Blog post prompts police to seize weapons from Arlington businessman

This is a discussion on Blog post prompts police to seize weapons from Arlington businessman within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Maybe they're changing the order of attention! Instead of starting with the second amendment, they'll go in order and start with the first. I think ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45

Thread: Blog post prompts police to seize weapons from Arlington businessman

  1. #16
    Member Array dylistn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Harriman, TN 37748
    Posts
    166
    Maybe they're changing the order of attention! Instead of starting with the second amendment, they'll go in order and start with the first. I think this is political speech and should be protected. He did not threaten or overtly incite. Did he say crazy stuff like torture and ear necklaces? Sorry I have no interest in reading this stuff. But, did he indicate he was dangerous to him self or others?

    I think he's way off base and have no interest in people who splew this crap. But the 1st amendment is not there to protect people I agree with.
    PT145, CZ52, PM for carry. Lots of others to look at

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks
    Here is some examples , courtesy of Michelle Malkin that Progressive / LIberals and illegals have spouted : http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/
    Eagleks, thanks for that link, buddy!

    Some pretty vile stuff there as anyone can see. People would be hard pressed to find any real examples of conservatives putting forth that kind of hate.

    The left always seems to confuse "impassioned expressions of displeasure" with the ideals of the progressive movement with hate. They really need to look into the mirror.

    As the case in the original post, clearly the guy should have held his tongue. But to construe what he said as an actual threat to a member of congress was an extreme stretch of the imagination (especially when compared to any of the vile examples Michelle Malkin outlined on her website). And for law enforcement to come in and confiscate his weapons, in my opinion was a gross overstep of the law. I don't see any legal basis to do that. (shades of Katrina, perhaps?)

    Everyone should be on edge when the State starts confiscating weapons of people based on a disagreement with their political discourse and without due process in an attempt to criminalize that individual.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,407
    The Patriot Act is here for your protection (I'm guessing that was part of the justification for the seizure).

    J. Edgar would be so proud.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  5. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I had not heard this. Which one of the victims who was shot, ended up in the psycho ward? What threats did he make that were not taken as threats?
    k-- I'm sending the info by private message so as not to divert the thread here.

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Yep, someone says he wants to fight Obama and the SS visits and he loses his job, yet they can say they want Bush dead and nothing is done. Society of hypocrisy.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    O.K. We all know very well what he had in mind, and the police know what he had in mind. He didn't utter a threat but he engaged in unlawful incitement perhaps. Or perhaps, he just showed such really really bad judgment as to demonstrate a lack of mental acumen.

    Free speech doesn't include inciting others to violence or attempting to incite others to violence. I gave this analogy in another thread.

    17 y.o. says to 12 y.o. brother regarding step -dad; "I sure wish someone would take him out." That is not a direct threat. But now, 12 y.o. takes the words to heart and trips dad at the top of the stairs. We all know how this one will go. Let's say the police never get involved. Step-dad and mom get to be the one to give out justice. Who do you think he might just hold really really responsible for that fall that twisted his ankle; the idiot 12 y.o. or the 17 who spoke with malice and incited the 12 y.o.?

    This guy who was raided knew exactly what he was saying. He was just too dumb to understand the consequences and had no idea that when you urge someone else to do illegal deeds you are guilty too.

    Nothing thin here. And its time for those here who cheer on illegal activity or defend it, to stop it. It puts our community in the worst possible light and violates forum rules as well.
    I don't condone what the fool said if he said it with the intent it appears at first glance... However, I'm not sure the analogy you use fits any reasonable man standard. Reason and logic does not mean that some dingbat that spouts off is the cause of some other heinous crime. I hold the persons who commit said acts responsible. We are all volitional creatures and we ALL have the CHOICE to act or not. The 12yr old in your example is plenty old enough to know right from wrong and CHOSE to act wrong.

    The moment we start blaming Person A for Person B's actions logic has gone out the window and the reasonable man standards don't apply.
    I wish some in congress didn't have their jobs because I don't think they're up to challenge. Now that said, if some nutjob wacked out terrorist decides to make that into something it isn't and commits some heinous act, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for it. Those who commit said acts are, and should be treated as such.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    that doesn't mean I'm responsible for it. Those who commit said acts are, and should be treated as such.
    not any more...welcome to the "new America"

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are under attack. Must we all now learn 'Newspeak'?
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    According to the news report the guy wrote some pretty serious stuff.

    In his blog Corcoran writes, “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Frogbones View Post
    not any more...welcome to the "new America"
    Come on. Its not the new America. Incitement laws have been on the books for the entirety of the nation's history as have laws against threatening. And where they haven't been on the books they were enforced as common law; some things are just wrong and the judicial system takes that into account. This issue is not about free speech. And as far as posts here, supporting this stuff or endorsing it really really really doesn't do much for our image.

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are under attack. Must we all now learn 'Newspeak'?
    Nonsense. The laws against threatening and the laws against incitement have long been on the book. They are nothing new. They have just come to our attention now because so many fools do it.

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    I don't condone what the fool said if he said it with the intent it appears at first glance... However, I'm not sure the analogy you use fits any reasonable man standard. Reason and logic does not mean that some dingbat that spouts off is the cause of some other heinous crime. I hold the persons who commit said acts responsible. We are all volitional creatures and we ALL have the CHOICE to act or not. The 12yr old in your example is plenty old enough to know right from wrong and CHOSE to act wrong.

    The moment we start blaming Person A for Person B's actions logic has gone out the window and the reasonable man standards don't apply.
    I wish some in congress didn't have their jobs because I don't think they're up to challenge. Now that said, if some nutjob wacked out terrorist decides to make that into something it isn't and commits some heinous act, that doesn't mean I'm responsible for it. Those who commit said acts are, and should be treated as such.
    Pac, I sure know which of my kids I'd punish severely in the analogy situation I gave. The 17 year old knows a lot better what the consequences of words and his younger brother's actions are. The flame throwing rhetoric these days is not accidental. It is cold and calculated by cowards to have others do their dirty deeds. Maybe, that's not what happened in Tucson. It doesn't matter. You can't incite and stand back and pretend to have clean hands-- only cowards do that.

  14. #28
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Come on. Its not the new America. Incitement laws have been on the books for the entirety of the nation's history as have laws against threatening. And where they haven't been on the books they were enforced as common law;
    Well, then I suggest you go to the Michelle Malkin page and examine those examples closely and explain why a whole lot of left wing nuts haven't been visited by the law and snatched up for Incitement and threatening. I submit that just about every example on that page is a hell of a lot worse than what this blogger said. But it seems it's okay if President Bush is burned in effigy, or had a movie encouraging his assination, or Sarah Palin is attacked, threatened and incite people to kill her.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10...mer-2000-2010/

    It would seem that it's okay for one segment to engage in that rhetoric, yet not okay for another segment of society.

    When the State applies laws to one section of society, yet blatantly refuses to apply the same laws towards another section of society based solely on political lines, we have a break down in the rule of law. It shows that justice is indeed, not blind. It shows that justice is applied based on political ideology. And people wonder why we are divided among political ideologies and why people are so outraged.

    I'm not trying to turn this into a political hotbed. We are talking about infringement on peoples rights to bear arms because they said or wrote something which wasn't liked. And it seems that infringement is based on political lines instead of violation of any rule of law. There is no evidence that this blogger's statements is inciting violence against any member of congress, yet it does seem to appear that certain "powers that be" are attempting to trample on this blogger's right to free speech as an excuse to infringe upon his second amendment rights.

    Now I'm not a "Constitutional scholar", but I can read an article and come to certain conclusions based on logic and the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

    IBTL
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #29
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Wow...for a forum that purports to support an Amendment of the Constitution, some of these posts show a decided lack of understanding.

    Cries of "no due process" are silly. The man made a public comment that one Congresswoman is dead or dying and now we just have to get the rest. The police receive a report of said threatening language and investigate it. In the process of doing so, they take custody of certain weapons in accordance with the laws in the state in which they operate, noting that it may be temporary, although implying that if the statements are construed as a felony or evidence of mental incapacity, it may be permanent. That, my friends, is due process. You may not LIKE the process and you may vote to change the process, but it is due process.

    People saying that it is violating the 1st Amendment perhaps do not understand what the 1st Amendment means. If they threw him in jail for what he said, he'd likely win the case and probably even be compensated. But the 1st Amendment DOES not and SHOULD not be interpreted to mean that if you say stupid things that border on inciting violence, you won't be watched. I hope someone in the government is keeping an eye on the Neo-Nazi and Radical Hatred Jihadists who say things bordering on incitement.

    And, by the way, being fired from a private job for saying something incredibly stupid is also not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Telling me, a business owner, that I have to continue to employ an idiot is a greater violation of my rights than telling me I can't call for the death of Congressmen.

    By the way, I hope that the guy gets everything back. From what I've read, it seemed relatively clear that he was being hyperbolic and probably WAS excercising free speech. However, if I were in the Arlington PD or the county gun board, I would defnitely take a close look at the guy.

    At the end of the day, there are a lot of cases in this country where the government is over-reaching and violating our rights. This is hardly the poster child for it though.
    Human Beings understand Reason, Compassion, and Dignity

    Predators understand Strength

  16. #30
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are under attack. Must we all now learn 'Newspeak'?
    They are, but this is not an example of it.
    Human Beings understand Reason, Compassion, and Dignity

    Predators understand Strength

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Duty weapons of the Las Vegas Metro Police
    By orangevol in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 13th, 2010, 05:16 PM
  2. Police Inspector Blog: A quiz for police officers
    By Naufragia in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 02:13 AM
  3. MASS Police: Man with weapons cache was preparing for 'Armageddon'
    By TheShadow in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: April 26th, 2010, 05:26 PM
  4. Police concerned about change in concealed weapons law
    By John Luttrel in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: September 10th, 2009, 02:06 PM
  5. Police: Teens with high-powered weapons on rise
    By Euclidean in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 27th, 2006, 09:43 AM

Search tags for this page

arlington businessman
,

process in which police seize weapons in missouri

Click on a term to search for related topics.