The Nazis In NY Are Now Seizing Our Guns

[Jeff '79]

This is BULLSHIT!!! The people who think that their rights are protected are SADLY mistaken.....:sadangel:

Lawmaker to investigate gun seizure | WIVB.com (http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/erie/lawmaker-to-investigate-gun-seizure)

[PortDawg]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/579493_559992054031372_1151674332_n.jpg

[Burro (He/Haw)]

I hope all of you that read Jeff's link, read's it carefully. :cert:

[RedLS1GTO]

That is beyond pathetic on so many levels. :issues:



ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[C5SilverBullet]

They're taking guns from the mentally ill, isn't that what everyone wanted anyways? Just mistook him for someone with the same name, and they're giving them back.

State Supreme Court Judge William Boller has ordered Lewis' pistol permit reinstated; once Lewis has it back, he can pick up his guns from Amherst Police.

[Jeff '79]

Amherst, Clarence, Orchard Park, and East Aurora are the high end towns in the third & fourth ring around Buffalo. Amherst is chock full of doctors, lawyers, Sabres, and professionals.
The cops went to this guys house, went in, and made him open his gun safe. They proceeded to take EVERYTHING gun related....
It appears that our government is itching to relive another Waco...... Mark my words, if this crap continues to happen, another Waco style incident will occur. I'm not trying to intimate that I would ever do such a thing, as it is as far from my agenda as possible, but someone will, and unfortunately, that person will be made out to be the Whacko...
It's friggin' nuts.... Shaking head.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

They're taking guns from the mentally ill, isn't that what everyone wanted anyways? Just mistook him for someone with the same name, and they're giving them back
Well done. :cert:

[Jeff '79]

They're taking guns from the mentally ill, isn't that what everyone wanted anyways? Just mistook him for someone with the same name, and they're giving them back.

Quote:
State Supreme Court Judge William Boller has ordered Lewis' pistol permit reinstated; once Lewis has it back, he can pick up his guns from Amherst Police.

Oops ! Sorry ! Our bad....

Kinda like the war in Iraq.... Oops, our bad, We'll do anything that we want. Just try and stop us.

[Bill]

They're taking guns from the mentally ill, isn't that what everyone wanted anyways? Just mistook him for someone with the same name, and they're giving them back.

Here's the troubling part. In America, we have this crazy (pun intended) idea that folks are innocent until proved guilty.

What's supposed to happen, according to the NY SAFE Act, is this: When a mental health professional deems someone a threat to himself or others, she reports that to her supervisor.

The supervisor notifies the county health commissioner, who sends only non-clinical information - such as the person's name, date of birth, and Social Security number - to State Police and the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

They are supposed to check that information against their records. If the person has a gun permit, police get back in touch with the county.

Walter said, "The County Clerk then has no discretion, and must either revoke or suspend the pistol permit for the individual that been notified of. There's no gray area."

So, someone makes an accusation, and, well, that's it...on to the permit revoking and the seizing of the property. No hearing. No chance to defend yourself in court before a jury of your peers. Nothing. The accusation is enough.

Of course, I disagree with a need for a gun permit anyway. It's a convoluted world where a natural, God given and constitutionally named RIGHT to have a gun suddenly is a privilege that requires the state to say it is OK.

[Cybercowboy]

People who make excuses for this behavior make me ill.

Now that I've been made ill, I'm sure there is a bureaucrat in NY who would love to grab my guns.

[Bill]

Well done. :cert:

I'm a dog professional and I say Thomas maltreats his dogs. On to the dog seizing, based on my allegation. It's your job to try and get them back after armed government agents took your dogs based on my word alone. No hearing, no trial, nothing, just, I (a dog professional) said something, and that's it. Seem right to you?

Cheat sheet:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Due process of law just turned into "because one guy said so."

[Fasglas]

Give control to the unfit/unqualified, this is what happens. Simple as that.

From the post article comments section:

"State Supreme Court Judge William Boller has ordered Lewis' pistol permit reinstated; once Lewis has it back, he can pick up his guns from Amherst Police."

I'm sorry, but both his permit and his firearms should be hand delivered to him personally on a damn silver platter. He should also get written, verbal, and televised apologies for being mistreated. If this was a race issue, it would happen that way for sure!

Furthermore,

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin

[Cybercowboy]

I hope all of you that read Jeff's link, read's it carefully. :cert:

We did. It's absolutely anti-American what they are doing in NY state. However it does again illustrate the fact that Atlas Shrugged is now found in the non-fiction section.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

I'm a dog professional and I say Thomas maltreats his dogs. On to the dog seizing, based on my allegation. It's your job to try and get them back after armed government agents took your dogs based on my word alone. No hearing, no trial, nothing, just, I (a dog professional) said something, and that's it. Seem right to you?
So your issue isn't with the seized gun per say, it's the process under which it happened in this case.

[Cybercowboy]

So your issue isn't with the seized gun per say, it's the process under which it happened in this case.

The entire thing is inherently unconstitutional. 2nd and 4th amendments, simply ignored and/or shredded.

[Bill]

So your issue isn't with the seized gun per say, it's the process under which it happened in this case.

I was just trying to put the issue in terms that might resonate with you personally. The seizing is particularly egregious because it is guns, but it may as well be anything. Let's say you and I are both at gas station and I cut in front of you to get gas from the pump. This pisses you off. You are a licensed psychologist or counselor. You are mad, so you say, "I'm going to fix his wagon." You call the cops and say I was acting strangely, and that you are concerned that I am mentally unstable. Boom, that's it. My property gets taken.

Say instead of guns, we were talking about cars. In that instance, you, a licensed professional psychologist or counselor, can make a call and have my car seized, based on your word alone.

Of course, this might make for a much more polite society, since no one will know who can and can't have your car seized based on their word alone.

[Bill]

The entire thing is inherently unconstitutional. 2nd and 4th amendments, simply ignored and/or shredded.

5th, too.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

I was just trying to put the issue in terms that might resonate with you personally. The seizing is particularly egregious because it is guns, but it may as well be anything. Let's say you and I are both at gas station and I cut in front of you to get gas from the pump. This pisses you off. You are a licensed psychologist or counselor. You are mad, so you say, "I'm going to fix his wagon." You call the cops and say I was acting strangely, and that you are concerned that I am mentally unstable. Boom, that's it. My property gets taken.

Say instead of guns, we were talking about cars. In that instance, you, a licensed professional psychologist or counselor, can make a call and have my car seized, based on your word alone.

Of course, this might make for a much more polite society, since no one will know who can and can't have your car seized based on their word alone.
I think I understand where you're going here. However, in the end everything was sorted out, the individual IS getting his guns back, and the process will surely get a hard look.

[sanchez]

How little due diligence was performed before the bureaucrats acted to revoke this dudes 2nd ammendment rights?

Due process is gone in this nation. Wait till the drone strikes on Americans insid the us start. I'm sure they'll get all of those right too.

[sanchez]

I think I understand where you're going here. However, in the end everything was sorted out, the individual IS getting his guns back, and the process will surely get a hard look.

I'm sure it will.... We can count on the government to self monitor and regulate.....

[Fastguy]

I think I understand where you're going here. However, in the end everything was sorted out, the individual IS getting his guns back, and the process will surely get a hard look.

The other problem is every time he renews his NY permit or applies in another state, he has to answer "yes" to the question about ever having your license revoked or denied, which opens a huge can of worms.

[sanchez]

The other problem is every time he renews his NY permit or applies in another state, he has to answer "yes" to the question about ever having your license revoked or denied, which opens a huge can of worms.

Because some mouth breathing government stooge couldn't be arsed to do a minimum of research before signing the order to revoke his secon ammendment rights.

I find this kind of shit despicable on a molecular level.

[OddBall]

The entire thing is inherently unconstitutional. 2nd and 4th amendments, simply ignored and/or shredded.

5th, too.

and 14th

[OddBall]

Amherst, Clarence, Orchard Park, and East Aurora are the high end towns in the third & fourth ring around Buffalo. Amherst is chock full of doctors, lawyers, Sabres, and professionals.
The cops went to this guys house, went in, and made him open his gun safe. They proceeded to take EVERYTHING gun related....
It appears that our government is itching to relive another Waco...... Mark my words, if this crap continues to happen, another Waco style incident will occur. I'm not trying to intimate that I would ever do such a thing, as it is as far from my agenda as possible, but someone will, and unfortunately, that person will be made out to be the Whacko...
It's friggin' nuts.... Shaking head.

:iagree: yep

[RedLS1GTO]

I think I understand where you're going here. However, in the end everything was sorted out, the individual IS getting his guns back, and the process will surely get a hard look.

What would you say if the police came to YOUR house, took YOUR possessions, took YOUR rights...

Of course I'm sure you would think everything was just fine if they said "Oops... go pick your stuff up at the courthouse."



Why was the "correct" man deemed "too mentally ill to own them?" Who made that call? Do you really think it is ok for an individual... not a judge... not a jury of one's peers... not even remotely close to the protection you are given by the Constitution... but a psychologist/psychiatrist to be able to determine YOUR rights??

Would you be ok if a psychologist had the power to say you weren't fit to drive and make it so without any chance of you being able to argue? Would you be ok if a psychologist who didn't like dogs said that based on his observations, you can't be trusted to own them?

Of course this pertains to the right to bear arms so in your opinion... meh... no biggie. "It was sorted out"

[Burro (He/Haw)]

What would you say if the police came to YOUR house, took YOUR possessions, took YOUR rights...

Of course I'm sure you would think everything was just fine if they said "Oops... go pick your stuff up at the courthouse."



Why was the "correct" man deemed "too mentally ill to own them?" Who made that call? Do you really think it is ok for an individual... not a judge... not a jury of one's peers... not even remotely close to the protection you are given by the Constitution... but a psychologist/psychiatrist to be able to determine YOUR rights??

Would you be ok if a psychologist had the power to say you weren't fit to drive and make it so without any chance of you being able to argue? Would you be ok if a psychologist who didn't like dogs said that based on his observations, you can't be trusted to own them?

Of course this pertains to the right to bear arms so in your opinion... meh... no biggie. "It was sorted out"

Go away. Jesus Christ GTFO. We are having a reasonable discussion here. What a punk.

[RedLS1GTO]

Go away. Jesus Christ GTFO. We are having a reasonable discussion here. What a punk.

Punk?? :rofl:

I don't know what the f**k your problem is with me and honestly I don't care, but it is pathetic.



By all means, feel free to point out what I said that was not rational or not reasonable.


I didn't attack you personally in the least. I asked you very reasonably how you would react if it was an issue that you actually cared about or that had an effect on you. You come back calling me names? Really? :rolleyes:

Consider this a warning for name calling and personal attacks. There was absolutely none of that in this thread and there will not be going forward. Simple enough?

[FasterTraffic]

I'm a dog professional and I say Thomas maltreats his dogs. On to the dog seizing, based on my allegation. It's your job to try and get them back after armed government agents took your dogs based on my word alone. No hearing, no trial, nothing, just, I (a dog professional) said something, and that's it. Seem right to you?

Cheat sheet:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Due process of law just turned into "because one guy said so."

Also, in cases like this, what are the consequences for the people involved? Probably none. There is little incentive to care about making the right decision when you're looking down at the people from the parapets of big government and the answer is, "Oops, our bad. You can come get your stuff."

[69camfrk]

All of this has been building for a long time. I just wonder when and where the breaking point will be. I am totally surprised that the wheels haven't fallen off the cart already. :sadangel:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

The guy got his guns back, and the hopefully the process will either be revised, or followed more closely in the future.

It's NOT the end of the world fella's.

As for this?
It appears that our government is itching to relive another Waco...... Mark my words, if this crap continues to happen, another Waco style incident will occur
Koresh was the leader of a what was basically a cult. He's hardly someone I'd choose to put up as a reminder of what COULD happen. It was going to end badly for this guy regardless.

Peace out.

[Cybercowboy]

Also, in cases like this, what are the consequences for the people involved? Probably none. There is little incentive to care about making the right decision when you're looking down at the people from the parapets of big government and the answer is, "Oops, our bad. You can come get your stuff."

Like the no-knock raids that SWAT teams pull off on the wrong house. They break the door down and sometimes the innocent home owner shoots back because as far as they know, a bunch of guys are breaking into their house in the middle of the night. There is never any accountability.

[69camfrk]

I'm sure it will.... We can count on the government to self monitor and regulate.....

Whatever makes you sleep better at night!!!:D

[6spdC6]

What would you say if the police came to YOUR house, took YOUR possessions, took YOUR rights...

Of course I'm sure you would think everything was just fine if they said "Oops... go pick your stuff up at the courthouse."



Why was the "correct" man deemed "too mentally ill to own them?" Who made that call? Do you really think it is ok for an individual... not a judge... not a jury of one's peers... not even remotely close to the protection you are given by the Constitution... but a psychologist/psychiatrist to be able to determine YOUR rights??

Would you be ok if a psychologist had the power to say you weren't fit to drive and make it so without any chance of you being able to argue? Would you be ok if a psychologist who didn't like dogs said that based on his observations, you can't be trusted to own them?

Of course this pertains to the right to bear arms so in your opinion... meh... no biggie. "It was sorted out"

Unless thing have changed that I’m not aware of the cops/ metal health people CANNOT revoke a permit. It takes a JUDGE to do that. Yes the cops can ask it be done, but there has to be a Judge (County or higher)involved to make it legal. To me not all has been said about this or it was totally illegal to begin with, and is now going to get real interesting

[Bill]

The guy got his guns back, and the hopefully the process will either be revised, or followed more closely in the future.

It's NOT the end of the world fella's.

As for this?

Koresh was the leader of a what was basically a cult. He's hardly someone I'd choose to put up as a reminder of what COULD happen. It was going to end badly for this guy regardless.

Peace out.

You should do some more research on what happened at Waco. I did. I also lived in Waco for a few years, and have since done work there on occasion. I know the people of the Waco area.

The whole premise of that operation was that Koresh and his followers had illegally converted semi-auto rifles to full auto. Guess what? If there had been one illegally converted gun found, we would have heard about it. The other thing we heard was, well, Koresh was abusing kids. If that was the case, why wasn't the local Child Protective Service office aware of that? Look what Texas did to the FLDS folks in Eldorado. They rounded up the kids. The operation was to round up the kids, based on an anonymous, fake tipster.

Instead, what happened was the ATF stormtroopers rolled up in a cattle trailer, exited, and opened fire, supported by fire teams in helicopters shooting down on the compound. The bullet holes in the roof were "innies", not "outies."

But getting back to the people of Waco. They are a conservative lot, especially in the more rural areas, which is where the Davidians' lived. Their neighbors were farmers and ranchers, real salt of the earth types, real conservative. Yet, when questioned, none of those neighbors had any problem with the Davidians, or with Koresh himself. They interviewed lots of the neighbors on TV and not one of them had anything bad to say about the Davidians, other than maybe communal living was a little weird.

So when you say, "it was going to end badly", I disagree. Had the govt. not sent their shock troops to storm that religious group's home, my bet is they would still be there today, worshiping God in their own way, and STILL not hurting anyone. I base that on the fact that they hadn't hurt anyone before the assault. The only exception might be if burglars had chosen to rob the place. Probably would have ended badly for the burglars. But then, this is Texas. Things ending badly for burglars is celebrated here.

[RedLS1GTO]

Unless thing have changed that I’m not aware of the cops/ metal health people CANNOT revoke a permit. It takes a JUDGE to do that. Yes the cops can ask it be done, but there has to be a Judge (County or higher)involved to make it legal. To me not all has been said about this or it was totally illegal to begin with, and is now going to get real interesting

You are right... as far as I have been able to research, it takes the judge to sign off.

The problem with that is simple... show me a single judge that will go AGAINST what the psychiatrist says. I guarantee that none of them will. None. There is no way that they would open themselves up to the possibility of being the judge that went against the psychiatrist if by some chance, an individual actually did do something.

Long story short, what the psychologist says, goes, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.

[sanchez]

Unless thing have changed that I’m not aware of the cops/ metal health people CANNOT revoke a permit. It takes a JUDGE to do that. Yes the cops can ask it be done, but there has to be a Judge (County or higher)involved to make it legal. To me not all has been said about this or it was totally illegal to begin with, and is now going to get real interesting

If a judge signe off on this order then he should be removed from the bench. This shows gross negligence on his part. He should be sued for malpractice and punished.

[Bill]

Unless thing have changed that I’m not aware of the cops/ metal health people CANNOT revoke a permit. It takes a JUDGE to do that. Yes the cops can ask it be done, but there has to be a Judge (County or higher)involved to make it legal. To me not all has been said about this or it was totally illegal to begin with, and is now going to get real interesting

According to the article, a judge is not involved. The psychologist or counselor makes the report, the supervisor turns it over to the police, if the police discover a gun permit, they call the county clerk, the clerk does the revocation all by himself. No judge, jury, or even hearing or court case necessary. Of course, news reports are sometimes wrong or incomplete.

[RedLS1GTO]

According to the article, a judge is not involved. The psychologist or counselor makes the report, the supervisor turns it over to the police, if the police discover a gun permit, they call the county clerk, the clerk does the revocation all by himself. No judge, jury, or even hearing or court case necessary. Of course, news reports are sometimes wrong or incomplete.

If that is the case... it is even worse than I originally thought.

Stripping someone of a Constitutional right without anything even close to due process. Yea... seems reasonable. :rolleyes:

[Kerrmudgeon]

If you actually read the article, you will see that it's about the mentally ill having weapons. While they may have made a mistake in this case, the principle is pretty good. It's the same for a drivers license. You don't want mentally ill people behind the wheel out on the streets do you? Any doctor can report a patient if in their mind he's a danger to society driving or owning a fire arm. So the title is misleading on this thread unless you are all mentally ill!:crazy:

[Fasglas]

If that is the case... it is even worse than I originally thought.

Stripping someone of a Constitutional right without anything even close to due process. Yea... seems reasonable. :rolleyes:

:iagree: As I posted earlier:

Give control to the unfit/unqualified, this is what happens. Simple as that.

[Bill]

If you actually read the article, you will see that it's about the mentally ill having weapons. While they may have made a mistake in this case, the principle is pretty good. It's the same for a drivers license. You don't want mentally ill people behind the wheel out on the streets do you? Any doctor can report a patient if in their mind he's a danger to society driving or owning a fire arm. So the title is misleading on this thread unless you are all mentally ill!:crazy:

No one had a problem with a doctor making a report. Our problem is when the accused doesn't have a chance to defend himself in court, to refute the allegations in front of a jury of his peers. We are kinda funny about honoring that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing."

The first chance this guy had to defend his rights was when armed officers came to his door to demand he surrender his weapons. His choices were either hand them over, or, no doubt, get murdered. I doubt the police would have taken his word that the whole thing was a big mistake. You think they would have gone away empty handed? They were either going to get the guns, or bring out a body bag.

[vetteman9368]

The guy got his guns back, and the hopefully the process will either be revised, or followed more closely in the future.

It's NOT the end of the world fella's.

As for this?

Koresh was the leader of a what was basically a cult. He's hardly someone I'd choose to put up as a reminder of what COULD happen. It was going to end badly for this guy regardless.

Peace out.

Would using Ruby Ridge be a better parallel for you?

[sanchez]

If you actually read the article, you will see that it's about the mentally ill having weapons. While they may have made a mistake in this case, the principle is pretty good. It's the same for a drivers license. You don't want mentally ill people behind the wheel out on the streets do you? Any doctor can report a patient if in their mind he's a danger to society driving or owning a fire arm. So the title is misleading on this thread unless you are all mentally ill!:crazy:

We don't want government bueracrats stripping out constitutionally protected rights on a whim.

That's what's causing the fervor.

No due diligence was performed before the order was given. None. There will be no meaningful repercussions for the incompetence.

The greater authority and power one has the harsher the punishment or transgressions should be.

The people acting on behalf of the government acted with extreme and willful negligence. Full point. They should be facing jail time.

[6spdC6]

According to the article, a judge is not involved. The psychologist or counselor makes the report, the supervisor turns it over to the police, if the police discover a gun permit, they call the county clerk, the clerk does the revocation all by himself. No judge, jury, or even hearing or court case necessary. Of course, news reports are sometimes wrong or incomplete.

It takes a judge to sign to get a permit just to own/carry and a judge has to sign an amendment form to purchase ANY additional pistol purchase. (You cannot leave the gun store with the pistol till you give them the signed amendment paper for your purchase which could be weeks) It also takes a Judge to revoke, something smells here!

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Would using Ruby Ridge be a better parallel for you?

Much.

[vetteman9368]

Much.

Fair enough, I think it's a much better parallel

[Cybercowboy]

If you actually read the article, you will see that it's about the mentally ill having weapons. While they may have made a mistake in this case, the principle is pretty good. It's the same for a drivers license. You don't want mentally ill people behind the wheel out on the streets do you? Any doctor can report a patient if in their mind he's a danger to society driving or owning a fire arm. So the title is misleading on this thread unless you are all mentally ill!:crazy:

In America we are citizens, not subjects.

[FasterTraffic]

Also, in cases like this, what are the consequences for the people involved? Probably none. There is little incentive to care about making the right decision when you're looking down at the people from the parapets of big government and the answer is, "Oops, our bad. You can come get your stuff."

We don't want government bueracrats stripping out constitutionally protected rights on a whim.

That's what's causing the fervor.

No due diligence was performed before the order was given. None. There will be no meaningful repercussions for the incompetence.

The greater authority and power one has the harsher the punishment or transgressions should be.

The people acting on behalf of the government acted with extreme and willful negligence. Full point. They should be facing jail time.

:iagree:

Exactly my point. The weapons of government bureaucracy are rules and regulations enforced by the threat of sanctions, fines, or arrest. They are some of the worst abusers of power and generally the least accountable to their actions. They can ruin your life and walk away, and the burden is on you to prove your innocence.

[kingpin]

In America we are citizens, not subjects.

:spdchk:

[island14]

:spdchk:

Serious business, don't roll your eyes damit...

If Knooger was going up in your queens arse with his favorite horse would you be ok with this?

[Kerrmudgeon]

No one had a problem with a doctor making a report. Our problem is when the accused doesn't have a chance to defend himself in court, to refute the allegations in front of a jury of his peers. We are kinda funny about honoring that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing."

The first chance this guy had to defend his rights was when armed officers came to his door to demand he surrender his weapons. His choices were either hand them over, or, no doubt, get murdered. I doubt the police would have taken his word that the whole thing was a big mistake. You think they would have gone away empty handed? They were either going to get the guns, or bring out a body bag.

That's nutz! So you're willing to put the pubic safety at risk until these people, who are diagnosed by professional mental health experts, have they're day in court, which could take months or years! Wrong, take the guns and cars away now, and give them back when they are exonerated.
Don't they impound the cars of drunk drivers down there? What's the difference? :bigears:

[Torqaholic]

When I worked for the government that's what was called that "good enough for government work".

What it boils down to is WTF should they care about him? Either his life is ruined or the taxpayers will pay for their mistake but either way it's no skin off their ass as they happily skip to the postbox to pick up their next paycheck.

[Torqaholic]

No one had a problem with a doctor making a report. ...

I do because I know how they operate. First time the insurance company misses a payment to them you will be held accountable for the money. They'll F you over anyway they can to get money that is owed them by the insurance company. If they think putting you on one of these lists will blackmail you into paying them that is what they will do.

[kylebuck]

That's nutz! So you're willing to put the pubic safety at risk until these people, who are diagnosed by professional mental health experts, have they're day in court, which could take months or years! Wrong, take the guns and cars away now, and give them back when they are exonerated.
Don't they impound the cars of drunk drivers down there? What's the difference? :bigears:

Well a drunk driver broke the law

[Burro (He/Haw)]

The Nazis In NY Are Now Seizing Our Guns
And returning them. :funnier:

[island14]

And returning them. :funnier:

Don't you dare! bring any facts to this! :toetap:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Don't you dare! bring any facts to this! :toetap:

I know, sorry. It doesn't jibe well with the topic of this thread; RAGE!

[OddBall]

That's nutz! So you're willing to put the pubic safety at risk until these people, who are diagnosed by professional mental health experts, have they're day in court, which could take months or years! Wrong, take the guns and cars away now, and give them back when they are exonerated.
Don't they impound the cars of drunk drivers down there? What's the difference? :bigears:

By your logic there, your car should be impounded because someone said you might get drunk.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

By your logic there, your car should be impounded because someone said you might get drunk.

Some people drink and don't drive. Ever. No law against getting shitfaced.

[island14]

Some people drink and don't drive. Ever. No law against getting shitfaced.

Actually there is... :sadangel:

[OddBall]

Some people drink and don't drive. Ever. No law against getting shitfaced.

Yeah but you might. Can't have that. Better we take your car now. That way we can be sure.

[Cybercowboy]

Serious business, don't roll your eyes damit...

If Knooger was going up in your queens arse with his favorite horse would you be ok with this?

Apparently Canada has sufficiently cowed their subjects.

[island14]

Yeah but you might. Can't have that. Better we take your car now. That way we can be sure.

And since they has the tools for possible rape, they might as well take those also just to be safe.. :rofl:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Yeah but you might. Can't have that. Better we take your car now. That way we can be sure.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting there was no shortage of posts on this forum advocating early identification of mentally unstable individuals, and in some cases, getting them off the street ASAP before they snap.

It looks to me like thats what was done here. A mental health professional (Who's credentials we have no reason to question) identified a person he felt was a threat. The authorities acted albeit a bit hastily it appears.

So I'll ask;


What about the mentally unstable individuals rights? Does he have any?
What about the rights of population? The right to feel relatively safe?


Are we willing to forgo our rights in order to make sure some potential kook is off the streets before he unloads a magazine in a mall?

Lets assume for a minute the mental health professional in Jeff's story WAS right, and the coppers didn't act. A week later the subject walked into a mall and shot 50 people. You OK with that outcome to preserve your and his rights? I'm not.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Punk?? :rofl:

I don't know what the f**k your problem is with me and honestly I don't care, but it is pathetic.



By all means, feel free to point out what I said that was not rational or not reasonable.


I didn't attack you personally in the least. I asked you very reasonably how you would react if it was an issue that you actually cared about or that had an effect on you. You come back calling me names? Really? :rolleyes:

Consider this a warning for name calling and personal attacks. There was absolutely none of that in this thread and there will not be going forward. Simple enough?
OK, Red Goat. I owe you an apology. Serious. But I'll admit, you rub me the wrong way at times. It's a rare occurrence when the topic turn's to guns or politics you have anything RATIONAL to say. For the most part, you rant, say "****" a lot and rage. It irritates me a bit, and I overreact.

Again, I apologize for the name calling. I'm too damn old to be acting like a douche, which I did in my post. :cert:

[OddBall]

Following the Sandy Hook shooting there was no shortage of posts on this forum advocating early identification of mentally unstable individuals, and in some cases, getting them off the street ASAP before they snap.

It looks to me like thats what was done here. A mental health professional (Who's credentials we have no reason to question) identified a person he felt was a threat. The authorities acted albeit a bit hastily it appears.

So I'll ask;


What about the mentally unstable individuals rights? Does he have any?
What about the rights of population? The right to feel relatively safe?


Are we willing to forgo our rights in order to make sure some potential kook is off the streets before he unloads a magazine in a mall?

Lets assume for a minute the mental health professional in Jeff's story WAS right, and the coppers didn't act. A week later the subject walked into a mall and shot 50 people. You OK with that outcome to preserve your and his rights? I'm not.

Yes. You're damn right I am.
I'm not about to set aside my constitutional rights on a 'what-if'.
And I'm damn sure not responsible for a nut-job that goes on a rampage.

And the last nut-job, wouldn't have been stopped even if there was a flag on him.

[island14]

And the last nut-job, wouldn't have been stopped even if there was a flag on him.

Great idea actually!

Lets make all nut jobs wear an orange shirt, so they are easy to spot, maybe even a flag or a beanie cap with a propeller on top...

:D

[kingpin]

Apparently Canada has sufficiently cowed their subjects.

Maybe you should worry about the problems more close to home.
Just a thought.
Unless you are taking over Rotors roll.

[Cybercowboy]

Maybe you should worry about the problems more close to home.
Just a thought.
Unless you are taking over Rotors roll.

You have a very limited idea of liberty. We take that shit seriously here.

[Kerrmudgeon]

OK, being caught drunk driving was a poor example. BUT, if a health professional who is qualified by the state to do so, comes to the conclusion that you are not mentally fit to be in control of a car or firearms, then he shouldn't have access to either. :nono:

Do you want your son on the road with a mentally ill driver possibly set on suicide, or your young daughter going to school with a mentally disturbed student or faculty member who owns guns and has access to them??? Or would you rather access was denied until the courts rule on the matter? :toetap:

[RedLS1GTO]

OK, Red Goat. I owe you an apology. Serious. But I'll admit, you rub me the wrong way at times. It's a rare occurrence when the topic turn's to guns or politics you have anything RATIONAL to say. For the most part, you rant, say "****" a lot and rage. It irritates me a bit, and I overreact.

Again, I apologize for the name calling. I'm too damn old to be acting like a douche, which I did in my post. :cert:

No harm, no foul.

I will say undoubtedly that this topic upsets me to the core. ...as does pretty much any topic where people feel like they should be able to take my freedoms for what is in reality nothing more than an idealistic, feel good action.

If any person were to show me a plan that would actually work, that would actually prevent crime, prevent these senseless killings, I would gladly support it. The fact is that absolutely nothing that has been suggested would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and killers. What is being suggested is simply a power grab by politicians. Limiting magazine sizes will not stop mass shootings. Banning rifles that "look" scary, as in they have a pistol grip, etc which is what apparently defines an "assault rifle" will not stop killings. The sick f*ck in Newtown could have killed just as many, just as quickly... and in all honesty... probably inflicted MORE damage with a single handgun.

Sure, someone diagnosed with a serious mental disorder should not be allowed to own a firearm, but that is not what is being done here. They are taking it pretty much to the point that if you have ever seen a psychologist, you are mentaly unstable. If you have ever taken any of a near countless number of prescription drugs, even if you are not currently on them, you can't own guns. They are going WAY too far.

In this case specifically, I would really love to know why the "correct" guy was deemed too dangerous to own firearms.

Do you want your son on the road with a mentally ill driver possibly set on suicide, or your young daughter going to school with a mentally disturbed student or faculty member who owns guns and has access to them??? Or would you rather access was denied until the courts rule on the matter? :toetap:

Guilty until proven innocent... in case you might have noticed, we do things the other way here and we are proud of it. This is very simple, we start WITH rights that can only then be REMOVED through due process of the law... not the other way around.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin, February 1775

[sanchez]

You have a very limited idea of liberty. We take that shit seriously here.

There is also NO mention of the total lack of due process.

The burden of proof is on the STATE not the individual.

[Bill]

OK, being caught drunk driving was a poor example. BUT, if a health professional who is qualified by the state to do so, comes to the conclusion that you are not mentally fit to be in control of a car or firearms, then he shouldn't have access to either. :nono:

Do you want your son on the road with a mentally ill driver possibly set on suicide, or your young daughter going to school with a mentally disturbed student or faculty member who owns guns and has access to them??? Or would you rather access was denied until the courts rule on the matter? :toetap:

OK, If I'm reading this right, now one "mental health professional" makes a pronouncement and not only do I have my guns confiscated, now you are going to confiscate my truck and Corvette? Um, no. I want my due process, which means I want my day in court, to answer the charge against me. I want a jury of my peers to make the determination whether the state can take my property.....and I want everyone else to have the same rights I have.

Freedom.....it can be inconvenient.

[kingpin]

You have a very limited idea of liberty. We take that shit seriously here.

Again, worry about the many problems you have.
We are doing fine up here. :cert:

[xXBUDXx]

They're taking guns from the mentally ill, isn't that what everyone wanted anyways? Just mistook him for someone with the same name, and they're giving them back.

He has to wait to reclaim property that was improperly seized? Fcuk that noise. Give me my weapons. NOW!!

[mrvette]

I was just trying to put the issue in terms that might resonate with you personally. The seizing is particularly egregious because it is guns, but it may as well be anything. Let's say you and I are both at gas station and I cut in front of you to get gas from the pump. This pisses you off. You are a licensed psychologist or counselor. You are mad, so you say, "I'm going to fix his wagon." You call the cops and say I was acting strangely, and that you are concerned that I am mentally unstable. Boom, that's it. My property gets taken.

Say instead of guns, we were talking about cars. In that instance, you, a licensed professional psychologist or counselor, can make a call and have my car seized, based on your word alone.

Of course, this might make for a much more polite society, since no one will know who can and can't have your car seized based on their word alone.

THE most mentally UNstable people I have ever known over the decades, have been psych workers....seriously.....since high school...early college only been 50 years...what ELSE is new.....cost my best friend from HS his LIFE......

lovely cop out profession of no nothings....eff em forever....


:issues::sadangel:

[Kerrmudgeon]

OK, If I'm reading this right, now one "mental health professional" makes a pronouncement and not only do I have my guns confiscated, now you are going to confiscate my truck and Corvette? Um, no. I want my due process, which means I want my day in court, to answer the charge against me. I want a jury of my peers to make the determination whether the state can take my property.....and I want everyone else to have the same rights I have.

Freedom.....it can be inconvenient.

Nobody's taking away your "sacred" rights, only ensuring the public's safety until you have your day in court. :seasix:

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Nobody's taking away your "sacred" rights, only ensuring the public's safety until you have your day in court. :seasix:

So, we'll just 'temporarily' take away the rights of someone that has committed no crime? Without due process? Based on the evaluation of one mental health professional?

[Kerrmudgeon]

So, we'll just 'temporarily' take away the rights of someone that has committed no crime? Without due process? Based on the evaluation of one mental health professional?
:yesnod:...now you're catching on!

If the court systems weren't so backed up this would never have happened. It takes months or even years for a case to be heard. That let's possible criminals like rapists, stalkers, and shooters out in the public for that amount of time. So what's the answer? :confused5:

[sanchez]

:yesnod:...now you're catching on!

If the court systems weren't so backed up this would never have happened. It takes months or even years for a case to be heard. That let's possible criminals like rapists, stalkers, and shooters out in the public for that amount of time. So what's the answer? :confused5:

Dude, I'm glad you live up there and we live down here. No way do I want the STATE to determine on a whim which of my civil rights I can maintain.

The STATE is too flawed and corrupt to be given that much power.

This is why rendition was/is so ****ing scary. The state can snatch you up, lock you away without telling anyone for an indeterminate length of time based on a suspicion that you may be a threat. That shit spooks me a lot.

[Blue 92]

Dude, I'm glad you live up there and we live down here. No way do I want the STATE to determine on a whim which of my civil rights I can maintain.

The STATE is too flawed and corrupt to be given that much power.

That's why this:

Amendment II

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.


exists...

[Burro (He/Haw)]

It takes months or even years for a case to be heard. That let's possible criminals like rapists, stalkers, and shooters out in the public for that amount of time.
So, my understanding is you are all OK with this? You're OK letting person who a mental health professional has deemed to be a risk, keep his guns correct?

[NEED-A-VETTE]

:yesnod:...now you're catching on!

If the court systems weren't so backed up this would never have happened. It takes months or even years for a case to be heard. That let's possible criminals like rapists, stalkers, and shooters out in the public for that amount of time. So what's the answer? :confused5:

Again, apples to oranges. If someone is arrested for a crime, such as rape, it's based on evidence that they've committed that specific crime. Not based on one man or woman's evaluation, with no crime having been committed.

You are trying to compare the criminal arrest/trial process to someone that has committed no crime. Arrest happens based on a preponderance of evidence that a specific crime was committed by a specific individual.

There are also several steps leading up to a trial that determine whether or not bail will be granted before trial. Most that are denied that are done so because of the heinous nature of the crimes for which they were ARRESTED.

I'm not trying to be a b*tch and make it an 'us against them' type argument. But if you can't understand why due process is so important to us here, there is no amount of explaining that I can do to change that.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[vetteman9368]

So, my understanding is you are all OK with this? You're OK letting person who a mental health professional has deemed to be a risk, keep his guns correct?

Yes. Unless there is some sort of evidence to back it up, other than an opinion. If he's enough of a danger to take his guns, he's dangerous enough to b off the streets altogether. However, they'll never meet THAT burden of proof, and that's the problem.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Yes.
Finally. A direct answer.

Unless there is some sort of evidence to back it up, other than an opinion.
A professional opinion don't forget.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Jeff, you remember this? This is your response in this thread (http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/politics-religion-controversy/44672-merged-post-sandy-hook-gun-chat-thread-merged.html)

Vetteman, you agreed.

50 years ago, we had state run psych hospitals. We sent crazy people to them. They were locked up, medicated, and kept away from society. Now days, they visit 3 different shrinks, talk about how mommy didn't hold them enough, diagnose them with some disorder that conveniently fits something that they have a pill for. They prescribe this pill, that may or may not work, may or may not have bad side effects, and send them on their way in hopes they can "lead a normal life". One day, said crazy person, decides correctly or not that either a)they are no longer sick, or b)they don't like the way the pills make them feel, and they just stop taking them. You get what you had here, Columbine, Oregon mall, and the Colorado theater. Whether diagnosed or not, these killers are crazy, and someone, somewhere had an idea about it.

[vetteman9368]

Finally. A direct answer.


A professional opinion don't forget.

Still ONE person, and all people have some bias. I'm not comfortable with one person being able to strip someone's constitutional rights. That's why we have jury trials in this country. If the person is a danger, the getting them committed for evaluation shouldn't be that hard. I'm all for locking up the criminally insane, but not stripping the rights of people who MIGHT be.

[vetteman9368]

Jeff, you remember this? This is your response in this thread (http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/politics-religion-controversy/44672-merged-post-sandy-hook-gun-chat-thread-merged.html)

Vetteman, you agreed.

Read the post above

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Chris Fowler in the same thread;
When it comes to the societal and mental health issues I absolutely believe that something needs to be done. We need to get away from the "political correctness" of treating people with mental issues like they have no problem

But if we take a closer look at mental health issues in this country we might be able to identify and deal with some of the people that commit these acts before they have a chance.

[vetteman9368]

Chris Fowler in the same thread;

Taking the guns from them is not the same as taking them off the streets. The guns aren't the problem.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Grey Ghost. Same thread.

I agree with others that it is a mental health problem. People that were around these shooters had to of known something wasn't right with them.

I think these shooters were farrrrrrr from being just a bit shy or anti-social. Someone close to them has to recognize it and do a responsible thing to prevent them from harming others.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Lander;
This was a mental health issue that went unresolved.

[VatorMan]

Thomas, do you agree that the tolerance for error needs to be 0 ? Or just that, as long as we get the guy, ruffle as many feathers as needed.

[vetteman9368]

How thick skulled can you be? The problem is that one person's opinion should not be enough to strip someone's constitutional rights. If a Baker act hearing can't get them locked up for an eval, then I'm sorry, no go.

[Bill]

Finally. A direct answer.


A professional opinion don't forget.

If you want to take somebody's guns, car, or whatever because you think that person is nuttier than squirrel poop, why can't you parade the guy's neighbors, relatives, co-workers, friends, etc. in front of a jury or judge to give testimony about how whacked out the guy is? Think about why it is that we have 3 branches of government, why we just don't let the president do whatever the Hell he feels like, unchecked.

You are giving anyone with a psychologist or counselor license the power to take people's stuff away singlehandedly. So, OK, Dr. Thomas, I cut in front of you at the gas pump, you get pissed, and call the cops to have my guns and car taken away based only on your word that I am a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

Remember, you aren't accusing me of a crime, just that you feel that I might commit a crime in the future. It should take a lot more than the word of one man to deprive me of my property if no alleged crime has occurred.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

6spdc6
The people that own a summer camp up where I live have a kid that fits the WATCH CLOSE category.

He is now 21, totally refuses to work, sleeps during the day in the basement of the family home, and plays garbage violent music at high levels all night. He also plays a lot of video game (the violent ones of course) and does a lot of weight lifting and heavy duty work outs.(quite possibly taking steroids) I saw him he is built like those prisoners you see in some of the prison TV shows.

He has changed from an introverted decent kid to what I described above in about two years. He has assaulted his father twice, one time even putting him in the hospital for a few days. HE has been in jail, a mental hospital for an evaluation and been arrested at least 3 times that I know of. The powers to be in this liberal shithole of a state will not commit him. His parents are both afraid of him but say hey it’s our kid we will try to help him. BULLCHIT this kid should be behind bars! Yes the father a hunter has gotten rid of his guns but even unarmed this kid is very dangerous and I fear his name is going to be on the front page of the paper one of these days.

The family camp is relatively close to my house, possibly a 1/4 mile away. Most all up here know the story and we are watching our back when the wacko is up here. As of now he hardily comes up, but he is there some weekends.

Thanks to the idiot liberal democrats and their asinine policies on incarceration of nut jobs this kid is on the streets

[vetteman9368]

Thomas, would you like to rejoin the discussion and address our ACTUAL problem here? Or are you gonna Joecool your way through?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Thomas, do you agree that the tolerance for error needs to be 0 ? Or just that, as long as we get the guy, ruffle as many feathers as needed.

I think we need to be very very cautious for sure. But if a mental health professional has identified a risk, we had better take a good look at that person.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Thomas, would you like to rejoin the discussion and address our ACTUAL problem here? Or are you gonna Joecool your way through?

I'm in. I'm not trying to avoid the discussion. (When have I ever done that?)

[Cybercowboy]

The Soviet Union used psychiatric evaluations to deal with all sorts of inconvenient folks.

[vetteman9368]

I think we need to be very very cautious for sure. But if a mental health professional has identified a risk, we had better take a good look at that person.

Do I think a mental health professional's opinion is enough to "take a look at someone"? Possibly enough to see if there are any other red flags that would be cause for investigation (and NO, owning guns is not a red flag). It is, however, not enough to warrant to infringe on someone's constitutional rights, any of their constitutional rights.

[VatorMan]

I think we need to be very very cautious for sure. But if a mental health professional has identified a risk, we had better take a good look at that person.

That's an Obama answer. My question was yes or no. Does the error = 0 or do we fudge it and ruffle a bunch of people in an effort to get the person ? Don't over think it. Yes we need to be absolutely sure, or no, we can **** a bunch of people over to get the guy, and just say we are sorry later.

Sorry about the Obama thing. Not trying to make it a political yak. But seriously the other stuff stands.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

and NO, owning guns is not a red flag
I agree with this. Sort of. If a MHP (I'm sick of typing mental health professional so it's MHP from here on. :D ) has identified a risk, and that risk has a fukin' arsenal in his basement, action SHALL be taken.

My question was yes or no. Does the error = 0 or do we fudge it and ruffle a bunch of people in an effort to get the person ? Don't over think it. Yes we need to be absolutely sure, or no, we can **** a bunch of people over to get the guy, and just say we are sorry later
Ruffle the feathers. Here's why; If a risk has been been identified by our MHP, like I stated earlier, action SHALL be taken.

Hypothetical case: a MHP has been evaluating an individual. The individual has a history of abusive behavior, violence, and has the markers of a Columbine of Sandy Hook shooter, seize his gun. I understand however, it probably wont do any good, he'll get more

[Cybercowboy]

I agree with this. Sort of. If a MHP (I'm sick of typing mental health professional so it's MHP from here on. :D ) has identified a risk, and that risk has a fukin' arsenal in his basement, action SHALL be taken.


Ruffle the feathers. Here's why; If a risk has been been identified by our MHP, like I stated earlier, action SHALL be taken.

Hypothetical case: a MHP has been evaluating an individual. The individual has a history of abusive behavior, violence, and has the markers of a Columbine of Sandy Hook shooter, seize his gun. I understand however, it probably wont do any good, he'll get more

No, he just will never go to a MHP.

[Bill]

I agree with this. Sort of. If a MHP (I'm sick of typing mental health professional so it's MHP from here on. :D ) has identified a risk, and that risk has a fukin' arsenal in his basement, action SHALL be taken.


Ruffle the feathers. Here's why; If a risk has been been identified by our MHP, like I stated earlier, action SHALL be taken.

Hypothetical case: a MHP has been evaluating an individual. The individual has a history of abusive behavior, violence, and has the markers of a Columbine of Sandy Hook shooter, seize his gun. I understand however, it probably wont do any good, he'll get more

Got any problem putting all that evidence together and holding a hearing so that Dangerous Dan gets a chance to defend himself before you start seizing stuff? Can we give somebody a chance to clear their name before we start grabbing stuff?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

No, he just will never go to a MHP.

What if he's a juvenile? How about a court ordered shrink because of a prior?

Sorry about the Obama thing.
Hey, I thought it was pretty funny. :lol:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Got any problem putting all that evidence together and holding a hearing so that Dangerous Dan gets a chance to defend himself before you start seizing stuff?
Absolutely no problem with a hearing of some sort, or a second opinion.

Can we give somebody a chance to clear their name before we start grabbing stuff?
Absolutely. And we SHOULD.

[RedLS1GTO]

Hypothetical case: a MHP has been evaluating an individual. The individual has a history of abusive behavior, violence, and has the markers of a Columbine of Sandy Hook shooter, seize his gun. I understand however, it probably wont do any good, he'll get more

In a case like this, when a person has a HISTORY... as you said here... the MHP as you call them should be able to present the case to a judge, versed in psychiatric issues, who then can make a decision based on facts. The person could then appeal to a completely independent psychiatrist/judge or if they so choose, a jury. This should not be something that is large in the population that it affects. It should not be something as simple as "you are on Zoloft, you can't own a gun." Minor "issues" should not be enough to disqualify someone. It needs to be a serious, violent disorder to even consider taking someone's rights.

That is the very idealistic version.

Here is the reality:

There is a very simple issue that gets in the way of all of that idealism. As I mentioned before, I find it VERY unlikely that any judge would open themselves up to the possibility of becoming the person who went against the psychiatrist on the very slim chance that something did happen. On the same note no psychologist will go against another for the very same fear of being opened up to future lawsuits should they be on the wrong side of the .00000001% of gun owners who actually do something illegal with them. So... in the end, we are right back to the same place that even though in theory a person is protected, in reality it is the opinion of a single psychiatrist that determines whether or not they lose their rights... which is absolutely unacceptable.

As said above, you simply would never see a gun owner going to see a psychologist and you can guarantee that a huge number would think twice about taking their kid to get looked at, even if they felt they really did have issues for fear of both the kid being punished in the future as well as the parent losing their firearms rights because of having a child with issues in the house... parents losing their gun rights because of a child with potential issues is something being pushed by many. The solution to that is to simply not get your child the help they potentially need due to the fear of what the repercussions might be, which in the end, accomplishes the exact opposite of what is intended.

[sanchez]

Got any problem putting all that evidence together and holding a hearing so that Dangerous Dan gets a chance to defend himself before you start seizing stuff? Can we give somebody a chance to clear their name before we start grabbing stuff?

This.

Because at some point during the process of discovery the state would have realized they got the wrong fuking person.

[Will]

So, my understanding is you are all OK with this? You're OK letting person who a mental health professional has deemed to be a risk, keep his guns correct?

Yes. Mental Health professionals aren't judges. Any state wishing to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms should have to due so through an administrative hearing, should have to show that the individual presents a clear danger to OTHERS, and the mental health professional's opinion can be used as evidence at such a proceeding.

No one should be stripped of their right to bear arms for ANY other reason, including danger to self. Depressed people, people who have had suicidal thoughts, etc. should be able to seek medical care without fear of being stripped of their civil liberties. Soldiers with PTSD who are not a threat to others should not be stripped of their civil liberties. People who need to be committed to a mental health facility should not be stripped of their civil liberties.

Only patients who can be shown to be a danger to OTHERS in a legal proceeding, and even then the action to take their firearms should NEVER be permanent, these individuals should have the right to apply for a reevaluation and reinstatement of their 2nd amendment rights, and all states should have to comply within a reasonable maximum amount of time between the request of such a reevaluation and actually providing the rehearing.

In addition, no innocent person should be stripped of their rights because they live with someone who is undergoing mental health issues. If my wife became crazy, I should not be stripped of my civil liberties.

[RedLS1GTO]

Yes. Mental Health professionals aren't judges. Any state wishing to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms should have to due so through an administrative hearing, should have to show that the individual presents a clear danger to OTHERS, and the mental health professional's opinion can be used as evidence at such a proceeding.

No one should be stripped of their right to bear arms for ANY other reason, including danger to self. Depressed people, people who have had suicidal thoughts, etc. should be able to seek medical care without fear of being stripped of their civil liberties. Soldiers with PTSD who are not a threat to others should not be stripped of their civil liberties. People who need to be committed to a mental health facility should not be stripped of their civil liberties.

Only patients who can be shown to be a danger to OTHERS in a legal proceeding, and even then the action to take their firearms should NEVER be permanent, these individuals should have the right to apply for a reevaluation and reinstatement of their 2nd amendment rights, and all states should have to comply within a reasonable maximum amount of time between the request of such a reevaluation and actually providing the rehearing.

In addition, no innocent person should be stripped of their rights because they live with someone who is undergoing mental health issues. If my wife became crazy, I should not be stripped of my civil liberties.

...and that pretty much sums it up.

[Jeff '79]

...and that pretty much sums it up.

Yes it does. Exactly.....:yesnod:
My thread title may have been a bit harsh, but the unconscionable act that was levied upon my fellow citizen was much harsher.
There's no excuse for what they did to this man.
It is still on the news this morning, but for lack of better words, is being down played.
As many have stated, there will probably be no consequences for the actions taken by these rogues.

Good post Will.... I wish that I could articulate my thoughts as well as you and others here... I just know when something ain't right.

[OddBall]

Yes. Mental Health professionals aren't judges. Any state wishing to strip someone's right to keep and bear arms should have to due so through an administrative hearing, should have to show that the individual presents a clear danger to OTHERS, and the mental health professional's opinion can be used as evidence at such a proceeding.

No one should be stripped of their right to bear arms for ANY other reason, including danger to self. Depressed people, people who have had suicidal thoughts, etc. should be able to seek medical care without fear of being stripped of their civil liberties. Soldiers with PTSD who are not a threat to others should not be stripped of their civil liberties. People who need to be committed to a mental health facility should not be stripped of their civil liberties.

Only patients who can be shown to be a danger to OTHERS in a legal proceeding, and even then the action to take their firearms should NEVER be permanent, these individuals should have the right to apply for a reevaluation and reinstatement of their 2nd amendment rights, and all states should have to comply within a reasonable maximum amount of time between the request of such a reevaluation and actually providing the rehearing.

In addition, no innocent person should be stripped of their rights because they live with someone who is undergoing mental health issues. If my wife became crazy, I should not be stripped of my civil liberties.

:iagree: What Will said.
Damned articulate sumbitch, ain't he?

[6spdC6]

6spdc6

6spdc6

Quote:
"The people that own a summer camp up where I live have a kid that fits the WATCH CLOSE category.

He is now 21, totally refuses to work, sleeps during the day in the basement of the family home, and plays garbage violent music at high levels all night. He also plays a lot of video game (the violent ones of course) and does a lot of weight lifting and heavy duty work outs.(quite possibly taking steroids) I saw him he is built like those prisoners you see in some of the prison TV shows.

He has changed from an introverted decent kid to what I described above in about two years. He has assaulted his father twice, one time even putting him in the hospital for a few days. HE has been in jail, a mental hospital for an evaluation and been arrested at least 3 times that I know of. The powers to be in this liberal shithole of a state will not commit him. His parents are both afraid of him but say hey it’s our kid we will try to help him. BULLCHIT this kid should be behind bars! Yes the father a hunter has gotten rid of his guns but even unarmed this kid is very dangerous and I fear his name is going to be on the front page of the paper one of these days.

The family camp is relatively close to my house, possibly a 1/4 mile away. Most all up here know the story and we are watching our back when the wacko is up here. As of now he hardily comes up, but he is there some weekends.

Thanks to the idiot liberal democrats and their asinine policies on incarceration of nut jobs this kid is on the streets "Quote 6spd from a earlier post

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX




Thank you for the repost Thomas that is most definitely the type of person that should be keep away from guns and anything dangerous. Like I said he should be in a secure facility not on the streets but the demos that run our state think no. No way in hell can this kid legally own a gun, and his father (who is scared of this time bomb) has got rid of his guns.

With that said they will NOW go after just about anyone that ever said more than good morning to a head doctor or ever got a Zanex type prescription in their quest to take guns away from innocent people. The innocent one will get punished and the real nut cases will be allowed to do just about anything they want. This gun confiscation thing by our liberal/ very antigun state government is now showing up on a lot of peoples radar. Serious complaints & questions are now being asked by many people that can get answers and the state is backpedaling at a fast pace. This is not over by a long shot. (Pardon the pun)

[Will]

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Thank you for the repost Thomas
The reason I posted all those quotes was, there were a whole lot of folks here who would like to see something done about people with psychological issues. Jeff wanted to lock up "Crazy people" (His quote, not mine) and keep them "Medicated, and kept away from society." (Again, his quote)



ONLY MY OPINION, LETS REMAIN CALM: It's SEEMS a little hypocritical to me that when guns are introduced into the discussion, the rules suddenly shift a little because guns are such a volatile topic right now. ONLY MY OPINION, LETS REMAIN CALM:

BTW, Where's Coool?

[RedLS1GTO]

The reason I posted all those quotes was, there were a whole lot of folks here who would like to see something done about people with psychological issues. Jeff wanted to lock up "Crazy people" (His quote, not mine) and keep them "Medicated, and kept away from society." (Again, his quote)

ONLY MY OPINION, LETS REMAIN CALM: It's SEEMS a little hypocritical to me that when guns are introduced into the discussion, the rules suddenly shift a little because guns are such a volatile topic right now. ONLY MY OPINION, LETS REMAIN CALM:

BTW, Where's Coool?

The issue is where the line is drawn, WHO can make it happen, and HOW it can happen.

"something done about people with psychological issues" is a very broad statement.

I also see rules shifting when guns are involved, but in the complete opposite direction. I don't think anybody would advocate committing any person who has ever taken a Zanex. On the other hand, many seem to think that denying someone their other rights as guaranteed by the Constitution for the same reason is completely acceptable. The people with this mindset have no problem arguing for "equality" and "freedom"... but only if it is an issue they agree with.

THAT is what is hypocritical.

The 5th does not say:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... except for guns, we can take those whenever we want.

NO liberty and NO property shall be taken without due process, which is nowhere close to what is actually happening as well as what is proposed.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

One thing is abundantly clear; I am a lone voice in this thread.
:rofl:

[Bill]

One thing is abundantly clear; I am a lone voice in this thread.
:rofl:

Just because you are one man, standing alone on principle, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.















































....although, you ARE wrong in this thread. :D

:dance:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Just because you are one man, standing alone on principle, it doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.

....although, you ARE wrong in this thread. :D

:dance:
:funnier:

WTH, Jeff has certainly changed his mind in two years, I suppose I could. :lol:

[vetteman9368]

I think the biggest difference is that there are those who just want to do "something" to make themselves feel better, even if it infringes on people's rights, and doesn't actually accomplish said goal. Those people would be liberals, or the gun control crowd. Then there are those of us who are all for effective solutions, that stop criminals, while not infringing on people's constitutional rights. We refuse to punish large groups for the actions of a few.

[Sea Six]

:funnier:

WTH, Jeff has certainly changed his mind in two years, I suppose I could. :lol:

All it takes is for you to get attacked and you realize that there is nothing you can do to defend yourself without a gun.

Before 2006, I wouldn't even keep a loaded gun in my house.

Now I carry almost everywhere I go.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

All it takes is for you to get attacked and you realize that there is nothing you can do to defend yourself without a gun.
Jeff never got attacked, and I have a loaded gun in my house.
Have a nice day copper. :cert:

:funnier:

[Sea Six]

Jeff never got attacked, and I have a loaded gun in my house.
Have a nice day copper. :cert:

:funnier:

:confused5:

Where did that come from? Have I said something to offend you, Thomas?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

:confused5:

Where did that come from? Have I said something to offend you, Thomas?

I think that came out wrong on my part. Sorry.

All I meant was Jeff has had a fairly large shift of opinion. He went from disinterest to writing letters and starting threads raving about gun control. Suddenly it's this hot button topic. :shrug:

[Sea Six]

Aside from those who grew up around guns, everyone has their turning point.

I was talking about me being attacked. That event is what changed my mind about carrying guns.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Aside from those who grew up around guns, everyone has their turning point.

I was talking about me being attacked. That event is what changed my mind.

I COMPLETELY misread your post.

Here, lemme get that for ya: :kick:

[Sea Six]

I COMPLETELY misread your post.

Here, lemme get that for ya: :kick:

Yeah?

Well, nanny-nanny-boo-boo to you.


:p

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Yeah?

Well, nanny-nanny-boo-boo to you.


:p

I'd ask where you land on this subject, but I have a hunch I know. :lol:

[Sea Six]

I'd ask where you land on this subject, but I have a hunch I know. :lol:

Watch yourself, Mister.

I'll go all TxAg on your libtard self.

:)

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Watch yourself, Mister.

I'll go all TxAg on your libtard self.

:)

*Libfuktard.

[Sea Six]

*Libfuktard.

I stand corrected.

[Sea Six]

:funnier:

[Jeff '79]

Jeff never got attacked, and I have a loaded gun in my house.
Have a nice day copper. :cert:

:funnier:

Am I the Jeff that you're talking about?
I've read this entire thread and it just dawned on me that you may be erroneously talking about me, as my name is Jeff.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Am I the Jeff that you're talking about?
I've read this entire thread and it just dawned on me that you may be erroneously talking about me, as my name is Jeff.

You. Your only gun interest was a shotgun. You were also questing:
Should A Law Be Passed Limiting Clips To 10 Bullets ?
They ain't taking your guns away......What say VBOT ?

And:
I'm just askin'....I have a shotgun....That's it. I'm not military, so from my original post I'm really ignorant of the whole gun thing.

Then you posted this:
As I said in my op.....They don't want to take away your guns.....You guys make it sound like they want to take away your right to defend yourself....So buy 100 10 round magazines....Problem solved....

I'm curious. What changed, when and why? The above statement would have filled my inbox with hate mail. :rofl:

[ft laud mike]

How thick skulled can you be? The problem is that one person's opinion should not be enough to strip someone's constitutional rights. If a Baker act hearing can't get them locked up for an eval, then I'm sorry, no go.

:iagree: This, there are already 2 laws (at least in Fl) to have somneone evaluated involuntarily: Baker act (for those thought to be a danger to themselves/ others) & marchman act ( for those thought to be a danger due to substance abuse). The laws are ALREADY on the books, there is no need for more laws. Pretty muuch it

[Jeff '79]

You. Your only gun interest was a shotgun. You were also questing:


And:


Then you posted this:


I'm curious. What changed, when and why? The above statement would have filled my inbox with hate mail. :rofl:

Sandy Hook, and the way it's being used to sway opinion.

Governmental bureaucrats & politicians have always pissed me off because of the corruption that is inherent with those folk, but using Sandy Hook as a spring board to create laws that take away , or INFRINGE on our constitutional rights, to further one's political standing, is just down right against the law and over the top.
Quote all you want from anyone here Thomas, but you can't deny that Uncle Sugar is over stepping his constitutional rights these days.
Oh, and why don't you tax me more to enforce this lunacy?

[Bill]

I stand corrected.

[notes this on calendar]










:D

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Sandy Hook, and the way it's being used to sway opinion.
The same Sandy Hook you think could very well be a conspiracy? (http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/off-topic/46067-heres-conspiracy-theory-put-your-pipe-smoked.html) :confused5:

I'm not trying to bust your balls here Jeff, seriously. :cert: You're the new gun aficionado here, and I'm just curious how the fire got lit.

Same thing with the mental health issue. You wanted them locked up, medicated, and kept away from society. Isn't that an infringement on someones rights, equal to taking taking away his gun for the same mental health reason? Public safety?

[Burro (He/Haw)]

[notes this on calendar]
:D

:funnier:

[OddBall]

Y
I'm curious. What changed, when and why? The above statement would have filled my inbox with hate mail. :rofl:

Jeff has a Southern gene that is starting to emerge.
Obviously, he's got a bubba in the family tree.
He'll being hankerin' for grits soon.

:BADRACR1:

[Sea Six]

Jeff has a Southern gene that is starting to emerge. He's got a bubba in the family tree. He'll being hankerin' for grits soon.
:BADRACR1:

:yesnod:



Yyyyyyyep.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Jeff has a Southern gene that is starting to emerge.
Obviously, he's got a bubba in the family tree.
He'll being hankerin' for grits soon.

:BADRACR1:

:rofl:
:rofl:

He's not gonna be happy with your post Oddball. Not one bit. :rofl::rofl:

[OddBall]

:rofl:
:rofl:

He's not gonna be happy with your post Oddball. Not one bit. :rofl::rofl:

meh, he'll be wearin' a wife-beater before you know it.

[Burro (He/Haw)]

meh, he'll be wearin' a wife-beater before you know it.

Anyone around here have Photoshop and a picture of Jeff? :D

[Burro (He/Haw)]

38 Special - Wild-Eyed Southern Boys - YouTube

[Jeff '79]

I, by no means, am a gun aficionado.
My daughter moved out, and I got my pistol permit.
I didn't want a pistol in the house with the girls here. Simple as that. That's just me.
Other than that, I don't have to justify my legal actions to you, or anyone. It's supposedly a free country.
Let's keep it that way.

Odd ball is the funny..... :o)

[Burro (He/Haw)]

My daughter moved out, and I got my pistol permit.
I didn't want a pistol in the house with the girls here. Simple as that. That's just me.
Perfectly understandable.


I don't have to justify my legal actions to you, or anyone. It's supposedly a free country. Let's keep it that way.
Note to self: Don't question/challenge Jeff. Even if it's done respectfully. :cert:

[Jeff '79]

Perfectly understandable.



Note to self: Don't question/challenge Jeff. Even if it's done respectfully. :cert:

Challenge me?
What part of the fact that our constitutional rights are being infringed upon in the OP didn't you get?
You stray like a dog in heat..... The OP is what my thread is about, not my past comments or if I changed my mind or not.
Don't give me :cert:


:dance:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

You stray like a dog in heat.....
I just asked you your position, what changed your mind and why. Settle down Jeff, you have a lots of support here.

[Jeff '79]

I just asked you your position, what changed your mind and why. Settle down Jeff, you have a lots of support here.

You've gotta admit...
The "you stray like a dog in heat" comment was great...:seasix:

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Everyone:
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj280/Dilemma_1962/pEACE-pIPE_zpsd741445d.jpg
:cert:

[sanchez]

Everyone:
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj280/Dilemma_1962/pEACE-pIPE_zpsd741445d.jpg
:cert:

We can disagree about something and still like each other. This was a pretty healthy exchange of ideas.

:cert:

[island14]

I, by no means, am a gun aficionado.
My daughter moved out, and I got my pistol permit.
I didn't want a pistol in the house with the girls here. Simple as that. That's just me.
Other than that, I don't have to justify my legal actions to you, or anyone. It's supposedly a free country.
Let's keep it that way.

Odd ball is the funny..... :o)


I am all for personal rights and believe no government should be able to take them away.

I use to collect guns, reload my own shells, and really enjoyed shooting years ago.

I have no desire to own one now, because I feel that it is much more danger to my family as I am afraid no matter how well I hide one, my 5 year old son, or one of the others will find it. :yesnod:




And I agree....

OddBall is the funny!.. :seasix: :rofl:

[Torqaholic]

:yesnod:...now you're catching on!

If the court systems weren't so backed up this would never have happened. It takes months or even years for a case to be heard. That let's possible criminals like rapists, stalkers, and shooters out in the public for that amount of time. So what's the answer? :confused5:

What's wrong with shooters? :rofl: We know who the criminals are, they aren't "possible criminals" to us. They're all too real.

The answer is to get the BS legal system out of the way and let honest people sort it out. This can be done by simply recognizing the fact that criminals forfeit their rights when they undertake a crime. We'll clean the criminals out and the ones that are left will be too scared to get out of line.

States have made great progress in this direction by legalizing concealed carry and recognizing our right to defend ourselves. It has greatly reduced violent crime. But many honest people are still too scared of the legal system to do the right thing when faced with a criminal. Can't shoot someone you catch destroying or stealing your property unless you want to become a victim of the legal system? That's pure BS, if they risked being shot they wouldn't commit a crime in the first place. It's the pansy ass laws that encourage crime and generate criminals.

[island14]

Jeff has a Southern gene that is starting to emerge.
Obviously, he's got a bubba in the family tree.
He'll being hankerin' for grits soon.

:BADRACR1:


meh, he'll be wearin' a wife-beater before you know it.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kerrmudgeon]

What's wrong with shooters? :rofl: We know who the criminals are, they aren't "possible criminals" to us. They're all too real.

The answer is to get the BS legal system out of the way and let honest people sort it out. This can be done by simply recognizing the fact that criminals forfeit their rights when they undertake a crime. We'll clean the criminals out and the ones that are left will be too scared to get out of line.

States have made great progress in this direction by legalizing concealed carry and recognizing our right to defend ourselves. It has greatly reduced violent crime. But many honest people are still too scared of the legal system to do the right thing when faced with a criminal. Can't shoot someone you catch destroying or stealing your property unless you want to become a victim of the legal system? That's pure BS, if they risked being shot they wouldn't commit a crime in the first place. It's the pansy ass laws that encourage crime and generate criminals.

I agree with most of what you say here, and it was a mistake not to put criminal in front of shooter, and like I said in previous posts, it's the TIME it takes to get to trial that's a big problem with the system. If it was the next day or week even and violent accusees/repeat offenders were detained until the court date it would be solve a ton of problems. Too many lawyers launching too many frivolous actions have slowed the system to a crawl, in my country as well as yours. :seasix:

[Kerrmudgeon]

I saw this and coudn't resist! :roll:

http://www.angryduck.com/pictures/1002/dont-hit-kids.jpg
....it's a JOKE!:doh:

[onedef92]

"Since mankind's dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We've seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse." ― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

[RedLS1GTO]

Saw this at CF... seems very relevant here.

War Veteran Arrested for “Rudely Displaying” Rifle

Apr 15, 2013

By Todd Starnes

A decorated war veteran on a Boy Scout hike with his 15-year-old son was arrested alongside a Texas country road after a police officer accused him of “rudely displaying” a firearm.

Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham told Fox News he was illegally disarmed by members of the Temple Police Dept. – even though he held the proper permits to carry his weapons.

Grisham and his son were on a 10-mile hike in a rural area populated by wild boars and cougars. He was carrying an AR-15 rifle and a .45 caliber pistol.

He was charged with resisting arrest – even though video his son filmed of the incident clearly showed that Grisham did not resist arrest. Police later reduced the charges to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty – a class B misdemeanor.

“I’m still frankly and honestly 100 percent confused about what I’m being charged with,” Grisham said.

Temple Police told local media that the Fort Hood soldier refused to hand of his weapon – leading to his arrest. However, the video shows that Grisham complied with their demands.

One of the officers told Grisham that anyone holding a gun is considered dangerous, according to a 15-minute video obtained by Fox News.

“In this day and age people are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers told a handcuffed Grisham. “They don’t care what the law is.”

At one point in the video Grisham asked the officers why they failed to ask to see his carry and conceal permit.

The video shows the arresting officer telling the Fort Hood soldier that he was “rudely displaying” the AR-15.

Grisham, who is a “huge Constitutionalist,” then asked the officer if he cared what the law is.

“The easy wrong would have been to surrender my rights and allow the cops to disarm me,” he said. “That’s the easy wrong to me. The hard right is putting ourselves on the line knowing that something could happen.”

Grisham told Fox News he plans on fighting the charges and suing the police department for what he considered to be an illegal arrest and violating his Constitutional rights.

“For the first time in my life, I had to sit in jail,” he said. “I’ve never been in jail — never been accused of a crime. I was treated like a street thug.”

A pre-trial hearing has been set for May 29th.

Grisham, a well-known military blogger, is a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He’s served in the military for more than 18 years and was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor. But he came under fire within the military for a blog posting that was critical of President Obama. Columnist Michelle Malkin once wrote about Grisham’s plight.

The master sergeant, his wife and their three children live on a farm in Temple — about two miles from where he was arrested.

Grisham’s trouble with the law started in mid-March. His son Chris was working on one of the final merit badges he needed to become an Eagle Scout. Chris had chosen hiking.

Father and son grabbed their gear and headed out on a blustery Saturday morning to hike about 10 miles. They were midway through the trip when Grisham turned around and saw a police car.

“At that point I heard him tell us to hold on a second and he motioned for me and my son to come back,” Grisham said. “He didn’t have his lights on. Everything was calm and casual. He asked what we were doing.”

Grisham had his AR-15 slung around the front of his body — a rifle he’s been using since he joined the military.

At some point the officer pulled his pistol on the father and son and grabbed Grisham’s AR-15.

“He slammed me onto the hood of the car,” he said. “I had my hands straight up and that’s when I saw our camera – and turned it on.”

For the next 15 minutes, Grisham’s son recorded the entire incident.
Christopher Grisham

“I wanted to make sure that we had everything on film,” he said. “Everything that happened that day was manufactured by the police officer. We weren’t out there to make a statement. Our intention was to hike 10 miles and go home.”

By all indications, Grisham was arrested just because he was legally carrying his firearms.

And as bad as he was treated, Grisham said he is furious over how the police treated his son.

Chris followed his dad’s instructions to keep the videotape going — even though it’s clear the incident took an emotional toll on the boy. As the officers put Grisham in the back of the car, the video picked up sounds of Chris crying.

The officers told Grisham they would take the boy home.

“I told him not to answer any questions,” Grisham said. “I told him not to answer a single question until his mother was there — and she would answer the questions for him.”

But that’s not what happened.

Chris told Fox News that the police officer refused to let him out of the car until he answered a series of questions. The boy had not been arrested.

“The officer told me that I wasn’t getting out of the patrol car until I answered his questions,” Chris said. “He said I didn’t have a choice. I was scared.”

Grisham said his boy was traumatized by the incident.

“Every time he sees a police officer he has a panic attack,” he said. “That’s unfortunate because we always taught our kids to respect police officers. My wife and I are angry about it.”

He said he explained to his son that they did nothing wrong on that day.

“My son has his own copy of the Constitution,” Grisham said. “He understands his rights. He understand the concept of choosing the hard right over the easy wrong.”

Chris told Fox News that he looks up to his father — and admires him for what he did on the side of that road.

“When I grow up, I want to be like him — he inspires me,” the 15-year-old said.

Grisham said the events of last month have led him to question why he is still in the military.

“It doesn’t seem like our rights are being respected,” he said. “For me, it’s a difficult turning point. I wonder what it is that I’m fighting for. If our basic rights are being violated this way — what is my purpose?”

And as Grisham awaits his court date, Chris is gearing up to start his Eagle Scout project. The teenager will be working on a local historic cemetery – repairing headstones and replacing signs.

But the young boy wonders what will happen to his dad.

“He didn’t do anything wrong at all,” he said.

War Veteran Arrested for “Rudely Displaying” Rifle | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/war-veteran-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle.html)


LEGALLY carrying a LEGAL rifle with his kid... and ends up in jail because apparently some douche thought he looked scary.

The way gun owners in the country are being treated is absolutely unacceptable.

I say "unacceptable" because I honestly can't think of a word to accurately define how despicable these actions are.

[VatorMan]

In Texas no less. I thought Texas was one of the good states ?

[Fasglas]

LEGALLY carrying a LEGAL rifle with his kid... and ends up in jail because apparently some douche thought he looked scary.

The way gun owners in the country are being treated is absolutely unacceptable.

I say "unacceptable" because I honestly can't think of a word to accurately define how despicable these actions are.

Scary?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pmCqHSToVTk/UP9pqhSalBI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/I--YGhR_pMs/s1600/HelloKittyAR.gif

[Joecooool]

The guy got his guns back, and the hopefully the process will either be revised, or followed more closely in the future.

It's NOT the end of the world fella's.

As for this?

Koresh was the leader of a what was basically a cult. He's hardly someone I'd choose to put up as a reminder of what COULD happen. It was going to end badly for this guy regardless.

Peace out.Koresh was a child rapist. I for one am happy he died in a fire. I hope it was the heat and not the smoke that did him in.

[6spdC6]

Koresh was a child rapist. I for one am happy he died in a fire. I hope it was the heat and not the smoke that did him in.

Proof please! Not defending him but since you go off half cocked most of the time with your liberal bullshit lets see some legitimate proof!

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Proof please! lets see some legitimate proof!
Koresh was a complete lunatic. HOWEVER, they were never able to prove the allegations. That, as they say, is a fact Jack.

[6spdC6]

Koresh was a complete lunatic. HOWEVER, they were never able to prove the allegations. That, as they say, is a fact Jack.

I knew that, wanted to see if Mr. Liberal ”drive by” would come back. He is doing what he normally does post bullshit and then disappears. He will return, get in another topic as soon as he discovers what the Huffy Post is blowing smoke about!

[Joecooool]

I knew that, wanted to see if Mr. Liberal ”drive by” would come back. He is doing what he normally does post bullshit and then disappears. He will return, get in another topic as soon as he discovers what the Huffy Post is blowing smoke about!

Takes a real sick SOB to defend a pedophile. Since you don't know how to use google - Teen To Say Koresh Molested Her Girl Raised In Waco Compound Will Testify At Today's Hearing - Spokesman.com - July 19, 1995 (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jul/19/teen-to-say-koresh-molested-her-girl-raised-in/)

'Children of Waco' Speak Out - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=131982&page=1#.UWxBQzzD_L8)

[6spdC6]

Takes a real sick SOB to defend a pedophile. Since you don't know how to use google - Teen To Say Koresh Molested Her Girl Raised In Waco Compound Will Testify At Today's Hearing - Spokesman.com - July 19, 1995 (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jul/19/teen-to-say-koresh-molested-her-girl-raised-in/)

'Children of Waco' Speak Out - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=131982&page=1#.UWxBQzzD_L8)

Wow you did actually come back.:bfd: I see RIF is not big in the wacky lib community. I did not defend him here again is my quote" Not defending him but since you go off half cocked most of the time with your liberal bullshit lets see some legitimate proof!"