DaVinci

You being armed would have made them worse? Are you afraid you are a killer? Fact is that as long as you are a honest person, there is little reason for another honest person to be afraid of you.

And you are fine with that SAME standard not allowing me to carry a gun in court. Why the sudden double standard?

Actually, I believe the police that saw the wounds and the EMT's that treated the wounds....Others don't

Sorry, he does not go out looking to PUNISH, only identify and locate. His call to 911 shows that: Vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice So basically, you failed to understand the definition of the words you used.

No, in fact the SC seems to agree with me that if you are going to try and use the commerce clause in a new way that you have better have some good justification. And the lack of penalty is pretty important since you can just ignore it otherwise. But I don't expect you to engage in an honest debate anymore anyway.

1. This is not a commerce clause issue. 2. Where is the penalty for not following? In the end, I'd bet you would fight tooth and nail against them actually mandating each person buy a gun.

That is not a violent act. Bashing someone's head in is.

Bull shit, you have called Zimmerman a "vigilante"

Unless you can show they required him to carry a gun, then they only appointed a man. The fact that he carried a gun was not the act of the organization.

Why? Fox news didn't edit anything to make it sound racist.

Yet this is a Govt that is trying to mandate that I prove I have insurance or pay a fine. Asking for ID to vote should be required... And free ID's should be given to those that do not have any other ID. You need and ID to do so many things.... Voting should be one of them.

True, he could of just continued to let Trayvon bash his head against the concrete till he passed out or just stopped on his own.

No, it is not. It is the action of a hot head.

Not when that person is beating your head into the concrete. You are forgetting it since you keep trying to claim Zimmerman's actions were illegal.

If Buffet is going to claim others need to pay more taxes, then saying that maybe his own company should pay the taxes it owes is fair game.

You need to read the WHOLE post. If a guy makes verbal threats..... You have no justification in using force. But if he is making verbal threats AND you have a reasonable belief he is trying to hurt you, then you can defend yourself. The difference is a guy yelling at you that he is going to "kick your ass" and a guy yelling he is going to "kick your ass" while walking toward you with a bat.

No, but it stands on its own against your argument anyway.

That is why they have the "reasonable standard".

OK, you are fine with me not being allowed protection under the 2nd when I have to go to a court.... I just got a mandatory subpena because I was a witness to a crime. I HAVE to go, and they WILL disarm me. You OK with that? You are trying to distort, this guy was not searched because he was arrested. He was searched because he was going to be put into jail.

Liking something has nothing to do with its Constitutionality. Would you also agree that drunk drivers should be able to pay the same rate for car insurance as you? Even if that means they have to raise your premiums? This I agree with 100%. I don't agree with this unless the kid is in school. What I do agree with is allowing people to group together and allowing people to shop around over State lines and even shop around on prices for procedures.

Nope. Legal definition: "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm". So a guy cussing at you and saying he is gonna kick your ass is not an assault, but a guy saying he is gonna kick your ass while approaching you in an aggressive manner fits the definition. "The essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim..... In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault. There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account" So if a guy is saying he is going to kill you... That is not enough for you to start a physical altercation.... EVER. But, if he is saying he is going to kill you and there is reasonable belief that he has the ability to hurt you... Now you can legally defend yourself. In the example you gave: The fact that he is running at you WHILE saying he is going to kill you is enough for a reasonable person to think they are in danger. In fact just the act of the guy running at you *could* be considered enough, but that would be a MUCH harder sell. And the standards are different depending on conditions... For example a 100 pound girl can reasonably think a 180 pound guy without a weapon is a danger easier than a 220 pound offensive lineman.

Fixed it. A person challenging an Unconstitutional law has an agenda - to get the law stricken. Yep, that is better.

Not really. Notice I said, "It is also not AS effective" A projectile that has been slowed down to limit its sound, will not be as effective as one that was not slowed down. Which is not to say that it would still not be lethal but to say it would not be as effective would still be 100% correct. There was a case of a swat guy using an MP5SD and trying to shoot a bad guy through a window. He hit the BG COM, but the BG didn't drop and was able to execute several hostages before they could breach the door, enter the room, and drop him with the same weapon. Muhahahahaa! Like I said, lots of common misconceptions about suppressors.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty simple, but you take issue with it. You are trying to distort, this guy was not searched because he was arrested. He was searched because he was going to be put into jail. You don't complain about the TSA not letting me carry a gun on a plane even though it can be said that it steps on the 2nd.

Name calling is not legal grounds to attack someone.... Period.