Also I have this idealist image that one day you might wake up and realize how stupid a lot of the stuff you spout is.
I'm hopeful!

I have the same image for you. I do not own any guns. Nor do I wish to hurt anyone. I do not support shooting any one based on race either. I could care less what color someones skin is. Your image on me is very incorrect. Maybe some day you'll be able to see it. Maybe some day you'll be able to see I am not as right wing as you think. I definitley do not think myself to be as radical as Nick in a ny fashion at all. Your acknowledgement that you do not wish me gone from the boards, shows how much more evolved you are than many other members on this board.Gzette wrote:Midnyte, I don't want you to leave the boards. I feel you're outlandish right-wingedness somehow counteracts Nick's outlandish left-wingedness. I appreciate everyone's contributions, even when I think they're retarded. You quote Jefferson in your sig, and I feel the same way as he did about stifling viewpoints I don't agree with. That being said, if you want to come to TX to shoot off your guns at black people, I'd rather you stay wherever you are. We have enough shitbags here already.
Also I have this idealist image that one day you might wake up and realize how stupid a lot of the stuff you spout is.
I'm hopeful!
I still would have said that the color of ones skin matters not to me. I've said it a thousand times, actions matter.Gzette wrote:Everyone agreeing with each other would be lame.
p.s. I should have said brown people
nope it doesn'tMidnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Actually the definition of the law says he did. I find it holds more weight than yours, sorry.*~*stragi*~* wrote:he wasn't justified by any definition.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's not like he shot two innocent people. He did shoot two burglars and was in his right to do so.
Thankfully for you, your opinion of the law will matter not should you find yourself within it's system one day.*~*stragi*~* wrote:nope it doesn'tMidnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Actually the definition of the law says he did. I find it holds more weight than yours, sorry.*~*stragi*~* wrote:he wasn't justified by any definition.Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's not like he shot two innocent people. He did shoot two burglars and was in his right to do so.
I did on July 9th, 2008.Sylvus wrote:Did we ever listen to the whole 911 call?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
Interesting.
Spang wrote:I don't know if this is the actual 911 call or not.
http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighb ... call2.html
Also, forgive me if this has already been posted.
Ahh, I did a quick search for "youtube" on each page, didn't search for "break".Spang wrote:I did on July 9th, 2008.Sylvus wrote:Did we ever listen to the whole 911 call?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
Interesting.
Spang wrote:I don't know if this is the actual 911 call or not.
http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighb ... call2.html
Also, forgive me if this has already been posted.
Apology accepted for nothing!Sylvus wrote:I apologize for nothing!
PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Barack Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which unconcealed weapons have appeared near presidential events.
Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.
Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.
"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," said police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill.
Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest. VideoWatch the rifle being legally carried at rally »
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."
Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," Donovan said. "We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced."
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's not like he shot two innocent people. He did shoot two burglars and was in his right to do so.