Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 124
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    And just so folks know:

    "On May 31, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone."
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  2. Likes jimnyc, Kathianne liked this post
  3. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Enough here to make me certain I don't want the federal government curtailing any 2nd amendment rights. States and cities as has been demonstrated many times, are well able or not of handling what is best for their states.

    https://hotair.com/archives/allahpun...gry-trust-gun/

    Trump Sabotages Push For Red-Flag Laws, Says Chris Cuomo Is Too Angry To Trust With A Gun
    ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 11:31 am on August 13, 2019

    Torn between two theories to explain his latest tweet.


    SEE ALSO: Houston Chronicle begs Beto: Drop out. Run against Cornyn, not Trump


    1. He’s a loudmouthed imbecile who fundamentally doesn’t understand why stuff like this will steel opposition on the right to the sort of red-flag bill he’s endorsed.


    RECOMMENDED


    Chris Cuomo's meltdown: Is "Fredo" the N-word for Italians? Update: The truth hurts, Trump tweets


    2. He’s playing eight-dimensional chess, deliberately sabotaging the push for a new red-flag bill to please his base by showing immediately how it would be abused by the government once it’s law.


    Guess which theory I’m leaning towards.




    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!


    47.6K
    7:04 AM - Aug 13, 2019
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    27.5K people are talking about this
    “This is like a parody of what opponents of red flag laws say they’re worried about,” said lefty Benjy Sarlin of that tweet, correctly.




    Dana Loesch

    @DLoesch
    With one Tweet POTUS explains how red flag laws can and will be abused. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...77403353759744


    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump
    Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!


    3,151
    8:00 AM - Aug 13, 2019


    The argument against red-flag laws is that they’ll be abused to justify confiscating weapons on flimsy pretexts from people who aren’t dangerous to others. Now here’s the president validating that concern before Lindsey Graham’s bill has even received a vote in Congress. Are you worried that the government might exploit the new legal regime to punish its political and media enemies who own guns? Well, per Trump, apparently you should be.


    In fact, now that I think about it, Trump killing off a gun-control push by showing that he himself couldn’t be trusted to execute the new law responsibly is more like 12-dimensional chess. “I’m too tyrannically inclined to trust with a weapons ban” is an efficient way to give both the right and the left cold feet about new gun-control initiatives.


    Not the first time he’s thought-farted his way into an uncomfortable moment while trying to sell gun control to the right, though, notes Sarlin. Remember this?


    President Trump said Wednesday he favors taking guns away from people who might commit violence before going through legal due process in the courts, one of many startling comments he made in a rambling White House meeting designed to hash out school safety legislation with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.


    “I like taking guns away early,” Trump said. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”


    That’s the sort of thing you say when you haven’t spent five minutes of your life thinking about due process. Last year’s push for new gun laws, after the Parkland massacre, ended in failure as the public gradually moved on to other topics and righty advocacy groups like the NRA leaned more heavily on Trump in private not to follow through. This one will probably end the same way — although, ironically, Trump has such enormous sway over the righty base that Senate Republicans might be willing to vote for a red-flag bill he’s supporting even though a tweet like the one he just published coming from a Democratic president would be Exhibit A in why the feds can never, ever be trusted with such power.


    Two people who’ve spoken to the president in recent days say that he has referenced, during conversations about how he could possibly bend the NRA to his will in this case, his annoyance at media coverage of his post-Parkland about-face that suggested he was all talk and no action on the issue, and easily controlled by the NRA. One of the sources noted that Trump’s aversion to being seen as “controlled” by anyone or any organization makes it much more likely that the president will dwell on the issue for longer than he did last year.


    Trump’s influence could well make or break legislation, since Republicans are unlikely to support anything without his blessing but will be just as hesitant to immediately reject a bill he puts his full support behind.


    “Many Hill Republicans are waiting to see what Trump will get behind,” said a Senate GOP aide. “He gives them political cover. I don’t think you’re going to see any one bill or one proposal get any momentum until the President publicly endorses it.”


    Further evidence that Trump might be serious is the fact that Ivanka is reportedly calling around to swing votes like Joe Manchin to sound them out. Gun-control fans might also be helped here by the recent panic within the GOP after several House Republicans retired that Texas is turning purple as suburbs there drift towards the Democrats. If, say, John Cornyn has cover from Trump on supporting a red-flag bill, would he vote for it in order to mollify Texas’s suburban voters? If not, what about a Thom Tillis or Richard Burr?


    Via the Examiner, here’s Graham on Fox this morning touting his red-flag bill. A key element is the fact that confiscation in “red flag” cases wouldn’t happen at the federal level: Graham’s calling for grants to state PDs so that they can hire mental health experts to advise them in state “red flag” proceedings. That federalist approach will make it marginally more palatable to righties.


    Video at site
    Last edited by Kathianne; 08-13-2019 at 12:45 PM.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  4. Thanks High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
  5. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    And just so folks know:

    "On May 31, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone."
    Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.

  6. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.
    Just like minimum wage, not all states and areas within states are alike. For a myriad of reasons, the feds should keep their hands off the 2nd.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  7. Thanks High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
  8. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.
    That was my point exactly. It sure seems to me that detaining a person openly carrying a firearm, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, would be against this particular ruling.

    The PA SC did not have to rule on whether or not carrying a gun is right... the COTUS does that. What NEW laws COULD be written is a very different discussion altogether. There COULD be a new federal law enacted making it illegal to vote Republican, for example. Our Congress writes laws which are proven unconstitutional quite often.

    I will say that in some place, openly carrying a firearm could lead to detainment or arrest on other charges such as being a public nuisance or something similar.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  9. Thanks High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  10. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Just like minimum wage, not all states and areas within states are alike. For a myriad of reasons, the feds should keep their hands off the 2nd.
    I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

    Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

  11. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,506
    Thanks (Given)
    23722
    Thanks (Received)
    17276
    Likes (Given)
    9555
    Likes (Received)
    6007
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

    Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.
    I'll take my chances on the meaning of the Bill of Rights from the courts rather than your take. But thanks for trying to be the final voice of all.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  12. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

    Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.
    I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  13. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.
    Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

    As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

    There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms

  14. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

    As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

    There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms
    I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

    However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  15. Thanks Kathianne, High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
  16. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    That was my point exactly. It sure seems to me that detaining a person openly carrying a firearm, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, would be against this particular ruling.

    The PA SC did not have to rule on whether or not carrying a gun is right... the COTUS does that. What NEW laws COULD be written is a very different discussion altogether. There COULD be a new federal law enacted making it illegal to vote Republican, for example. Our Congress writes laws which are proven unconstitutional quite often.

    I will say that in some place, openly carrying a firearm could lead to detainment or arrest on other charges such as being a public nuisance or something similar.
    youre wrong in your thoughs CSM because what that ruling says essentially is cops can't say "I reasonably assumed that person carrying a firearm was going to commit a crime so I stopped them"

    BUT if the law says "It is illegal to carry a long gun in the city" just as an example, then that ruling is really a moot point because it only deals with the question of using what is not illegal as suspicion of something that is illegal.

    Take that to inside the gun free part of the airport , for example. The government actually DID have to make illegal to carry a gun inside that area of the airport because prior to that courts were telling them "no you can't just stop everyone who has a gun because you suspect they might be planning on committing a crime" but when it came to saying "okay in THIS area , no guns allowed" that was ruled Constitutional.

    I get , and agree with, your concerns. As I said the law shouldn't apply to concealed carry permit holders with concealed hand guns. Nor should it apply to people are merely transporting said weapons. But I'm sorry an asshole who carries an AR15 into a fucking airport, or just through town is an asshole who needs to spend some time behind bars for being an asshole.

    We KNOW for fact that people panic , and reasonably so , when they see such things, it's only a matter of time before someone is killed during the panic one of these morons causes. And as the law currently stands that person would not be hold criminally liable for that death. Carrying the AR15 in the first place would have to be ILLEGAL for that person to be criminally liable for any deaths .


    Again, I don't argue that the law is a slipper5y slope, nor do I disagree with the notion that the government can't be trusted . BUT sometimes you have to weigh the consequences and say "we need to do this and just keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't abusing the law" really the same concept as say the FISA courts, the government fucked Trump and his team and broke the law doing it, whomever took part should be held criminally responsible, BUT the system itself saves lives. We just need to better protect against abuses.

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

    However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.
    My wife is the lawyer LOL

    And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

    For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    youre wrong in your thoughs CSM because what that ruling says essentially is cops can't say "I reasonably assumed that person carrying a firearm was going to commit a crime so I stopped them"

    BUT if the law says "It is illegal to carry a long gun in the city" just as an example, then that ruling is really a moot point because it only deals with the question of using what is not illegal as suspicion of something that is illegal.

    Take that to inside the gun free part of the airport , for example. The government actually DID have to make illegal to carry a gun inside that area of the airport because prior to that courts were telling them "no you can't just stop everyone who has a gun because you suspect they might be planning on committing a crime" but when it came to saying "okay in THIS area , no guns allowed" that was ruled Constitutional.

    I get , and agree with, your concerns. As I said the law shouldn't apply to concealed carry permit holders with concealed hand guns. Nor should it apply to people are merely transporting said weapons. But I'm sorry an asshole who carries an AR15 into a fucking airport, or just through town is an asshole who needs to spend some time behind bars for being an asshole.

    We KNOW for fact that people panic , and reasonably so , when they see such things, it's only a matter of time before someone is killed during the panic one of these morons causes. And as the law currently stands that person would not be hold criminally liable for that death. Carrying the AR15 in the first place would have to be ILLEGAL for that person to be criminally liable for any deaths .


    Again, I don't argue that the law is a slipper5y slope, nor do I disagree with the notion that the government can't be trusted . BUT sometimes you have to weigh the consequences and say "we need to do this and just keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't abusing the law" really the same concept as say the FISA courts, the government fucked Trump and his team and broke the law doing it, whomever took part should be held criminally responsible, BUT the system itself saves lives. We just need to better protect against abuses.
    I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

    Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

    I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  19. Thanks Kathianne, High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  20. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

    Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

    I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.
    That's my point exactly CSM , there currently is no law that prevents THIS particular form of being an asshole. I would change that.

    Which is far more likely to prevent gun crime CSM? Targeting actual assholes with guns of course. Taxing the fuck out of you or me or requiring us to do a background check on the other if we decide to sell a pistol to one or the other... Worthless because A) we're not dong anything illegal or being assholes simply by buying and selling guns and B) it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce anyway.

    Pretty easy to enforce a law that makes it illegal to carry an AR15 or other long arm through town like you're fucking Rambo.

    I might even could be convinced to join in the argument that anyone who would do such obviously has mental issues and thus shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

    The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

    You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

  21. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    My wife is the lawyer LOL

    And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

    For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.
    Fear can make people do some very strange things....

    If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  22. Thanks STTAB thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums