KZA’S BODY BLAST

NO GYM & NO BODYBUILDER DIETS….Living like it was not even apart of who and what I am about….Feels weird. Come APRIL, there will be none of this. I hope that life "pans out" the way I’ve been hoping it to….BELIEVE ME READERS….U will be the 1st to know…

I HAVE NOW BEEN OUT OF THE GYM FOR 5 WEEKS. ONLY EATING 2 TIMES PER DAY IN LARGE AMOUNTS. CONSISTING OF MOSTLY "JUNK." I’VE BEEN COMPLETELY OFF TILT. THINGS IN MY DAILY LIFE R NOT GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN.

You have a new comment about your poem: FREE WILL

——————————–
Barring ethereal intervention, we dictate our general life-course each
day, through our gift of free will…Our decisions  become our
Consequence to the axis which then becomes Destiny. I like many aspects of this
piece.Good Luck.

~ FjR ~

http://poetry.com/Publications/display.asp?ID=P5594691&**=999&PN=1

   Peal back the factors that make you. what doesn’t? work on the weakest links and improvements will come FASTER. Find the will to do so. Do you want to next person to take your future place?

CAREFUL IN YOUR CHOICES TO MAKE IT

Gun Laws (M.G.L. ch. 140, s. 131 and ch. 269 s. 10, 12B & 14)

In 1998, Massachusetts enacted some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. These laws have significantly changed requirements regarding the purchase, possession, carrying, storage, and licensing of firearms. This summary highlights a few of the key points. However, it in no way sets forth all of the obligations and rights of individuals with regard to firearms laws.

Local police departments have the authority to issue gun permits. Such permits include licenses to carry (L.T.C.) and firearm identification cards (F.I.D.). There are two types of licenses to carry. A Class A license to carry allows an individual to purchase, possess and carry large-capacity handguns, rifles, shotguns and feeding devices. A Class A license to carry is the only permit that authorizes a holder to carry a concealed and loaded firearm. A Class B license to carry permits a holder to purchase, possess, and carry non-large capacity handguns and large-capacity rifles and shotguns.

There are also two types of firearm identification cards. Unrestricted firearm identification cards allow for the possession of non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. The restricted version of the card is available solely for the possession of chemical sprays.

Massachusetts gun laws require that all firearms, rifles, and shotguns be stored in a secured, locked container or equipped with a tamper resistant mechanical lock or other safety devices properly engaged as to render the weapon inoperable by unlawful users. Moreover, every firearm and large capacity weapon sold in the Commonwealth must be equipped with a safety device (trigger lock) designed to prevent its discharge by an unauthorized user.

New residents have 60 days to obtain proper licenses. Non-residents may obtain temporary licenses to carry through the Firearms Record Bureau in order to possess and transport firearms through the Commonwealth. All non-residents must comply with all Massachusetts laws regarding transportation and storage while in the Commonwealth.

No one may possess, transport or store any type of gun in a building or on the grounds of any school without prior authorization by the board in charge of the school.

     The power to vote; how many people do you know, take it seriously? I was up very late Saturday (5am) and I saw very disturbing information on how our voting rights are being infringed upon. Have you heard of or know of, that in some states, (mostly Mid-Western) you most have an ID in order to vote. Without it, you do not have the right to do so; you “must” prove that you are who you say you are & that you have the “valid” right to vote? This is bullshit at its finest or at least close to.

     If you are voting for any other party, other than the Republican or Democratic, the possibility that your vote is “cast out” is fairly high. Yes, I know, you are saying in your head that, it’s against the law!!! You’re %100 correct. The way in which they do it is such that, it is legal. There are many laws disguised as “helpful” towards the AMERICAN CITIZENS but is the exact opposite! These laws are past mostly by Republicans in which helps them to “steal” elections.

     Intimidation and many other scare tactics are put into motion to push you the voter away from doing what makes this Country what is was and still should be….FREE. We CANNOT live solely for us; not in this time & day! Funny that I am saying this on a site that stands on such soil, but I am with great frankness.

Carried By Six Or Judged By 12? 

 The right to self-defense gets support in Florida.  By John Hay Rabb 

In April 2005 Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a bill based on a radical premise: that a law-abiding citizen is under no obligation to retreat from an attack when he is in a location where he has a right to be. Since the vast majority of citizens are seldom in illegal locations, the new law effectively grants Floridians the right to protect themselves virtually anywhere. I say this is a radical premise because that is what the antigun Flat-Earth Society would have you believe. The new Florida self-defense law gives them a case of the vapors, as they breathlessly predict an epidemic of bloody road-rage incidents and Wild West gunfights occurring on the tranquil streets of the Sunshine State. Never mind that several other states have already enacted similar laws. I am quite certain that if any pitched gun battles had occurred in those states, the liberal news media would have informed us by now. 

The passage of the Florida bill was hailed as a victory for the so-called “castle doctrine.” This doctrine affirms that a man’s home is his castle. In 1532 England’s King Henry VIII declared that a man may defend his castle by any means necessary, even if the lord of the castle was the initial aggressor. It hardly seems cricket that a lord should be able to assault his neighbor and then retreat behind the walls of his castle. But then King Henry was never a stickler for fair play. In the 1600s noted British legal scholar William Blackstone wrote, “The law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house that it [is considered] his castle and will never [be] violated.” Blackstone’s view became a central tenet of English common law, and thus was created the “castle doctrine.” 

Since the birth of our nation, the castle doctrine has been reaffirmed by numerous court decisions. In the 1914 New York case, People v. Tomlin, the court said: “It is not now and has never been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack.” Now most states, even those as gun-phobic as New York, follow the same general principle with regard to the duty to retreat. A law-abiding person has a duty to retreat from an attack but only if retreat can be accomplished safely. A New York law passed in 1965 says that a person is not required to retreat unless he can do so “with complete safety to himself and others.” A 2002 Michigan Supreme Court ruling said, “A person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce and violent attack, nor is he required to retreat from an attacker who he reasonably believes [is] about to use a deadly weapon.” It’s simply not logical to expect a terrified person to weigh the relative merits of fight vs. flight in the blink of an eye. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” 

For the citizens of Florida, the new law sweeps away much of the legal uncertainty associated with armed self-defense and the duty to retreat. The statute, which took effect on October 1, says in part:  “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any of the places where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or another.”