Anyone keeping up with the Zimmerman trial?

Nice attempt at double-talk (well, not really) but you still haven't clarified the obvious hypocrisy in your posts. On one hand you vilify gun owners while, on the other, you claim to be a gun owner. Are you just the typical far left whack-job who lives by "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy?
Or, did you think, as fog-of-war's parrot, that you were required to bash gun owners and your little admission to gun ownership was a slip?
You know, it's kinda odd that fog-of-war would call gun owners all sort of crazy names yet a couple of his peeps here happen to be gun owners. Hmmmmmm. He got some 'splainin to do!

 

I've express my opinions of guns in dozens of posts over the years and I agree completely with your assessment. An idiot with a gun a.k.a. George Zimmerman is just a dangerous as a career criminal with a gun. Just little men with little dicks trying to make themselves bigger than they are by boosting their egos with a deadly weapon not to mention the size of their... well you know where I'm going. Zimmerman is a perfect example of the consequence of the cop wannabes acting out their wild west fantasies. Little Davy is no different. When they say that the gun is "for protection" what they mean is protection of their fragile egos and a band-aid for their sense of inferiority as men.
I've said it a billion times. I grew up around lots of guns. They are tools period. Never once have I though about them as "protection" but then a again, I am 6'-3" not 5'-7'' like little Davy and I don't need to add those extra couple of inches that God didn't give me by sporting a gun. Guns are fine in the right hands but they can be a nightmare in the hands of people like little Davy and the gun manufacturing lobby or NRA thrives on people like him. Idiots one and all.

 

Hey, clembo, here it is! Did you know the gun you own isn't really for your protection? According to this goof-ball it's mere compensation for your fragile ego & inferiority complex...and apparently he's been spying on more than just the frat guys because he claims to know the size of your, well, you know.

 

So should I get all worked up and start calling him names now David?
I don't think so because you forgot this part.

Now for the record David and the folks here.
I figure David is a RESPONSIBLE gun owner and have stated so in the past.

We rarely see eye to eye but knowing he is a collector that has raised children I reckon he knows how to safely handle a gun. I would surmise his children have been taught the same as well.

It seems to me that those that collect guns generally are responsible with them.
It's a hobby as I see it just like coins. One likes the look, feel and history of a Colt 45, for example, whereas I like the look and history (not necessarily feel) of a nice Two Cent Piece.


Today we had a nice example of a guy I have no qualms with regarding guns.
A customer named Ernie.

I guess you might call Ernie a "hustler". He does the yard sale circuit, sells at flea markets and dabbles in a bit of everything.
His specialties are knives and watches.

Today he came in with something unusual for him just to show us.
He procured an 1885 Smith and Wesson 38 I believe it was. Nice looking piece with a pearl handle.
I appreciated the craftsmanship and history but not my cup of tea.

Then Ernie showed us the $200 switchblade he also recently procured. I jokingly asked him "how many other weapons are you carrying today Ernie?"

We laughed about it. I felt no threat because I know and trust his knowledge. Not a small man either. About 6'5" and 300 pounds.

Then there is my 70 year old boss. Proud member of the NRA because a friend told him to join.
SCARY!.

We have a Mossberg shotgun plainly visible behind the counter. When we first got it he'd pick it up and tell customers "I use this to shoot cans. MexiCans, Puerto RiCans etc.
Real funny dude but what really bothered me was the way he handles it.
Every time he picked it up we told him to put it down. He should not be handling it.

There are many guns stashed in the shop. Nature of the business unfortunately. I deal with it but the boss really does scare me.

One time Ernie came in. I was in back and the boss wanted to show him a shotgun he had.
I heard Ernie exclaim rather loudly at him about the gun.

I knew what had happened and when I had a chance with Ernie one on one I asked him "did he hand it to you barrel first?". Darn tootin he did.

Even I know better than that. If we ever have armed robbers enter the store I figure he INCREASES the chances of employees getting hurt while he dies. The man should NOT be toting guns.


I know I'm digressing here but have to share another "boss related" story.

Not long ago a few folks in their late 60's were shooting at watermelons with a 22 in a rather affluent part of a nearby town.
A residential neighborhood.

Seems a bullet bounced of a sidewalk and shattered the front glass door of a nearby house missing a woman by about a foot. Two children were playing in the driveway.
They "felt really bad about it".
I'm honestly not sure if the cops ever pressed charges. Seriously. Someone could have been killed.

A few times a year my boss goes to visit his old high school chum in Southern Indiana. The one that told him to join the NRA as a matter of fact. They shoot guns in his back yard that is backed by woods.

I asked him what kind of "backing" they had for their shooting sessions.
Response?
"There's nobody in the woods and we shoot low". Give me a break.

He and his cronies "know" there is nobody in the woods? Shooting low totally eliminates the chance of an unfortunate tragedy?

Low bullets can ricochet. Just ask the lady who narrowly dodged a bullet.

Off my soapbox now.

Thank you very much.

 

I just heard a blurp on the news about a woman trying to scare away her abusive husband so she shot above him to scare her husband away. She got 20 years. It seems her "above" was right through her children's room. BTW, that was in Florida also. Anyway, my guess is that your boss could/should have been prosecuted.

 

What can one say?
Perhaps she should have shot low or to the side.

Anyway my boss is not one of the "watermelon shooters" but he easily could be.

 

It seems to be the Repuke tried and true tactic to selectively edit videos, posts, or anything else to fit their crazy ass agenda. Breitbarting is the term I think that is used to identify this tactic. The problem here is that little davy is so pathetic at it that no one is fooled. Anyone can read the entire post and see the truth so he fails miserably. He is just a sad little puke.

 

I don't think anyone here has ever said otherwise. But, who do you consider "the right hands"?

 

Isn't it really a question of who I think shouldn't have a gun? Without being able to name every single person that should have zero access to a guns of any type, I will give an example of the type of people that shouldn't have a gun.

People that have been charge with resisting an officer with violence, a person who was slapped with a restraining order and charged with domestic violence, a person who had been court ordered into an alcohol education program. Those kind of things tend to make me think that they have no business owning guns. Do YOU agree?

 

Since the Constitution secures the right of every American to bear firearms, it would be foolish of me to make a blanket statement about who can or who can't have them. I don't pre-suppose that my judgment is better than that of any particular legislation that has limited that right. If a Constitutional right is to be limited, however, the reasoning for that limitation should be severe.

 

I asked about a specific instance. I didn't ask for nor do I want a blanket statement. I wanted to know if you agreed with my very specific example. Simple question.

 

I think the specifics of each case should be viewed independently and ruled upon accordingly.

 

I think you're just playing question dodge ball again. No one is talking about a "case", just a person with the history as I have laid it out. Lets call it hypothetical and then see if you can give me a straight answer.

 

Even hypothetically speaking, every case is going to be unique and have its own nuances.

 

Time to look for a different job?

 

Ok, I've had my fun at fog-of-war's expense...as I've mentioned a number of times, I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy & double-speak ol' foggy is so well-known for. I did enjoy his wiggling as he attempted to explain why I'm a nut job for owning a firearm for protection yet clembo & iqless, even though they readily admit to owning a firearm for protection, are not. Not sure he was able to really explain the difference but it was fun watching him backtrack.

 

He's never been known to give a straight answer.

 

Heck, what do you expect from a guy who can only spew what he's told? I seriously doubt foggy has ever had an original idea of his own, he only knows what the far left tells him orders him to believe.

 

Beside dawning Captain obvious' cape and mask, can you stop twisting and squirming and trying to weasel out of answering the question? If you're too cowardly to do so, just admit it. This BS about a "case" has nothing to do with it. Just pretend for a second that you actually are a man and muster up the courage of your convictions and answer the damn question. I answered your question and you can't even pay me the same courtesy. Weaselly non-answers just speak to your cowardice.

 

Gee, why are you always so angry?