CSpenceFLY

Horse Shit!!

And your post is a prime example of the average conversation with the average left wing fucktard. Comprehend sarcasm much? Thanks for stopping by.

The first one i said that a cop and a citizen are not the same thing. That's not an answer. That's avoiding the question. Clear cut cases of self defense don't typically go to trial. If it's not clear cut, it should go to trial. I'm not aware of this being a problem. Do you have data (not anecdotes) showing that it's a problem? It's a problem if it happens once. Much in the same way some of you people think assault rifles are a problem. I bet if I wanted to, which I don't, I could find a case of a criminal suing a victim for every mass shooting in the US that you can come up with.

Or was it tear gas? Not that I doubt the media.

I like it, especially the part about moving on to banning hoses. And the part about have current tags to be able to pump gas is brilliant, I think we should include current insurance and driver training in that.

I wonder what they put their colour up on the headlines for, would they have done that if they'd both been white? I guess they could have blurred the pictures so you couldn't tell. Do you think these two guys are some of the oppressed blacks that have to commit crime to survive?

Better shut down Speakers Corner and the Incidents Forum then.

Which would we need to ban. Gasoline or gas cans? Or both?

St. Patricks Boogie in Fitzgerald,Ga. 2013 will be our 10th year. Edit to add, It's not the Burning Man of boogies by any means. Just a good boogie with a good vibe. There is no regular DZ there.

Hahahaaha!!!!

I sometimes wonder if, for a certain sub-set of humanity, every decision actually is binary. Maybe this is the same sub-set who don't recognize irony or sub-text. It certainly appears that way with some here.

Right. Flickering light will make things so much easier. My every day carry pistol (1911) has a light on it (TLR) and when I go to the movies I put one of my Surefire tactical lights in my pocket on my "weak" side. Besides being super handy if someone in your party drops their cell phone or keys in the dark, you never know what will happen out here. A couple of .45 slugs to the chest, even with soft armor on, will tend to get someone to stop firing and give you the gap you need to gain time, distance and cover. Not according to the professional arm chair quarterbacks around here. They say you should sit down and wait to be shot No one has suggested anything like that. I have, however, asked you repeatedly if you've ever actually experienced a tear gas. I have. It sucked when I was expecting it. Aim a weapon when unexpectedly exposed? LMAO! I've answered that question at least twice. Go find the answer.

Right. Flickering light will make things so much easier. My every day carry pistol (1911) has a light on it (TLR) and when I go to the movies I put one of my Surefire tactical lights in my pocket on my "weak" side. Besides being super handy if someone in your party drops their cell phone or keys in the dark, you never know what will happen out here. A couple of .45 slugs to the chest, even with soft armor on, will tend to get someone to stop firing and give you the gap you need to gain time, distance and cover. Not according to the professional arm chair quarterbacks around here. They say you should sit down and wait to be shot

A movie theater is not completely dark.

The system is broken, it shouldn't take so long in cut and dry cases like this. He should be prosecuted next week and given 90 days for his appeals. I'll pull the trigger on him. I would have no problem living with myself afterward.

Oooh I so love conspiracy theories. Will they use nanothermite? Laugh all you want. The UN or NATO will be our governments loophole to using military troops against us when the shit hits the fan. If the internet is still working I'll be sure to check in with you when it happens. Also, the federal government is doing a great job of outfitting our local police agencies with all the military hardware they care to have.

Why would anyone want to keep this defective person alive in a warehouse?

its not that we dont believe you can land well for 16 jumps without getting hurt. You could probably easily land a velocity loaded at 2.2:1 in ideal circumstances. Its that in the worst possible scenario most experience people doubt you have the safety margin with 1.4 WL to deal successfully. That takes hundreds of jumps to build up experience so that you can stay safe in all possible scenarios. Why would you want your hobby to be a ticking time bomb (sooner or later kind of thing). enough said...I have thought these thoughts out based on personal experience and advice given from close friends/mentors. After 3 years of skydiving and over 300 jumps I still jump a 1.2 because a safety margin is nice. I suppose I should be more afraid of canopy flying etc however as a licensed pilot and now 6 years in aviation since i was 19 for better or worse I am comfortable with flight. I agree of course no matter what, my safety margin is narrowed by my canopy choice etc. It's fun as hell tho. I thought the same thing. Commercial pilot with about 1400 hrs when I broke my back on a straight in on front risers landing when I had about 150 jumps. I'd have to go look for the actual jump number. There have been many like you and many more to come. You aren't special.

The guy was stupid as hell for opening the door. The head of this team and the shooter should lose their jobs and share a manslaughter charge. There is a reason that they are supposed to identify themselves. That would be to protect the Innocent. Protect & Serve, they did a piss poor job of protecting this guy. But at least the real criminal is still alive.

They are us, for all intents and purposes (i.e., we have veto power). It's just not going to happen. It's nothing more than a tin-foil hat conspiracy. Yeah, like we have had any control of what our government does in the last 10yrs. You vote for the lesser of two evils and they do what they fucking want. When the time comes that is challenged it's going to get nasty here.

The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA? What makes you think our government would not give their approval? You said, "It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops." All they have to do is approve UN or NATO troops onto our soil with no US troops involved. Welcome to the world of loopholes. Getting off topic.

The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA? What makes you think our government would not give their approval?

The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations?

That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else! It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.) According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia." It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny. I wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional". I wonder if the Armed Forces would stand behind a government that starts operating outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority. Are they required to defend their lawless leaders or the Constitution? How far should the citizenry or the Armed Services allow a rogue government to go? I don't think you have to worry about an insurrection simply over unpopular laws. So far, the closest thing to a lawless "insurrection" that I can see is the Occupy movement. (I'm not old enough to have witnessed the shame brought upon my people by Sacco and Vanzetti and others.) It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops.