Re: Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
� Reality Check� �
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>
>>
>>
>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>>
>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
>> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
>> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The
>> Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone
>> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>>
>> The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an
>> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
>> movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
>> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
>> twenty-five other states. Learn more here.
>>
>> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
>> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
>> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
>> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
>> vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
>> summons for violating any law.
>>
>> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
>> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
>> of law.
>>
>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
>> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
>> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
>> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion
>> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
>> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
>> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
>> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
>> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>
>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
>> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
>> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
>> punitive damages. Garcia said that
>>
>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
>> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
>> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
>> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
>> and federal constitutions."
>>
>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
>> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
>> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
>> law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded
>> that
>>
>> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
>> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
>> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
>> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
>> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
>> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
>> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>
>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
>> of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of
>> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
>> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
>> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still
>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>
>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>
>> NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
>> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
police intervertion.
Excellent!
Gray Ghost
news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federa
>>> l- judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Were you born stupid, dropped on your head or overdosed on hallucinogens?
Oh sorry, all 3? Then kill yourself.
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
richard
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>>>
>>
>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
> police intervertion.
>
> Excellent!
You just don't get it do you?
1) no charges filed. Ergo, no crime. See Terry Vs Ohio.
2) illegal detention, illegal search and seizure.
3) Nobody noticed the weapon as he entered and nothing was said to him
before the cops showed? Wrong.
Now if only the cops on the tv show could get educated about illegal
searches.
Gray Ghost
news:1ox649vifysnh.ogwijmbbcun5$.d...@40tude.net:
Yeah. Last night I heard it was illegal to sell a gun to a pawn shop! On a
show I usually like. Not so much now.
Frank
RD (The Sandman)
>
Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws. For a
felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
Excellent!
Yep.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
President John Adams
Bama Brian
BEEEP! Ten point penalty for failure to comprehend what was written!
Any more penalty points and you'll be kicked out of t.p.g.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> >news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>
> >>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed...
THat is the way the founding fathers intended it to be. No more police
extoriton plots
jf...@ix.netcom.com
No, there would be a "crime [] afoot" since it is a federal
felony for a felon to possess a firearm. It seems that you haven't
the depth of thought to realize what the facts really are before you
make remarks that are not cogent.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:24:36 -0600, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"
>
>
>
>
>
> <real...@check.it> wrote:
>
> >"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
> >> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> >>news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>
> >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed...
A court room that convicts anyone while copulating church and state is
null and void since it is illegal. Kangaroo courts are not justice.
Felons that are falsely accused and convicted have the constitution on
thier side and should bear arms against the terrorist executive
branch.
More police deserve to be shot.
The Lone Weasel
@comcast.net> wrote:
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦" <real...@check.it> wrote innews:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net:
Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. Everybody's
carrying guns. They all look pretty much alike.
So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town carried
guns openly? How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if the
whole town is a ready-made combat zone? Would you take you
granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you see
- and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? And when
everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
I think carrying guns openly is the only acceptable way to carry them,
but when the number of gun carriers gets high enough so that guns take
the place of verbal arguments and fist fights, it's insane.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Benj
> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. Everybody's
> carrying guns. They all look pretty much alike.
Get your empty liberal head around this, dope-smoker: Police are not
permitted to stop and search everyone on a gigantic "fishing
expedition" because someone "might" be committing a crime. Police are
supposed to have a handle on who is a felon and who is not. They are
supposed to have records and experience to know who is a felon who is
not permitted to even touch a gun let alone carry one. And THAT
knowledge gives them "probable cause" for a search.
> So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town carried
> guns openly? How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if the
> whole town is a ready-made combat zone? Would you take you
> granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you see
> - and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
I'd sure trust most of THEM more than I'd trust you or your elected
offical pals in Washington. Hey, I HAVE walked for ice cream at
various places where most people were openly carrying guns. I wasn't
worried or scared. But what is that dark patch on the front of your
trousers? Oh My! It seems you've pissed yourself because you were so
scared of honest citizens with guns. That's the idea bunky. You Nazis
are SUPPOSED to be scared of honest citizens who can keep you in line.
It's not so much fun to "make an example" of a village by shooting all
the men, women, and children in it if they all start shooting back!
> You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
> defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? And when
> everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
> high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
Lies, lies, and more lies! When was the last robbery you heard of at a
gun show in spite of huge sums of cash being carried by large numbers
of people there? Criminals and Nazis (like you) are actually few and
in the minority. That fact forms the whole reason for your promotion
of "gun control".
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
Vladimir Lenin
nraclaptrap
7d971c...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 22, 1:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
>> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
>> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
>> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
>> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
>> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. �Everybody's
>> carrying guns. �They all look pretty much alike.
>
> Get your empty liberal head around this, dope-smoker
I don't use marijuana, Blowjobacoby; it's musicians who stereotypically
smoke pot and inject themselves with heroin, and last time I checked you
played drums, so you'd be the drug addict.
Next please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:5acfbc22-4249-4ca3-bbbc-
>7d971c...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 22, 1:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
>>> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
>>> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
>>> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
>>> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
>>> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. �Everybody's
>>> carrying guns. �They all look pretty much alike.
>>
>> Get your empty liberal head around this, dope-smoker
>
>I don't use marijuana, Blowjobacoby;
Right. Alcohol- and plenty of it- is your drug of choice. That, and
hydrogenated fats.
______
>So at one time there was a finding of guilt
>because I opened my big mouth
>and stupidly buy honestly admitted I did drive drunk..."
-Lee Harrison, finally getting around to
admitting he was found guilty of DUI
December 17, 2006
nraclaptrap
news:ugvhb5t2b64g3mu7f...@4ax.com:
> In talk.politics.guns nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:5acfbc22-4249-4ca3-bbbc-
>>7d971c...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 1:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
>>>> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
>>>> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
>>>> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
>>>> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks
-
>>>> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. �Everybody's
>>>> carrying guns. �They all look pretty much alike.
>>>
>>> Get your empty liberal head around this, dope-smoker
>>
>>I don't use marijuana, Blowjobacoby;
>
> Right. Alcohol- and plenty of it- is your drug of choice.
A couple of beers is enough for me, Bobby. My life isn't about drugs.
How about you?
> That, and hydrogenated fats.
You're the one obsessed with donuts. I use olive oil on my brown rice
sometimes.
If only you could mind your own unhealthy habits instead of fantasizing
about them and blaming me for your own stupidity. Maybe there's a 12
step program for fatsos, eh Bloberto?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:ugvhb5t2b64g3mu7f...@4ax.com:
>
>> In talk.politics.guns nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in news:5acfbc22-4249-4ca3-bbbc-
>>>7d971c...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 22, 1:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
>>>>> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
>>>>> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
>>>>> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
>>>>> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks
>-
>>>>> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. �Everybody's
>>>>> carrying guns. �They all look pretty much alike.
>>>>
>>>> Get your empty liberal head around this, dope-smoker
>>>
>>>I don't use marijuana, Blowjobacoby;
>>
>> Right. Alcohol- and plenty of it- is your drug of choice.
>
>A couple of beers is enough for me, Bobby.
Per minute?
>How about you?
I think you should swear off alcohol completely, and let's see if it
reflects in your posts.
>> That, and hydrogenated fats.
>
>You're the one obsessed with donuts. I use olive oil on my brown rice
>sometimes.
Photos don't lie, Your Lardness. This picture of you tells the real
story.
RD (The Sandman)
96e7-c43...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 19, 6:48�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote innews:7hkm3rF2u55t0U
> 1...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
Fed
>> >>> eral-
>> >>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>
>> >>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
carrying
>> >>> guns
>>
>> >>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black
of
>> >>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>> >>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police
>> >>> officers. �The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: �Leav
�Judg
There won't be.
and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. Everybody's
> carrying guns. They all look pretty much alike.
Most police officers know who the bad guys are in their area of patrol.
> So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town carried
> guns openly?
I would have no problem with it.
How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if the
> whole town is a ready-made combat zone? Would you take you
> granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you see
> - and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
The ones I can't see already do.
> You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
> defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? And when
> everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
> high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
And your reasoning on this is? Your cite is?
> I think carrying guns openly is the only acceptable way to carry them,
> but when the number of gun carriers gets high enough so that guns take
> the place of verbal arguments and fist fights, it's insane.
Like you. I see that you escaped from my Bozo Bin.....time to revoke
your parole. C'ya....
jerry warner
"� Reality Check� �" wrote:
A man jumped out of a truck with a 12-guage just week
in Phoenix, an act related to road rage. The light turned
(thank God!) and everyone took off leaving the man standing in the intersection
with his 12-guage raised.
The next thing everyone knew he started firing
randomly around and into the air. Someone finally
called police who descended on the maniac with
pistols drawn. The asshole just stood there and laughed,
put his 12-guage down, and we arent sure what the
outcome was ... people got the hell out of there and
didnt stay to see what happened!
� Reality Check� �
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C8BAAE9B...@216.196.97.130...
And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying nut to
determine
if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
Excellent!
� Reality Check� �
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9448l$6ka$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So the police CAN detain those who openly carry guns, to determine if
they are felons, eh?
Gray Ghost
news:4AB99D8C...@mchsi.com:
>
>
> "� Reality Check� �" wrote:
>
>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
>> > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> > news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>> >
>> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fede
>> >> ral- judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
I'm sure he eas just an average guy, no drug or alcohol problem, decent job,
loving family, nice house. And then suddenly a couple of nuerons just
misfired. Tragic.
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and question a known
felon? Think "probable cause".......if you can.
DockScience
"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
> of police intervertion.
>
> Excellent!
So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals and
felons as if they were?
� Reality Check� �
How would they know his record if they don't stop and question him first?
Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos of
MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
� Reality Check� �
"DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of
felons.
Bama Brian
So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>
> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos of
> MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>
> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
God damn you are one stump-stupid freedom-hater.
The sound of "Your papers, please. And be quick about it!" will be
heard throughout the land.
--
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the felon
has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants
to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him
all of his civil rights forever.
No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office. No military career.
Just to name a few.
There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
never be let out of jail.
But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has
been served?
--
Cheers,
RD (The Sandman)
You don't don't really know the police and how they operate, do you?
> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
Nope, but they sure as hell know what the ones in their area look like.
I rather doubt that the police in Seattle are inundated with felons from
Miami.
> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
Actually you are for thinking such a scenario.
RD (The Sandman)
Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious about
it then you trolling twits on the internet.
Scout
Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I suspect
people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of their
rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the rights of
everyone else.
jaf
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h9g6vk$h5p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes.
We should also prevent them from polluting the gene pool.
Snip. Snip.
John
� Reality Check� �
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9g6vk$h5p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!
>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals
>>> and felons as if they were?
>>
>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of
>> felons.
>>
>
> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the felon
> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants
> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him all
> of his civil rights forever.
Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>
> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office.
Except President.
> No military career. Just to name a few.
>
> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted with
> a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should never be
> let out of jail.
Why not?
Are you vindictive?
>
> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's limit
> here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with? Should we
> deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has been served?
Why do you hate America?
� Reality Check� �
"jaf" <m...@here.com> wrote in message
news:RtGdnTb0_LBqmyHX...@giganews.com...
So what was your father's excuse?
� Reality Check� �
> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
> news:7i0haqF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!
>>>
>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>
>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands
>> of felons.
>
> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious about
> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
You're lying again, nutter.
� Reality Check� �
Bama meet Terry ...
>
>>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos
>> of
>> MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
>
> God damn you are one stump-stupid freedom-hater.
>
> The sound of "Your papers, please. And be quick about it!" will be heard
> throughout the land.
And here we thought you gun-nutters would save us from tyranny ... or so you
fantasize.
� Reality Check� �
Do tell.
>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>
> Nope, but they sure as hell know what the ones in their area look like.
Sure ... just like on da tee vee shows, eh numbnuts?
> I rather doubt that the police in Seattle are inundated with felons from
> Miami.
Damn you are one stump-stupid inbred imbecile.
Gray Ghost
september.org:
> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>
Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be revoked
at any time.
So says Weasel.
Bama Brian
Good thing you were never 18, John. You might have made a mistake and
had to pay for it your entire life.
Bama Brian
I hate the tyrannical bureaucracy that it is becoming; literally an
Anarcho-tyranny.
� Reality Check� �
And the more afraid and cowardly the populace is, the more willing they are
to tolerate ... even offer ... those revocations. Think post 9.11 Amerikkka.
� Reality Check� �
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dqRum.71540$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
ROTFLMAO!!
You're lying again, asswipe.
>
>
>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>
> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I
> suspect
> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of their
> rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the rights of
> everyone else.
You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms unmolested
from the police.
� Reality Check� �
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote
Has become ...
So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?
Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive ?
Bama Brian
Terry stops are not random. The cop needs probable cause for such a
stop and search.
True random stops and searches would have the cops strip-searching young
good-looking women on the streets.
>
>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and photos
>>> of
>>> MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>
>>> God damn you are one stump-stupid gun-nutter.
>> God damn you are one stump-stupid freedom-hater.
>>
>> The sound of "Your papers, please. And be quick about it!" will be heard
>> throughout the land.
>
> And here we thought you gun-nutters would save us from tyranny ... or so you
> fantasize.
We may yet have to. Not that such as you would help.
--
Cheers,
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
Then why continue to respond? ;)
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of the
hands of the criminals. Let me know how its working out.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9g6vk$h5p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>> hands of felons.
>>>
>>
>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the
>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon
>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>
> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office.
>
> Except President.
Or Mayor of DC.
>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
>> never be let out of jail.
>
> Why not?
THey have shown a prediliction toward violence. Should they be kept in
forever? No, but should they get their RKBA back? NO.
> Are you vindictive?
Yep....are you an idiot?
>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>> has been served?
>
> Why do you hate America?
Don't. That happens here and some of it shouldn't. End the War on
Drugs.
RD (The Sandman)
If you truly think it should be spelled with "Ks", when are you
leaving?
RD (The Sandman)
No, he isn't.....it's part of their job.
>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I
>> suspect
>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>> rights of everyone else.
>
> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
> unmolested from the police.
You seem to be an idiot. Do you think that isn't true?
jaf
"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message news:7i3keeF...@mid.individual.net...
My father was a decorated veteran of WWII.
That never was, nor ever will be felony.
John
jaf
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h9imk0$lqh$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Good thing god gave me the ability to think before making a mistake that would ruin my life.
John
Daniel
> ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
>
> > "DockScience" <DockScie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
> >> "¦ Reality Check© ¦" <real...@check.it> wrote in message
> >>news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
> >>> of police intervertion.
>
> >>> Excellent!
> >> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals
> >> and felons as if they were?
>
> > Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of
> > felons.
>
> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the felon
> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants
> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him
> all of his civil rights forever.
>
> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office. No military career.
> Just to name a few.
>
> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
> never be let out of jail.
>
> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has
> been served?
>
YES. It IS a FELONY. What the fuck part of that is so fucking hard for
you libtards to understand?
Gray Ghost
> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
> news:7i453iF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C91616296B11We...@216.196.97.142...
>>> Bama Brian <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:h9g6cq$akk$1...@news.eternal-
>>> september.org:
>>>
>>>> So random stops and searches should be the order of the day?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you only have the rights government grants you, so they can be
>>> revoked at any time.
>>>
>>> So says Weasel.
>>
>> And the more afraid and cowardly the populace is, the more willing
>> they are to tolerate ... even offer ... those revocations. Think post
>> 9.11 Amerikkka.
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you truly think it should be spelled with "Ks", when are you
> leaving?
>
RD, the piece of shit doesn't live here.
Scout
Actually, they do, it's part of their job.
>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>
>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow I
>> suspect
>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>> rights of everyone else.
>
> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
> unmolested from the police.
Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it seems that
you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally correct with my
assessment.
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sep 19, 6:48 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>
>
>
>
>
> @comcast.net> wrote:
> > "¦ Reality Check© ¦" <real...@check.it> wrote innews:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net:
> > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed
>
> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. Everybody's
> carrying guns. They all look pretty much alike.
>
> So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town carried
> guns openly? How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if the
> whole town is a ready-made combat zone? Would you take you
> granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you see
> - and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
>
> You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
> defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? And when
> everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
> high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
>
> I think carrying guns openly is the only acceptable way to carry them,
> but when the number of gun carriers gets high enough so that guns take
> the place of verbal arguments and fist fights, it's insane.
>
> --
>
> NRACLAPTRAP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am all for open carry...it allow law enforcement to take names and
note what guns are in circulation.
Good info to have for later.
TMT
RD (The Sandman)
news:e3a1390b-3f51-4c92...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
Yes, it is, but possessing some marijuana is not comparable to someone
who committed a violent felony like blowing away some unfortunate family.
Harold Burton
"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote:
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
> > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
> >
> >> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Federal-
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their (sic) guns without fear of
> police intervertion.
GAWD, lefturds are stupid.
Snicker.
� Reality Check� �
LOL!
You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in Peoria, do
you numbnuts?
Scout
I don't but then I'm not a cop who works in Peoria, but I bet the ones who
do know most of the felons who live there.
>>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names and
>>>>> photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>>
>>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but somehow
>>>> I suspect
>>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating the
>>>> rights of everyone else.
>>>
>>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>>> unmolested from the police.
>>
>> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it
>> seems that you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was totally
>> correct with my assessment.
And still we see that you would rather violate the rights of innocent
people.
� Reality Check� �
Now you're lying too.
How many convicted felons live in Dallas?
And where do they live?
And how would any given cop in Dallas know which
gun-carrying felon from Houston was sitting in the movie
theater IF HE CAN'T EVEN DETAIN THEM to run their ID ??
You gun-loons really are dumber than a bucket of dirt.
� Reality Check� �
And how, exactly, would they know who was and who wasn't a felon
if they can't even stop them to run their ID ?
� Reality Check� �
All veterans of WW2 were decorated, numbnuts.
� Reality Check� �
Your god must really HATE millions of less fortunate souls, eh numbnuts?
� Reality Check� �
Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you have help?
� Reality Check� �
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-FC18...@news.newsguy.com...
>
>
> GAWD, lefturds are stupid.
Another pig-ignorant gun loon who can't spell better than a 5th grader.
� Reality Check� �
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee666b46-1c94-4427...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 9:27 am, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed...
How is an exposed firearm any different than a cell phone in a
theater?
======================
If you have to ask, you're too stupid to be trusted with a firearm, asswipe.
TMT
Scout
Says the person who needs his mother to show ID before he can know who she
is.
Scout
Well shit, I don't suppose you would recognize your own mother unless she
showed you an ID. See most people have this ability called "facial
recognition" where they can identify someone by their features and
appearance and thus determine who they are without an ID, but clearly you
lack that ability and feel everyone else is as flawed as you.
>>>>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names
>>>>>>> and photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but
>>>>>> somehow I suspect
>>>>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>>>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating
>>>>>> the rights of everyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>>>>> unmolested from the police.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it
>>>> seems that you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was
>>>> totally correct with my assessment.
>>
>> And still we see that you would rather violate the rights of innocent
>> people.
Yep, poor RC, willing to walk all over the rights of millions of innocent
people.
� Reality Check� �
>>>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the
>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon
>>> by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>
> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA even
if it was a crime of "violence"?
>
>>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office.
>>
>> Except President.
>
> Or Mayor of DC.
Those crazy feds ...
>
>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>
>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
>>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.
So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction"
toward
the same act(s) in the future?
Do tell.
> Should they be kept in
> forever? No, but should they get their RKBA back? NO.
>
>> Are you vindictive?
>
> Yep....are you an idiot?
You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.
ROTFLMAO !!
>
>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>> has been served?
>>
>> Why do you hate America?
>
> Don't.
Do too.
> That happens here and some of it shouldn't. End the War on
> Drugs.
You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.
� Reality Check� �
>>>>>
>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>
>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
> hands
>>>> of felons.
>>>
>>> Actually, us folks who are pro gun are probably a lot more serious
> about
>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>
>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>
>>
>>
>
> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of the
> hands of the criminals. Let me know how its working out.
You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms without
fear of police being able to detain and question them.
Brilliant!
Daniel
@comcast.net> wrote:
The law says otherwise.
RD (The Sandman)
Nope......that was your take due to your lack of understanding of police
work.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
>>> "Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the
>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>
>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>
>> If his felony was non-violent, why should he lose his RKBA?
>
> If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA
> even if it was a crime of "violence"?
Let me give you a word to look up in a dictionary. Propensity. P-r-o-p-
e-n-s-i-t-y. Use your finger to underline the letters and move your lips
if you need to.
>>>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office.
>>>
>>> Except President.
>>
>> Or Mayor of DC.
>
> Those crazy feds ...
Mayor of DC is not a fed.
>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as
>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> THey have shown a prediliction toward violence.
>
> So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction"
> toward
> the same act(s) in the future?
Who said it was a singular incident? See why you have trouble
understanding what people post? You have a tendency to add or subtract
your own words to what was really said.
> Do tell.
>
>> Should they be kept in
>> forever? No, but should they get their RKBA back? NO.
>>
>>> Are you vindictive?
>>
>> Yep....are you an idiot?
>
> You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
> the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.
See what I mean? That is a statement that was never made. You added
your own words to it and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
> ROTFLMAO !!
Mirror....mirror....
>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>>> has been served?
>>>
>>> Why do you hate America?
>>
>> Don't.
>
> Do too.
>
>> That happens here and some of it shouldn't. End the War on
>> Drugs.
>
> You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.
Show up at my house and threaten me or my family and we shall see how you
well you can walk with an AK shoved up your ass. Put up or shut
up......wasn't that your words of the day? ;)
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
You just keep showing post after post that you don't think things
through very far before you send another inane message to a newsgroup.
It's a shame, really.
RD (The Sandman)
Not in the general term of being a decorated veteran.
Bama Brian
>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without
>>>>>>> fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands
>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the felon
>>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants
>>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him
>>>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>>>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
>>>> never be let out of jail.
>>>
>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>
>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has
>>>> been served?
>> Anarcho-tyranny.
>
> Has become ...
>
> So if you hate it so much, why do you stay?
>
> Waiting for your personal engraved invitation to the Revolution to arrive ?
I thought about moving to Italy; that bastion of freedom and democracy,
and the economic powerhouse of Europe. But my poor command of Italian
leaves me with only a few words of Italian which I can pronounce: Il
Duce, Fascisti, Roma Imperale, il Papa, and, lately, Berlusconi.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Bama Brian
Why should the cops stop someone who is behaving legally?
Think the cops should treat everyone as they do those who are "driving
while black"?
<snip>
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9C9262626...@216.196.97.130:
He is either tied with Lee for stupid or the least well informed provacatuer
that I've seen.
It is impossible for me to take this vermin seriously, much less so in that
he has an Italian email address. He's either an expatriate American who we
should be glad to be rid of or another fathead Euroturd screeching
incoherently at his betters.
Your thoughts?
Gray Ghost
I think he got a ribbon for being the best potatoe peeler in Louisiana.
Gray Ghost
@mid.individual.net:
> And how would any given cop in Dallas know which
> gun-carrying felon from Houston was sitting in the movie
> theater IF HE CAN'T EVEN DETAIN THEM to run their ID ??
>
> You gun-loons really are dumber than a bucket of dirt.
>
>
>
If the guy was just sitting there minding his own business and it is legal to
do so, exactly why would the police need to ask him or ID?
Or maybe you think the police need the same powers as the Gestapo had?
Your father would be so dissapointed that you are a supporter of the same
type of regime that he fought against.
Well, peeled potatoes in Louisiana against anyway.
Or are you tha bastard child of an American GI left behind in Italy and
bitter about not getting his PX card?
Bama Brian
> On Sep 24, 12:32 pm, Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>
>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear
>>>>> of police intervertion.
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT criminals
>>>> and felons as if they were?
>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the hands of
>>> felons.
>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the felon
>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society wants
>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying him
>> all of his civil rights forever.
>>
>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office. No military career.
>> Just to name a few.
>>
>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be trusted
>> with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as these should
>> never be let out of jail.
>>
>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence has
>> been served?
>>
>
> you libtards to understand?
Perpetual punishment, Daniel? What justifies that?
RD (The Sandman)
news:d24ba4fa-f841-4edb...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 25, 6:20�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:e3a1390b-3f51-4c92-b6d6-bc6d
> 4da4...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
No claim it didn't as far as RKBA is concerned. However, if you feel
that possession of marijuana is a comparable felony to blowing away a
family, you need some serious mental adjustment. For the record, I
currently assume you understand the difference. Let me know if I am
wrong.
tankfixer
5b6a14...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
>
> On Sep 22, 12:13 am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 6:48 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > @comcast.net> wrote:
> > > "? Reality Check© ?" <real...@check.it> wrote innews:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net:
> > > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed
> >
> > > Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws. For a
> > > felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp at
> > > Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba.
> >
> >
> > Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
> > firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
> > openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
> > carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
> > cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
> > the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. Everybody's
> > carrying guns. They all look pretty much alike.
> >
> > So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town carried
> > guns openly? How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if the
> > whole town is a ready-made combat zone? Would you take you
> > granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you see
> > - and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
> >
> > You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
> > defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? And when
> > everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
> > high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
> >
> > I think carrying guns openly is the only acceptable way to carry them,
> > but when the number of gun carriers gets high enough so that guns take
> > the place of verbal arguments and fist fights, it's insane.
> >
> > --
> >
> > NRACLAPTRAP- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am all for open carry...it allow law enforcement to take names and
> note what guns are in circulation.
Really, and how will they "take names" ?
> Good info to have for later.
Spoken like the facist you are.
Scout
Strawman.
I have to say, did you get a really good deal on straw? You certainly have
been using enough of it.
Gray Ghost
$944...@newsfe09.iad:
The deal he got was on manure.
nraclaptrap
news:e744dc10-a962-4149...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 22, 12:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 6:48�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote innews:7hkm3rF2u55t
> 0...@mid.individual.net:
>> > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9
>> > >>>-Fe
> d
>> > >>> eral-
>> > >>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>
>> > >>> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly
>> > >>> carrying guns
>>
>> > >>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D.
>> > >>> Black o
> f
>> > >>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary
>> > >>> judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM
>> > >>> police officers. �The Judge's straight shootin' message to
>> > >>> police: �Le
>> > >>> was afoot." �Ju
> dge
>> > >>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>> > >>> federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court
>> > >>> in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he
>> > >>> has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington
>> > >>> Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed
>> > >>> by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates
>> > >>> the Fourth Amendment).
>>
>> > >>> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>> > >>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of
>> > >>> the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of
>> > >>> damages
> ,
>> > >>> and possibly punitive damages. �Garcia said that
>>
>> > >>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues
>> > >>> presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution
>> > >>> prohibits the government from detaining and searching
>> > >>> individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a
>> > >>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
>>
>> > >>> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested
>> > >>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing
>> > >>> government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability
>> > >>> for violating the law where the law was not "clearly
>> > >>> established." �I
>> > > So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>> > > without fear of police intervertion.
>>
>> > Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun laws.
>> > �Fo
> r a
>> > felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it is a ten year romp
>> > at Stony Lonesome bunking with Bubba. �
>>
>> > Excellent!
>>
>> Okay, but if lots and lots of men and women are openly carrying
>> firearms - and I assume long guns are also allowed to be carried
>> openly - and the police aren't allowed to stop just anybody who's
>> carrying a gun openly to see if they're criminals - and even if the
>> cops were actually required to stop and do random background checks -
>> the criminals will be nearly impossible to catch. �Everybody's
>> carrying guns. �They all look pretty much alike.
>>
>> So how would you like it Sandshitter if everybody in your town
>> carried guns openly? �How can you spot a threat or defend yourself if
>> the whole town is a ready-made combat zone? �Would you take you
>> granddaughter for a walk to the ice cream shop if every person you
>> see - and the ones you can't see - carry loaded guns?
>>
>> You're aware that your carrying a gun openly only works for self-
>> defense when there are very few gunloons in your proximity? �And when
>> everybody's carrying the likelihood of gunfire for whatever reason is
>> high, compared to only you and your gunbuddies having the guns?
>>
>> I think carrying guns openly is the only acceptable way to carry
>> them, but when the number of gun carriers gets high enough so that
>> guns take the place of verbal arguments and fist fights, it's insane.
>
> I am all for open carry...it allow law enforcement to take names and
> note what guns are in circulation.
>
> Good info to have for later.
I support open carry too, but not in sensitive places like schools,
political rallies, and government buildings, among others.
IOW, there ought to be a big sign specifically permitting guns in
specific places, not signs disallowing guns.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:MPG.25281b0...@news.bytemine.net:
> In article <e744dc10-a962-4149-be66-
> 5b6a14...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
> says...
>>
>> On Sep 22, 12:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sep 19, 6:48�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > "? Reality Check� ?" <real...@check.it> wrote
>> > > innews:7hkm3rF2u55t0U
> 1...@mid.individual.net:
>> > > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9
>> > > >>>d9-
> Fed
>> > > >>> eral-
>> > > >>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-gu
>> > > >>> ns
>> >
>> I am all for open carry...it allow law enforcement to take names and
>> note what guns are in circulation.
>
> Really, and how will they "take names" ?
When you get your background check, they'll register you and your gun.
>> Good info to have for later.
>
> Spoken like the facist you are.
If we didn't have violent NRA-induced gunloons running around we probably
wouldn't need strict regulations on gun ownership and use. But you boys
are running around trying to shut down constitutionally protected speech
- even trying to intimidate the President - so we'll all have to live
with very strict gun control laws...
Thanks to YOU.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
jaf
"nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9C948B65BCB4Ep...@216.196.97.131...
Hey twit,
Chicago has the most gun laws in the country.
Chicago has the highest crime & murder rate.
Congress shall make no law...freedom of speech...
Congress not me. Not your state.
Your right of free speech is hereby rescinded.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
John
RD (The Sandman)
news:1_udnSlU5YfxulzX...@giganews.com:
>
> "nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C948B65BCB4Ep...@216.196.97.131...
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.25281b0...@news.bytemine.net:
>>
>>> In article <e744dc10-a962-4149-be66-
>>> 5b6a14...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 22, 12:13 am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Sep 19, 6:48 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> > > "? Reality Check� ?" <real...@check.it> wrote
>>>> > > innews:7hkm3rF2u55t0U
>>> 1...@mid.individual.net:
>>>> > > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009
>>>> > > >>>m9 d9-
>>> Fed
>>>> > > >>> eral-
>>>> > > >>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-
>>>> > > >>> gu ns
Kind of a chicken and egg thingy, eh? Which came first the gun laws or
the high crime? Which is the result of the other the gun laws or the
high crime?
nraclaptrap
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
Are you sure it says a well-regulated militia is necessary? Then how is it
that individuals suddenly [after more than 200 years] get an individual right
to have guns unconnected to militia service?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
jaf
"nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9C94B14D9456Cp...@216.196.97.131...
We the people are the militia, you stupid ignorant fucking twit.
John
tankfixer
nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
Only in your facist dreams...
>
> >> Good info to have for later.
> >
> > Spoken like the facist you are.
>
> If we didn't have violent NRA-induced gunloons running around we probably
> wouldn't need strict regulations on gun ownership and use. But you boys
> are running around trying to shut down constitutionally protected speech
> - even trying to intimidate the President - so we'll all have to live
> with very strict gun control laws...
You have no right to free speech.
nraclaptrap
news:MPG.252b09d...@news.bytemine.net:
> In article <Xns9C948B65BCB4Ep...@216.196.97.131>,
> nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
>>
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.25281b0...@news.bytemine.net:
>>
>> > In article <e744dc10-a962-4149-be66-
>> > 5b6a14...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > too_man...@yahoo.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 22, 12:13�am, The Lone Weasel <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 19, 6:48�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > "? Reality Check� ?" <real...@check.it> wrote
>> >> > > innews:7hkm3rF2u55t0U
>> > 1...@mid.individual.net:
>> >> > > >>>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey200
>> >> > > >>>9m9 d9-
>> > Fed
>> >> > > >>> eral-
>> >> > > >>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying
>> >> > > >>> -gu ns
Your old lady panties stick out of your waistband and have been for
several years now, SmallPaul.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:HKCdneVjaNRk-VzX...@giganews.com:
>
> "nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C94B14D9456Cp...@216.196.97.131...
>> "jaf" <m...@here.com> wrote in
>> news:1_udnSlU5YfxulzX...@giganews.com:
>>
>>
>>> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>>> State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
>>> infringed.
>>
>> Are you sure it says a well-regulated militia is necessary? Then how
>> is it that individuals suddenly [after more than 200 years] get an
>> individual right to have guns unconnected to militia service?
>
> We the people are the militia, you stupid ignorant fucking twit.
Is your disabled grandmother the militia, punk?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
� Reality Check� �
>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:rwevm.201356$cf6...@newsfe16.iad...
>>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Gyavm.11$B4...@newsfe13.iad...
>>>>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:dqRum.71540$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8F6DDAC...@216.196.97.130...>>>>>>>>> news:7htm1lF2upiprU1 @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9C8BAAE9B...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C8B770D07964We...@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in news:4AB4EA4F...@sbcglobal.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed eral-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D. Black
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the United States District Court for New Mexico entered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary judgment in a civil case for damages against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shootin' message to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other states. Learn more here. In response to a call from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theater manager Robert Zigmond, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searched him, obtained personally identifiable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-enter the theater after St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violating any law. Importantly, no theater employee ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordered Mr. St. John to
>>>>>>>>> leave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not to enforce any rule of law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime was afoot."
>>>>>>>>> Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. St. John's attorney,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching individuals solely for exercising their rights
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to possess a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutions." Notably, Judge Black denied the police
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officers' requested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing government officials acting in good faith to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid liability for violating the law where the law was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concluded that "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precedent, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without a specific,
>>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> judgment is denied with regard to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with regard to qualified immunity."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> growing number of open carriers across the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years open carriers detained without cause by police have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Louisiana, Virginia (see additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you continue to show your little knowledge of gun
>>>>>>>>>>> laws. For a felon to be caught in possession of a firearm it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if the police can't detain and question the gun carrying
>>>>>>>>>> nut to determine
>>>>>>>>>> if he's a felon, then those felons have nothing to fear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What on earth makes you think that they cannot stop and
>>>>>>>>> question a known felon?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would they know his record if they don't stop and question
>>>>>>>> him first?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because most cops know the felons who live in their area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying again, asswipe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, they do, it's part of their job.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> You really have no fucking idea how many convicted felons live in
>>>> Peoria, do you numbnuts?
>>>
>>> I don't but then I'm not a cop who works in Peoria, but I bet the
>>> ones who do know most of the felons who live there.
>>
>> And how, exactly, would they know who was and who wasn't a felon
>> if they can't even stop them to run their ID ?
>
>
> showed you an ID.
So your mother is a convicted felon, eh numbnuts?
> See most people have this ability called "facial
> recognition" where they can identify someone by their features and
> appearance and thus determine who they are without an ID, but clearly you
> lack that ability and feel everyone else is as flawed as you.
So tell us how many convicted felons live in Dallas TX ?
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> Are you pig-ignorant enough to assert that cops have the names
>>>>>>>> and photos of MILLIONS of convicted felons memorized?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, we could tatto a big red 'F' on their foreheads, but
>>>>>>> somehow I suspect
>>>>>>> people like you would find that objectionable and a violation of
>>>>>>> their rights......though you seem to have no problems violating
>>>>>>> the rights of everyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have no problem allowing felons to carry firearms
>>>>>> unmolested from the police.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strawman. I've already stated how we could address that, and it
>>>>> seems that you have rejected that solution. Looks like I was
>>>>> totally correct with my assessment.
>>>
>>> And still we see that you would rather violate the rights of innocent
>>> people.
>
> Yep, poor RC, willing to walk all over the rights of millions of innocent
> people.
You really are one ignorant piece of shit.
� Reality Check� �
>>>> On Sep 24, 12:32 pm, Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "DockScience" <DockScie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:usadnVFJIs0XfifX...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> without f
>>>> ear
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> crimina
>>>> ls
>>>>>>> and felons as if they were?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>> hands
>>>> of
>>>>>> felons.
>>>>>
>>>> on
>>>>> has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet society
>>>>> want
>>>> s
>>>>> to create a system of eternal punishment for the felon by denying
>>>>> him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office. No military car
>>>> eer.
>>>>> Just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as
>>>>>
>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>>>> has been served?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YES. It IS a FELONY. What the fuck part of that is so fucking hard
>>>> for you libtards to understand?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is, but possessing some marijuana is not comparable to
>>> someone who committed a violent felony like blowing away some
>>> unfortunate family.
>>
>
> Says the person who needs his mother to show ID before he can know who she
> is.
So your mother is a convicted felon?
Or you can't tell which one of the millions of convicted felons in the U$A
is your Daddy?
� Reality Check� �
Non la mancheranno a tutto il, l'idiota.
� Reality Check� �
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C9263664...@216.196.97.130...> news:7i5bj0F...@mid.individual.net:
>>>> "Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>> "DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7hkm3rF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>>>>> hands of felons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Felon: One who was convicted of a felony. This implies that the
>>>>> felon has served his time, and so paid his debt to society. Yet
>>>>> society wants to create a system of eternal punishment for the
>>>>> felon by denying him all of his civil rights forever.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to America ... land of vindictive hypocritical puritans.
>>>
>>
>> If his felony didn't involve a gun, why should he/she lose their RTKBA
>> even if it was a crime of "violence"?
>
> Let me give you a word to look up in a dictionary. Propensity. P-r-o-p-
> e-n-s-i-t-y. Use your finger to underline the letters and move your lips
> if you need to.
>
>>>>> No guns. No votes. No jobs. No public office.
>>>>
>>>> Except President.
>>>
>>
>> Those crazy feds ...
>
> Mayor of DC is not a fed.
>
>>>>> No military career. Just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are those who are criminally violent, and who cannot be
>>>>> trusted with a rake handle, let alone a firearm. Such people as
>>>>> these should never be let out of jail.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>
>> So any and every singular incident in your past shows "a prediliction"
>> toward
>> the same act(s) in the future?
>
> Who said it was a singular incident? See why you have trouble
> understanding what people post? You have a tendency to add or subtract
> your own words to what was really said.
>
>> Do tell.
>>
>>> Should they be kept in
>>> forever? No, but should they get their RKBA back? NO.
>>>
>>>> Are you vindictive?
>>>
>>> Yep....are you an idiot?
>>
>> You're the imbecile who thinks the cops have MEMORIZED every FELON in
>> the U$A ... and can identify them on sight walking down the street.
>
> See what I mean? That is a statement that was never made. You added
> your own words to it and then wonder why no one agrees with you.
>
>> ROTFLMAO !!
>
> Mirror....mirror....
>
>>>
>>>>> But an eighteen year-old who was caught with X (insert your state's
>>>>> limit here) grams of marijuana that he was planning to party with?
>>>>> Should we deny him all the rights of the citizen, when his sentence
>>>>> has been served?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you hate America?
>>>
>>
>> Do too.
>>
>>> That happens here and some of it shouldn't. End the War on
>>> Drugs.
>>
>> You've got the guns ... put up or shut up.
>
> Show up at my house and threaten me or my family and we shall see how you
> well you can walk with an AK shoved up your ass. Put up or shut
> up......wasn't that your words of the day? ;)
Post your address you gutless cunt.
� Reality Check� �
What justifies the perpetual ignorance of gun-loons?
� Reality Check� �
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
>>>>>>>> without fear of police intervertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the alternative is to treat the 98% of citizens who are NOT
>>>>>>> criminals and felons as if they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on how serious you are about keeping firearms out of the
>>> hands
>>>>>> of felons.
>>>>>
>>> about
>>>>> it then you trolling twits on the internet.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, nutter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When is the last time you had an idea about how to keep guns out of
>>> the hands of the criminals. Let me know how its working out.
>>
>> You're the one who wants felons to be able to openly carry firearms
>> without fear of police being able to detain and question them.
>
Now you're lying again.