tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877849.post2190935872992019521..comments2024-03-28T02:11:54.900+10:00Comments on GUN WATCH: jonjayrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13363092874281160320noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877849.post-35415456881055945032011-02-12T22:55:45.013+10:002011-02-12T22:55:45.013+10:00While I believe in the 2nd Amendment I will have t...While I believe in the 2nd Amendment I will have to argue about a Case in this post that is used to point out the Rights of people. The Flaw is that in the Flint Case of Jonathan Stevens being Shot by his 72 year old house mate this case is all Wrong. The Records show that the 72 year old was High on Crack cocain at the Time of the Shooting. it also shows that The Wife of Stevens was Also High on crack at the time of the homicide. This case has been Reviewed by the City Ombudsman and is Said that the Case was Not Investigated. the Prosecutor David Leyton also Violated the Michigan Constitution by Refusing to take Evidence in the case. the Police officer did not do anything to see if there was a Motive other than what the Two Drug addicts said. At the Time of the Homicide Stevens was Clean of Any Drug as well he did not Drink. He was attempting to get 16k from his annuity when he was shot and Killed the Day after the Shooting the wife called the Mother of the victim asking how she could get the money. This Case has more to it than what people are Saying. if you have crack in your home at the Time of a Homicide in Flint you do not get arrested. Why??? the Records show that there was evidence of Crack Marijuana and Alcohol. yet no arrest For the Drugs in 2010 Flint broke its 1986 all time high record in homicides, I wonder Why?? This case is a poor example for the Second Amendment and I as the brother of Jonathan Stevens Support the peoples rights to bare arms unrestricted to law abiding citizens. So do not think that I am against it I am not.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06572434924801000337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877849.post-73087049606364960282008-03-19T23:50:00.000+10:002008-03-19T23:50:00.000+10:00I would agree after listening that the individual ...I would agree after listening that the individual right will carry the majority, outright bans are not going to stand ... the open issue is what is reasonable regulation.<BR/><BR/>Some thoughts...<BR/><BR/>I wonder what the consequences for CCW might be. I was surprised CCW came up, and the hodgepodge of the states rules is in need of clarification. Do you think a ruling might include something like "CCW permit holders are to be treated like drivers license holders and accepted by all other states" ... It ties with the self defense argument, why does self defense end at the state border?<BR/><BR/>I am curious if the SC addresses the issue of militia arms, those dreaded AWs that liberal hate and ban wherever they can. Those guns that function the same as others, they just happen to be black. If I read the audio correct, banning them would not be allowed -- as any sane person already knew. These type weapons goes to the heart of the militia use issue. The SC may go there with a broad stroke, militia arms are military infantry arms and can't be banned, or some sort.<BR/><BR/>Going to be interesting.10ksnookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13432559078921206197noreply@blogger.com