tvc184

  Again, those are statements created on the spot for posting. The only statements that I saw the jurors say was that some wanted to convict him but could not as the evidence was not there. They even went into the trial and jury deliberation but agreed that there was no case.    And yes, there was plenty of evidence of innocence although none is required. 

  It is extremely convenient that you completely ignore any of the actual gathered evidence to draw your conclusion. Of course that is your right of free thought but making up things seems to take away most of the credibility. 

  It is a shame that he wasn't able to tell the police or state prosecutors all of this evidence that led him to the conclusion it was murder because after months of investigation, no one else could prove it. 

  The Second Amendment comes to mind.    It is also a foot in the door of banning. Hey, we banned this one, what next?   The use of the media version of an assault weapon in murder is almost non-existent but the anti-gunners are really after them. The question should be why and I think that I have already answered it as being merely a first step. Why be so concerned about a weapon that is owned in the millions yet is almost never used in a murder?    It is political only and has no bearing on crime or deaths. 

    What does one guy's opinion got to do with self defense? Even if he "profiled" Martin, why does that change any facts in the case? Profiling is drawing a conclusion based on a set of facts. The police are taught profiling which also called suspicious conduct. It is nothing more. Profiling based on race while it may be wrong, has no bearing on a civilian looking at something. There is no law on what we can think. Many states have civil prohibitions against police racial profiling that say a detention cannot be based on race alone however race can be a factor.    Let's say that Zimmerman thought that Martin was suspicious based on race. So what? He called 911 to report that suspicion to the police. What are we now to do as 911 operators, ask what a guy is thinking when he calls the police department?   It all comes down to to who attacked who and what evidence there was. It doesn't matter what was in Zimmerman's mind or what some guy thinks. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was attacked or at the very least was in a serious situation that might cause him serious injury (there us no requirement to fear death as  is often reported in the media). There was no such evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, much less the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a guy that I hate comes at me and tries to kill or seriously injure me, I do not lose my right of self defense because I do not like him for whatever reason and that includes race? The answer is an easy "no".     You, frank and everyone else has the right to an opinion. Frank's does not change the case no matter when he may or may not have sided with Zimmerman.   I think ol' Frank who is irrelevant on anything, wants his 15 seconds of fame. 

  Who is he and what does it matter? 

  The same number. 

Vet meds are just like that for humans in that many of them are prescription only and not over the counter. Many animal meds are also the same as people meds. 

  You hit the nail on the head. The people have multiple usually violent convictions but instead of locking them up, we want to hug them and try and sweet talk them into not committing crimes.    The gun laws are already there. They should be in jail and not out killing other people but you need to ask the politicians and prosecutors on why they are still out when they have committed a violent crime. That is why we sometimes refer our cases to the federal system when they will accept one in order to get a mandatory sentence in actual prison. 

  Yes, I am familiar with how fast they can fired and it is slower than a handgun. I have an AK, an SKS, an 2 AR15's, a few other rifles and I am not sure how many handguns but for sure I have four that I regularly carry. Full auto might be faster but it is extremely inaccurate. I have yet to see any spree killing with a full auto used. It is true that rifles are made for warfare but that is because most warfare isn't at 20 feet which coincidentally is where most shootings including spree killings take place.   The rifles have the huge advantage of range. We have yet to have a rampage or spree killing at 200 yards. They are up close and personal like the head shots at Sandy Hook where a small .22 pistol would likely have done the same damage.     All of which is why I made my post and you apparently ignored it in order to say how fast a AK can fire. 

  Completely repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all gun or be prepared to respond to it once it happens. Even the confiscation won't stop it as it doesn't take many guns to get through for it to happen.    Just recently a kid with a knife stabbed several people. One of the biggest terror attacks on a school was at Beslan when fire bombs killed more than 160 mostly children. Until we ban gasoline and any other assorted every day items, we cannot stop someone from mass killings. In fact the deadly school killing in the USA was not a shooting but a bombing and not in recent history but way back in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.    You cannot stop a person dedicated at carnage. 

  I am not trying to be silly but that is a popular misconception repeated time and time again.    Rifles like an AK or AR have a huge advantage over handguns and that is range. Someone that is good with an AR can kill you at a quarter of a mile and that is with open sights. Their fault lies in them being very large as compared to handguns, weigh a good bit more and the ammo/magazines are generally huge and they are more difficult to reload. It is almost impossible to conceal such a weapon.    Almost all of the shootings with these so called "assault" rifles are at extremely close range of a few feet away, not up to hundreds of feet. In early 1991 I was giving a talk to the Lions Club or Optimist or one of the other service organizations. During my short talk I was questioned about "assault" rifles and shooting the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 murdered) was brought up. I told them that the rifle in that situation was not a better weapon and someone in the future was going to wreak more havoc with a handgun. You could carry 100 rounds or more in handgun magazines in a single front pocket of some jeans. It was only a matter of time and a good person can reload in slightly over a second. The media created fear of rifles in mass shootings was for the most part unfounded in my opinion. They are certainly deadly but at a few feet, unnecessary and many times a hindrance to the shooter.    A few weeks later we had the Luby's shooting in Killeen. He shot 43 people and killed 23 in what was at the time the most deadly spree killing in US history while only armed with 9mm pistols. I kind of wanted to go back to the service club and say, "I told you so".    That was later trumped by the VA Tech shootings when 32 people were killed.... again with handguns only and one of them was the tiny .22 round which is more thought of as a tiny and low power practice round and maybe squirrel hunting, an animal which weighs generally less than a pound.    Those were the two most deadly shootings in US history without the need for the dreaded assault rifle as the shooters were not killing people 100-400 yards away. But wait, we move on to Sandy Hook that was the second most people killed  26 people (replacing Luby's) at the school with a rifle but all at almost point blank range. That means a handgun would have been just as deadly if not more so with the usually shorter reloading time.    Until we start having mass murders at 100 yards or more, the idea of rifles being the more serious culprit seem to be misplaced seeing that 2 of the 3 deadliest shootings have been with handguns and the 3rd could have just as well been so.    That fact is that very few people are ever killed with AK or AR style rifles in an average year in the USA. From the federal government CDC stats, of the 11,000 or so firearm homicides a year, the average of the years since the Clinton assault weapon ban expired in 2004 is 48 murders per year from "assault weapons". That means that if you took away these dreaded and scary looking weapons, it would have no bearing on 99.6% of firearms murders. And even that is assuming that the less than 0.4% that did happen with an assault weapon, they shooter simply could not have opted for a less scary weapon to commit the same crime.    Simply repeating the mantra that assault weapons are the problem simply is not true and the statistics including those from the federal government back that up.    But they sure are scary looking.............. 

  What gun laws will stop spree killings?   I will just use TX law as an example. Kill any two people and it is a death penalty case. Kill any child under 10 years old and it is a death penalty case.   It is a felony l for a person already convicted of a felony to purchase or possess a firearm anyway.    Those laws are already here. A felon cannot even possess a firearm or I think under federal law, even the ammo without a firearm. To kill a single child in an elementary school is a likely death sentence.    With it already being a felony to buy or possess firearms or ammo and likely getting the death sentence either by court or a self inflicted wound after a person has inflicted enough damage, what law will prevent such as attack? 

  Going to stick with that lie?

  I agree. Maybe three officers per campus so that it is covered. That comes to about $1,000 per day per campus. I think BISD has 26 campuses to $26,000 per day or about half a million dollars a month. I think BISD could spring for another $4-$5 million each year for extra cops. 

  I never saw the right to own vehicles or have a driver's license listed in the Constitution. Maybe I missed that part........... 

  How will you know? In fact, a teacher may be doing so now without your knowledge. 

    Graze in a field and go Baaaaaa!!!

  I think that most teachers would not carry simply because most teachers do not carry when away from school anyway. There are plenty of teachers that do carry concealed, in their cars or hunt and would gladly be able to carry at school. They might be in the minority but there are still many that would if given the choice. 

While that mistake may be true and background checks were instituted (no waiting period) under the Brady Law, it did not happen under Reagan but under Clinton almost 6 years after Reagan left office.

Again, I have no problems with a background check. It is none of the government's business on what I own however. And honestly, if a person decides to shoot up a school and kill children for which he will either recieve the death penalty, be killed by the police or will commit suicide, what gun law will stop his actions?

Really? I am soon to wrap up my 31st year as a police officer including most of Reagan's term in office. What is this registration you speak of that apparently existed at one time without my knowledge but does not exist today?

  Apparently you missed the point about confiscation.    Why should the government know what you own legally? Does your right to privacy allow the government to know what you own? Maybe our voting should be made public and no need for booths anymore. 

  As opposed to the Democrats doing the same thing in 2012 by lying about a response from a terror attack for an election which coincidentally would be the same reason? 

It is almost comical. We have 73,000 "less" people working than a month ago, yet the unemployment rate falls almost half a percent.    When hundreds of thousands of people simply give up looking, they call it a victory and jobs created.