:33 PM

The_Sponge: There were owners who were forced to turn them in after California decided to play games with their rights....what is so hard to understand?


Since you're acting like an 8 year old, I'll put it in an 8 year old's format.

Page 1: It's 1988 and I own an SKS that I've modified to accept detachable magazines. The 1989 law is suddenly passed, making my gun an assault weapon. Am I forced to turn the gun in at this point? If yes, turn to page 4. If no, turn to page 3.

Page 2: Wrong. The gun has become illegal. Turning it in is simply admission of guilt, and offers no recourse. You lose.

Page 3: Correct. I can get my gun grandfathered in, I just need to register it as an assault weapon so the state knows to leave me alone if it finds me with that gun. Lets assume I'm too busy being fat on the internet and claim that gun registration is what future fartbama will use to steal my guns, so I don't register my weapon. The 1990 deadline passes. Am I forced to turn in the gun at that point? If yes, turn to page 2. If no, turn to page 5.

Page 4: You're wrong. You lose.

Page 5: Correct. Now the state allows people who are in posession of unregistered assault weapons to turn those weapons in and receive amnesty. Is this the state forcing 'owners of certain SKS models' to 'turn in their rifles before January 1, 2000...or face criminal charges'? If yes, turn to page 4. if no, turn to page 6.

Page 6: Congratulations! You've learned that loaded language often has factually wrong implications and tends to ignore history.
 
2012-03-23 12:02:03 PM

Kit Fister: MythDragon: dj_bigbird: BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM CLICK CLICK CLICK.

Stop! Neighborhood watch!


I use a different pistol...

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAMPEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW CLICK.
[majorballistics.com image 640x229]

FTFY

/most calicos are .22 Long Rifle


Most, not all. I have a 9mm.
 
2012-03-23 12:02:11 PM
Video surveillance footage just released in Sanford, Fla. Link (pops)

It's grainy, hopefully enhancements are forthcoming.
 
2012-03-23 12:03:17 PM

ChuDogg: rufus-t-firefly: ChuDogg: 1) The altercation between Zimmerman and Martin occurred as Zimmerman walked back towards his truck after the 911 call, not in pursuit of Martin fleeing.

Your first conclusion conflicts with what the police say Zimmerman told them.

Link (new window)

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Your map shows the altercation occurred nowhere near a corner, which is where you normally see street signs. Did Zimmerman "step out" and walk across the block to check a street sign when there was some guy who was apparently armed walking around (remember his comments about Martin's hand in his waistband.

So, either Zimmerman lied to the cops, the cops are lying, or your analysis is still incomplete.

Im gonna go with "media getting it wrong" on that.
Problem is, we don't have the police report. So we don't know exactly where this assertion that Zimmerman stopped to read the sign. The police may have asked him why he stepped out of his vehicle, and he responded that he had to check out the street sign. On the 911 call, you can see zimmerman is really confused on getting an address for him and giving directions to go past the clubhouse, and apparently pretty poor at multitasking.


Now you're speculating. You're using some information provided by the media to support your theory, but you can't just throw out the parts that are inconvenient. We can either use what information we have, or we can just say it's all a big mess and wait for the FBI to give us a report.

The facts, ignoring statements, witness accounts, etc, are:

1. Trayvon left his father's home, unarmed.
2. Trayvon went to the store and bought Skittles & Arizona Iced Tea.
3. Trayvon walked back toward his father's home, still unarmed.
4. Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious.
5. Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
6. Zimmerman and Trayvon scuffled.
7. Zimmerman killed Trayvon, 70 yards from Trayvon's father's home.

I appreciate you trying to map out the scene - something I've been wondering about for a while - but your assessment needs to be impartial. Avoid the desire to throw out things that don't fit the narrative as you see it, and see if they fit.
 
2012-03-23 12:07:46 PM

sprawl15: Since you're acting like an 8 year old, I'll put it in an 8 year old's format.



Yes, I completely acting like an 8 year old after I posed an article that explains why certain owners were forced to turn in their rifles. If the entire process was on the "up and up", why was there a lawsuit against the state?

Once again, I love it how your completely okay with rights being taken away as long as people are grandfathered in.
 
2012-03-23 12:10:27 PM

sprawl15: Correct. Now the state allows people who are in posession of unregistered assault weapons to turn those weapons in and receive amnesty.



They only receive amnesty if they turn them in....if they don't, they are committing a "criminal" act, and thus, law-abiding citizens are being forced to turn them in.
 
2012-03-23 12:10:37 PM

ChuDogg: @tirob

1) nobody witness the shooting, so i dont know why this was so forcefully asserted (period!). The point is that there is pretty clear evidence to show that Zimmerman was on the ground screaming,


At one point he was, yes, but not necessarily at the point when the shot was fired.

ChuDogg: @tirob

2) They did not witness the altercation nor who was screaming, period. (Hey this is fun!) Really, their speculations on why it "just had to be" Martin are really as valid as any internet detective.


They were there. I would give what they had to say more weight than you would.

ChuDogg: @tirob

2) we have neutral third parties for that who have at least 2 witness that state zimmerman was on the bottom and the one screaming.


One of whom is Zimmerman himself.

ChuDogg: @tirob

3) the call *was* made after the shot, nobody said otherwise. But he was the only caller who mentioned he witnessed the fight. Now compare voices to 'john' in the video.


This caller was probably John, and the caller reported that he witnessed a fight all right, but nowhere *in the call*--which has apparently been redacted--does the caller make a reference to who was on top or who was screaming.

ChuDogg: @tirob

4) Nobody said that Martin's father was at the crime scene and nobody said he was required to be to recognize the sound of his son's voice.


His absence from the "crime scene"--I wouldn't call it that if I were you, counselor, because we don't know if a crime was committed there ;-) --makes his identification of the voice less than conclusive evidence IMHO. There is no evidence that Mr. Martin had ever heard his son pleading for his life before; the tone and pitch of human voices change under extreme stress.

ChuDogg: @tirob

5) The city manager has already stated it was only a suggestion and not a lawful order.


The city manager is not the dispatcher. Let's hear what the dispatcher has to say about what he meant when he said, "we don't need you to do that" before we come to any conclusions about this point.

The balance of your points are conjecture as you yourself admit.
 
2012-03-23 12:15:36 PM

The_Sponge: sprawl15: Correct. Now the state allows people who are in posession of unregistered assault weapons to turn those weapons in and receive amnesty.


They only receive amnesty if they turn them in....if they don't, they are committing a "criminal" act, and thus, law-abiding citizens are being forced to turn them in.


By failing to register their firearm during the three precious grandfather periods, they fail to be "law abiding". Turning them in is a tertiary option for the laziest and least informed gun owners, a fourth chance of sorts. Something very different from what you were babbling about earlier in the thread.
 
2012-03-23 12:17:35 PM

Silly Jesus: Video surveillance footage just released in Sanford, Fla. Link (pops)

It's grainy, hopefully enhancements are forthcoming.


Apparently Martin wasn't going to give up and Zimmerman wasn't going to let him go.
 
2012-03-23 12:19:51 PM
In the best case scenario for Zimmerman he was attacked by an person on foot he was following in his car. Zimmerman knew this person was much smaller than him and was unarmed. If the kid got the best of Zimmerman and started punching him he could expect to get a few bruises and cuts.

So even in this best case scenario Zimmerman shouldn't have feared for his life, and had no reason to use lethal force.

That's why I go back to saying that the only scenario I can think of that would exonerate Zimmerman is if they were struggling for the gun and the kid was shot.

That's also why I don't understand the police not gathering the forensic evidence and not bringing Zimmerman in for questioning the day of the shooting. The police involved do deserve getting raked over the coals for this. Now the police need to go slow and careful to make sure they don't get Zimmerman off on a technicality.
 
2012-03-23 12:20:22 PM

sprawl15: The_Sponge: sprawl15: Correct. Now the state allows people who are in posession of unregistered assault weapons to turn those weapons in and receive amnesty.


They only receive amnesty if they turn them in....if they don't, they are committing a "criminal" act, and thus, law-abiding citizens are being forced to turn them in.

By failing to register their firearm during the three precious grandfather periods, they fail to be "law abiding". Turning them in is a tertiary option for the laziest and least informed gun owners, a fourth chance of sorts. Something very different from what you were babbling about earlier in the thread.


Previous, not precious. Stupid phone.
 
2012-03-23 12:20:56 PM

sprawl15: By failing to register their firearm during the three precious grandfather periods, they fail to be "law abiding". Turning them in is a tertiary option for the laziest and least informed gun owners, a fourth chance of sorts. Something very different from what you were babbling about earlier in the thread.



What part of

A class-action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court challenges potential prosecution of California assault weapons owners who registered their weapons during a grace period extending from March 1992 to July 1998.

Without the court's help, up to 2,000 assault weapon owners who registered during the six-year period face fines or prosecution if they don't relinquish, disable or transfer their firearms out of California.

The suit claims those gun owners will be penalized for following rules that have changed since former Attorney General Dan Lungren was replaced by Bill Lockyer.

"This is about licenses which these people were given and now the new attorney general wants to take away," said Chuck Michel, a San Pedro attorney who filed the suit Friday.

The dispute has its roots in a controversial 1989 law that banned numerous assault weapons but allowed existing owners to keep them if they registered with the state by 1991, a deadline that later was extended to March 1992.

Once the deadline expired, Lungren provided an indefinite grace period to owners who subsequently stepped forward and registered.

That grace period ended in 1998, when a San Francisco judge ruled that it should not have been offered, said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.


...don't you understand?
 
2012-03-23 12:22:27 PM

tirob: ChuDogg: @tirob

1) nobody witness the shooting, so i dont know why this was so forcefully asserted (period!). The point is that there is pretty clear evidence to show that Zimmerman was on the ground screaming,

At one point he was, yes, but not necessarily at the point when the shot was fired.

ChuDogg: @tirob

2) They did not witness the altercation nor who was screaming, period. (Hey this is fun!) Really, their speculations on why it "just had to be" Martin are really as valid as any internet detective.

They were there. I would give what they had to say more weight than you would.

ChuDogg: @tirob

2) we have neutral third parties for that who have at least 2 witness that state zimmerman was on the bottom and the one screaming.


One of whom is Zimmerman himself.


Zimmerman can't be a neutral 3rd party. We have "John" and the guy who was walking his dog.


ChuDogg: @tirob

3) the call *was* made after the shot, nobody said otherwise. But he was the only caller who mentioned he witnessed the fight. Now compare voices to 'john' in the video.


This caller was probably John, and the caller reported that he witnessed a fight all right, but nowhere *in the call*--which has apparently been redacted--does the caller make a reference to who was on top or who was screaming.


John witnessed Zimmerman on bottom "getting beat and yelling help"


ChuDogg: @tirob

4) Nobody said that Martin's father was at the crime scene and nobody said he was required to be to recognize the sound of his son's voice.

His absence from the "crime scene"--I wouldn't call it that if I were you, counselor, because we don't know if a crime was committed there ;-) --makes his identification of the voice less than conclusive evidence IMHO. There is no evidence that Mr. Martin had ever heard his son pleading for his life before; the tone and pitch of human voices change under extreme stress.


Trayvon was 17. I'm sure his Dad had heard just about every kind of voice Trayvon could make.

ChuDogg: @tirob

5) The city manager has already stated it was only a suggestion and not a lawful order.

The city manager is not the dispatcher. Let's hear what the dispatcher has to say about what he meant when he said, "we don't need you to do that" before we ...


Do dispatchers even have the authority to convey a lawful order? AFAIK they aren't police officers.
 
2012-03-23 12:33:18 PM
The guy making fourteen bucks an hour answering the phone for 911 has no authority to order anyone to do anything.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to stop following the kid around.
 
2012-03-23 12:34:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Silly Jesus: Video surveillance footage just released in Sanford, Fla. Link (pops)

It's grainy, hopefully enhancements are forthcoming.

Apparently Martin wasn't going to give up and Zimmerman wasn't going to let him go.


+1
 
2012-03-23 12:41:51 PM
You either have a right to follow and confront people, meaning the person being followed has no right to stand his ground and must flee from you. Or, you have a right to be in a public place without scrutiny and a right to stand your ground.

You can not say you have a right to follow someone and a right to stand your ground, these two are incompatible with one another.

The obvious caveat is that the one being followed hasn't committed a crime.

/walking while black is not a crime, looking at houses is not a crime.
 
2012-03-23 12:47:37 PM

rufus-t-firefly: ChuDogg: rufus-t-firefly: ChuDogg: 1) The altercation between Zimmerman and Martin occurred as Zimmerman walked back towards his truck after the 911 call, not in pursuit of Martin fleeing.

Your first conclusion conflicts with what the police say Zimmerman told them.

Link (new window)

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

Your map shows the altercation occurred nowhere near a corner, which is where you normally see street signs. Did Zimmerman "step out" and walk across the block to check a street sign when there was some guy who was apparently armed walking around (remember his comments about Martin's hand in his waistband.

So, either Zimmerman lied to the cops, the cops are lying, or your analysis is still incomplete.

Im gonna go with "media getting it wrong" on that. Problem is, we don't have the police report. So we don't know exactly where this assertion that Zimmerman stopped to read the sign. The police may have asked him why he stepped out of his vehicle, and he responded that he had to check out the street sign. On the 911 call, you can see zimmerman is really confused on getting an address for him and giving directions to go past the clubhouse, and apparently pretty poor at multitasking.

Now you're speculating. You're using some information provided by the media to support your theory, but you can't just throw out the parts that are inconvenient. We can either use what information we have, or we can just say it's all a big mess and wait for the FBI to give us a report.

The facts, ignoring statements, witness accounts, etc, are:

1. Trayvon left his father's home, unarmed.
2. Trayvon went to the store and bought Skittles & Arizona Iced Tea.
3. Trayvon walked back toward his father's home, still unarmed.
4. Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious.
5. Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
6. Zimmerman and Trayvon scuffled.
7. Zimmerman killed Trayvon, 70 yards from Trayvon's father's home.

I appreciate you trying to map out the scene - something I've been wondering about for a while - but your assessment needs to be impartial. Avoid the desire to throw out things that don't fit the narrative as you see it, and see if they fit.


Oh come on dude. That isn't "just throwing out things that dont fit the narrative".

Look at the video of the crime scene. Reporters have been pouring over the scene and it's clearly in the backyard in between two complexes.

It is clearly NOT near a curb or by the street as your article suggested.

So one of these things is not like the other.

One of them HAS to be wrong, one of them has to be dismissed. Considering all video and pictures of the crime scene show it in the back yard between two housing complexes. None of them show it in the street.

So one of these statements have to be dismissed or interpret how it is misconstrued, that's not randomly "throwing things out" thats called critical thinking.

If you wish to persue this further i challenge you to present some video or picture of the crime scene and suggest some other area in the housing community this altercation occurred. And then we can rebuild a different narrative

Until you do that, you're simply making making erreneous rejections based on nothing.
 
2012-03-23 12:47:59 PM

dlp211: You either have a right to follow and confront people, meaning the person being followed has no right to stand his ground and must flee from you. Or, you have a right to be in a public place without scrutiny and a right to stand your ground.

You can not say you have a right to follow someone and a right to stand your ground, these two are incompatible with one another.

The obvious caveat is that the one being followed hasn't committed a crime.

/walking while black is not a crime, looking at houses is not a crime.


Florida's current law allows for both. Just because someone is legally allowed to be there doesn't mean someone can't confront them and ask them why they are there.
 
2012-03-23 12:51:15 PM

redmid17: dlp211: You either have a right to follow and confront people, meaning the person being followed has no right to stand his ground and must flee from you. Or, you have a right to be in a public place without scrutiny and a right to stand your ground.

You can not say you have a right to follow someone and a right to stand your ground, these two are incompatible with one another.

The obvious caveat is that the one being followed hasn't committed a crime.

/walking while black is not a crime, looking at houses is not a crime.

Florida's current law allows for both. Just because someone is legally allowed to be there doesn't mean someone can't confront them and ask them why they are there.


The law doesn't allow for both. Technically, yes the law does, but a decision has to be made now.

Does a person have a right to always stand their ground, or must they flee when being followed.

Confrontation + right to escalate = unintended consequences.

This is what this entire case will decide. Do you have a right to stand your ground or no.
 
2012-03-23 12:53:42 PM

dlp211: redmid17: dlp211: You either have a right to follow and confront people, meaning the person being followed has no right to stand his ground and must flee from you. Or, you have a right to be in a public place without scrutiny and a right to stand your ground.

You can not say you have a right to follow someone and a right to stand your ground, these two are incompatible with one another.

The obvious caveat is that the one being followed hasn't committed a crime.

/walking while black is not a crime, looking at houses is not a crime.

Florida's current law allows for both. Just because someone is legally allowed to be there doesn't mean someone can't confront them and ask them why they are there.

The law doesn't allow for both. Technically, yes the law does, but a decision has to be made now.

Does a person have a right to always stand their ground, or must they flee when being followed.

Confrontation + right to escalate = unintended consequences.

This is what this entire case will decide. Do you have a right to stand your ground or no.


I will be surprised if this court case changes anything. The reaction to the result will likely do so however.
 
2012-03-23 01:00:22 PM

redmid17: dlp211: redmid17: dlp211: You either have a right to follow and confront people, meaning the person being followed has no right to stand his ground and must flee from you. Or, you have a right to be in a public place without scrutiny and a right to stand your ground.

You can not say you have a right to follow someone and a right to stand your ground, these two are incompatible with one another.

The obvious caveat is that the one being followed hasn't committed a crime.

/walking while black is not a crime, looking at houses is not a crime.

Florida's current law allows for both. Just because someone is legally allowed to be there doesn't mean someone can't confront them and ask them why they are there.

The law doesn't allow for both. Technically, yes the law does, but a decision has to be made now.

Does a person have a right to always stand their ground, or must they flee when being followed.

Confrontation + right to escalate = unintended consequences.

This is what this entire case will decide. Do you have a right to stand your ground or no.

I will be surprised if this court case changes anything. The reaction to the result will likely do so however.


So court cases don't set precedence now?
 
2012-03-23 01:03:34 PM
dlp211

So court cases don't set precedence now?

What precedent are you expecting? "You can't follow someone" or "SYG is unconstitutional?" Because neither are going to happen, IMO.
 
Displayed 50 of 1323 comments

First | « | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report