The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on November 26, 2008, 07:07:45 PM

Title: Warning...
Post by: Teresa Heilevang on November 26, 2008, 07:07:45 PM
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door
and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast
knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the
telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That
are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them
useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that
the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and
Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he
tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men
you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't
find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son
Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the
story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the
international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized
several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police
for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last
break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait
for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand,
your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors
paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for
the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life i n prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed
one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and
is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great
British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act
of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms
except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon
by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street s shooting everyone he
saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally
unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which
to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the
media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on
all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,

Sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away
most gun rights, the notion t hat a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to
grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that
self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens
who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real
criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as
saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had
no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subj ects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn' t were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't
comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns
from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been
registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Dharmaeye on November 26, 2008, 08:04:01 PM
A thought crossed my mind. We must all do jury duty and, without mentioning it, never convict anyone defending themselves. This would have to be done without anyone knowing your postion.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 26, 2008, 08:28:26 PM
A thought crossed my mind. We must all do jury duty and, without mentioning it, never convict anyone defending themselves. This would have to be done without anyone knowing your postion.

That's a cowards answer ! We must get off our gutless asses to make sure these laws are not passed in America.
I have previously stated in this forum that Gun owners don't have guts enough to fight politicians with politics. Not so much as a comment from any one, are you all so far gone that you will not even react to being called cowards ? Are you sitting fat, and comfy, blatting about "your cold dead hands" when you will not even sacrifice a day off work to attend legislative hearing's (this with many if not all, having vacation time, personal time, and sick days.).
Freedom riders were KILLED, Blacks faced lynching simply to vote, but it's different for gun owners, they prefer to fantasize about revolution, while they lack the guts to risk a misdemeanor charge of public nuisance or disorderly conduct by picketing anti gun propaganda spewing media outlets.
Do you think it's enough to send $35 to NRA and bury guns in your yard ? If you do you DESERVE Obama.
Get the hell out of the easy chair in front of the TV ! Get down to your state house, your town hall, Your representatives house, WRITE !  papers, politicians, tell them We Vote! write to your freinds, you club news letters, magazines, pass this message. WE WILL NOT PERMIT THIS, look at gay rights, they had thousands. WE HAVE MILLIONS. MOBILIZE ! Skip a few episodes of Shooting Gallery now, so that it can still be on the air in 4 years.
Those who will not act now deserve what they get. Did we learn nothing from observing this past election ?
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: ericire12 on November 26, 2008, 08:42:18 PM
Tom,

You are a great American!
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: TAB on November 27, 2008, 12:30:24 AM
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Pathfinder on November 27, 2008, 05:41:12 AM
Tom, I agree with eririre12. However, there are key differences between us and the Freedom Marchers and Civil Rights workers.

Except for the rich Northern liberals who went south to march and work, like the two from NYC (?) who were killed along with a local black worker, many of the marchers were poor blacks. In essence, they had nothing to lose. Most of us are people with lots of things to lose - stable families, jobs, mortgages, etc. And how many of us live in places where a misdeameanor charge could be used by a local cop, prosecutor or judge to eliminate your firearms ownership in one fell swoop. Then the burden of challenging them would fall on you - financially and time-wise.

I do agree we need to do more than just join the NRA - which is why I have been contacting my senators and rep (all 1 of him) on a number of topics. Sadly, in a red state, they are blue of blue - Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. All are Dems but the y have good ratings from the NRA. That will be for nothing when compared to the power and force brought to bear by Pelosi et al on these guys. Besides, Dorgan is being viewed as a potential insider with the Obama administration, a legislative liaison of sorts.

So, are we ready to hit the streets over a gummint gun grab - face the water cannons - or the police dogs? Doubtful. And we do not want to be prepared to fight the last fight - we need to fight the fight we have been handed. Be like Patton, flexible, adaptable, using what he has to take the fight to the enemy. There will be no set piece battles, there will be thousands of skirmishes - EOs, laws to the local level (like the Pittsburgh ordinance just passed re' reporting gun thefts or become a criminal), use of the press to vilify us even further. And things I can't even think of, other than it is going to be a very long 8 years.

But through it all, we have stay united and be warriors.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Solus on November 27, 2008, 08:42:46 AM
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.

TAB, it appears you have been brain washed...



The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

http://www.fija.org/


Please visit the site. And please do not concede the rights of protection we were provided so easily.  The "Establishment" encourages citizens to believe they must base their verdict based on the law but this is not the case.  But it sure will help the establishment be sure that what ever laws they pass will be stuffed down our throats.

 


http://www.fija.org/
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: alfsauve on November 27, 2008, 09:21:17 AM
Something they don't tell you when you set on a jury, once the case is remanded to the jury, the jury is in charge.   The jury can come to whatever verdict it wants for whatever reason it wants.

Since, in many cases, to find contrary to the law or instructions will put you in a minority, you must be willing to spend hours, maybe days, trying to convince the other jurors to change to your position.  Otherwise it will result in a hung jury.

"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge...."  (from fija)

Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Fatman on November 27, 2008, 09:45:36 AM
Something they don't tell you when you set on a jury, once the case is remanded to the jury, the jury is in charge.   The jury can come to whatever verdict it wants for whatever reason it wants.

"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge...."  (from fija)



Yup, yup. "Jury nullification'.  The most egregious abuse of this was a trial in Baltimore quite a few years back where a murder was witnessed and testified to by at least three eye witnesses.  The jury found the murderer 'not guilty' and the reason the members gave was they didn't want to send another young black man to prison. The victim was also black, I believe. 

Sadly, this mentality may come back as Obama flat out stated the justice system should take socio-economic status into account rather than remaining blind.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: 1776 Rebel on November 27, 2008, 09:55:21 AM
Jury nullification does cut both ways. But here is the cool part. Jurors are totally immune from any govt action regards what they do behind those doors. They may question your action but you can't go to jail.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 27, 2008, 10:12:40 AM
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.

One of the reasons for a jury of your peers is, and always has been, to allow for what we now call the "reasonable man."  The letter of the law is affected by the person involved.  The best example of this would be the difference between the different levels of murder (one, two, etc.) and manslaughter.  The same act by one person in one setting could be murder one, the same person in a different setting murder two, a different person in the same setting manslaughter ...

It is this equity of community that attorneys, prosecutors and judges are looking at through the selection process.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Big Frank on November 27, 2008, 10:18:21 AM
Tom, you have my vote for President.

I don't write and call my Senators and Represntatives on every topic that matters to me but I should. I'm guilty of being comfortable and complacent. The only gun legislation I know of locally was an "assault weapons" ban. As an ordinary citizen I went downtown and said my piece like many others did. It didn't get passed because everyone except one person was against it and gave several good reasons based on facts, such as; these guns worked just like any other semi-autos, guns don't cause crime, criminals won't turn in their guns, gun control increases crime, etc. We need to be heard.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: TAB on November 27, 2008, 10:21:21 AM
Right so if you guys had a jury full of anti guners, you would want them to use thier feelings about guns to make up thier mind not facts of the law?    ::)  
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Big Frank on November 27, 2008, 10:25:31 AM
Right so if you guys had a jury full of anti guners, you would want them to use thier feelings about guns to make up thier mind not facts of the law?    ::)  

YOUR peers might do that, but MY peers wouldn't.  ;)
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Fatman on November 27, 2008, 10:49:07 AM
(http://shanoogie.com/motivational/MotivationalPosters-Donkeys.jpg)
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: MikeBjerum on November 27, 2008, 10:57:45 AM
Right so if you guys had a jury full of anti guners, you would want them to use thier feelings about guns to make up thier mind not facts of the law?    ::)  

If my attorney allowed a jury like that, I would be looking for a new attorney and a retrial  >:(

A jury of my peers would consist of Christian gun owners (everyone of them); they would be hunters, CCW permit holders, NRA members, sport and competition shooters.  And, more than one of them would frisk themselves as they approached the courthouse steps  ;D
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: alfsauve on November 27, 2008, 11:05:42 AM
And, more than one of them would frisk themselves as they approached the courthouse steps  ;D

Wow!   I'm not the only one that does that!   And before leaving the car at the airport.   Whew.  I don't feel like I'm alone in this world. ::)

Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: TAB on November 27, 2008, 11:25:00 AM
If my attorney allowed a jury like that, I would be looking for a new attorney and a retrial  >:(

A jury of my peers would consist of Christian gun owners (everyone of them); they would be hunters, CCW permit holders, NRA members, sport and competition shooters.  And, more than one of them would frisk themselves as they approached the courthouse steps  ;D

You would get a new lawyer, but not a new jurry... "jurry of your peers" means adult, non felons that live in the area of courts.

There is what 4 mil NRA members.  If all of them lived in texas, you would only have a 1 out of 5 chance they would be NRA members...   
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 27, 2008, 11:43:28 AM
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.

TAB,  You seem to be ignorant of the rules involved in jury duty. Do some research, your votes on a jury or grand jury are more important, and carry more weight than your vote for President, which gets filtered through the Electoral college.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: TAB on November 27, 2008, 12:35:51 PM
TAB,  You seem to be ignorant of the rules involved in jury duty. Do some research, your votes on a jury or grand jury are more important, and carry more weight than your vote for President, which gets filtered through the Electoral college.

I've been on 3,   My point was if the law says something and you vote not guilty based on your feelings.   Then you have no place on a jury.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Rastus on November 27, 2008, 02:11:52 PM
I've been on 3,   My point was if the law says something and you vote not guilty based on your feelings.   Then you have no place on a jury.
 

Did they ask for your license number when you showed up?  Tell you why.  They run out to the parking lot to look at the cars to try to make certain they are getting a sympathetic jury for the defense.  A few people I have worked with who's wives were public defenders bragged about doing that....they said one of the number one things to exclude were people with NRA stickers on their cars, then Republicans, etc...  Seems that it's a fairly well known tactic in the public defender world...

If I get offered jury duty again I may have to put a save the whales sticker on my car in the parking lot....maybe a PETA or something.  Two can play that game.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 27, 2008, 02:27:19 PM
I've been on 3,   My point was if the law says something and you vote not guilty based on your feelings.   Then you have no place on a jury.

The "Law" is not always right, that is the whole point of "Jury nullification". According to your reasoning Hitler did nothing wrong because German law said it was OK to kill Jews.
As to you serving on a jury, I've been on several air planes over the years, would that mean you'd be OK with me flying the next one YOU'RE on ?
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: 2HOW on November 27, 2008, 05:52:59 PM
Whether people want to admit it or not, we are currently engaged in a civil war in America waged between those of us who recognize that freedom defines the difference between living and merely existing, and those who proclaim that freedom is too dirty, too expensive, too selfish, too unfair and simply too dangerous to be enjoyed by this and future generations. When I observe potential tyrants whisper “danger,” and watch far too many of my fellow Americans nearly trample one another in their haste to surrender yet more freedom in exchange for more false promises of security, I greatly fear for the future of our Republic.

If America falls, she will fall from within. Perhaps a fitting epitaph for a Nation that achieved her greatness not from a mindset of “safety first,” but rather “live free or die,” but whose citizenry ultimately lost their backbone along the way will be simply this:

“Too ignorant, too lazy, and too craven to remain free.”
unknown
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: TSB on November 27, 2008, 06:47:19 PM
The law that TAB describes is clearly shown in a now forgotten case...The People vs. OJ Simpson....

Please explain to me kind sir, whom was best served in that case? 

You cannot believe that the law is always justified in it's thinking.....The only way that an outspoken gun owner would end up on a jury in a shooting case, would be if he lied about that fact he believed in the RKBA.....

I will never be picked for a tort case..why?  Because I've been run over by a minivan and subsequently sued the driver of said van....No defense attorney on the planet would allow me to stay if I tell the truth about my experiences.....
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Rastus on November 27, 2008, 07:18:56 PM
Whether people want to admit it or not, we are currently engaged in a civil war in America waged between those of us who recognize that freedom defines the difference between living and merely existing, and those who proclaim that freedom is too dirty, too expensive, too selfish, too unfair and simply too dangerous to be enjoyed by this and future generations. When I observe potential tyrants whisper “danger,” and watch far too many of my fellow Americans nearly trample one another in their haste to surrender yet more freedom in exchange for more false promises of security, I greatly fear for the future of our Republic.

If America falls, she will fall from within. Perhaps a fitting epitaph for a Nation that achieved her greatness not from a mindset of “safety first,” but rather “live free or die,” but whose citizenry ultimately lost their backbone along the way will be simply this:

“Too ignorant, too lazy, and too craven to remain free.”
unknown


Truth.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: m25operator on November 27, 2008, 08:00:41 PM
The question here is the LAW, as a juror, your not supposed to know it, the lawyers are supposed to present it, and the judge to clarify it, but that don't make it so. I have been on a few juries where the law reads, you must vote the way the judge decides ??? then why were We there. As students of the constitution, We must see what is fair and unfair and decide what is just, law or judge be damned. Absolutely listen intently to the arguments, and case law, but in the end, don't get pencil whipped into deciding something you know is wrong. I have been on several jury pools where the beginning question, was " if this man is found guilty of 1st degree murder, could you give him probation?" and if you say no, you get to talk to the judge, and could be incarcerated yourself, for comtempt of court. It is only the jurors who can counteract the activist judges, legislating from the bench. Better to be judged by 12 than 1 judge.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 28, 2008, 06:36:30 AM
Tom, I agree with eririre12. However, there are key differences between us and the Freedom Marchers and Civil Rights workers.

Except for the rich Northern liberals who went south to march and work, like the two from NYC (?) who were killed along with a local black worker, many of the marchers were poor blacks. In essence, they had nothing to lose. Most of us are people with lots of things to lose - stable families, jobs, mortgages, etc. And how many of us live in places where a misdeameanor charge could be used by a local cop, prosecutor or judge to eliminate your firearms ownership in one fell swoop. Then the burden of challenging them would fall on you - financially and time-wise.

I do agree we need to do more than just join the NRA - which is why I have been contacting my senators and rep (all 1 of him) on a number of topics. Sadly, in a red state, they are blue of blue - Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. All are Dems but the y have good ratings from the NRA. That will be for nothing when compared to the power and force brought to bear by Pelosi et al on these guys. Besides, Dorgan is being viewed as a potential insider with the Obama administration, a legislative liaison of sorts.

So, are we ready to hit the streets over a gummint gun grab - face the water cannons - or the police dogs? Doubtful. And we do not want to be prepared to fight the last fight - we need to fight the fight we have been handed. Be like Patton, flexible, adaptable, using what he has to take the fight to the enemy. There will be no set piece battles, there will be thousands of skirmishes - EOs, laws to the local level (like the Pittsburgh ordinance just passed re' reporting gun thefts or become a criminal), use of the press to vilify us even further. And things I can't even think of, other than it is going to be a very long 8 years.

But through it all, we have stay united and be warriors.

Franklin said any one who would trade his liberty for security deserved neither.
The only misdemeanor that can cost you your civil rights is domestic violence.
Pa. has a Pre emption law, Pittsburgs gun laws, like those of Philly (which a judge has already invalidated) aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
If we act NOW we won't be reacting to a government gun grab, we will be pre empting it. In military terms it's called a spoiling attack.
Pathfiders post is exactly the type of BS I was talking about before. If we will not take a vacation , personal, or sick day now to protest something like a newspaper story or local ordnance then there is no point talking about "water cannons and police dogs" because we don't have the guts for it .
If you don't have guts enough to shout, you sure as hell don't have guts enough to shoot.
The gun grabbers are political animals and can be beaten by political means, this means NO compromise. We do not want fair play, our goal is to stack the cards in our favor, "gun nut" = "fag" = ni&%$er= hate crime, being shot while committing a crime means you targeted a gun owner, you get extra time under the "hate crimes" legislation. We must act against the anti gunners, but we must also launch a 2 pronged attack against EVERY ONE else, the first prong is the carrot, actively campaign for pro gun candidates, educate the masses, take new people shooting, submit shooting sports stories to the local media, even talking to strangers in restaurants, take advantage of every opportunity to publicize the history, benefits and fun of shooting, the beauty of the craftsmanship, and the inventiveness of early designers.
The second prong is the one that scares Pathfinder. take a paid vacation day with your friends and picket media outlets that print anti gun stories, you don't need to hit them all, every now and then pick ONE to target, get 25 or 50 people to stand around with signs, "this paper unfair to gun owners" "Gun owner = better citizen" (this is going to be my next blog post) Try to come up with some that stress the civil rights angle,  need to come up with a good chant, short, rhythmic,pointed. do the same thing outside the homes of anti gun politicians, NOTE: call the press BEFORE HAND, when the Cops come and tell you to leave drag your feet, ask why, what authority, etc, but leave,Will overzealous cops bust an occasional head ? Probably, but since you called the press before hand you become the victims of "police brutality", win a law suit and have more money for the cause. Do the same thing at city and State hearings, but there they may handcuff you as they remove you, GREAT, the press you called gets film of Cops hauling off people for exercising their FIRST amendment rights, and we KNOW how the media are about THAT  ;D  Remember used properly the media can be a useful tool, just like a good spotting scope, but you need to take care of them. Find a couple of reporters who are at least not hostile to your cause, stick with them (loyalty is a virtue) Have a press release ready listing the high points of your cause,NOT a political manifesto, but a page that sums up the facts about gun owners, the legal background of gun ownership, and the consistent failures of gun control. Remember to include the fact that if the "Anti Civil Rights" groups were truly trying to fight crime they would go after violent offenders, and lenient Judges who let them out to re offend, If they truly cared about children and safety they would embrace things like the "Eddy Eagle" program.
It's 7:30 am and I'm STILL up, I have an eye strain head ache, and my brain just went blank. I think you should be getting the picture. Post comments and suggestions for further actions, different PRACTICLE avenues of attack, I'll check back for ones to add when I write the blog.
Should I use this to start a different thread ?
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Solus on November 28, 2008, 08:07:56 AM
Right so if you guys had a jury full of anti guners, you would want them to use thier feelings about guns to make up thier mind not facts of the law?    ::)   

TAB, the case in question here, the man was given life for self defense because he violated the Law.

The only chance he had was if the jury would feel the law was unjust.  No chance at all against a bad law.   I don't know if I could imprison someone for breaking a law that was so wrong.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: ericire12 on November 28, 2008, 08:16:21 AM
Franklin said any one who would trade his liberty for security deserved neither.

"Give me liberty or give me death" is another great one.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 28, 2008, 09:18:26 AM
"Give me liberty or give me death" is another great one.

Yes, like Franklin, Patrick Henry supplied several good quotes.
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Rastus on November 28, 2008, 09:38:41 AM
......................
It's 7:30 am and I'm STILL up, I have an eye strain head ache, and my brain just went blank. I................


So how's them new specs treating you....or just been up a bit?  The other half is just too easy...I'll give you a pass this time.   ;D
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: Hazcat on November 28, 2008, 09:53:48 AM
Right so if you guys had a jury full of anti guners, you would want them to use thier feelings about guns to make up thier mind not facts of the law?    ::)  

Ever hear of jury nulification and the duty of the jury to reject bad law?
Title: Re: Warning...
Post by: tombogan03884 on November 28, 2008, 07:12:22 PM

So how's them new specs treating you....or just been up a bit?  The other half is just too easy...I'll give you a pass this time.   ;D

Actually I only need the glasses for distance, they work GREAT ;D  I had no idea how bad my eyes had gotten until I was in the parking lot at work, looking around, and then took them off. Jeez, I should have had a white cane ;D