Brian, It is not hard to make some sense of what you just said but if you will really take a close look at past history you will see that as pure folly. Every country that has lost their right to keep and bare arms has suffered horribly from such people such as Hitler, Pol Pot of Cambodia and many other dictators. Countries like the US and Sweden were never invaded during WW2 simply because our enemies knew it would be too costly for them to do so. There is no such thing as a common sense gun control laws. Gun prohibitionists want to eliminate all civilian ownership of hand guns. Most of them like Sara Brady, Chuck Shumer, Fienstien, Reed, Bloomberg and of course the Clintons would ban civilian ownership of all firearms. They care nothing of the suffering of the victims of " gun control". Their gun control strategy is to win a little at a time and concede nothing.--- All " gun control " laws aim in one direction to discourage private ownership and use of firearms. All gun control laws make owning and using guns more difficult, inconvenient, expensive and embarrassing and subject to legal liability. Every gun control law achieves one of these things. The gun control agenda wins with each new so call reasonable restriction. When cost, inconvenience, embarrassment or potential liability increase, then fewer and fewer people take an interest in firearms. Those who already have firearms are discouraged from keeping or using them.--- The gun control agenda advances by making firearm ownership and use less popular. As soon as the popularity drops the number of v**ers who oppose gun prohibitions will drop. Soon the pro-gun constituency will be unimportant to politicians and judges. ON THAT DAY OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS WILL BE DEAD! --- Achieving that goal is the anti-gun lobby mission. Else, why doesn't the anti gun lobby ever try to repeal a law that has proven useless against criminals? Because those laws do their job: discouraging law-abiding private citizens from owning firearms.--- Two deranged k**lers violated dozens of gun control and criminal laws when they blasted their way into Columbine High school. None of those laws deterred the suicidal murderers. Everybody knows this fact. Everybody also knows that federal laws requiring trigger locks, waiting periods, and gun show buyer back ground checks would have done nothing to prevent the Columbine k*****gs. Now we have had another deranged k**ler in Newtown and the anti-gun lobby is again calling for more gun control laws and back ground checks. NOTE: All school and theater shootings were in GUN FREE zones.--- These laws will not stop future suicidal murders either. Any new gun control laws will not reduce crime but they will advance the the gun control and prohibition agenda. The new laws will increase the cost and hassel of buying and using firearms, weather for sport, m*****a training or for self defense. When the federal Government " must act to control firearms " the public starts thinking that there must be something wrong with firearms and private ownership of them. More laws force dealers and owners to struggle to avoid warrantless inspections, potential criminal charges and civil law suits. For the average citizen buying, selling, owning and using a gun becomes expensive and legally risky activities are not worth the trouble.--- The ideas of harmony, abundance and self-government, enshrined in our constitution and bill of rights depend on an armed citizenry to protect them. Twentieth century history has irrefutably proven that mega-death and destruction rain down on people who let their governments disarm them! ------I do not know if you can make sense of what I just said but perhaps others will.

At what point are we allowed to fight vandalism and at what point can we resist with force. This was the individuals automobile which I am assuming he used for work and other family chores. To destroy this vehicle to the point where it might require a new paint job which will require it to be in the shop a certain number of days and requires said owner to pay for the paint job as well as a loaner vehicle isn't right. The police if called would take a report and that would be the end of it because of them being overburdened with other duties. Where and how do you go about and teach youngsters about property rights and how far they can and cannot go. T-P-ing a tree or bush didn't do harm in a physical sense that would require expenditure as the next rain would all but dissolve the t-p. Is throwing paint on the individuals car acceptable or for that matter anything else. I don't know about the firearm but something has to happen to stop vandalism.

No one is found "innocent," everybody is found "guilty" or "not guilty."

I would use Casey Anthony as a prime example. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Though there is a great deal of evidence and very reasonable arguments for her having murdered her own child, there remain reasonable arguments to someone else having murdered her child.

Zimmerman k**led Martin. He claimed he k**led Martin. He was not found "innocent" of k*****g Martin. He was found "not guilty by reason of self defense."

I wouldn't recommend Casey to babysit, and I wouldn't recommend George for security work. But that is my personal discretion.

Zimmie thought he would catch a few rays on the beach.

Was he surprised when he was not treated like a hero?

Then he finds out there is a bounty on him.

Gee, what was he thinking?

Instead of getting out of Florida, or even the states,

Zimmie thinks that he is a "victim" and suffers from... yeah you got it, Zimmie has PTSD and needs help.

Maybe he wants taxpayers to pay for his treatments.

One thing is certain, Zimmie will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his miserable life.

Or until he shoots someone else.

Maybe this time, that someone will have a gun and shoot back.

With great accuracy.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/20/george-zimmerman-says-angry-florida-mob-chased-him-out-of-miami/