Leaderboard

Well, the police are correct; law enforcement does not need any reasonable suspicion to write down license plate numbers or run them.  The police can run your tags whenever they want as long as it is for official police business (not for personal use).  In this case, it was clearly police business because the were responding to a situation where a group of people were openly violating the law by carrying in a park, which was prohibited by local laws.  If you decide to engage in civil disobedience, don't cry like little wusses when the police show up to enforce the law.   I am also very irritated with the response and ignorance of the people filming the officers.  I will never understand the mentality of people (regardless of political affiliation) that think they are going to score points or attract supporters who do ignorant crap like this.  They show up, intentionally violate the law, and then verbally abuse the police who show up to investigate the crimes by calling them Nazis.  What a bunch of douchebags!  Frankly, I hope a bunch of them did get citations.  I also hope that we never see this sort of pure ignorance in our state!   The fact that the Glenn Beck machine presents this as a legitimate response is just one more reason I am no longer a fan and glad to see he has become largely irrelevant.   These morons also fail to realize that most beat cops are fully supportive of Second Amendment rights in this country.  It's mostly the big city police chiefs and sheriffs that are anti-gun.  Nothing good comes from alienating supporters, which is something many pro-gun groups need to learn. Gun owners are proving more and more to be their own worst enemy.  :mad: EDIT: Holy  :censored: !  I made the mistake of going back and reading the comments on the Blaze website.  Good friggin' grief!  If those comments reflect even a substantial portion of gun owners...

  So was every, single individual who signed the Declaration of Independence.   I'm not necessarily putting Snowden on the same level.  However, when the government is betraying its own people then perhaps the only way to do the right thing for one's country and it's people is to act against that government.

DaveS,   Again you're confusing the facts...  The onlooker who saw GZ after the shooting is NOT witness #6, I'm not exactly sure which witness # is assigned to that witness, but it's 2 different people.   I quoted you the statement witness #6 John gave to the police on the night of the shooting...  That he came out and saw two men fighting, the one wearing the red sweater was on the ground yelling help, while the other man was on top of him swinging punches.  GZ was wearing a red sweater that night.  Witness #6 then turned and went back into his house to call E911.   Then I took the time to find the RAW video of GZ's statement to the police, in which he describes witness #6 coming out of his house, and GZ pleading for help from witness #6.  We go to the E911 'help' call and this confirms both of the statements given by witness #6 and GZ...  that clearly somebody is screaming desperately for help, GZ and witness $6 statements clearly link these screams for help to GZ.   So ignoring all of those facts, because they don't fit your narrative, you jump to another witness statement from AFTER the shooting...  Which has ZERO bearing on if the shooting was justified or not...     Did GZ have a legal obligation to provide medical care to TM after shooting him?  No.  So what does that have to do with whether the shooting was justified or not?  Absolutely nothing.   DaveS, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling for kicks, or if you just don't believe in logic, reason, and facts as a cornerstone of debate but either way back on ignore you go.  

  Careful. That's a good way to get your cookin' show cancelled :)

Yup, it was an attempted "gotcha!" move that backfired, well except in the eyes of the true J4T fans like Dave who'll cling to anything that will make Z look guilty of something..

Except being on one of the old birds in the sky.

Actually, the ship you saw was the Liberty Belle. The plane was painted up as the Memphis Belle for promotional use and air shows. And this was the ship used in the movie Memphis Belle. It was at Smyrna Airfield this past weekend for open to the public flights. AND I was on it Sunday afternoon for one of the flights. It was awesome. That's the short story. Maybe I'll attempt to tell the whole story later.

Wow. Quite possibly the most... Just wow.

Well said Spots. I wish courthouse hangings would could back in style it would solve alot of the crime problems in the US.

Or just shoot the son of a *****. A dead thief is the only kind of thief I can tolerate. I know some here see more value in a human life than in material, but I bust my ass everyday for anything I have. Any man that makes the decision to take it has made his choice, and if you've made the choice to steal then you staying above ground and breathing doesn't matter to me. Maybe if more thieves were shoot or hung we wouldn't have these problems. Sorry about your things OP, I hate a damn thief. sent from the backwoods

I have evidence that Zimmerman is not a reliable source of information. Taking his story at face value is not something most folks here would normally do considering his history of lying in a courtroom to a judge and being caught in the lie. The point is, no one here has any actual "facts". We have evidence, statements but no facts.

I fail to see how following someone acting suspicious is "starting a confrontation" one which the followee' is justified in assaulting the follower, for comitting the act of following. Granted people don't like to be followed, but there are literally dozens of benign reasons one person might follow another. In this particular case a volunteer neighborhood watchman became suspicious of a person (unknown to him as being a resident), dressed in dark clothing, acting as if they were on drugs, sneaking around his neighborhood afterdark which had experienced a recent rash of break-ins & burglaries, this is IMHO what should happen in every neighborhood. Trayvon's recent history included being caught at school with burglary tools & a small pirate's horde of presumably stolen womens jewelry, he could have very well had been the one responsible for the recent rash of break-ins in Zimmerman's neighborhood. In fact I'd be very interested in examining the date of which Trayvon moved into the area & the date that the break-ins began.

  I agree with you on this.  I don't like the fact I can't carry in our local parks, but I don't show up in protest with a sidearm on each hip.

Negative. If you start a fight and end it with your pistol you will go to jail. Self defense goes out the window if you caused the events. There is so much precedent on this I refuse to believe that you don't know that.

Again ROBERT< you throw my name in....ATTACK ATTACK!!!!! GET OFF MY BACK!!!!! Are you serious? When you voice your opinion, you should probably expect a possible debate. If you aren't up for the debate, you can always choose to leave the thread...for the umteenth time. I'm sure there are other forums that are more pro-Martin friendly, and they'll probably stroke your opinion until you're all warm and fuzzy inside. Many of us have found ourselves on the unpopular side of debate, so you're hardly the only one.

So who else is watching the streaming video of the trial.  So far i think the defense has had a much better opening argument.

Robert, what you're describing is the EXACT definition of authoritarian!  Some group of people take away some part of your property rights without your consent!  You had the right have uncut grass on your property one day, and the next even though you're totally opposed to it you no longer have that right....   How can you keep saying the community hasn't taken something away?  Hasn't taken a liberty (aka property rights) away?  How?  Your contention is that nothing has been taken, no liberty infringed, isn't logical.   And your entire premise that if I don't like my rights being taken away against my will is to leave my property and move...  that is the definition of tyranny.   Stop hiding and embrace your statist beliefs just say what you really mean...  you want other persons to conform to your vision of what society should do, and you're happy to use violence and the threats of violence to make them do what you want.  At least that argument would be logically valid!    

Laws being passed whether they be from elected representatives, or passed as a ballot item doesn't change the tyranny of the majority.  The government is violating the property rights whenever they pass a law that restricts the owners property rights without providing just compensation.  There is no way to square that circle... you can dress it up in a fancy dress and put makeup on it, but it's still a pig.   Lets pretend that a person is causing you damage by not cutting your grass..  we already have a method to deal with that outside of zoning restrictions...  you just file a lawsuit and prove harm by the landowners negligence and bingo the problem is solved.  Oh wait that would require you to prove actual damages, probably not something you could do over the lack of cut grass huh?   So instead you want to force through the threat of violence that somebody cut their grass because you think it *might* cause you some financial damage some point in the future?  But that isn't a form of tyranny?  Please.    

Agreed. I don't think anyone is disputing the validity of a voluntarily entered into contract such as an HOA. Some of us just don't like them, so we won't enter into those contracts. You need a new dictionary as the definition of words like "libertarian" in yours seems to have fallen from an inter-dimensional portal from Bizarro Land. :lol: What you described is quite the authoritarian position. What about the person who owned their property prior to their neighbors electing some busybodies who then enacted a law requiring action by that landowner in regards to their property? Your right to use the government to control your neighbors begins and ends at YOUR property line, just as their right to do the same ends at their property line.

While working as a LEO I have always stopped if possible. Obviously being very cautious of legal repercussions. I have bought people many gallons of gas, let them make calls from my cell phone, or given them a ride.

"To steer it through its bankruptcy reorganization, Hostess hired restructuring expert Greg Rayburn as its CEO. But Rayburn ultimately failed to reach a contract agreement with its second largest union. In November, he blamed striking workers for crippling the company's ability to maintain normal production and announced that Hostess would liquidate.   About 15,000 unionized workers lost their jobs in the aftermath.   The trimmed-down Hostess Brands LLC has a far less costly operating structure than the predecessor company. Some of the previous workers were hired back, but they're no longer unionized."   Negotiate this! Obama must have wept.   - OS

I'm still laughing about those retards that were paying $75/box for them on ebay  :rofl:

Maybe Obama was as close as it could get to blah blah blah.

I just wanted to get something checked on. I noticed I had an auto renewal on 6-16 through Paypal for my TGO membership but I'm not a benefactor on the forums anymore.   Thanks  :D

I promise to relate the whole story later, but it was the most fun I've had in a looonnng time. Worth the cost.   I missed the opportunity 5 years ago. I was scheduled to ride along in 2008, but my cancer issues cost me the opportunity.   So this was the truly second chance that we're sometimes given. At least for me.   I had the choice of going or holding on to the money for something else.   My wife says I made the right choice.  Bless her. I agree.

Never mind. I see now. Wished I could help.

Well sh...ucks.

Nope, you might scare someone who's afraid of firearms or commit a criminal act or something, so an individual's Constitutional Right "to bear arms" has been voided. If you want to legally carry a gun around you have to first get the State's permission & then pay a hefty fine before you can do so.

I doubt that this incident will start a revolutionary war, but it does get me wondering just how far an oppressive government will have to go until law-abiding citizens go from disgruntled obedience to civil disobedience and finally to out-and-out rebellion.  The Lexington-Concord battle started because the British were moving to collect a cache of arms and arrest rebel leaders.  This confrontation where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired began a long fight for American independence.  It's no secret that the liberal political factions, as well as the executive branch of government, would desire to see a gun-free nation and might one day become bold enough to decree and enforce it, just as the British attempted to do.  My question is where is the line between, "That's the law" and "Liberty or death"?

You were there?

No offense, but there is so much case law you should know better...  The ONE exception to that rule is when you get involved in a fight and the other person escalates the fight by using force that could cause serious bodily injury or death then self defense can come back on the table.   I'd suggest you re-read 39-11-611e1 + e2   A perfect example of this is if you consent to a fist fight, and while you're down on the ground and the person winning goes and gets a baseball bat and attempts to attack you with it...  You're allowed to use deadly force even though you consented to a fist fight.   But again, I contend GZ never committed a crime, never consented to a fist fight, and therefore the stand your ground law was clearly in effect.    

Who didn't know this would all tie together...I'd be once it gets looked into Zimmerman is responsible for the Benghazi attack. ;)

This sort of stuff does absolutely NOTHING good for those who want to openly carry.

  I don't know that this is necessarily true as I do not know Florida law.  However, by TN law (in simplified language) you can't be a party to starting a confrontation and then be legally justified in the use of deadly force when that confrontation is not going your way.  It is my opinion (and I acknowledge that this is all it is) that by following/stalking Martin - even after Martin attempted to evade him - Zimmerman participated in starting the confrontation.  Basically, he was acting like a swinging dick then shot Martin when his (Zimmerman's) ass couldn't back up his mouth, so to speak.   I do not believe that Martin was an 'angel' and, yes, he probably could have done more to avoid the confrontation that ended with his death.  That said, I can't help but think what I would do if I were walking around in a neighborhood where I had every right to be (heck, this was apparently the neighborhood where Martin was living at the time) and some dude I didn't know started following me and possibly trying to 'question' me - some dude who is obviously not a cop.  As an adult with, hopefully, a bit better control of my temper than a teenager, I don't think I would stop and get into a fist fight.  Instead, I would call the cops, myself and tell them that some weird dude was following me and that he was starting to make me fear for my life.   Bottom line comes down to this:  If Zimmerman had not been following Martin - and I have seen no claims that Martin had actually done anything to justify Zimmerman following him - then the confrontation would never have happened.  Therefore, to my mind, the root cause of the entire fiasco was Zimmerman following Martin without reason and (apparently) attempting to stop and question Martin despite having no authority to do so.  Therefore, it was Zimmerman who is responsible for everything that followed.  Honestly, I believe that he makes responsible gun owners and carriers look bad.

That's not surprising. I suspect being forced to defend your life with deadly force could be traumatic for the average person. It could take some time to regain your ability to think clearly.

I'm just gonna leave this here as this conversation is representative of the point the image is making.

Robert,   First lets separate two things...  because they are not one and the same....  local laws by a government are different from deed restrictions or a HOA agreements that are part of the contract you enter into when you buy a property.  So don't switch back and forth between the two as if they're the same thing, because they're not.   If you want to buy up a 1,000 acres of land, develop it, and then sell the plots of land to people, and in that contract there are restrictions on what they can or can't do...  I'm perfectly fine with that (within reason and as long as it doesn't violate basic freedoms and the rule against perpetuities).  BTW the enforcement for this type of action is a civil one, not criminal.   Now lets deal with local, county, and state governments...  because they're a different animal entirely...  Our forefathers granted these governments very limited enumerated powers and if they act outside those powers, no matter how much the people want them to, they are a violation of our natural rights...   Both the federal and state constitutions have a taking clause in them that prohibits the GOVERNMENT from taking in part or in whole property from a person without just compensation.  Placing restrictions on a persons property in the form of zoning restrictions is taking away property rights from the owner, without providing just compensation.   BTW, lets run down the rabbit hole of people voted for these measures and therefore they must be legal...  One man can't take away my rights and enslave me, but if 50%+1 do so it's just fine?  That is the classic definition of tyranny of the majority...  You have a natural right to own property that is not unwillingly restricted by the 'government' period...  Our forefathers seeing that some cases may come up where it's in the public interest to place restrictions on property placed a balance on that action by saying you can take/restrict a person's property but government has to pay them just compensation for that taking.   BTW where is this contract I signed when moving into a community to live how they want me to live?  Because I sure don't remember signing that contract giving up all of my natural rights to the whim of the majority of my neighbors...  I'm pretty sure I didn't sign those rights away.      

In the past, I have been quite critical of LEOs in general. Being in a position of authority, I hold them to a higher standard than the general population.   I will give credit where credit is due, however. A few weeks back on hwy 109, I saw a trooper helping an older lady change a flat tire. I admire this gentleman, and wish I knew who he was so I could contact his superior and commend him. I hope his spirit catches on within the LEO community. :up:

Yes, because two sound experts listening to a recording that was made through a handset from a significant distance are better witnesses than the man (witness #6) who walked outside and saw TM and GZ on the ground...  With TM on top of GZ swinging punches, and GZ yelling help, help.   Dave, lets me honest you just want to pick and choose the facts you want to believe...  And no amount of evidence is going to change your mind...   An eyewitness places TM on top of GZ throwing punches...  Now why exactly would TM be screaming help at that exact point in time?  That 'theory' doesn't match the witness statements, or basic logic that the guy getting on the bottom receiving the punches would most likely be the one screaming for help.   But since these witness statements (and GZ's own video statement to the police) doesn't fit the narrative in your head, you just ignore it?  

Our new raised beds are doing well. I can tell that having good dirt is going to vastly increase our production. We had some killer looking cabbage that caterpillars got a hold of and basically destroyed overnight. Waiting to see if they survive. Canning is the bomb. It can be a lot of work sometimes but having good fresh no preservative food is worth it. Mark

        Being in the room when someone is in possession on their box is strictly forbidden. Knowing the contents of any persons box raises a question of liability were anything to happen and the box be compromised during any "unpleasant" issues the bank may have to endure. If this is happening where your wife banks, I would change banks. The purpose of these boxes is a private place to keep valuables. The box is FDIC insured for an amount agreed upon when the box is rented, not for the contents. For any bank to be doing this is unscrupulous and brings other activities of the bank into question.

If I have to use lethal force Im not going to use a knife. If I have to use a knife Im screwed anyway.

For those who cannot accept the results of a jury trial:   To those so predisposed -- go ahead in your rage and burn down your neighborhood.   Don't, for a second, THINK about burning mine -- for I will resist you with appropriate, even deadly, force.

i just thought i would post a picture of it .rifle has all matching numbers.

It doesn't matter if he was up to something or not...  I'd argue that a reasonable person in that situation could believe he might be up to something, but even that doesn't matter...   It's not a crime to think somebody *might* be up to no good, it's not a crime to call the police because you think a person is acting suspicious, it's not a crime to follow in your vehicle a person you think my be up to no good while on the phone with E911, and it's also not illegal to follow somebody on foot who you believe is acting suspicious in your neighborhood.   We know for a fact that before hanging up with E911, Zimmerman had not committed a crime, and was legally in the commons area of his neighborhood.  We know this because of the E911 call that has been released in it's entirety to the public, and it's clear no criminal act on the part of Zimmerman had taken place up until that point in time.   I've listened to that call a number of time, and it appears to me that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to keep TM in sight so that the police who were being dispatched to his neighborhood could question the teen.  I never get the impression that at anytime was Zimmerman attempting to 'arrest' or physically come in contact with TM.  Also, it's clear that whatever his motive, he had stopped 'following' the teen before the E911 call had ended, and was focused on getting an address to help the police meet up with him.   So, the 'hand picked DA' would like us to believe that after doing nothing illegally up until the point the E911 call ended, that sudden Zimmerman went into 'criminal' mode and somehow started a physical altercation with TM, then when overwhelmed by TM's physical force needlessly shot the teen?   That 'line of thinking' doesn't match the fair solid interview that Zimmerman gave the police (without an attorney present) the next day on video at the scene.  Nor does it match any eye witness statements the police collected.   Don't get me wrong, Zimmerman made a ton of mistakes, and was a piss poor neighborhood watch captain...  He should have had a map of the neighborhood with street names and addresses listed so he could give a clear address to E911...  he should have stayed in his car, nothing that teen was going to do that night was worth placing himself in physical danger over.   But, none of that is criminal behavior...  at the end of the day, it appears as if Zimmerman was assaulted by TM, and during that assault he (and I believe any of us) felt threatened with serious injury or death by having their head smacked into the ground/concrete...  At the point TM had him on the ground, on top of Zimmerman, and was beating his head against the ground, TM had lost any self defense status he might have had under any crazy theories anybody can come up with...  So on the face of it, it appears to be a justified shooting.   BTW, lets all be honest here...  Zimmerman isn't the sharpest knife in the draw...  how does he bumble into a fight with a teen and ends up on the ground getting his head bashed it...  yet somehow is smart enough to come up with a story that completely matches the physical evidence and all other eyewitness accounts...  You can't have it both ways, he can't be an idiot who got himself in over his head, yet a genius who in less than 24 hours with no help from an attorney came up with a perfectly fitting 'story'.    

So does anyone else see the point that this clown was trying to make?  Granted, he made it as awkwardly as humanly possible and all people heard was the word "terrorism" but it seems that what he was trying to say is that if you incite panic by spreading false claims of danger with the public water supply, you are in essence terrorizing the public. And he'd be right.   But the hubub it caused sure does make good press.

if it goes to court, they'll keep everything hush hush... so don't expect too much to come out.

It's fine. Most molds vary just a bit, you can switch alloys, even casting technique and temps can cause weight variations. It's more important to keep consistent. Also, be sure the bases are smooth and square. Other than that, run em!! Remember, typically cast lead will produce lower pressures than an equal weight copper condom (jacketed bullet). The resistance of forcing lead down a steel barrel is lower than forcing copper down your barrel. Btw, what's goofy!? I run that same boolit in some of my loads. I've had very good results from it. Good looking castings, but you have one problem that may not be readily apparent. Casting is an addiction and if you have the patience for it, you'll find equal or better accuracy at a fraction of the cost. If you catch the bug, you'll look around one day and there'll be a pile of molds where them stupid jacketed bullets used to be. Contrary to what the armchair experts say, in 99% of handgun cartridges; You can equal and often exceed the performance of a jacketed bullet. Take your 9mm there. You didn't mention your alloy but let me assume your using air cooled wheel weights. (No need to water quench). They will penetrate about as well as any FMJ and if you can find a load that gives no leading and accuracy up around 900fps, them buggers will expand pretty well. Totally different animal I know, but my 308 Winchester loads expand as well as any premium jacketed bullet out there. They will penetrate several milk jugs of water and they look like a small explosion went off inside them. Quite devastating. To boot, they'll shoot inside an inch at a hundred. All for less than $10 for fifty. Welcome to the dark side. We may be frowned on by the status quo and those who think they know better, but we have fun, cheaper and don't abuse our guns near as much.

Congrats on the ar. I have Troy buis on mine and love them.