- Messages
- 292
- Reactions
- 70
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Northwest Firearms made the news, in case you didnt know
- Thread Starter KCKracker
- Start date
- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 159
Great write up, thanks for posting KC!
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
Dave is always "outing" us to the world.
Thanks Dave
Thanks Dave
- Messages
- 206
- Reactions
- 182
Dave Workman...doing the Lords work. Thanks!
I was talking to an anti-gun D-bag the other day and I said basically, all I need to do is find out what side Al Sharpton is on and take the opposite side. I will be in the clear both logically and morally.
I was talking to an anti-gun D-bag the other day and I said basically, all I need to do is find out what side Al Sharpton is on and take the opposite side. I will be in the clear both logically and morally.
- Messages
- 611
- Reactions
- 398
KCK, just keep watching this site and you will see us mentioned in plenty of articles. Dave writes some good stuff and posts links to most of the relevant articles right here.
- Messages
- 9,533
- Reactions
- 5,069
Holder best stay in DC or Chicago, NYC with his little buddies who support him
- Messages
- 796
- Reactions
- 607
Call me silly, but I have faith that Washington state isn't Florida.
- Messages
- 12
- Reactions
- 1
"The Examiner" is hardly "the news". More of a blog.
All the posts that go onto northwest firearms are also available by searches across the net.
A topic, a phrase that is used brings them up all the time.
A simple example is:
northwestfirearms.com - Google Search
So be aware it is not a private forum by any means. That is only to post, but not to read.
Unsettling thought isn't it....
A topic, a phrase that is used brings them up all the time.
A simple example is:
northwestfirearms.com - Google Search
So be aware it is not a private forum by any means. That is only to post, but not to read.
Unsettling thought isn't it....
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reactions
- 1,060
We need more of this in the MSM. Your local newspapers are a good place to start.
Sir or Madam: I am well aware this is far over-length.
The points could not have been made in less space.
I am a local firearms and self-defense instructor with years of experience and and specific knowledge regarding self-defense law that most attorneys would not claim or be interested in. (This is a complicated area of law with many case-law precedents).
I wrote this letter not merely as to my profession, but with a desire towards truth. I was ready to HANG Zimmerman before I heard the prosecution's case. After that, the matter was clear in my mind.
LETTER:
According to the President of The United States, and according to the Attorney General of the United States, the problem with the Martin/Zimmerman case is "stand your ground" laws.
The problem with this argument is that "stand your ground" never entered into the Zimmerman case in any way. Indeed, even if Zimmerman had been obliged to retreat prior to deploying lethal force (A standard which 40 out of 50 states have REJECTED) he STILL would have had legal justification for shooting Trayvon Martin.
In ANY state, an assault which would put a "reasonable person" at fear for an immediate threat of grievous bodily injury or death, absent a credible claim that the assailed (Zimmerman) was the "aggressor" Meaning very specifically that he INITIATED physical violence, is a justification for use of deadly force.
The physical evidence in the Zimmerman case is as clear as day. Trayvon Martin didn't have so much as a scratch on him, other than the gun-shot. This does NOT speak to a Zimmerman who started the violence. Rather it corroborates the testimony of Zimmerman, that Martin "sucker-punched" him and had him down on the ground UNABLE TO RETREAT EVEN IF HE HAD WANTED TO, repeatedly giving head-blows against the concrete sidewalk.
I've taught armed self-defense for a number of years. I have confidence when I say that I have more knowledge on this particular area of law than most lawyers, based on their own statements to me. (It's complicated and specific with a lot of case law).
While Zimmerman may not be the poster-child I would have selected for a case of armed defense (He made several serious mistakes, NONE of which were criminal) This is the case which the American public seem to have chosen for THEIR poster-child.
FACTS:
1. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain. Meaning, specifically, that he had undertaken the duty of keeping an eye on the neighborhood.
2. There had recently been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. A couple of the suspects had been caught and identified as gang-affiliated youth who wore dark-colored "hoodies"
3. Zimmerman spots a young man (Hell, let's assume he posits EXTRA motives to this unknown young man based on race) IDs him to the police as "suspicious." The police respond that they'll send a car out as and when they can and Zimmerman's supposed "incriminating response" is: "bubbleguming punks, they always get away."
4. Zimmerman exits his car. He claims this is to get an address for the cops. Some supposed it was to Follow Martin.
5. I STOP here to mention that at no time has any crime been committed by either party. Martin has the right to walk wherever he wants, Zimmerman has the right to "follow" anyone HE wants.
6. Some confrontation occurs. According to the PROSECUTION'S sworn witness, Zimmerman demands to know "what are you doing here?"
7. At this point, the altercation becomes physical. Zimmerman states that he was "sucker-punched" and had at no point, the ability to really defend himself.
8. Zimmerman is now on the ground, being assaulted by an unknown person, his head is being bashed into the ground. His nose is broken (and having mine broken 4 times, yes, you DO know) and his head is being pounded to the sidewalk.
9. Note that I am ENTIRELY discounting Zimmerman's testimony about Martin's statements or attempt to get to his hitherto concealed weapon
10. Zimmerman shoots ONE time, which kills his assailant.
I've just given you the PROSECUTION'S version of the story. And if you get ANYTHING out of that other than self-defense, you have other axes to grind.
The Obama Administration is trying as hard as they can to make this case about ace and guns and self-defense laws which have existed mostly, from the time of the founding of this country.
It is none of the above.
Trayvon Martin, for whatever reason, decided it was time to give this "Creepy-***-Cracka" what we in the self-defense community refer to as an: "Educational Beatdown." –Rory Miller, Logic of Violence.
This refers to a beating, often savage in effect, which is meant to "teach a lesson." To "teach" the offending person (Zimmerman) that the behavior exhibited is unacceptable to him/her or the "tribe."
What happened is what SHOULD happen to a 17-year-old (we have these in Afghanistan wearing the American Army Uniform) 6-foor-tall 160-pound football-playing males when they decide to give a EBD to a citizen. They may get SHOT for their trouble.
Trayvon Martin would be alive today is he hadn't decided to "teach a lesson" to the "Creepy *** Cracka" that was "following him.
That doesn't have anything to do with "Stand Your Ground." Nor does it have anything to do with race.
It has EVERYTHING to do with a citizen exposed to radical, unprovoked violence that made him fear for his life. That's WHY the Jury found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY. If you disagree, feel free to point me to the PROSECUTION'S case, which made this any different.
This was a political case. That's all it ever was.
Be smart enough to know when you're being sold a bill of goods.
Sir or Madam: I am well aware this is far over-length.
The points could not have been made in less space.
I am a local firearms and self-defense instructor with years of experience and and specific knowledge regarding self-defense law that most attorneys would not claim or be interested in. (This is a complicated area of law with many case-law precedents).
I wrote this letter not merely as to my profession, but with a desire towards truth. I was ready to HANG Zimmerman before I heard the prosecution's case. After that, the matter was clear in my mind.
LETTER:
According to the President of The United States, and according to the Attorney General of the United States, the problem with the Martin/Zimmerman case is "stand your ground" laws.
The problem with this argument is that "stand your ground" never entered into the Zimmerman case in any way. Indeed, even if Zimmerman had been obliged to retreat prior to deploying lethal force (A standard which 40 out of 50 states have REJECTED) he STILL would have had legal justification for shooting Trayvon Martin.
In ANY state, an assault which would put a "reasonable person" at fear for an immediate threat of grievous bodily injury or death, absent a credible claim that the assailed (Zimmerman) was the "aggressor" Meaning very specifically that he INITIATED physical violence, is a justification for use of deadly force.
The physical evidence in the Zimmerman case is as clear as day. Trayvon Martin didn't have so much as a scratch on him, other than the gun-shot. This does NOT speak to a Zimmerman who started the violence. Rather it corroborates the testimony of Zimmerman, that Martin "sucker-punched" him and had him down on the ground UNABLE TO RETREAT EVEN IF HE HAD WANTED TO, repeatedly giving head-blows against the concrete sidewalk.
I've taught armed self-defense for a number of years. I have confidence when I say that I have more knowledge on this particular area of law than most lawyers, based on their own statements to me. (It's complicated and specific with a lot of case law).
While Zimmerman may not be the poster-child I would have selected for a case of armed defense (He made several serious mistakes, NONE of which were criminal) This is the case which the American public seem to have chosen for THEIR poster-child.
FACTS:
1. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain. Meaning, specifically, that he had undertaken the duty of keeping an eye on the neighborhood.
2. There had recently been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. A couple of the suspects had been caught and identified as gang-affiliated youth who wore dark-colored "hoodies"
3. Zimmerman spots a young man (Hell, let's assume he posits EXTRA motives to this unknown young man based on race) IDs him to the police as "suspicious." The police respond that they'll send a car out as and when they can and Zimmerman's supposed "incriminating response" is: "bubbleguming punks, they always get away."
4. Zimmerman exits his car. He claims this is to get an address for the cops. Some supposed it was to Follow Martin.
5. I STOP here to mention that at no time has any crime been committed by either party. Martin has the right to walk wherever he wants, Zimmerman has the right to "follow" anyone HE wants.
6. Some confrontation occurs. According to the PROSECUTION'S sworn witness, Zimmerman demands to know "what are you doing here?"
7. At this point, the altercation becomes physical. Zimmerman states that he was "sucker-punched" and had at no point, the ability to really defend himself.
8. Zimmerman is now on the ground, being assaulted by an unknown person, his head is being bashed into the ground. His nose is broken (and having mine broken 4 times, yes, you DO know) and his head is being pounded to the sidewalk.
9. Note that I am ENTIRELY discounting Zimmerman's testimony about Martin's statements or attempt to get to his hitherto concealed weapon
10. Zimmerman shoots ONE time, which kills his assailant.
I've just given you the PROSECUTION'S version of the story. And if you get ANYTHING out of that other than self-defense, you have other axes to grind.
The Obama Administration is trying as hard as they can to make this case about ace and guns and self-defense laws which have existed mostly, from the time of the founding of this country.
It is none of the above.
Trayvon Martin, for whatever reason, decided it was time to give this "Creepy-***-Cracka" what we in the self-defense community refer to as an: "Educational Beatdown." –Rory Miller, Logic of Violence.
This refers to a beating, often savage in effect, which is meant to "teach a lesson." To "teach" the offending person (Zimmerman) that the behavior exhibited is unacceptable to him/her or the "tribe."
What happened is what SHOULD happen to a 17-year-old (we have these in Afghanistan wearing the American Army Uniform) 6-foor-tall 160-pound football-playing males when they decide to give a EBD to a citizen. They may get SHOT for their trouble.
Trayvon Martin would be alive today is he hadn't decided to "teach a lesson" to the "Creepy *** Cracka" that was "following him.
That doesn't have anything to do with "Stand Your Ground." Nor does it have anything to do with race.
It has EVERYTHING to do with a citizen exposed to radical, unprovoked violence that made him fear for his life. That's WHY the Jury found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY. If you disagree, feel free to point me to the PROSECUTION'S case, which made this any different.
This was a political case. That's all it ever was.
Be smart enough to know when you're being sold a bill of goods.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Sico ambi lower with larue mbt trigger, b5 stock and radian safety- Started by jerhine23
- Replies: 0
-
Ruger Single Six 3 Screw w/.22LR & .22 WMR Cylinders 1967- Started by hammerstriker
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-