+10

 

Assuming the other issues were actually "against the law", what does that have to do with free speech?

 

What free speech?

 

Just 2 words to your point Rick ( Tim Macvaie) the spelling is more then likely wrong but you get my point

 

We are talking about common situations Tim McVeigh used a massive sized bomb. So far that hasn't been employed in any of the school shooting and hopefully never will be. BTW That is what NSA is trying to prevent happening again from foreign terrorists. Paranoia is not necessary.

 

You benefit from it all day every day. Be grateful you don't know the difference, it means you take it as fact. Think about it.

 

I know I had a friend spend a little time in jail and had to come across with some money because he thought he had free speech.
We have free speech until someone don't like what we say. Then the free speech stops. As long as you say what others want to hear you have free speech.
Try it sometimes.

 

I have been "trying " it a long time. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with your "friend" or what you allege he said or did but you have not provided a single thing to modify the fact that you have free speech. You need to appreciate what you have.

 

Could be you are in the habit of saying what you are told to say and do not realize there is another way. Just keep repeating the same old party shit and you won't have any problems.

 

Amigo, show me where anything is said here about "party". Don't let your imagination run away with you. Or taking another approach how do we know you are not just mouthing the words of a political party?

 

What politicial aprty do you think I might be mouthing.
I think they are all the same. There is just one politicial party. That is politician.
You, on the other hand, have Obama's hand so far up your ass that when he wiggles his fingers your eyes blink.

 

But he's very gentle.

 

OK, maybe not that far. My mistake.

 

If you look at the numbers, the amount of 'protection' from the guns is a piss poor percentage!

 

Do you have the number of times guns have been used to protect a person, their family, other people, or their belongings?
Please post if you do. If not STFU.

 

Just as a tid bit, barry obama wiped his ass on the constitution and the majority of the rights in the constitution no longer exist. The lowdown bastard hid some of the rights revocation in the ACA because he knew no one was going to read it. So in short you have no rights.

 

Originally posted by Power123 Do you have the number of times guns have been used to protect a person, their family, other people, or their belongings?
Please post if you do. If not STFU.



Look back, I posted the numbers so STFU yourself!!! Cocky prick! And the numbers are PISS POOR!!!

 

Sober up and try it again.

 

OK,,,,I think it's time to show you reality as it actually is, It's a few years old but it is what it is,and the point is the facts,,,,take a good look below please;



Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm


You can read the rest for yourself,, if you really want to know the truth about guns in this country,, if not,, and you choose to believe the governments,, that is your prerogative,,but I and several others on this forum dont care to hear you talk about how bad guns are..

 

Sorry but you heard wrong. He was never beaten up nor was it the same thugs who robbed him.

In 1999, Martin, a bachelor, was living alone at his farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, nicknamed Bleak House, which he inherited at age 35 from his uncle. He claimed to have been burgled a total of ten times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture.

Police sources say they are not sure that all the incidents took place.


Martin also complained about police inaction over the burglaries and claimed that multiple items and furniture were stolen such as dinnerware and a grandfather clock. Martin had equipped himself with an illegally-held pump-action Winchester Model 1300 12 bore shotgun which he claimed to have found.



Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994 after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. Pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity above 2 are illegal to hold on a Shotgun Certificate however, and can only be held with a Firearms Certificate.


On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16 – broke into Martin's house. Shooting downwards in the dark, with his shotgun, loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.



Martin claimed that he opened fire after being woken when the intruders smashed a window. But his claim that he had shot at them from halfway down the stairs was disproved by scientific evidence that showed he must have fired his shotgun from the doorway of a downstairs room.



The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home.


On 10 January 2000, Fearon and Darren Bark, 33 (who had acted as the getaway driver), both from Newark-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire, admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin's farmhouse. Fearon was sentenced to 36 months in prison, and Bark to 30 months (with an additional 12 months arising from previous offences).



Fearon was released on 10 August 2001. Fred Barras, the dead youth, had accumulated a lengthy criminal record, having been arrested 29 times by the time of his death at the age of 16, and had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for assaulting a policeman, theft and being drunk and disorderly. On the night he was killed, the teenager had just been released on bail after being accused of stealing garden furniture. Barras' grandmother, Mary Dolan, stated: "It's not fair that the farmer has got all the money and he is the one that took Fred away."


On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life".


Martin did not hold a valid Shotgun Certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to posess the high-capacity pump-action Winchester shotgun.


English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.


The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".
However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority.


He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum term to serve of 9 years, reduced to 8 years by the Lord Chief Justice.






During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained.


However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun, showing him "cycling and climbing with little apparent difficulty" suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.
While the case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a conviction for dealing heroin.


Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim.



Nick Makin, Martin's solicitor, said: "It is appalling that the family of someone who has a criminal record for burglary and assault should attempt to claim any damages of criminal injury when he was shot while burgling the dwelling of an innocent person.