On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:30:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:05:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:03:20 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.

cite?

Why don't you track down that juror interview and listen yourself.

That's not true. Show me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justic...man-juror-book

"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have
been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare
him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.

Uh, YOU said "they ALL agreed that Martin attacked Zimmerman". Not one,
ALL.... Notice if you will, the lady specifically said "*I* think".

They *all* agreed he was not guilty. They didn't all agree that Zimmerman attacked Martin, so they
*all* must have agreed to the converse - else the self defense aspect would be meaningless.

It must be a bitch being Loogy.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On 7/17/2013 1:05 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:11:11 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 7/16/2013 5:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:07:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/2013 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash.


I don't do guns (much but I feel there are three kinds of gun
owners... Hobbyists, folks who want to preserve general society, and
folks who want to get away with being assholes...

How does a gun "preserve general society"?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Seriously, do I have to explain what I meant?

Did you ask how a gun preserves general society? I thought that was from Loogy. I figured you had
more sense than to ask the question.

John (Gun Nut) H.


This is a case of a misplaced response... it was to whomever asked "how
does a gun preserve general society". I should have put it above your
post...

On 7/17/2013 1:06 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:23:29 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 7/17/2013 1:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:11:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/16/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash


I wasn't patrolling anyone's neighborhood, looking for someone to stalk,
confront and shoot. Zimmerman was.

If that was his intent, why did he call the cops and why didn't he
simply confront Martin right away when he had the tactical advantage
of knowing where he was.?

Harry did patrol Baltimore harbor with sole the intention of stalking
and shooting one of our former lady contributors. Baltimore is quite a
distance from his normal stomping grounds, I might add.

I remember that.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Is that the person he ended up photographing in their private property
(a marina iirc), and posting here without her permission?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:11:11 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 7/16/2013 5:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:07:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/2013 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash.


I don't do guns (much but I feel there are three kinds of gun
owners... Hobbyists, folks who want to preserve general society, and
folks who want to get away with being assholes...

How does a gun "preserve general society"?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Seriously, do I have to explain what I meant?

Did you ask how a gun preserves general society? I thought that was from Loogy. I figured you had
more sense than to ask the question.

John (Gun Nut) H.

How DO guns "preserve society"? Was there no societal structure before
guns?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:23:29 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 7/17/2013 1:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:11:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/16/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash


I wasn't patrolling anyone's neighborhood, looking for someone to stalk,
confront and shoot. Zimmerman was.

If that was his intent, why did he call the cops and why didn't he
simply confront Martin right away when he had the tactical advantage
of knowing where he was.?

Harry did patrol Baltimore harbor with sole the intention of stalking
and shooting one of our former lady contributors. Baltimore is quite a
distance from his normal stomping grounds, I might add.

I remember that.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That is NOTHING short of a blatant lie and you know it. Because of your
narrow-mindedness, you've never had much respect here, I can only hope
you have much less now with that bull****.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:30:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:05:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:03:20 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.

cite?

Why don't you track down that juror interview and listen yourself.

That's not true. Show me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justic...man-juror-book

"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have
been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare
him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.

Uh, YOU said "they ALL agreed that Martin attacked Zimmerman". Not one,
ALL.... Notice if you will, the lady specifically said "*I* think".

They *all* agreed he was not guilty. They didn't all agree that Zimmerman attacked Martin, so they
*all* must have agreed to the converse - else the self defense aspect would be meaningless.

It must be a bitch being Loogy.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Pssst, here you go, moron.

http://tinyurl.com/mw2fy8x

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:34:53 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:11:11 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 7/16/2013 5:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:07:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/2013 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash.


I don't do guns (much but I feel there are three kinds of gun
owners... Hobbyists, folks who want to preserve general society, and
folks who want to get away with being assholes...

How does a gun "preserve general society"?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Seriously, do I have to explain what I meant?

Did you ask how a gun preserves general society? I thought that was from Loogy. I figured you had
more sense than to ask the question.

John (Gun Nut) H.

How DO guns "preserve society"? Was there no societal structure before
guns?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:36:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:23:29 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 7/17/2013 1:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:11:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/16/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash


I wasn't patrolling anyone's neighborhood, looking for someone to stalk,
confront and shoot. Zimmerman was.

If that was his intent, why did he call the cops and why didn't he
simply confront Martin right away when he had the tactical advantage
of knowing where he was.?

Harry did patrol Baltimore harbor with sole the intention of stalking
and shooting one of our former lady contributors. Baltimore is quite a
distance from his normal stomping grounds, I might add.

I remember that.

John (Gun Nut) H.

That is NOTHING short of a blatant lie and you know it. Because of your
narrow-mindedness, you've never had much respect here, I can only hope
you have much less now with that bull****.

Are you saying I *don't* remember that?

Or were you replying to Hank?

Loogy, did someone smack you in the jaw today? I hope you stood your ground.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:37:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:30:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:05:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:03:20 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.

cite?

Why don't you track down that juror interview and listen yourself.

That's not true. Show me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justic...man-juror-book

"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have
been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare
him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.

Uh, YOU said "they ALL agreed that Martin attacked Zimmerman". Not one,
ALL.... Notice if you will, the lady specifically said "*I* think".

They *all* agreed he was not guilty. They didn't all agree that Zimmerman attacked Martin, so they
*all* must have agreed to the converse - else the self defense aspect would be meaningless.

It must be a bitch being Loogy.

John (Gun Nut) H.

Pssst, here you go, moron.

http://tinyurl.com/mw2fy8x


From your cite: "The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what
the law required us to do."

Amen. Case closed. They all agreed he was not guilty - which implies acting in self defense.

It must be a bitch being Loogy is all I can say.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On 7/17/2013 2:51 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:34:53 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:11:11 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 7/16/2013 5:37 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:07:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 7/16/2013 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:52:50 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What was the verdict? Did you hear the juror? They all agreed that
Martin attacked Zimmerman.


Which proves not a thing, other than a jury of five white people and one
who wasn't, and living in a "cracker" town with a history of racism,
sanctioned the murder of a black kid. But this is America...what else
would you expect?


Yet you felt obligated to arm yourself and potentially "murder"
someone.
Your argument simply does not wash.


I don't do guns (much but I feel there are three kinds of gun
owners... Hobbyists, folks who want to preserve general society, and
folks who want to get away with being assholes...

How does a gun "preserve general society"?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.


Seriously, do I have to explain what I meant?

Did you ask how a gun preserves general society? I thought that was from Loogy. I figured you had
more sense than to ask the question.

John (Gun Nut) H.

How DO guns "preserve society"? Was there no societal structure before
guns?

Ask Adolf.

John (Gun Nut) H.



I am guessing he doesn't know the difference between the words,
"preserve" and "create"... I wish folks would read the words

And you all talk about me... kevin (I presume as it seems a kevin
question) just wrote a question that even taken in context makes no
sense. Why would start a question about "preserving" society, and turn
it into a question about things that might have happened "before guns"?
Dumb...