A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.


"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

On 4/1/2012 7:45 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self
defense.

"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

Why don't you look up the text of the second amendment.

apparent:
1) Capable of being seen, or easily seen; open to view; visible to the
eye; within sight or view.
2) Clear or manifest to the understanding; plain; evident; obvious;
known; palpable; indubitable.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

In article , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

On 4/2/12 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article4qWdnVzZaqnuEuTSnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.




Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who
is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not
without consequences, except maybe in Florida.

Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole.


Just count me among the group of everyone who doesn't take you or your
demands seriously, moron.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

In article , says...

On 4/1/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , lid says...

On 3/31/2012 8:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:13:58 -0400, Happy
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:00:25 -0500, Boating All wrote:

The guy brought it on himself when he decided to tote a gun, and play
cop.
What happened to him and what will happen to him flows from that
decision.

The innocent are convicted and the guilty freed all the time.
Anybody is welcome to advocate for either side.
But known facts are known facts.
Making up "facts" just makes those who do it look stupid.

Now that was pretty well said!

I agree.

As with most conflicts it is likely that both sides are wrong to varying
degree.

No, now FOX told Herring and JustWait that Zimmerman is innocent and
they MUST follow FOX.

You know ****head, we never said that, period. You are a ****ing idiot,
spending his day sharing his own personal misery with everyone here..
Why the **** do you have to lie all the time? Seriously, what the ****
is your ****ing problem?

Wow, you need your meds bad! I have no "personal misery". And just what
did I "lie" about? I never said you and John "said" anything. I said FOX
told you that Zimmerman is innocent. AND that you MUST follow the word
of FOX.

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

In article , says...

On 4/1/2012 8:50 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/1/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , lid says...

On 3/31/2012 8:02 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:13:58 -0400, Happy
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:00:25 -0500, Boating All
wrote:

The guy brought it on himself when he decided to tote a gun, and play
cop.
What happened to him and what will happen to him flows from that
decision.

The innocent are convicted and the guilty freed all the time.
Anybody is welcome to advocate for either side.
But known facts are known facts.
Making up "facts" just makes those who do it look stupid.

Now that was pretty well said!

I agree.

As with most conflicts it is likely that both sides are wrong to varying
degree.

No, now FOX told Herring and JustWait that Zimmerman is innocent and
they MUST follow FOX.

OK I've had enough. It's tiresome pulling your chain when all that's
needed is a good tug and, Bye Bye, you're flushed.


The guy is a total retard.. Can't read, can't understand what he does
manage to read, they makes up stories just to get someone to pay
attention to him. Pathetic...

Cite?

A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
 

In article , says...

On 4/1/2012 9:31 PM, thumper wrote:
On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.


"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.


"It apparently? Followed by personal speculation, based on a strictly
political agenda.

Oh man....... you are insane!!!