ABC reveals the Bloody Red Zimmerman of Florida

The media has been pretty much mucky with this case since it’s inception. I remember the video from the police station talking about how no wounds or injuries were visible.

Seriously? Did ANYONE watch that video? Granted, I couldn’t see injuries at that resolution, but the way Zimmerman was walking looked akin to a quarterback who got sacked and is limping off the field.

So now it comes out that we have a photo of Zimmerman, his head dripping in blood from numerous places. Yes, folks….say it with me….that’s an “i-n-j-u-r-y”.

Now, I am still going to stand by my original stance, the mere fact that Zimmerman was injured does not necessitate his innocence or guilt. Numerous criminals are injured in the midst of committing a crime. What it does do, is lead credance to Zimmerman’s story that he feared for his well-being. And provides him with a justification for use of force in self-defense.

What now needs to happen, is a jury needs to decided, based on all the evidence WHO they think initiated physical confrontation. That is really the deciding factor in this case to me.

If Zimmerman initiated the use of force by attempting to detain Martin, than Martin was within his right to hit, and use physical force again Zimmerman. But if Martin initiated the physical confrontation, than based upon Zimmerman’s injuries, he has a clear motivation for the use of deadly force to protect his own life.

Furthermore, there is an element I have been somewhat surprised hasn’t come out. To date, we have had a repeated claim of racism and needless shooting. But as more and more comes out regarding this case, how long until the Hispanic community begins to view Zimmerman as innocent and begin vocalizing on his behalf. No one wants to join on the side of a “baby killer”, as initially portrayed by the mainstream media. But a family man helping to keep his neighborhood safe from thugs who finds himself on the ground having his head smashed into the pavement. That is something one can sympathize with. And I think we may start to see a larger Hispanic voice start vocalizing on behalf of Zimmerman as more facts are released to the public.

H/T to ABC News
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Zimmerman-bloody-head

H/T PAGunblog.com

Published in: on April 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Off-topic: But I think my readers will appreciate this…

While not firearm related, I know many gun enthusiests also have an interest in both technology and history. The link below is an article about very early ‘audio recordings’. It includes a recording of the very first recording by man that is known.

The recording pre-dates Thomas Edison’s and was done by a French man. However, his system only recorded the voice pattern; having no means of playback.  But researches noted the pattern was very similar to modern digital audio wave recordings and reconstructed it. 

Frankly, I just find it neat to listen too. Think of it as the very first “podcast” downloand.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/earliest-recordings-sound/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Published in: on February 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

New Haven Register on Guns

The newspaper of my former hometown of New Haven Connecticut has done a series on “Guns”.

Rather interesting page. It has a number of videos on different perspectives of guns. From a forensic detective to the history of Winchester in New Haven. There is even a piece on shooting clays.  The one video segment that is on New Haven’s crime and violence problem even came across with points more focused on the criminal activities than on guns.  Albeit, commenting about New Haven youth turning to guns.

Below the videos are several articles. Some are decent some are trash.

http://www.nhregister.com/guns/

Published in: on January 25, 2010 at 9:18 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Guest Editorialist Gets it All Wrong

Tennessean Guest Editorialist throws facts and reason out the door.

Article

“But there is no Second Amendment right to openly carry a weapon in public.”

Really, um, can you please explain to me what this means?

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Please note the references there:

a) people = public

b) keep = own

b) bear = carry

So let’s translate…

“…the right of the public to own and carry Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems your premise is rather weak. Unless you want to throw out our Constitution and bill of rights. But then you’d have to get rid of the freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, right to a fair trial and much more.

***

Oh, btw, it turns out that the Pennsylvania gun-toting mother actually did have reason and justification to carry her firearm openly. Several months later she would be murdered by her husband, who worked as a parole officer. Perhaps her open-carrying that firearm and letting her husband know she was prepared not only kept her safe that day, but also kept the children safe.

***

“In Heller the Supreme Court decided only that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns in a person’s home was unconstitutional”

Once again your supposition is wrong. The Supreme Court found that DC’s ban was unconstitutional. That does not mean that only DC’s ban in unconstitutional. Just that said decision only related to DC. And when that decision is incorporated, what will your argument be then sir?

***

Lastly, you make the assumption that what the government does is Constitutional. When in fact most of what our government does these days is in fact unconstitutional.

***

“Some 107 people were killed by permit holders since 2007, “

Let’s address this statement a little more honestly. There are two points to be made.

1) 107 people killed by permit holders. What is the breakdown of that statistic. Does that 107 number represent rapists shot dead by women defending themselves? Or robbers shot dead by a father protecting his home and family? To quote such a statistic without an accurate descriptor is poor behavior.

2) 107 out of 4 million (that is the number of permit holders you stated in your own words). So what is the percentage breakdown of that number? 5%, 2%, 1%, maybe even a quarter of a percent (0.25%)

No, the actual number is .002675%

Can you tell me how many police officers we have in the United States? Can you tell me how many people were killed by police officers in 2007?

Do you want to bet $20 that our police have a higher percentage rate?

***

“The claim by the NRA and gun lobbyists that less-restrictive gun laws or more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make society safer or deter crime is false.”

So is that why a state ranked very low by the Brady Campaign and consider to have way too many firearm freedoms had ZERO murders via firearm in 2008. Find a state on the bottom of Brady’s list that has higher crime than the ones on top.

“Simply put, more guns equal safer states.”

Published in: on January 8, 2010 at 4:40 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Media Biased, Ignorant or Malicious

Snowflakes In Hell pointed to this article of a man stopping what would likely have been a multi-person murdering spree.  The citizen who stopped the event in Oklahoma City did so by means of pointing his firearm at the individual who retreated.

Sebastian commented on how little coverage this event received.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/the-forgotten-virtue-of-firearms/

Some accuse the media of being biased, others say it’s a matter of $$$ and sensationalism – and things don’t get printed unless they’re sensational – and can therefore make money.

I have grown toward the third category. I believe a fair amount of the media is malicious. Adhering to a set dogma they are deliberate in their focus, and even more deliberate in their silence. If the event does not fit their side of the coin, then silence is the only option.

We can see this on 2nd Amendment issues. When the event supports the people’s right to keep and bear arms, the media is silent – even if it is a sensational story ($$$).

We saw it regarding the coverage of the Tea Party on 9-12.  Hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, Americans gathered and received paltry coverage from the media.  Were it a favored agenda with a mere 2,000 people it would be a week of headlines.

We saw it when two pro-life life protesters were murdered.  The number of articles and coverage of the event was paltry, especially compared to how much coverage the murder of an abortion doctor received.   There was plenty of $$$ to be made by covering such a sensational event. Why bury it?

These actions go far beyond “bias” or “ignorance” and are clear evidence of a far more malicious action upon the part of mainstream media.  In fact, I don’t even think that is a good term anymore.  Mainstream has some connotation to the people, the masses. It’s really the “Conglomerate Media”.

Published in: on January 6, 2010 at 7:10 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

War with the Media

Recently I found myself banned from commenting on CNN.com, courtesy of their new Facebook interface.  I also noted that several other comments were posted on the same article addressing their comments being deleted as well.

The one thing all of the comments had in common? They were ideologically opposed to the article on CNN.com

By implementing the login through Facebook CNN.com has added the power of identity. I feared that this would be used to control input and comment on CNN’s site.  And it is appearing that such is the case.

While one my claim that parts of the deleted comments were offensive and hence they were deleted/banned.  There were numerous offensive comments that remained on the site, however all of these agreed and sympathized with the author.

Why do I share this? Because I believe that it is the year 1850 and we are already in the midst of the ideological part of the 2nd American Civil War.  I believe the media is to blame for a large part of this conflict.   Some believe that mainstream media is simply interested in sensationalism and making $$$.  If only that were true. The media has, especially in recent years, shown that it is far more concerned about ideology than it is about $$$.  If it weren’t so, we would not be discussing bailouts for the media.

The media plays a large role in what uneducated masses think. Those that do not research a topic simply accept what they hear on the news.

I am concerned that we are seeing the media take the next step. Engaging in actions to deliberate control and eliminate counter-opinions.  “Silence the opposition.”

This is not to say all of the media are enemies. Nor that everyone who works for even a biased media group such as MSNBC is an enemy.  But there is an overwhelming and antagonistic opposition to conservative and libertarian viewpoints on the behalf of most of the major media outlets.  And as they continue to blatantly disenfranchise nearly half of Americans, they also make enemies of those same Americans.

This means when dealing with the 2nd Amendment, one must be on guard.  Cautious with your words.  Being aware that you are likely to be misquoted, or even find your words chopped up and put together to say something you never intended.

 

 

Published in: on November 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

80% of populace support concealed carry…

But you’d never guess it from the way the media reports things….

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Second_Amendment/Supreme_Court/prweb2706544.htm

(Even I was pleasantly surprised)

–

H/T to Michael Bane

Published in: on August 6, 2009 at 1:59 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

“Lock’n'Load” – Reality TV

SHOWTime is doing a reality TV show on guns and the people that buy them.  They will be following a dealer and putting cameras in his show.

The big question I, and many others have, is who’s reality will this show be? Will it be in the vein of ABC’s 20/20.  Will they have found some kook shop keeper in order to catch the most bizarre antics and foolhardy mistakes (we all know those shops).  Or will it be unbiased, deck not stacked, positive experience that we’d like to see it to be.  Finger’s crossed but not hoping for a lot.

http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=18808673001&bclid=18836227001&bctid=18945594001

The trailer looks like some Discovery Channel Chopper show.

Published in: on June 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

OMG…he has an arsenal of high-powered sniper rifle ammo

Well, or that’s about how the media would portray the arrival today of 800 rounds of surplus Czech 7.62x54r ammo for my Mosin-Nagant.

When it’d be far more accurate to say 800 rounds for an antique WWII bolt-action rifle similar to the average hunting rifle commonly used today.

The fact that the media always leans toward the frightful portrayal of arms at every turn does not necessarily mean they are biased. It’s quite possible their just greedy SOBs out to make a $$$ any way they can…even if it requries scaring the elderly and soccer moms.    That said, regardless of whether the motivation is from bias or greed.  I would term either a condition of poor character on the media’s part.

Also interesting is the box that arrived is labelled 7.62×59. At first I was very confused as my order was for x54r. But did find a thread talking about this surplus ammo from Czech.  Many presume it is the .308 (corrected thanks to Chris) but that is in fact 7.62×51 NATO.  Of further interest, one of the threads commenting has a mention by a poster of having purchased 800 rounds for $69 back in 2007.  Which is about 1/2 what I paid for it.  As a nu user of guns I hear tales of when just a few years ago you could buy a box of 9mm for $6-$8.  How times have changed.

Published in: on March 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , ,

MArooned offers media definitions of gun terminology

Quite thorough covering of common terms used by the media in their articles, and just what those terms mean.

http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2009/02/fun-with-media.html

(Be sure to check out the comments for a few proposed editions to the terminology list.)

Published in: on February 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,
« Older Entries