|
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,485 Views)
|
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Post #1291
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 11:54 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 08:27 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law. As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
Dreach, GZ is a legal gun owner, so there is absolutely no reason for him to purchase guns with no serial numbers. He can walk into any gun shop and buy any gun he wants today. I think it's absurd and irresponsible of you to assert the illegal possibility given the facts combined with your flawed and extremely limited knowledge of the subject.
It's irresponsible of me to assert a possibility? I'm not even sure it's possible to assert a possibility. Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 06:22 PM
Post #1292
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 11:54 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 08:27 AM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 04:55 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 30 2013, 03:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 30 2013, 08:34 AM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 09:17 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 04:36 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 04:26 PM
- dreachon
- Nov 29 2013, 03:41 PM
- Mr Gray
- Nov 29 2013, 08:07 AM
Yes, that's why I'm pointing it out. Along with the run-ins with the law. And of course while we don't know whether these recent charges are legit, we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?
Legally owned? What are you even talking about? All of those weapons are legal to own.
Obtained through illegal means. I dont really care to argue whether his weapons are legal or not. Its a footnote to my actual question, which you still haven't answered.
Wasn't this your question? "we also don't know all those weapons are legally owned, do we?" Are you claiming that he may have stolen them dreach? They are legal guns and he's a legal gun owner, so I'm not sure what else you could be speculating on.
Fail. That certainly is not my main question, which bri has conveniently bumped twice now. I really dont care how he got the guns. I just find it interesting he has so many now.
Lol. Way to walk backwards from your comment. Truth is, you have no idea what you even meant by "legally own" do you? FYI, 5 guns isn't very many. The average is 7.9 amongst gun owners, and you HAVE NO IDEA how many guns he owned before the TM deal do you? Regarding your original question, he hasn't been convicted of doing anything wrong yet, so I won't let media hype and emotion influence my judgement of him. I didn't really have a high opinion of him prior anyways.
Walking backwards from what? At no point did I ever make any claim that owning those weapons signifies anything. I, personally, find it interesting. We didn't hear about his stockpile at all during the trial so, admittedly, I'm assuming he has acquired more weapons since the trial. Maybe he feels he is a target now, as you said. Certainly possible. Maybe he feels he's invincible now, as his ex-wife said. Whatever the reason, I wonder if his acquisition of weapons is at all related with his recent run-ins with the law. As far as whether he "legally owns" his weapons. I have at no point ever in the history of this board made a claim to know the process one has to go through to buy a gun. I've never done it. Seems sometimes there are background checks, sometimes not. What I do know is that there are illegal guns out there and I imagine it's not crazy to think he could own one. I mean, from what I understand of our previous discussions, all it would take to make the guns illegal is filing the serial number off. So, no, I don't think it's necessarily true that all of the guns Zimmerman owns are legal. Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
Dreach, GZ is a legal gun owner, so there is absolutely no reason for him to purchase guns with no serial numbers. He can walk into any gun shop and buy any gun he wants today. I think it's absurd and irresponsible of you to assert the illegal possibility given the facts combined with your flawed and extremely limited knowledge of the subject.
It's irresponsible of me to assert a possibility? I'm not even sure it's possible to assert a possibility. You know what I meant. Substitute the "pose" for "assert" if it makes you feel better. It doesn't make your comment any less ridiculous.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
Post #1293
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it. This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called.
I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #1294
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible. when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
Post #1295
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself. Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up.
But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 2 2013, 09:42 AM
Post #1296
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up. But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap. the reason this bothers me is that you have no idea what it even means to own an illegal weapon. Your accusation or question is so far off base in this case, it's absolutely absurd.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Dec 2 2013, 10:20 AM
Post #1297
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
GZ is a very stable man.
br
|

|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Dec 2 2013, 10:28 AM
Post #1298
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
If GZ had an illegal firearm, he would be in a Federal prison now. (See the guy who made the YouTube video that was erroneously blamed by the Obama admin as the cause of the Benghazi tragedy.)
[utube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwWydRg5wRs[/utube]
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 2 2013, 12:13 PM
Post #1299
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Dec 2 2013, 10:20 AM
GZ is a very stable man.
br are you basing this on his accuser's account, or do you have any actual evidence of his instability? Do you consider yourself a stable person?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Dec 2 2013, 07:49 PM
Post #1300
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 2 2013, 09:42 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up. But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap.
the reason this bothers me is that you have no idea what it even means to own an illegal weapon. Your accusation or question is so far off base in this case, it's absolutely absurd. Are you asserting the possibility that it's absurd? That would be irresponsible. :ermm:
Honestly, I'm ok with the fact that you think it's absurd. In fact, I'll fully acknowledge that maybe it is indeed absurd. But the level to which you seem so offended by this has hit drama queen status.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 3 2013, 10:41 AM
Post #1301
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 2 2013, 07:49 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 2 2013, 09:42 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up. But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap.
the reason this bothers me is that you have no idea what it even means to own an illegal weapon. Your accusation or question is so far off base in this case, it's absolutely absurd.
Are you asserting the possibility that it's absurd? That would be irresponsible. :ermm: Honestly, I'm ok with the fact that you think it's absurd. In fact, I'll fully acknowledge that maybe it is indeed absurd. But the level to which you seem so offended by this has hit drama queen status. call it what you want....it only escalated when you tried to actually defend you completely senseless and baseless accusation. Seriously....you posed the possibility that he had either stolen his guns or scratched the serial numbers off, when he has absolutely no reason to do either of those things. I wonder if you legally own the computer that you posted that with?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
sirbrianwilson
|
Dec 3 2013, 10:43 AM
Post #1302
|
Stemlerite
- Posts:
- 22,404
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
GZ really knows how to stay out of trouble.
br
|

|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 3 2013, 11:36 AM
Post #1303
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- sirbrianwilson
- Dec 3 2013, 10:43 AM
GZ really knows how to stay out of trouble.
br Once again, do you consider yourself mentally stable? I know how you feel about guns, but regarding the law, do you feel that you are a person who should be allowed to own guns?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Dec 3 2013, 11:37 AM
Post #1304
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 3 2013, 10:41 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 2 2013, 07:49 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 2 2013, 09:42 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up. But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap.
the reason this bothers me is that you have no idea what it even means to own an illegal weapon. Your accusation or question is so far off base in this case, it's absolutely absurd.
Are you asserting the possibility that it's absurd? That would be irresponsible. :ermm: Honestly, I'm ok with the fact that you think it's absurd. In fact, I'll fully acknowledge that maybe it is indeed absurd. But the level to which you seem so offended by this has hit drama queen status.
call it what you want....it only escalated when you tried to actually defend you completely senseless and baseless accusation. Seriously....you posed the possibility that he had either stolen his guns or scratched the serial numbers off, when he has absolutely no reason to do either of those things. I wonder if you legally own the computer that you posted that with? Hahaha. Now it was an "accusation".
Tell me, do you KNOW that the computer I'm posting with wasn't stolen?
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 3 2013, 11:47 AM
Post #1305
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Dec 3 2013, 11:37 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 3 2013, 10:41 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 2 2013, 07:49 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 2 2013, 09:42 AM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 10:35 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 10:14 PM
- dreachon
- Dec 1 2013, 09:00 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 1 2013, 06:20 PM
Your position is ironic considering how you feel about GZ questioning whether TM was engaging in illegal activity that night. Maybe if he had only questioned whether or not TM obtained his skittles legally, then you would be ok with it.
This is where you are so totally and completely wrong. I have absolutely ZERO problem with GZ calling police because he was suspicious of Martin (I do think he should have just called police rather than 911 and tie up an emergency line, but that's not such a huge deal). My problem is with him chasing Martin and not identifying himself or saying police were called. I said, - Quote:
-
Of course if we don't hear that they are illegal, then I would assume the are all legal.
I fail to see how merely stating the POSSIBILITY is irresponsible.
when you see people at work, do you make it a habit of "stating the possibility" that their clothes might be stolen, even if there's absolutely no reason to believe that? What about their vehicles...do you regularly "state the possibility" that perhaps they haven't properly registered the vehicle and/or maybe they don't have legal insurance? Come on dreach....you're making a fool of yourself.
Are you serious? We do this ALL THE TIME on this board. When a famous actor dies we wonder if it was drugs. When an athlete gets in a car crash we wonder if he was drunk. When Coach Cal poaches a star recruit we wonder if he broke any recruiting rules. In MY opinion, George Zimmerman unnecessarily killed a young man. Now he's getting accused, multiple times, for illegally threatening someone with a weapon. So, yeah, I can wonder if all of his weapons are on the up and up. But even taking away the fact that this is incredibly common, why are your panties even in a bunch about this? Who gives a fuck if I wonder if a dude who was arrested for threatening someone with a gun has illegal weapons? ESPECIALLY when I also said that we can assume they are legal unless we hear otherwise? "Irresponsible". Psht. What a load of crap.
the reason this bothers me is that you have no idea what it even means to own an illegal weapon. Your accusation or question is so far off base in this case, it's absolutely absurd.
Are you asserting the possibility that it's absurd? That would be irresponsible. :ermm: Honestly, I'm ok with the fact that you think it's absurd. In fact, I'll fully acknowledge that maybe it is indeed absurd. But the level to which you seem so offended by this has hit drama queen status.
call it what you want....it only escalated when you tried to actually defend you completely senseless and baseless accusation. Seriously....you posed the possibility that he had either stolen his guns or scratched the serial numbers off, when he has absolutely no reason to do either of those things. I wonder if you legally own the computer that you posted that with?
Hahaha. Now it was an "accusation". Tell me, do you KNOW that the computer I'm posting with wasn't stolen? no, of course I don't know that....but I have absolutely no reason to believe that it is, and questioning it is paramount to an accusation, and you know it! This happens all the time...if someone asked if we even know that Tom Crean isn't paying his players, would you take that as just an innocent question dreach, or an insinuation of something? Answer that question honestly.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|