Like I have been saying since the Treyvon case, the man is a sack of shit who has no business owning a fucking weapon, yet he keeps slipping through the damn system. Really one of the luckiest S.O.B's out there....
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Like I have been saying since the Treyvon case, the man is a sack of shit who has no business owning a fucking weapon, yet he keeps slipping through the damn system. Really one of the luckiest S.O.B's out there....
But come on, a guy with such a violent history could have never provoked the confrontation with Trayvon Martin that left the youth dead.
Nope. Never.
It's not that he didn't provoke the confrontation, it's that that hasn't been sufficiently proven. Absent proof, the jury was right to acquit him.
Who the fvck cares.....again.
the family of the innocent black kid he killed.
obviously something is wrong with zimmerman who keeps committing crimes vs. Trayvon who never commited a crime.
You're right man.
They need to lock this fucker up and throw away the key
i'd be content with him having a firearm restriction. the man is harmless without a gun.
Seems pretty obvious that Zimmerman has a bit of screw loose.
crazy people have just as much right to a gun as you or I dude.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.
No one who has a history of assaulting police and REPEATED domestic violence incidents involving firearms needs to be owning a gun...
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.
Agreed. He would be a sitting duck without them.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
As jimn_tonic pointed out he would be harmless without a gun. In my opinion this means he needs a gun far more than you or I require one.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I don't think Zimmerman would be harmless without a gun. If he really does have a violent streak, he'll cause damage in other way. He allegedly choked his girlfriend, no gun there.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.
No no no innocent till proven guilty
What are you a liberal commie? In 'murica, it's guilty until proven guilty.
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.
He's already lost his guns.
NRA hero loses guns
Well it's quite apparent that this schmuck doesn't deserve the right two own firearms. The judge should do something about that.
It's domestic violence. If convicted, he'll lose his right to bear arms for life even if it is a misdemeanor.
That doesn't change the fact that the judge can do something about it right now. He can order the police to confiscate all of his weapons, etc. That, in my opinion, needs to happen ASAP.
@airshocker:
If charged, he loses his gun. If found innocent he gets his guns back. If found guilty he loses it for life and the right to bear arms.
It's federal law thanks to the lautenburg amendment which restricts those convicted with a dv misdemeanor.
Of course there are plea deals so it depends how the state defines the conviction. I'm surprised you don't know the Lautenberg amendment. Then again is it stereotypical to think cops know all the laws?
@airshocker:
If charged, he loses his gun. If found innocent he gets his guns back. If found guilty he loses it for life and the right to bear arms.
It's federal law thanks to the lautenburg amendment which restricts those convicted with a dv misdemeanor.
Of course there are plea deals so it depends how the state defines the conviction. I'm surprised you don't know the Lautenberg amendment. Then again is it stereotypical to think cops know all the laws?
You're missing the point. I know what the Lautenberg amendment is and it doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman needs to be disarmed immediately. Not until he goes through the trial process. Many judges have ordered police to seize the weapons of somebody who has shown themselves to be irresponsible around firearms.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment