Only 99 cents on the Sunday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan on Brambleton Avenue
“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something – your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.”
Steve Jobs
February 24, 2013 - 11:30 AM
for a trip down memory lane, check out the woman in the picture on the Roanoke Times’ front page on Sunday, February 24, 2012.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/305341
An interesting blog comment from Dan:
-
http://tinyurl.com/a857ab8
Dan,
-
Did you answer my earlier questions related to the “upgrade” of the RT site? If so, I missed the reply. Without the RSS feeds on each thread, it is a pain to keep up with replies and new comments. However, again:
-
Do you have a higher or lower comment count in the new format?
-
Do you have a higher or lower readership/viewership, hit count in the new format?
-
Inquiring minds want to know.
Dave Hicks,
I have not tracked the number of comments post upgrade compared to pre. My sense is, they are lower. Nor have I tracked the traffic. I could compare, but I think that would be unfair. There are still glitches to iron out on the blogs. A better comparison would be 3-6 months down the road, when everyone is more used to the new format.
Cantor’s pants on fire, yet again.
-
http://tinyurl.com/ahku2nl
-
**
“The National Science Foundation spent $1.2 million paying seniors to play World of Warcraft to study the impact it had on their brain.”
-
Eric Cantor on Tuesday, February 19th, 2013 in a news release.
-
SNIP
-
Our ruling
-
Cantor said the federal government spent $1.2 million “paying seniors to play World of Warcraft,” a popular fantasy game. His facts are all messed up.
-
He’s referring to federal grant for a study to determine whether computer games can slow mental decline in the elderly. But the grant application never mentioned WoW and participants in the federally-funded study did not play that game.
-
Before applying for the federal money, the researchers conducted a small, pilot study in which seniors played WoW over the course of two weeks and were tested to see if it improved their cognitive abilities. This study was funded with a $5,000 grant from N.C. State. No U.S. money was involved.
-
The federal study involves hours of testing each participant and efforts to identify the aspects of computer games that might help seniors better deal with life offline. Cantor’s statement ridiculously suggests that Washington is sponsoring a geriatric gaming club. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.
**
It has now been confirmed — the New York Yankees are the Evil Empire.
-
http://tinyurl.com/a45oe3v
Re: Dan Casey at 12:12 pm
-
A better comparison would be 3-6 months down the road, when everyone is more used to the new format.
-
——————
-
Yup.
-
OTOH, it is bad technology and business practice to go live on your customer with software that is still in Beta.
-
Beta testing should be external user acceptance testing — done by a limited audience outside of the programming team. The software should be released to small groups of volunteers and/or tested by other professionals to ensure the product has few faults or bugs — before going live.
-
The full client base getting more used to a new and debugged format comes after the Beta test.
Agree with Dave, without the recent threads list it is a pain to keep a running dialogue going. Add this to the fact I have to use a dedicated browser to access the site I know I won’t be using the blogs nearly as often. In my view, this is an epic fail, I don’t appreciate being used as a guinea pig for an untested system. Just sayin’. Now get out and enjoy the day!
Dave Hicks, the link in your #2 post to Daniel Bongino’s rant was fascinating for one thing for me, but it is very typical. He admits, as many gun nuts have, that “Newtown has sparked a long-overdue, national conversation regarding targeted violence in our society>/em>”. Then he does the typical BUT, “A conversation that, in my experience as both a former law-enforcement officer and Secret Service agent, should have been focused on cultural issues and mental health treatment, rather than a war on our God-given right to protect ourselves and our families in a dangerous world.”
–
Now first, I doubt that many law enforcement and Secret Service agents are all that fired up to agree that it is “cultural issues and mental health treatment” that will deny criminals and evil people guns, but I also do not see how anyone can claim that guns are a “God-given right”.
Sophistry as per the norm from gun nuts. Blame anything and anyone except the gun culture that makes sure guns remain cheap, easy to get and easily accessible and then pretend you give a damn about the carnage such a system has wrought.
So the Roanoke Times save some time and maybe a few bucks allowing us to continue blogging while the changes are worked out and the system is implemented. Get over it, and appreciate what we have. They “could have” done a lot of things. The decisions were theirs to make.
I use the RSS feed that you can click on at the top of this page. Firefox (IE may do it too) puts a link to Dan’s blog at the top of the browser. When you click on it, you can choose the latest thread or any of the last nine. It automatically updates too.
Hey Dan: Glad you used my analogies and basics from my letter to the editor From 2/20 “Festival vision doesn’t make sense”. Since I was limited to 200 words I could not make the case of homogenous (you used focused) in as much detail as you, but did it none the less. I guess I should troll letters to the editor and grow up and be a Times columnist just like you! I did enjoy the article “Broader appeal not always wise move”. You made the point succinctly, just as I did.
The problem is not the format….it is the liberal focus of this blog and it’s namesake…Dan Casey.
Re: RSS feeds.
In addition to that blog RSS feed, the old system had RSS feeds that were thread content specific — i.e., you didn’t need to check to see if there were new comments, the feeds advised you when there were.
-
In addition, you could keep them active as long as you wished.
-
—–
-
Saving time and bucks at the expense of losing customers is bad technology and business, IMHO.
Re: “God-given right to protect ourselves and our families in a dangerous world.”
-
——————
-
You’d be surprised how many in law enforcement feel exactly as he does.
-
BTW, those are not the thoughts of a single man.
-
Major churches agree. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has said, “In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.” [Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection (Vatican City: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1994), ch 1, sect. 5, at 12.]
-
Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission.”
-
Most telling to the American conscience, the eminent Baptist Minister and the father of the American civil-rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also supported the use of a gun in self-defense.
-
“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.
-
In closing, let me say that I fully accept that others might conclude otherwise. It is an individual’s call [Rom 14:14, 23]. If you think it is morally wrong to defend yourself with deadly force, then for you, it is wrong. I would never try to force you to do otherwise. As for me, I think it is not wrong and I believe being armed could be a virtue, were it to come to some situations[John 15:13]. Hence, I request that no one force me to do otherwise.
Wally W | February 24, 2013 at 7:01 pm
The problem is not the format….it is the liberal focus of this blog and it’s namesake…Dan Casey.
-
http://bit.ly/124E9LK – Problem solved. Take care.
Thank you Mr. White. The format is still working fine….and so are the idiotic responses from liberals like you. You probably think our first responders will be out of a job due to the sequester…isn’t that a local budget issue?
Liberal? That’s too kind and generous a label for me, good sir. I’m really more of a jaded, cynical, disillusioned anarchist. I’m about as worried about the sequester as I was about the “debt ceiling”, the “fiscal cliff” and every other hot-phrase that the media uses to sow fear and doubt among the masses. It’s just one more bump in the road in a long history of bumps in the road for this country. We’ll get through it, all while screwing over the little guy just like we always have.
-
I don’t even worry about divisive, assumptive pseudo-conservatives such as yourself. Your elitism and us-vs-them mentality is the cancer that caused me to leave the conservative party in the first place. If the putrid, poisoned pool in which you wallow is all that remains of my once-beloved Republicans, then I leave you to that broken vessel.
-
So give yourself another big self-congratulatory pat on the back for “laying it to” us filthy liberals. You probably think that you’re the future of the party. It’s too bad that you’re really just gas escaping from the corpse.
JM White, for an anarchist you seem to care somewhat about my pseudo-conservatism….you sent me a silly link to a conservative website. Surely a learned, jaded, cynical, disillusioned anarachist such as yourself can find a more enlightened blog to post on than this liberal nonsense. I’m a realist, not necessarily a conservative. We must stop spending money .we don’t have. China should not get paid interest on half of the money we spend. I would think a true anarchist like yourself would agree. What’s up with you you?
So true, JMW. So, so true.
Here’s an interesting story:
“…China is no longer a reliable member of global supply chains.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/02/24/is-foxconn-fleeing-china-sure-looks-like-it/?partner=yahootix
In all honesty Dave Hicks, I am not the least “surprised how many in law enforcement feel exactly as he does” given law enforcement officers can be just as violent and off their rocker as any other citizen with a gun. If people were not as well armed as they are, the SWAT personnel and apparatus would not be necessary.
“you sent me a silly link to a conservative website.”
Umm, Wally, that’s not what J.M. sent you at all.
Come on, Wally! A realist wouldn’t assume from one smart-ass joke that a perfect stranger is a liberal. A realist wouldn’t assume that a perfect stranger thinks we should spend money that we don’t have or that said stranger is in ANY way sympathetic to China. A realist wouldn’t assume anything unless it was of the highest probability.
-
You also seem to be have a hard time deciding which way I should go as an anarchist. First I supposedly care too much about your political leanings and then at the end of your comment, I don’t care enough what the government is doing. Why would a true anarchist care about any of that as long as they’re doing their own thing?
-
Since you’re so embarrassingly desperate to apply labels and apparently too inept to see the folly in doing that when dealing with faceless strangers, here are some other things of which I’ve been accused: pinko, hippie, commie, socialist, racist, sociopath, megalomaniac, pseudo-intellectual, self-important, sexist, heartless, fascist and my personal favorite, jerk. Feel free to mix it up and have fun.
Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Joe McCarthy — Separated at Birth?
The (hardly a conservative site [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos ]) Daily Kos had this good read a few days ago.
-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/11/1186281/-Why-I-oppose-Universal-Background-Checks-A-turning-point
-
So, it appears that some of the publishers of “news and opinions from a progressive point of view” might just be seeing the light.
-
Good stuff.
Sorry Dave Hicks, I cannot consider yet another paranoid gun owner thinking the government wants to “confiscate” their guns through “universal background checks” as “seeing the light”, it is being in a dark place without any light at all IMO.
–
That so many people fear their own government and distrust the Constitution to the degree so many of you do is just unseemly and does not bode well for America on many levels.
–
Clearly, we will destroy ourselves.
Joe McCarthy will never die as long as the GOTP lives.
Re: Sandi Saunders at 8:18 am
-
Distrust the Constitution?
-
You gota be kidding.
-
I’m the one fighting to support the Constitution — all of it. It’s the Prohibitionist who don’t trust the Constitution.
http://tinyurl.com/aagav95
-
**
All 67 Florida County Sheriffs sign pledge to protect the right of citizens to bear arms
-
Only state with 100% support
-
February 17, 2013
by Dr. Richard Swier
-
Constitutional Sheriffs sent an email stating, “I have added the names of the following 61 Florida County Sheriffs [who] joined the previous six Florida County Sheriffs to announce that they will not enforce laws that violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms.”
-
This means all of Florida’s county sheriffs have now signed the pledge, the first state to achieve 100% compliance with the 2nd Amendment. The list is bi-partisan.
-
SNIP
**
Speaking of the Constitution, some here might profit from reading the following:
-
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2218432
-
**
Abstract:
In part I of this essay, prepared for the Fordham conference on “The New Originalism and Constitutional Law,” I describe four aspects of the New Originalism: (1) The New Originalism is about identifying the original public meaning of the Constitution rather than the original framers intent; (2) The interpretive activity of identifying the original public meaning of the text is a purely descriptive empirical inquiry; (3) But there is also a normative tenet of the New Originalism that contends that the original public meaning of the text should be followed; (4) Distinguishing between the activities of interpretation and construction identifies the limit of the New Originalism, which is only a theory of interpretation. In part II, I then discusses how originalism can influence the outcome of such cases as D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and NFIB v. Sebelius. I suggest that, so long as there are justices who accept the relevance of original meaning, originalism can exert a kind of “gravitational force” on legal doctrine even when, as in McDonald and NFIB, the original meaning of the Constitution appears not to be the basis of a judicial decision.
SNIP
**
And now the 67 county sheriffs in Florida will be deciding what is Constitutional and what is not? May Heaven save us from the idiots that abound! Where is that precisely in their job description? When did Sheriffs gain the legal authority to interpret the constitutionality of any law?
“Sheriffs to announce that they will not enforce laws that violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of the people to own firearms.”
Truly frightening. You can’t be in favor of this crap, Dave H.
Dave Hicks, you may interpret your “fight” any way you please. I do not see it as relating to supporting or “fighting to support the Constitution” and I darn sure do not see anything you say as trusting of the Constitution, its power or its sustainability. You “freedom fighters” who believe the Second Amendment means be ready to fight your own government cannot by that definition believe in the government created by the Constitution.
Florida “law enforcement” continues to earn it’s dismal reputation.
Re: Sandi Saunders at 2:12 pm
-
“be ready to fight your own government ”
-
—————–
-
Please show me a link to where I have ever said that.
-
Others may have.
-
And I support their right to their opinions, as I support yours to your opinion.
-
However, all my arguments have been based on inalienable rights and, as were Dr. Kings, “…for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked [which] has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.” Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.
Oh good grief, now we are back to Sandi is against “Mom and apple pie”? Are you seriously saying that you have NEVER even hinted that the Second Amendment was about fighting the “tyranny” of an “over-reaching” government? Are you REALLY?
And who DOES get to define “tyranny” anyway?
–
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/24/1173608/-The-2nd-Amendment-and-Tyranny-Who-defines-what-is-tyrannical
Re: gdad at 2:06 pm
-
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/forms/pdf/dsde56.pdf
-
**
-
OATH OF OFFICE
(Art. II. § 5(b), Fla. Const.)
STATE OF FLORIDA
County of ___________________________
-
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of
_________________________________________________________
(Title of Office)
-
on which I am now about to enter, so help me God.
-
[NOTE: If you affirm, you may omit the words “so help me God.” See
§ 92.52, Fla. Stat.]
**
-
—————-
-
Which is not unlike the oaths I have taken. See: http://tinyurl.com/bhneuyr and http://tinyurl.com/7c5hglg
-
**
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
**
-
Note there is no expiration date.
Re: Sandi Saunders at 3:02 pm
-
Good article.
-
Just apply it to those of all political stripes.
#39 Sorry, Dave H, that post means nothing whatsoever. Are you saying that you support these 67 guys deciding among them what laws do and don’t violate the constitution?
Re: Sandi Saunders at 2:49 pm
-
Opinions are opinions.
-
Statements posted in a declaratory manner should be supportable, IMHO.
-
In a comment addressed to me, you said, “You “freedom fighters” who believe the Second Amendment means be ready to fight your own government cannot by that definition believe in the government created by the Constitution. [emphasis added]”
-
Show me where I said that.
Back to my focus:
-
http://tinyurl.com/apr5g7y
-
**
Self Defense Argument For Gun Safety At Center of Debate
-
8:46 AM, Feb 25, 2013
-
SNIP
**
http://tinyurl.com/bhqpoxk
-
Second Amendment Foundation – ‘Self Defense Is a Human Right’
-
Published on Monday, February 25, 2013
-
Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has launched a new campaign titled, “Equal Gun Rights.”
-
The Foundation aims to show that gun rights are being unequally protected, and actually infringed, in different areas of our country–particularly in areas with a high minority population.
-
SAF accomplishes this by focusing on how residents in predominantly red states and red cities enjoy the freedom to defend themselves with handguns, shotguns, and AR-15s, while residents in blue states –and particularly blue cities– frequently lack the freedom to even own a weapon sufficient to mount a defense at all.
-
The thesis is born out in places like NYC, Chicago, and our nation’s capital, solidly blue cities all, in which citizens have been denied the necessary tools for self-defense by Democrat policies barring gun ownership at various levels.
-
And for a party like the Democrats, so fixated on race, this is problematic –because ultimately their blue city policies result in unequal gun rights for law-abiding minorities in inner city, high crime areas. Taken in this light, gun control can come across as being as anti-African American as the old segregationist policies that kept African Americans unarmed in the Democrat’s Confederacy and the Democrat’s Jim Crow South.
-
SNIP
**
I have often wondered if the concern of gun advocates for the rights of minorities’ 2nd Amendment rights go only as far as their neighborhood…
——-
If a group of young males, whether African American or white, were walking down the street, say in your neighborhood, who have current and legal licenses to carry, who are law abiding citizens, and whose guns are visible, would your first thought be they are carrying for the reason of “self defense”? I don’t think it would…
If those same males, with the same scenario – but now they have tattoos and their caps sideways – are you still comfortable with them exercising their 2nd Amendment right in your neighborhood?
Dave Hicks | February 25, 2013 at 12:33 am
The (hardly a conservative site [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos ]) Daily Kos had this good read a few days ago.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/11/1186281/-Why-I-oppose-Universal-Background-Checks-A-turning-point
So, it appears that some of the publishers of “news and opinions from a progressive point of view” might just be seeing the light. Good stuff.”
Dave Hicks – please go back an check the profile of the poster you are citing in the above comment. He is part of the Daily Kos, “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” blogging group.
- – -
Unlike RW or Conservative blogs, diverse opinions are not censured or deleted at DK…we Progressives are indeed welcoming of other points of views – we are in fact the “big tent”. Just look at Dan’s blog as an example. Progressives may not agree, but opposite opinions are left to stand or fall all on their own.
Dave Hicks, I am not combing the archives for every post you have made but I know you have mentioned the aspect of needing to fight the government “tyranny” if it comes to that. Maybe in quoting someone else, if not “advocating”, but I do not believe I am wrong.
Re:Sandi Saunders at 4:31 pm
-
——————–
-
OTOH, I do believe you are wrong about me making that argument, as I very intentionally avoid that justification — albeit I do concede that some mention might have showed up in a link to another prerson, which I have posted. However, I generally try to signal the part of such links that I like / agree with.
-
FWIIW, we all live in a world of “I know that you believe that you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” And that cuts both ways. IIRC, you once took me to task for saying that you were “anti-gun.” Hence, I adopted the term of pro-more-restriction.
-
Do I not deserve an equal courtesy?
-
FWIIW, I avoid that justification for some of the reasons in the article, which you cited at at 3:02 pm.
Re: gdad at 3:14 pm
-
Gdad,
-
Assuming, arguendo, that an illegal order were given should troops or LEOs refuse to obey?
-
You might want to read up on crimes against humanity, war crimes, superior orders (often known as the Nuremberg defense or lawful orders) plea.
So attempts to curb the out-of-control gun violence in this country are comparable to loading a few million folk on a train for extermination? The conversation goes from trough to depth.
Re: Hillary at 3:56 pm
-
Lack of comfort on ones part is no reason to deny the rights of others, IMHO.
-
Were one uncomfortable, with such males (who “have tattoos and their caps sideways”) eating at a lunch counter should those young male be denied their rights. How about riding in the front of a bus?
Re: Hillary at 4:08 pm
-
FWIIW, I do believe that there blogs, forums, mail-servers, etc on both sides where opposite opinions are left to stand or fall all on their own and others that closed, censured or deleted.
Dave Hicks, do you think that everyone sees it your way? Think those young males [especially young black males] would be allowed to freely walk around Hunting Hills with their legal weapons?
—
My point was the often pseudo-concern by some gun advocates for “minorities”, is often used to try and negate common sense gun control – these same “advocates”, when confronted by this group are often the first to call the police…the old “not in my neighborhood”…
BTW, Trayvon Martin was carrying a bag of skittles in his own neighborhood, and was shot and killed…are skittles now used to justify a homicide? Or was it the fact he was a young black male?
Dave Hicks | February 25, 2013 at 5:39 pm
“You might want to read up on crimes against humanity, war crimes, superior orders (often known as the Nuremberg defense or lawful orders) plea.”
This comment is shamefully below your often intelligent posts.
Re: Kristen at 5:46 pm
-
Kristen,
-
I very intentionally did not limit my point to just “a few million folk” atrocity — albeit one of the most noted uses of this plea, or “defense,” was at the Nuremberg Trials.
-
Superior orders or lawful orders defense has been used at many trials — including civil tort cases. IMHO, the ethical paradox is very real and cannot be dismissed by suggesting that they are limited to one point in history or to a specific atrocity.
Re: “a bag of skittles”
-
I’m not sure what that has to do with the current debate — save to try to tar the opposition with a broad brush — rather like alleging I championed the getting ready to fight your own government claim.
-
For the record, I have never defended or condemned either side in the case.
-
Photos, evidence testimony etc (which has been made public) seems to help & hurt both sides’ claims.
-
From the beginning, Zimmerman insisted he was the victim, claiming that Martin attacked him, then they tussled, he said. He has claimed that the teenager forced him to the ground — pounding his head on the pavement. It was then that Zimmerman, saying he had no other choice, shot Martin.
-
OTOH, Martin’s family members say Zimmerman tracked down and sought out Martin, ignoring a 911 dispatcher’s directive, then shot dead the unarmed teen.
-
I have said that I don’t know what happened and I’ll not jump to conclusions.
-
Unless there’s a plea deal, or the case is dismissed or there is another unexpected turn of events, the final decision of who is right and wrong will be made by jurors.
DaveHicks, amorphous “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” are equally non-analogous. You’re comparing attempts to prevent death to attempts to bring it.
Shall we look forward to cops blocking the doors to Planned Parenthood in Florida because they’ve decided access to abortion isn’t “constitutional”? What if they decide SNAP isn’t within the purview of the government and start collecting snap cards? Safe to say, no one expects your average cop to assess every order he’s given against the constitution. It’s above their pay grade.
“Trayvon Martin was carrying a bag of skittles in his own neighborhood, and was shot and killed”
While he was trying to beat a Latino man to death.
Re: Kristen at 9:07 pm
-
LOL — “above their pay grade” is another term associated with / used for the “superior orders”, or “lawful orders” defense.
DaveHicks, it’s used in a variety of contexts. I’ve used it in my gun-free and holocaust-free office. And the courts assess constitutionality. Not beat cops.
Kristen at 9:47 pm
-
So, what does it mean in that setting — other than don’t think;follow orders?
“While he was trying to beat a Latino man to death.”
You mean the armed and aggressive guy who appeared to be stalking him?
“While he was trying to beat a Latino man to death.”[Henry}
“You mean the armed and aggressive guy who appeared to be stalking him? gdad | February 26, 2013 at 11:55 am
and, let’s not forget, Zimmerman was carrying a gun while he was stalking the 17 year old carrying a bag of skittles….
I mean the armed Latino who was on the ground being beaten to death by the thug. Yes, him.
Let’s boil down the Trayvon Martin killing to what it really is, OK?
1) A grown man with a gun went after
2) a teenager with a bag of Skittles
3) who had every right to be where he was
4) after a police dispatcher cautioned the grown man AGAINST going after the kid.
5) The grown man accosted the kid
6) and something happened and
7) the kid wound up dead.
8) Maybe the kid was beating on the grown man.
9) Maybe he was beating on the grown man because he was in danger of his life after having been threatened with the gun.
10) In which case those alleged punches would be self-defense
11) which the gun-rights crowd is usually in favor of
12) except not so much this time.
The big armed fat guy who picked a fight with a skinny unarmed kid half his size? He must have really been scared.
Too bad Trayvon didn’t finish him off faster. He’d be the one alive claiming self-defense and trolling the internet for cash. Since he didnt’ have a weapon, he’d win that one.
“being beaten to death by the thug” Wow Henry, a new low, you must be so proud.
BTW Dan, have you heard if the new sluggish load, refresh and change screen is here to stay?
“BTW Dan, have you heard if the new sluggish load, refresh and change screen is here to stay?”
–Sandi Sanders
Sandi, this is happening both on the front end (public view) of the blog and on the back end (administrator’s view), and Mari is aware of it. 5 minutes ago she surveyed us about this. So I assume she’s working on that, too.
I love Mari!
#64 Oh, Henry, the Latino guy who was armed with a gun and decided he need to accost a Skittles-carrying teen even after he was instructed to leave the guy alone. The Latino guy who no doubt made the teen feel his life was in danger but who’s now too dead to testify to that? Real convenient for the gun-toter.