Trayvon's Rule... - Page 3
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 116

Thread: Trayvon's Rule...

  1. #21

    Trayvon's Rule...

    Hahaha sounds to me like Florida just gained a whole new group of OC advocates.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    I'm really interested to hear how this group of 1 million so called educated black men defines "provokes violence"

    It seems like they are trying to make it so that it is acceptable to assault someone if the person provokes you first. So what does it take? Being in the wrong neighborhood wearing the wrong color (or being the wrong color)? Saying the wrong thing?

    Seems these idiots haven't thought things through.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by rayporsche View Post
    soooooooo.....when one reads the part that says : * Any person carrying a firearm or in possession of a concealed weapon of any type, must openly identify this fact to anyone with whom they engage in confrontation..................................... .................................

    Makes one wonder while they are at it, wouldn't open carry resolve that issue ?
    It also takes away the reason for carrying concealed and, if showing concealed firearm, it may become "brandishing" which in most states is illegal. Who really thinks Trayvon would have backed off if Zimmerman said he had a firearm? Besides, as I recall, the reported confrontation began when Martin slugged Zimmerman in the face. Not exactly time to play "reveal" when the confrontation is initiated by the other party. According to the first "law", Trayvon could not declare self defense since he broke Z's nose without provocation. Also, the deniers seem to buy the storyline that the "cracker" was following him and refuse to consider Zimmerman was not following him but was heading back to his car when Martin confronted him. So, if they get this passed as a law, who is to say which version would be right. Zimmerman supposedly did not confront Martin and was surprised when Martin approached him, initiated the conflict and demanded to know why he was following him. So, this law would lead to "stand your ground" type issues. If somebody gets killed, all the live person would have to do is say the other person initiated the confrontation. If no witnesses, how are they going to prove him wrong. Stupid, typical libby reaction without thought for what their wished for new laws would really mean in confrontations. Oh, I forgot, only crackers can start a confrontation. If a black starts it, only when the white reacts does the confrontation begin. I wonder if the New BP party members would declare they have a firearm. After all, they tend to try to have confrontation anytime a cracker is around.
    Dave "The said Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by XD357grandpa View Post
    "One million educated black men". Is this a race issue again?
    To the Rev Al and Jesse and such, everything is a race issue..
    Dave "The said Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

  6. <1950's humor=on>can't be true; everyone know's there isn't such a thing as 1 million educated black men.<1950's humor=off> And why the race thing again. it's ok for minorities to be racist but better not be a white person and say anything about any other color. Why aren't these "1 million educated black men" concerned about all the black-on-black crime in gun free zone chicago or d.c. or n.y.c... blah

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Just threw up in my mouth when I read this.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825
    What a load of bull-feces.
    Self-defense is self-defense, People need to just get over it!
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by the dark View Post
    So...the old fart who tried to act up on me in the grocery store is going to react well when I look his shriveled old ass in the eye and say "The law requires that I warn you that I am armed"? I think this meets the legal definition of assault; threat of bodily harm and the means to do so.
    Don't forget to call him a stale creepy azz Cracka LMFAO!

    Im having way too much fun with this new terminology :D
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  10. #29
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rstews View Post
    So where is the link to this "rule" being considered. Or is someone stirring the pot?
    As I said, this is just getting going. https://www.facebook.com/pages/1-Mil...69428149853243

  11. Here we go again. More racially motivated excrement.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast