OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 8 Sep, 2013 05:13 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
I think the whole point of Beck's disingenuous statement was to
deceptively shift the blame from the apparent racist and fascist tea party
Liberalism is distortion.
The political liberalism of the Roosevelts and of the Kennedys distorts Original Americanism.
The whole point of the Tea Party is to restore Original American liberty; that is inconsistent with your allegations of fascism.
Your allegations r inaccurate and devoid of any foundation in fact.





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 8 Sep, 2013 06:06 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David get your head out of the past, things have changed, the republican party of Lincoln has been overrun by religious fascist racists who are being controlled like puppets by the oligarchy.

You are one of those puppets...

Democrats believe in guns too, but in the right hands...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 8 Sep, 2013 10:21 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Democrats believe in guns too, but in the right hands...
In other words:
U REJECT "equal protection of the laws", right ??
RexRed
 
  1  
Sun 8 Sep, 2013 10:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Equal protection is a balance between offence and defense.

We should not be forced to constantly defend ourselves because guns are, though unscrupulousness corporate entities, pushed and marketed to those who are clearly not responsible with them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 9 Sep, 2013 07:12 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Equal protection is a balance between offence and defense.
Is that like saying that SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE EQUAL than others???
Was that from Animal Farm ?

What is the source of your notion
that "Equal protection is a balance . . . " ???


RexRed wrote:
We should not be forced to constantly defend ourselves because guns are,
though unscrupulousness corporate entities, pushed and marketed
to those who are clearly not responsible with them.
I dont "constantly defend" myself; do u "constantly defend" yourself, Rex??
How many times have u defended yourself today?
How many times did u defend yourself yesterday??





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Mon 9 Sep, 2013 01:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Trayvon Martin had to defend himself...
RexRed
 
  1  
Mon 9 Sep, 2013 02:16 pm
8 year old Bride dies on her wedding night.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/09/1237563/-8-year-old-Bride-dies-on-her-wedding-night

I am struck dumb over this!
RexRed
 
  1  
Mon 9 Sep, 2013 03:11 pm
@RexRed,
I won't hold my breath waiting for the religious christian community to speak out against this "abomination"...

Two gays adults get married and alarms go off but something like this and not a single word...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 10 Sep, 2013 07:40 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Trayvon Martin had to defend himself...
From being FOLLOWED ???
What 's rong with following anyone, Rex??

I have never even gotten annoyed about it.

Since when is it an attack to follow anyone??

When I was a practicing trial attorney,
I hired private detectives to do it commonly.
Thay testified about it openly in court; no apologies to the judge; no problems.


Please explain your objections, Rex
and please tell us whether u ever complained about it while travon remained alive.





David
RexRed
 
  2  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 09:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
No, to defend himself from being "stalked" by an apparent gun freak...

Zimmerman is CURRENTLY being investigated for allegedly threatening his estranged wife with a gun...

It is NOW established that Zimmerman has problems with guns and in time these problems are likely to get worse...

I have always abhorred guns and violence, all of my life...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 11:05 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
No, to defend himself from being "stalked" by an apparent gun freak...
1. Rex: there is NOTHING rong with stalking anyone.
It is not a defensive event.
It is perfectly lawful, decent, honorable n admirable,
applied to render anti-burglary surveillance in a naborhood
that had problems with that.


2. There is nothing "freak"-ish about carrying guns.
That is one of our fundamental, enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.




RexRed wrote:
Zimmerman is CURRENTLY being investigated
OK, there is no harm in INVESTIGATING, Zimmy, U, or me. So What??






RexRed wrote:
for allegedly threatening his estranged wife with a gun...
Anyone can ALLEGE that U threatened her with 3 guns. So what ??






RexRed wrote:
It is NOW established that Zimmerman has problems with guns
and in time these problems are likely to get worse...
Your assertion is FALSE.
That has not been established (except that he has a problem
in getting back the gun that Holder stole from him).

RexRed wrote:
I have always abhorred guns and violence, all of my life...
Uh-huh; not to get all rhetorical on u,
but I abhorred the absence of access to guns, for the first 7 years of my life.





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 11:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

RexRed wrote:
No, to defend himself from being "stalked" by an apparent gun freak...
1. Rex: there is NOTHING rong with stalking anyone.
It is not a defensive event.
It is perfectly lawful, decent, honorable n admirable,
applied to render anti-burglary surveillance in a naborhood
that had problems with that.


2. There is nothing "freak"-ish about carrying guns.
That is one of our fundamental, enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.




RexRed wrote:
Zimmerman is CURRENTLY being investigated
OK, there is no harm in INVESTIGATING, Zimmy, U, or me. So What??






RexRed wrote:
for allegedly threatening his estranged wife with a gun...
Anyone can ALLEGE that U threatened her with 3 guns. So what ??






RexRed wrote:
It is NOW established that Zimmerman has problems with guns
and in time these problems are likely to get worse...
Your assertion is FALSE.
That has not been established (except that he has a problem
in getting back the gun that Holder stole from him).

RexRed wrote:
I have always abhorred guns and violence, all of my life...
Uh-huh; not to get all rhetorical on u,
but I abhorred the absence of access to guns, for the first 7 years of my life.





David


Many states have anti-stalking laws besides it is sick and obsessive behavior.

Just like your, err, "gun fetish"...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 06:53 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
Many states have anti-stalking laws besides it is sick and obsessive behavior. . . .
O, yeah??
How about "QUOTING" an applicable law
to see whether Zimmy violated it, or not???

Will u DO that for us, Rex?? to prove your point ?
I 'd really like to see what u have in mind.





David
RexRed
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 06:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#United_States_2

United States
The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990[50] as a result of numerous high-profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,[51] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,[52] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,[53] and five Orange County stalking murders, also in 1989.[52][54] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.[54][55] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.
Within three years[54] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 in response to numerous cases of a driver's information being abused for criminal activity, with prominent examples including the Saldana and Schaeffer stalking cases.[56][57] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver's personal information without permission by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[58] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.

Comment:
I think criminal harassment (with an intent to do harm) could fit the bill David...

There is a fine line between simply following someone and harassment.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 07:12 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking#United_States_2

United States
The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990[50] as a result of numerous high-profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,[51] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,[52] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,[53] and five Orange County stalking murders, also in 1989.[52][54] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.[54][55] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.
Within three years[54] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 in response to numerous cases of a driver's information being abused for criminal activity, with prominent examples including the Saldana and Schaeffer stalking cases.[56][57] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver's personal information without permission by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[58] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.

Comment:
I think criminal harassment (with an intent to do harm) could fit the bill David...

There is a fine line between simply following someone and harassment.
Rex, u have offered a little story about stalking laws
(probably fairly accurate), but we need u to "QUOTE"
the operative language of any statute, so that we can see
whether Zimmy violated it or not. Will u do that for us ??





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 11 Sep, 2013 08:44 pm

The Manchester Union Leader

On Wednesday, a man walked into a pawn shop on the West Side
of Manchester and pointed a gun in the face of the shop owner.
That owner, Luke Nelson, then did something hundreds of thousands
of Americans do every year. He used a legal handgun to defend
himself from a criminal.

"I pulled out my gun from under the counter, pointed it at him, and
told him to get on the ground or I was going to shoot him," he said.
The would-be robber fled.

Police later arrested Jonathan Rodriguez and charged him with
armed robbery (four counts), first degree assault, simple assault,
criminal threatening, resisting arrest and falsifying physical evidence,
but for Nelson's gun, the attempted robbery might have gone very differently.

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to undertake a study of firearms-related violence in America.

The report, written by a team of experts for the National Research Council,
was completed in June. But you probably have heard
nothing
about it. Its conclusions were not to the Obama administration's liking.

One of its conclusions reads: "Almost all national survey estimates
indicate that defensive gun use by victims are at least as common
as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging
from 500,000 to more than 3 million per year..."

Furthermore, the study found that "Studies that directly assessed the
effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incindents in which
a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or
threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates
among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used
other self-protective strategies."

The idea that guns are almost exclusively used by bad guys to kill
good guys is a myth.

The irresponsible and criminal use of firearms is a major problem,
to be sure. But it's the user, not the gun, that is the issue - which
is why the anti-gun administration let this report slip quietly into obscurity.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Thu 24 Oct, 2013 09:14 am
New facts in FBI killing deepens mystery
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/53358353#53358353
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Mon 4 Nov, 2013 10:53 am
‘MOTHER OF THE YEAR’ DRESSES 7-YEAR-OLD SON IN KU KLUX KLAN HALLOWEEN COSTUME (VIDEO)
http://www.thegailygrind.com/2013/11/04/mother-year-dresses-7-year-old-son-ku-klux-klan-halloween-costume-video/
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Tue 5 Nov, 2013 07:36 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
‘MOTHER OF THE YEAR’ DRESSES 7-YEAR-OLD SON IN KU KLUX KLAN HALLOWEEN COSTUME (VIDEO)
http://www.thegailygrind.com/2013/11/04/mother-year-dresses-7-year-old-son-ku-klux-klan-halloween-costume-video/
Better that than Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin,
Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot, right? I think those have all been worn.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Tue 5 Nov, 2013 01:54 pm
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1455893_660407014004284_688442662_n.jpg
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hideous News
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.64 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:17:45