RobertNashville

No one's rights exists in a vacuum...no one has unlimited rights to do anything they want anytime they want. That can ONLY work if the individual lives on a planet with a population of "1".   Otherwise, society requires that there be rules and regulations about how people treat one another and provides ways to redress grievances. Society requires it because throughout recorded history, man has proven that there has to be rules (and consequences for breaking them) because people tend to not act responsibly and/or with no regard to the rights of anyone else.   That's why the founders of this country created a government with rules and regulations...That's why, for example, that you have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property but you DON'T have a right to do things on/with your property that infringe on MY right to the peaceful enjoyment of MY property. However, the existence of rules and regulations and governments doesn't mean that our rights are simply privileges.   I'm not saying that rules/regulations/governments can't become tyrannical; however, there are some among us who seem to feel that ANY rule they don't like = tyranny...which is ridiculous.

and insulting people, such as by by claiming they have an "authoritative mindset", is the usual and preferred response to others by those who can't make a cogent argument in support of their position or who simply want to argue.

What I said that you quoted didn't say or intend to say anything even remotely similar to your rant above.   I don't really care what he did or didn't do before the last summer's trial. He was found not guilty of killing Martin and I'm fine with that.   I don't care who has accused him of bad behavior since the trial; especially things that didn't seem to have any evidence to support them (resulting in no charges).   I don't care if he is "lucky" or "unlucky", "smart" or "stupid" or if he is a "saint" or an "asshole". I also don't care if he's "white", "Hispanic" or a "white Hispanic".   I also don't know and I really don't give a s**t if he did what he is accused of this time - if he did it he'll probably be punished..if he didn't he probably won't be punished; I'm just fine with either outcome.

Thanks for totally and completely missing the point (or ignoring it).   It isn't about Zimemrman...it isn't about whether he should have stayed in his damn truck or not...I wasn't talking about Zimmerman at all.  The point is that BEING 100% JUSTIFIED in the use of deadly force DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WON'T BE TRIED FOR MURDER...it doesn't even mean that you won't be found guilty and die alone in a jail cell.

Is that response your idea of constructive, worthwhile dialogue?

Absolutely correct.

Don't forget, after the sweet little thug has been shot, his FB page and ever picture of him on the internet will be taken down and replaced with the thug at 10 or 11 when he might actually have looked like a sweet little kid.

This reminded me of one the the best WKRP in Cincinnati episodes where Baily Quarters was producing her own show called "Cincinnati Beat"   Her first expert guest, being interviewed by Dr. Johnny Fever, was an expert in child psychology (got his degree form "Bubba")...according to the guest, "children are, by adult standards, insane" and he suggested that we "round the little gutter snipes up". :) I don't think I've ever laughed at hard at a TV as I did when I saw that episode for the first time!

I'm pretty much with JayC on this...since when does a "school policy" override a parent's right to control his/her own children (such as deciding to walk them home rather than wait in a mile-long like of cars to pick them up?   I'm not saying that this parent couldn't have handled the situation better and without question, this cop was completely out of control and should, at the very least, lose a few weeks of pay, but still..if I go to school to pick up my child, early in the day...middle of the day...end of the school day; whatever...they had damn sure better produce my child.

As was noted earlier, for likely years to come, Zimmerman is going to be under a microscope and everything he dose that may be illegal or wrong and is going to be noted and likely made a bid deal of (whether it's really a big deal or not).  I think it might be worth mentioning and us worth taking note of that that this could be the lot of ANY OF US who might have to defend his/her life with deadly force.   If we ever have to use deadly force to defend our life we also could be charged with murder - for anyone who didn't already know, the Zimmerman/Martin shooting should have taught us that whether someone is ultimately charged with a crime in a self-defense shooting is not always charged because of the facts of the situation (i.e. that other factors can determine whether or not a person is charged). We also should know that going through a trial and being found "not guilty" does not mean that our troubles are immediately over.   Aside from the seriousness of taking another person's life, the aftermath, such as what Zimmerman is experiencing, is also part of the responsibility we take on when we carry a firearm and just one of the many reasons why doing what we can to avoid the need to fire should always be our first goal.    

Maybe he was stupid...maybe he actually did something wrong...maybe his girlfriend (who appears to have complained to LEO) is just being vindictive about something.   Getting charged, especially if it's "domestic" is pretty easy...whether he actually did anything wrong or not is another matter alltogether.

I just love it when news reporters fall over themselves to essentially report that "something happened" but we really don't know what yet".

No one is so good they can prevent everything or every possible attack but isn't this precisely the reason why we should always be in condition Yellow and extremely aware of what and who is around us?  Isn't it also one of the reasons why we should avoid places that make attack (such as alleyways, etc.) convenient (that's why I avoid WalMart parking lots! :) )? You are right, fast and brutal and that means the attacker has the upper hand (as they always do)...but sooner or later these worthless pieces of crap that engage in this WILL pick on the wrong person and...   1. One or more of these thugs will be dead, and 2. If the person defending himself is charged I'll be donating to his/her defense fund

I really like Hornaday but none of the choices offered are bad; I've used all three at one time or another with no problems.   I know you didn't ask but one thing that is important for any carry ammo is to use factory ammo of good quality that can be tested. One of the things that will happen if you are ever in a SD shooting is that they will (or you may want them to) test your ammo. Off-brand with inconsistent formulations, etc. can be a detriment to that process and that process can go a long way in helping you should you be charged with anything.

Oprah is a piece of crap who's success has obviously decreased the number of functioning brain cells she has....she isn't worth the time listening nor are her comments relevant to anyone but herself.   Obama is a piece of crap who likely never had many functioning brain cells to start with and has gotten where he is mostly BECAUSE of his race. He also isn't worth the time listening to; unfortunately he is the President and wields a good deal of power so what he does/says are relevant because it impacts others.

To be blunt, if I owned a business; most especially one that catered to the public and had customer traffic (as opposed to simply serving other businesses) I would probably restrict carry inside my business property just as most other businesses do.   I would likely carry myself (or at least have a weapon close by) and I might allow select individuals to carry (those whom I knew had been trained to whatever standards I felt were a minimum and that would also be assuming that my business insurance would cover me in the event something happened and one of those employees was deemed to have been negligent). However, I likely would not allow all employees to carry inside my business proper.   This is not about individual rights as much as it is a business doing what is best for the business...if someone wants absolute autonomy with regards to carrying a firearm while working for an employer then their employer is probably going to have to be themselves.

I absolutely agree that the only person truly responsible for his/her security is that person him/herself.   I also would really prefer it if all employers allowed their employees to carry a firearm while working/on the employer's property/inside the employer's business if the employee wanted to do so.   However, I also find it perfectly reasonable for an employer to not allow an employee to carry while working/on the employer's property. The employer has and should have that right to make that decision with the best interests of his business in mind without being "forced" to make a decision by anyone. The employee has the right to either work somewhere else OR chose to break the rules and face the possible consequences.

God given (or natural for those who prefer) are the rights of every human being. However, the mere existence of a government body will usually mean that "someone" is going to have one or more rights infringed as governments always seem to naturally grow in size and power which is generally at the expense of the individual.   That said, the "rights" we have lost and/or that have been infringed have been infringed because of the laziness or stupidity of the governed...the governed elected the people who enacted the legislation that we now find objectionable...it is we, collectively, who are ultimately to blame for the condition of our "rights".

I've had good service from AmmunitionToGo and from Midway. I've also bought from Able Ammo a time or two but most of my bulk purchases has been from AmmunitionToGo

That's what happens when you have idiot legislators with an agenda who write a "comprehensive" piece of legislation that's supposed to "fix" and problem that probably affects less than 5% of the population and what you end up with is that the 5% who had the problem still have it and you've screwed the other 95%.   So far; I've been lucky - my health care is provided as a retirement benefit and there has been no signs of "change" yet but I won't be surprised if it does change.

I cant' say I quite understand what the problem is.   I had an LCR (38 SPL) for quite a while and it never gave me an issue (can't say it was very much fun to shoot though!). :)

That is a good case...I hope that it reaches SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to replace a justice or two with ones that may be less concerned with constitutionality and more with their agenda (not that anything is predictable with the current court).

Good points, Lester as usual.   I'm pretty much on the fence about the whole "legalize" thing...certainly the "war on drugs" has been a colossal failure but I'm not sure that automatically means these drugs should be legal for anyone to buy anytime.  Then again, it's difficult for me to really care about the whole mess anyway.  For one thing, I think it's highly unlikely that anything is going to change (certainly not within my lifetime) and secondly, well...I guess I think there are more important things to address than whether we change the drug laws. ;)

Okay...thanks for clearing that up...I guess it's just with intent to sell (or actually selling) where the law steps in.   With this technology on the horizon which will likely only get less and less expensive; I'd bet real money that the fed govt will be looking at some new laws (after all; it will be to protect the children)!

Yeah - this could get real interesting. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it currently "illegal" under fed law for anyone to make a firearm without a license, etc? Not sure about that. Anyway, this technology has to be frightening to the BATF and gun control nuts since this takes so much control out of their hands.