Confiscation
- Thread starter oldbillthundercheif
- Start date
silicon wolverine
New member
because they were too chicken to shoot the cops that were violating the constitution.
SW
SW
V4Vendetta
New member
I do wonder why nobody did that.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Strong Words.
Two questions:
1) Is this what you advocate, as opposed to court action?
2) Is this the action you claim you'd take, if placed in her position.
No waffling now. Your statement is Black and White. Answer in the same fashion. Yes or No to each.
Rich
WSM MAGNUM
New member
I got that email too. As I said before, and I`ll say it again. There will be a tyranny if they start taking guns away from everyone. It could turn into another Revolution like we had in the 1700`s. If the people are willing to fight for their guns.
marlboroman84
New member
I'm gonna take the bait here.
Rich, if you've seen most of my posts lately dealing with LEO issues, I'm very pro-cop. I'm more pro-constitution though. I'll answer these questions then go on to say why.
2.Yes
here is why for #1.I don't advocate shooting cops at all. If it could have been settled in court BEFORE they took the guns it wouldn't be as big an issue, but they just decided to do what they pleased and do something totally illegal!
2.If armed men came into my home during Katrina they would not have left,except for in bodybags. My duty is to my family. Not to cops,not to the government, and certainly not to the gangs and random idiots. I will protect my family at all costs. Simple as that.
I was in the Army so I know all about "just following orders", but you don't follow a bad order. As usual the good civilian gun owners got the bad rap and the people who got their guns illegally got to hang on to theirs and still shoot at cops.
I'm not advocating shooting cops for whatever reason, but in that situation, if someone busts into my house they better be ready for one hell of a fight.
Rich, if you've seen most of my posts lately dealing with LEO issues, I'm very pro-cop. I'm more pro-constitution though. I'll answer these questions then go on to say why.
1.No
2.Yes
here is why for #1.I don't advocate shooting cops at all. If it could have been settled in court BEFORE they took the guns it wouldn't be as big an issue, but they just decided to do what they pleased and do something totally illegal!
2.If armed men came into my home during Katrina they would not have left,except for in bodybags. My duty is to my family. Not to cops,not to the government, and certainly not to the gangs and random idiots. I will protect my family at all costs. Simple as that.
I was in the Army so I know all about "just following orders", but you don't follow a bad order. As usual the good civilian gun owners got the bad rap and the people who got their guns illegally got to hang on to theirs and still shoot at cops.
I'm not advocating shooting cops for whatever reason, but in that situation, if someone busts into my house they better be ready for one hell of a fight.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Fair enough.
You're willing to trade a a lifetime prison sentence for your day in court, after the fact. I respect that. I don't agree with it, personally, but I respect it.
One more question:
Are you going to feel as comfortable with that answer when I post your real name and location? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Rich
You're willing to trade a a lifetime prison sentence for your day in court, after the fact. I respect that. I don't agree with it, personally, but I respect it.
One more question:
Are you going to feel as comfortable with that answer when I post your real name and location? Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Rich
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
Did anyone get a good look at the arm-patches those cops were sporting?
All I was able to see for sure is that they were not local.
All I was able to see for sure is that they were not local.
V4Vendetta
New member
Don't be a Judas. If you don't agree with his choice, say so & leave it at that. I disagree with certain posts but that doesn't mean I'd betray them to corrupt government officials.
Like marlboroman84 said, "If it could have been settled in court BEFORE they took the guns it wouldn't be as big an issue, but they just decided to do what they pleased and do something totally illegal!"
Last edited:
marlboroman84
New member
Well personally I think that's where the justice system is flawed. Where does any law give cops the right to just bust into a house and do and take what they please? Emergency powers are crap. The whole 2nd amendment is really based on the citizens having their guns when they need them most!
As far as the last part of your post goes... Anyone that knows me knows how I feel. My LEO friends know how I feel,I'm sure my fellow officers at the Police academy (which I'll be attending soon) will know how I feel.
As I said before I DO NOT advocate shooting cops, but cop or not my home is my home. My guns are my guns. My family is my responsibility to protect and no ONE on this earth is gonna come into MY house and take my best way of defending them away from me without a fight. The cops should have never followed those orders and they know it.
Lastly, I'm sure what you said about posting my info was hypothetical (as you said) and was merely to see if I would stand up for what I believe in, but it comes across as a veiled threat and I don't like threats. Just so we're clear on that. Is that really the kind of message you wanna send anyway? Telling posters that because they say something anti-establishment that you're gonna post their info? Hypothetically or not that's a bad way to go about things. I could say "Post my information and I'll sue you!" , but what's the point? You're not gonna post my info anymore than I'm gonna go get a lawyer.
It may not mean much to you, but that last sentence made me lose some respect for you, Rich.
Last edited:
Rich Lucibella
Staff
V4-
I clearly stated "hypothetically". Hold your tongue until you see where I'm going. Please. I'll get back to you in just a minute.
Marlboro-
I could not ask for a more honorable, though totally self absorbed, response than you just gave. Including taking umbrage at what you consider a "veiled threat". It was not.
But, you make my point for me. You're willing to post such statements on a site that is sponsored by me; Me, using my REAL name. And somehow YOU feel "threatened" when I ask you how you'd feel if you were as above board as me? What does that make me in your mind? Canon Fodder? And you're insulted?
So, how 'bout you make this right and take me off the hook for your statements on this board. Simply Step Up and provide a REAL name to go with your statements and counsel to others. To do less renders your statements little more than internet bravado to those of us who take Personal Responsibility for our statements.
V4-
Back to you. NOW you know where I'm going. If I'm a "Judas", what term would best describe you? Anonymous Patriot? Keyboard Soldier of Fortune?
What we say here matters greatly. Unless, of course, we insist on anonymity when saying it. Then, it's chat at best; noise at worst. In those latter cases, we really should avoid talking smack about killing cops under ANY conditions. Capisco?
Rich
I clearly stated "hypothetically". Hold your tongue until you see where I'm going. Please. I'll get back to you in just a minute.
Marlboro-
I could not ask for a more honorable, though totally self absorbed, response than you just gave. Including taking umbrage at what you consider a "veiled threat". It was not.
But, you make my point for me. You're willing to post such statements on a site that is sponsored by me; Me, using my REAL name. And somehow YOU feel "threatened" when I ask you how you'd feel if you were as above board as me? What does that make me in your mind? Canon Fodder? And you're insulted?
So, how 'bout you make this right and take me off the hook for your statements on this board. Simply Step Up and provide a REAL name to go with your statements and counsel to others. To do less renders your statements little more than internet bravado to those of us who take Personal Responsibility for our statements.
V4-
Back to you. NOW you know where I'm going. If I'm a "Judas", what term would best describe you? Anonymous Patriot? Keyboard Soldier of Fortune?
What we say here matters greatly. Unless, of course, we insist on anonymity when saying it. Then, it's chat at best; noise at worst. In those latter cases, we really should avoid talking smack about killing cops under ANY conditions. Capisco?
Rich
V4Vendetta
New member
I rephrased my statement to say, "Don't be a Judas.". I did that before your last post so my point would come across clearer. The way you talked about posting real locations & names sounded like you were threatening Marlboroman. Seeing as how his taste in movies mimics mine*, I felt compelled to defend him.
As for what term describes me, I'd say "No better friend, no worse enemy."
True. I forget which person's signature says "your post reflects on gun owners everywhere", but I agree with that motto. That's why I try to be very careful about what I say. If I was to speak some of the things I think, regardless of 1'st ammendment, I would be accidently hit by a black sedan while the driver wouldn't be found
.*See the first quote in his signature.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
V4-
No harm, No foul, my friend. We're on the same page.
Rich
No harm, No foul, my friend. We're on the same page.
Rich
marlboroman84
New member
Allright Rich, well stated. What I got from the last bit of your post was "How would you feel if I put your name,address and phone number in a post and let everyone who sees this board give you a ring or swing by and see if you still say what you said here."
That's what I got I from it and I'm sure that's how alot of people would take it. I have no problem telling people my name, but I don't usually have my actual name as my screen name on anything. I understand about taking responsibility for what you say. I'm all for it and I won't turncoat because others don't agree with me. My point is I don't know anyone here personally. Probably never will.
So I'll say this Rich if you're ever coming to Memphis,TN and wanna talk shop,go shoot,have a beer,etc. Come on brother it's on me. Pm me and I'll give ya a number to call and then we'll be formally introduced and you can call me Chuck. Just like my mama does. Until then though outside of PMs I'm the Marlboroman and the feelings of the Marlboroman do reflect the feelings of Chuck.
Now anyway all the foolishness aside I'm gonna withdraw from the debate because I already know it's gonna get heated quick. So Rich no harm no foul and live to fight another day? Whadda ya say? *extends hand*
That's what I got I from it and I'm sure that's how alot of people would take it. I have no problem telling people my name, but I don't usually have my actual name as my screen name on anything. I understand about taking responsibility for what you say. I'm all for it and I won't turncoat because others don't agree with me. My point is I don't know anyone here personally. Probably never will.
So I'll say this Rich if you're ever coming to Memphis,TN and wanna talk shop,go shoot,have a beer,etc. Come on brother it's on me. Pm me and I'll give ya a number to call and then we'll be formally introduced and you can call me Chuck. Just like my mama does. Until then though outside of PMs I'm the Marlboroman and the feelings of the Marlboroman do reflect the feelings of Chuck.
Now anyway all the foolishness aside I'm gonna withdraw from the debate because I already know it's gonna get heated quick. So Rich no harm no foul and live to fight another day? Whadda ya say? *extends hand*
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Marlboro-
Even better answer than the last. I thank you for it.
No, you needn't withdraw. I understand your desire for anonymity; in fact, I share it. You understand my insistence on using my real name when getting involved in threads like this, I think.
It's one thing to demand anonymity when we're talking about the guns we own, for instance. But, when it comes to the L&P Forum; when we're debating the intent of people with "handles" like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton? Well, then, I think we need to carefully weigh our words against our anonymity.
Make sense?
Rich
Even better answer than the last. I thank you for it.
No, you needn't withdraw. I understand your desire for anonymity; in fact, I share it. You understand my insistence on using my real name when getting involved in threads like this, I think.
It's one thing to demand anonymity when we're talking about the guns we own, for instance. But, when it comes to the L&P Forum; when we're debating the intent of people with "handles" like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton? Well, then, I think we need to carefully weigh our words against our anonymity.
Make sense?
Rich
marlboroman84
New member
Indeed it does.
Now I post a question. Wouldn't it be nice if all the disagreements and arguments here at TFL could be settled like this? Very few gentleman left in the world I think.Rich Lucibella
Staff
My fervent hope, guy. It'll only require a core group of Members who demand Thought, Honesty and Personal Responsibility in debate. A rather endangered species of communication in today's world.
BTW, those cops should face dismissal and charges. I said that when it first aired.
Group Hug.
Rich
silicon wolverine
New member
WOW. marlboroman took the words right out of my mouth.
SW
SW
Ok... This is the way I percieve the video. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
Police are ordered to evacuate Katrina victims. She's been given the evacuation order and refused (verified by her claim that she had "plenty of food".) She wasn't planning on going anywhere. The police came to remove her in this ordered evacuation. After they entered the home, they found her holding a pistol (Video doesn't prove she was holding in ready to fire nor in the "innocent" way she claimed to be). Force was used to disarm her. I believe the reason her gun is still in custody would be due to pending charges for resisting an officer and POSSIBLY threating an officer.
There isn't any real information I can see regarding these circumstances. Based on the video and that short essay written next to it, this is the conclusion I've come to. This is in part due to my schooling that I need to see both sides of the arguement.
It does remind me of an officer in Texas (I believe) who arrested a 90 year old woman who showed a Felony warrant for Failure to Appear during a traffic stop. He took her into custody, and following prodecure for arresting Felony suspects, he handcuffed her. There was public outcry for handcuffing an elderly lady, and the officer was fired. If the cops are follow procedure here, I say it's a situation well handled. An old lady with a gun can still kill you.
Police are ordered to evacuate Katrina victims. She's been given the evacuation order and refused (verified by her claim that she had "plenty of food".) She wasn't planning on going anywhere. The police came to remove her in this ordered evacuation. After they entered the home, they found her holding a pistol (Video doesn't prove she was holding in ready to fire nor in the "innocent" way she claimed to be). Force was used to disarm her. I believe the reason her gun is still in custody would be due to pending charges for resisting an officer and POSSIBLY threating an officer.
There isn't any real information I can see regarding these circumstances. Based on the video and that short essay written next to it, this is the conclusion I've come to. This is in part due to my schooling that I need to see both sides of the arguement.
It does remind me of an officer in Texas (I believe) who arrested a 90 year old woman who showed a Felony warrant for Failure to Appear during a traffic stop. He took her into custody, and following prodecure for arresting Felony suspects, he handcuffed her. There was public outcry for handcuffing an elderly lady, and the officer was fired. If the cops are follow procedure here, I say it's a situation well handled. An old lady with a gun can still kill you.