Stillwagon was legally carrying the gun. A defense attorney said today he considers Stillwagon's actions "legally justified."

The college Hall of Fame lineman helped the Buckeyes to a national championship in 1968.

BuckSkipper wrote: I love my new DD m4v2!  Here, check it out...

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

buhkeiz wrote: legally justified?!?

JS:  I feared for my life, so I tried to take his.

Woodeye67 wrote:

buck4life43 wrote:

Woodeye67 wrote:

LMFAO !!!! Classic !

buckeyemark wrote: Yes! Only military, police, and politicians should have guns - because it's well known that members of these 3 groups are morally superior and more responsible than members who aren't in these groups.

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

cmquest wrote:

buckeyemark wrote: Yes! Only military, police, and politicians should have guns - because it's well known that members of these 3 groups are morally superior and more responsible than members who aren't in these groups.

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

I am certainly no Grupy defender ... should have been perma-banned from all BSB boards last month when he accused Bill Greene of being a carnival promoter.

However, where in his post did you see him state that only military, police, and politicians should have guns?  He only stated a wish for "stricter" gun laws.  How in the world could anyone NOT be in favor of this, especially knowing there is no way we can identify and isolate all the mentally ill and deranged people in our society?!?

Why should ANYONE in the United States be allowed to have an assault rifle, or a magazine that can hold more than 6-10 rounds?!?

cmquest wrote:

buckeyemark wrote: Yes! Only military, police, and politicians should have guns - because it's well known that members of these 3 groups are morally superior and more responsible than members who aren't in these groups.

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

I am certainly no Grupy defender ... should have been perma-banned from all BSB boards last month when he accused Bill Greene of being a carnival promoter.

However, where in his post did you see him state that only military, police, and politicians should have guns?  He only stated a wish for "stricter" gun laws.  How in the world could anyone NOT be in favor of this, especially knowing there is no way we can identify and isolate all the mentally ill and deranged people in our society?!?

Why should ANYONE in the United States be allowed to have an assault rifle, or a magazine that can hold more than 6-10 rounds?!?

buckeyemark wrote: Why should colonists be allowed to have rifles?

People should be allowed to have such weapons because as The People the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to have them in order to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether that government is British in the 18th century, or American in the 21st century.

As we have seen during the 20th century during Vietnam, during the 21st century during the Iraq War, there are times for mostly peaceful protest against the government. In the future there may come a time for a violent protest against the government.

Tragedies like Sandy Hook are a small price to pay to have the ability to avoid much more colossal tragedies like the Holocaust, etc...

Guns are not the problem, even assault rifles with 30 magazine clips (of course Adam Lanza used 4 handguns at SHES not an assault rifle), the problem is society in many different ways.

Strict gun laws will be a successful as prohibition, which worked so well that it became the only constitutional amendment to be appealed, and the war on drugs, with its most recent strategy U.S. government giving Mexican drug cartels large quantities of the very same guns people want to now ban in the U.S, law abiding citizens will have much tougher times of acquiring guns, while criminals will still find ways to obtain them illegally - probably as they are funneled back into the U.S. from Mexico.

cmquest wrote:

buckeyemark wrote: Yes! Only military, police, and politicians should have guns - because it's well known that members of these 3 groups are morally superior and more responsible than members who aren't in these groups.

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

I am certainly no Grupy defender ... should have been perma-banned from all BSB boards last month when he accused Bill Greene of being a carnival promoter.

However, where in his post did you see him state that only military, police, and politicians should have guns?  He only stated a wish for "stricter" gun laws.  How in the world could anyone NOT be in favor of this, especially knowing there is no way we can identify and isolate all the mentally ill and deranged people in our society?!?

Why should ANYONE in the United States be allowed to have an assault rifle, or a magazine that can hold more than 6-10 rounds?!?

OSUKungfuMan wrote: This might be the most idiotic thing I've read on the internet all day. Thinking that assault rifles are somehow preventing a 2nd holocaust (which occurred in a right wing country with lax gun laws) is beyond stupid., and the idea that possessing assault rifles could protect us against a tyrannical government in today's day and age is laughable. No, what it really comes down to is people like yourself think guns are cool and make you feel like a badass. You really don't give a damn about children, the constitution, or this country. You just like playing with your toys.

buckeyemark wrote: Why should colonists be allowed to have rifles?

People should be allowed to have such weapons because as The People the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to have them in order to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether that government is British in the 18th century, or American in the 21st century.

As we have seen during the 20th century during Vietnam, during the 21st century during the Iraq War, there are times for mostly peaceful protest against the government. In the future there may come a time for a violent protest against the government.

Tragedies like Sandy Hook are a small price to pay to have the ability to avoid much more colossal tragedies like the Holocaust, etc...

Guns are not the problem, even assault rifles with 30 magazine clips (of course Adam Lanza used 4 handguns at SHES not an assault rifle), the problem is society in many different ways.

Strict gun laws will be a successful as prohibition, which worked so well that it became the only constitutional amendment to be appealed, and the war on drugs, with its most recent strategy U.S. government giving Mexican drug cartels large quantities of the very same guns people want to now ban in the U.S, law abiding citizens will have much tougher times of acquiring guns, while criminals will still find ways to obtain them illegally - probably as they are funneled back into the U.S. from Mexico.

cmquest wrote:

buckeyemark wrote: Yes! Only military, police, and politicians should have guns - because it's well known that members of these 3 groups are morally superior and more responsible than members who aren't in these groups.

bgrupy wrote: ......................God please let there be stricter gun laws.

I am certainly no Grupy defender ... should have been perma-banned from all BSB boards last month when he accused Bill Greene of being a carnival promoter.

However, where in his post did you see him state that only military, police, and politicians should have guns?  He only stated a wish for "stricter" gun laws.  How in the world could anyone NOT be in favor of this, especially knowing there is no way we can identify and isolate all the mentally ill and deranged people in our society?!?

Why should ANYONE in the United States be allowed to have an assault rifle, or a magazine that can hold more than 6-10 rounds?!?