@firefly,
firefly wrote:The one who needed a gun for self-defense that February night was Trayvon Martin.
That makes no sense.
Y not just be pleasant?? That 's what I 'd have done in his place.
firefly wrote:He needed it to protect him from an emotionally disturbed, and armed, self-styled vigilante, who, angered by the sight of an unfamiliar black kid in his housing enclave, doing nothing more than walking around talking on a cell phone, became obsessed with the need to hunt this "f---ing punk" down, and who stalked him in the dark until he brought about a confrontation that left that unarmed kid dead.
Assuming that 's what happened, its perfectly proper.
There is nothing rong with "stalking him in the dark" as u put it.
That 's not illegal, its not immoral, its not fattening.
Its really a nice thing to do, in terms of protecting your nabors from burglary.
Everything wud have been fine, if travon had been polite.
I believe that he wanted to brag about using his MMA "ground and pound" on a white.
firefly wrote:And that same emotionally disturbed man, who is now charged with additional crimes,
has continued to provoke and threaten people with his guns.
(I notice that u r quick to judge Zimmy
without a trial.)
However innocent or guilty of those matters he may be,
that had nothing to do with the fight that night.
When I was in NY in the middle of the night last summer, someone confronted me.
I was pleasant, in good spirits (of nostalgia) and all was peaceful.
firefly wrote:Thank goodness, that, as a condition of his current bail,
he had to surrender his gun collection and has been ordered to keep away from guns...
I live in Florida; I don t feel safer.
firefly wrote:hopefully that will help to keep people a little safer from George Zimmerman.
He is un-lawfully exposed to any vengeful blacks that want to attack him.
That is in violation of his Constitutional rights. It will be dramatic,
if a bunch of vindictive blacks kill a judicially un-armed Zimmy.
David