Women in this country have learned that they can accuse a man of domestic violence or sexual assault, and use the accusation as a trump card to almost any situation, even to get revenge on a previous amour. I know, it happened to me.
With that being said, I fell sorry for the man that this woman is pissed off at, because he is likely going to jail:
A liberal group is trying to “get out the vote” by sending out letters that list the voting record of neighbors. It’s legal, even if despicable. Public shaming is a common tactic of the left, as seen by the publishing of CCW records. These lists are important to the people on the left, because they are going to use them as guidebooks for when they again have the power to take revenge on their political enemies.
After all, Maxine Waters has already sworn to use any power she gets in order to exact revenge on her political enemies.
“What I am going to do to you is fair. I’m going to do to you what you did to us,” she vowed.
I have been catching a lot of flack from my Republican friends for saying that I refuse to vote for Rick Scott. They claim that unless I vote for Scott, I am handing Congress to the Democrats. Let me show you why I refuse to vote for that son of a bitch. Her is the campaign ad that tells the entire story:
After the shooting in South Florida, Rick Scott stabbed gun owners in the back by signing a gun control bill into law. The law raises the age to buy firearms from 18 to 21, meaning that the constitutional rights of people between 18 and 20 don’t matter. It also put a number of other laws from the gun control wish list on the books.
At the end: “I am Rick Scott and I approve this message.” Not only did this asshole stab gun owners in the back, he is bragging and campaigning about it. He will do it again, if he thinks it will get him more votes. It is up to gun owners to show him that this is a losing strategy, so maybe he will think twice next time.
I am a gun owner, and I don’t forget what you did to me, and I have voted accordingly.
For years, the gun culture was thrown under the bus by hunters. They wholeheartedly supported calls for gun control, as long as talks of gun control stuck to evil assault weapons. The reasoning from hunters was that, perhaps if they supported gun control groups, the gun control groups would leave them alone. It didn’t work. It wasn’t long before there were calls to ban “sniper rifles.” To this day, we still hear anti gun forces say “Those guns are useless for hunting” or “You don’t need an AR15 to hunt deer.”
Now we have another group of misguided gun owners who think that if they only open carry in a friendly manner, the anti gunners will somehow come around and like them. I normally agree with Borepatch, but I think he is wrong on this one. To Borepatch and the rest of them, I ask this:
What gun can I own that will win the approval of gun control groups?
What method of carry will make the anti gunners like me?
What form of capitulation will make anti gunners stop calling for my guns to be confiscated?
Rosa Parks and the other civil rights advocates didn’t win by sitting at the coloreds only lunch counter and attempting to be noticed. They refused to back down.
The people who vote for a living are taking money from those who work for a living. More than half of the country gets more in handouts than they pay in taxes.
Now that we are at the point where a majority of the voting population receives more in benefits than it pays in taxes, voters will demand more and more wealth be transferred to them through government programs. It is now politically necessary to extract larger and larger amounts of wealth from a minority in order to subsidize the majority. The national economy is doomed to fail. It is inevitable, and things will continue to get worse.
The US is now officially a socialist nation.
A man with a CCW permit stopped a mass shooting, exchanging fire with the killer and driving him away. The police later apprehended the killer. Who gets the credit?
“Thanks to the quick response of the local police department, the suspect was apprehended and our store is secure.”
I recently posted about a shooting that occurred in Lakeland. Operating from text based news articles only, it appeared as though the thief had grabbed a hatchet and attempted to threaten the store owner in order to affect his escape. The Lakeland PD has since released the store video of the shooting. I will let you watch for yourself.
It appears as though I jumped the gun. This looks to me to be a bad shooting. The thief does not appear to be threatening the store owner, and it appears as though the store owner shot him not in self defense, but to prevent his escape. Absent any other evidence, this looks like second degree murder to me.
That is what I get for basing my opinion on press reports.
A Democrat has been accused of sexual misconduct during the 1980s. We hear crickets.
Where are the “believe all women” and the “I believe the survivors” protesters now? Are women only believable when the accuse Republicans?
The owner of a Lakeland Army-Navy store, who also happens to be a city commissioner, was charged with second degree murder by a grand jury. The story is that a man entered the store and tried to shoplift a hatchet. The owner attempted to stop the thief and grabbed his shirt in an attempt to prevent his escape, the thief raised the hatchet, and the store owner shot him once, killing him.
It seems to me that this is a waste of taxpayer money, but the general climate in this state lately is against armed self defense. The press headlined this case with: ” A Lakeland city commissioner fatally shot a customer during a dispute over a hatchet ” That is not the case. In attempting to steal a weapon (the hatchet), what the man did was commit armed robbery. Here is the statute:
812.13 Robbery.—
(1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
(2)(a) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The owner can use reasonable force to prevent a robbery. A robbery is a forcible felony.
Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Since this was a forcible felony, the store owner can use deadly force.
776.012 (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
It seems to me like the store owner can make a pretty good case for the shooting. Remember, the standard for the shooter is “reasonable doubt.” There is plenty of that here, but it is going to take a lawyer and some serious money. I hope he has carry insurance. I know I do. Don’t you?
The latest cause that has woman attaching men, claiming that men are abusers? They are calling it financial abuse and claiming it is a form of domestic violence. They define it as
where abusers limit or prevent access to financial resources, like bank accounts and job opportunities.
So if I don’t give a woman unlimited access to all of the money she wants, I am now abusing her. This is why an ex girlfriend once went to court to claim I was abusing her. The judge agreed, because he claimed that refusing to pay for her cell phone after we broke up was a form of violence. My lawyer got that overturned, but this is just another form of lawfare against men.
Since they are defining it as domestic violence, if your significant other wants a new pair of shoes and you tell her no, or if you insist that she spend within a budget, you are a domestic abuser and should never be able to own a firearm.