DaVinci

'"Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license."' SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Still waiting on you to educate me on that bit of English. I guess you would then support licensing before a person was allowed to vote? Passing a test before a person was allowed free speech? Proving they are able to 'earn' the right to a trial by Jury?

And should we ground every 100 jump wonder? If we do that, then maybe we destroy the next Dan BC or Jefferies. He was an idiot using bad equipment. He *admitted* his error and he hurt no one but himself. And yet you passed judgment on him.... Interesting.

Nope. I know the English language is tricky, but it's not THAT tricky. "Banned from driving" is not the same as "Allowed to drive with a license." I realize that English is tricky... Thanks for trying to figure it out. Maybe you can explain how "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" allows for not allowing a person to own something.

I was joking, of course. On the other hand, if you agree with the actual quotes from the last post, then you deserve to be mocked just like Romney was. Ah yes... When out of facts.. Start an attack. This all you have?

***I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. Yeah, paraphrased. At great liberty.

One example does not make a good data set.... Normally you would know that. And at any rate your one example still does not counter the report. You are using a weak logical fallacy. This guy does not seem to have a SD case, and I would not support him. I am however open to seeing more data, but it seems he is just a run of the mill criminal.

Ah.... Paraphrased a bit much There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not. —Mitt Romney at the private fundraiser of May 17, 2012

Well good thing he didn't approach him! And that is EXACTLY what the whole neighborhood watch thing is about. He saw something out of place and CALLED the police. He was asked to keep an eye on him and then told he didn't need to follow him and then STOPPED. Seriously, read the text of the police call. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was afraid to give out his home address because, 'I don't know where he is'. TM approached GZ. This is the most fact supported case. At best they accidentally ran into each other after GZ lost sight of Martin.

That guy was a wannabe "gun expert". In skydiving he would be called a "skygod" or a 100 jump wonder. Also, if you watch his other videos he talks about how stupid he was..... And there are factors that I bet you don't know. For one, he was using a "serpa" brand holster. It has a positive retention system that makes the user put his trigger finger right above the trigger and press down. There have been numerous cases of ND's from this system... I don't recommend it. In the end.... Yes, he screwed up and admitted he screwed up. But this would be no different than the 100 jump wonder trying to swoop in front of a camera and pounding in.

You have proposed that lawful sane citizens have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise a right.... While raging against any type of hoop to exercise any of the other rights in the Constitution. You want to expose citizens to tests and exams to be able to own a gun. But for example you are against showing an ID to vote. "Shall not be infringed" is not a difficult concept, yet you want to infringe on it. Further, you have expressed support for bans. Such as a ban in or near school zones. You have expressed support for California's gun laws which contain bans. You are for a ban UNLESS a citizen jumps through a bunch of hoops you agree with. That is a ban.

He was arrested. He has the black panther party putting a price on his head. He had to go into hiding for over a year. People like you treat him as if he was guilty of murder. His character was slandered by the news editing the police tape to make him look like a racist. Jackson and Sharpton and a whole slew of others made him out to be a racist. Yeah, nothing happened to him.

Many studies show you to be wrong. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)." “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” So basically at best you could claim it has no impact on your safety.... But your claim is PROVEN to be crap. You are entitled to an opinion, but not made up fact.

No one said Zimmerman was a choirboy.... We did say that he was not guilty of the fabricated story of him being a racist killer. And the jury has agreed with us. Also, just like last time, you jumped the gun and assumed guilt before most of the facts were in.

Which is the lawyer version of: Keep pulling the trigger until you are very sure he won't be getting up. Nope. It is the lawyer version of saying do what you have to do to make sure the guy trying to kill you does not kill you.

"From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents." 120 < 3,533 Every year more than 500 kids die in bike accidents. http://ymiclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GetInGear.pdf 120 < 500 . Didn't realize we had a contest in the USA to see which method killed the most kids. When you espouse banning something or removing a Constitutionally protected right "to save lives". It is important to make sure you are working off of data and not emotions.

No, but you have suggested support for gun bans... Even though bikes and swimming kill more children each and every day. I also would not support mandatory bike locks. I would not support background checks to own bikes nor skill tests that would have to be passed before you could own a bike (Skills test to ride it on the street? Sure as long as it is actually something that could be passed).

"From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents." 120 < 3,533 Every year more than 500 kids die in bike accidents. http://ymiclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GetInGear.pdf 120 < 500 So statistically a kid is more likely to die by drowning or by riding a bike than by gun shot. Not saying this is not a terrible accident... But each of those deaths are also terrible accidents and if you wanted to save lives you would ask for more bike regulations... Maybe even a ban.

Yep. Now how do you do that without trashing the rights of 99% of Americans? But just for fun: VT - The shooter was already a prohibited person who was not allowed to own a gun. A LONG history of mental issues. The Govt and school screwed up in not reporting it. Columbine - Already illegal to build a bomb and take guns and bombs onto school grounds. Both shooters also had a history of mental issues that were mostly ignored. Newtown - Already illegal to kill your mother. Already illegal to take guns onto a school ground. The shooter had a LONG history of mental problems that were ignored. Aurora - Long history of mental issues to include death threats on a school counselor.. Not Reported. Giffords shooter - Long history of mental issues. The school let him drop out instead of kicking him out. They also didn't report him. So as you can see... The issue is the loonies are not being reported. Each of these cases could have been prevented by following the current law.

And the flip side on gun control is to deny a right to 99% of Americans based on the actions of a very small percentage. I am ALL for talking, I am not for removing a *right* based on the *hope* it might do *something* to prevent less than 1% of *criminals* or the *insane*. When faced with a mad man with a gun.... I'd rather have a gun than a dictionary.

It does not matter that it does not 'flow properly'.... That does not allow you to change the intended meaning. For example... from you: "We, is civilized society in general," Should be: We ARE, not "is". Still, I understood it and didn't try to change the meaning.

Did the CDC cherry pick the data when they said that gun crime is dropping not getting worse? Did the CDC cherry pick the data when they said that defensive uses of firearms is at least equal to criminal use? Did the DOJ cherry pick the data when they said that less than 3% of crimes were committed with so called "Assault weapons"?

If you are in an area where either 90% of the people in that area are one race. Or are in an area where 90% of the crimes are committed by one race.... Is it still racist if this were 90% that race? BTW, I am against 'stop and frisk' and a whole bunch of other police activities.... But if 90% of a group is subjected to the equal percentage of stops.... How is that racist?

Ah, keep moving the goal posts and maybe one day you will win. But your first point was that we will not let you have one.... Several of us do not care if you own one, and think you should be allowed - FAIL. That didn't work for you, so you claimed you could not own one. Well wrong again: http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html FAIL We have already shown you can in fact own an F18 - FAIL Now, if you ask me.... I think they should be easier to own than a few handfuls But the fact is that you are once again wrong. Go fish.

Good... Due process should NEVER be ignored.

Do you think a State should be able to ignore an Amendment?