Cops seize Army vet's weapons arsenal

[TexasSkyhawk]

He was a US Army veteran. Doesn't say if he was a Ranger, cook, finance clerk or whatever. There are many veterans who are criminals. I can't see why being a veteran (I'm one) should give you any breaks in the criminal justice system. Physcological tests for things like Special Forces concentrate a lot on ability to think independently and not likely to abuse your position just like police tests do. The article quotes he had poor stress tolerance, judgement, impulse control, and immaturity. Any one of those things would prevent you from being selected for Special Forces or the police department and they should.

Very well said, and as a veteran, I agree 100%.

What I'm having a hard time with here is that we--as gun owners--collectively raise hell about "enforce the existing (gun) laws that we have instead of just adding new ones!"

And then, when EXACTLY that happens, as it did in NYC, we whine and make this psycho out to be some sort of a victim.

In doing so, we become our own worst enemy. If we as gun-owners will not police our own, then don't be surprised when the anti-gunners step in and do it.

Jeff

 

[Robert Hairless]

HR2640 isn't going to be used for what again?

This incident has nothing to do with HR2640, "The NICS Improvement Act," and couldn't possibly have anything to do with it because the Act does not yet exist.

Unless you know something I don't, the President has not yet signed HR2640 into law even now. The article you posted does not even imply a connection with "The NICS Improvement Act" or, as GOA has named it, "The Veterans Disarmament Act."

This incident has nothing to do with HR2640. You might as well argue that the incident proves that some as-yet unconceived, unproposed, undebated, unpassed, and unsigned bill prohibiting all veterans from eating sushi on Sundays is being used to disarm them.

Not even GOA has yet tried to rouse gunowners to protest "The NYC Veterans Sunday Sushi Sellout Act," possibly because it's still too early in 2008 for Larry Pratt to have imagined it.

When some gunowners make wild arguments like the one that begins this thread we all look unstable.

 

[cornman]

I wonder how many cops have huge arsenals of weapons that the keep form such events?

 

[kludge]

A loaded AR15 with scope plus 800 rounds of ammo in car in NYC!
This is definitely a recipe for disaster. Who knows what this guy was getting ready to do. LE cannot afford to wait until something bad happens before taking action. Even without the girl friend's tip an exposed AR15 in NYC is something that needs to be investigated immediately. This individual was advertising, he wanted folks to see his AR15 --- Scary. In this case it was appropriate to be concerned about public safety and NYPD did just that.

I had 1,000 rounds of ammo and a Kel Tec SU-16 once in my car in Indianapolis. Is that scary?

Why is an AR-15 scary? The bans are unconstitutional anyway.

Probably a felon. All of them illegal for him. New York State has an AW ban. PS90 illegal, and its magazines. Even if his AR15 and its mags were grandfathered under New York State AW ban, New York City has an even stricter AW ban, so its illegal under that. Probably illegal in NYC to have a loaded rifle in car. Possible enhanced penalties for an AW weapon. Sure doesn't sound he had the NYC permits for his stuff. Possibly a stolen Glock. And if his girlfriend had filed a restraining order it would have all been confiscated anyway.

The bans are illegal, not the guns.

It's no wonder we are where where we are.

"Well, that gun is illegal in NYC, he should go to jail."

Sheesh! It's the law that is illegal, folks!

 

[Robert Hairless]

The bans are illegal, not the guns.

It's no wonder we are where where we are.

"Well, that gun is illegal in NYC, he should go to jail."

Sheesh! It's the law that is illegal, folks!

Get real. The laws violated by the man in that article are legal. You may not like those laws, you may not want those laws, and you can refuse to obey those laws but they are the laws. That's not in the Second Amendment.

 

[antsi]

The laws suck, but that doesn't mean anyone should outly flaunt their disregard for them.

Let me rephrase that...

The laws suck. If you want to engage in civil disobedience by flaunting them, be prepared for the likelihood you will be prosecuted.

 

[kludge]

The laws violated by the man in that article are legal.

Only because corrupt judges have said they are. That to me does not make them legal.

The sky is red.

 

[joffe]

Remember to pick up the New York City English dictionary, in which common words like 'collection' get turned into 'arsenal' and 'cache'. Stay tuned.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Only because corrupt judges have said they are. That to me does not make them legal.

Nah, you're pulling our collective leg. You're a man of principle.

If you really believed that the laws were "not legal" you would violate them and be forthright about violating them. You wouldn't sneak around either.

You'd stand up on your hind legs like a real man, ignore the laws, and tell the world that you're doing it. Then you'd tell the corrupt judges to their collective face that they're corrupt. And you'd make sure they knew your real name too.

 

[Bullseye57]

Another similar incident in the news lately. http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_122907_exseal_caught_.65a5ea32.html

R,
Bullseye

 

[kludge]

Just because I abide the law does not mean that I confuse principle with practice.

The more people that understand that the law is wrong the better chance we have of changing it; instead we have a group of "pro-gun" people that says he should go to jail because he had an "illegal" gun.

My name is Andy Wickham and I approve this message.

 

[LKB3rd]

Get real. The laws violated by the man in that article are legal. You may not like those laws, you may not want those laws, and you can refuse to obey those laws but they are the laws. That's not in the Second Amendment.

Any law that goes against the constitution is null and void, and yes, illegal.
I am not saying that argument will work in court(pretty pathetic, but true), but it is the truth of the situation.

 

[skidmark]

Veering back towards the things the cops do --

Anybody else notice that several of the pistols (see pic of pistols on top of plastic tub) seem to be cocked & locked, while others are displayed with magazines out & slides locked back?

If these implements are so dangerous in and of themselves, why ae the cops not taking every precaution to display them in a safe manner?

I know - do as I say, not as I do.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[siglite]

Nah, you're pulling our collective leg. You're a man of principle.

If you really believed that the laws were "not legal" you would violate them and be forthright about violating them. You wouldn't sneak around either.

You'd stand up on your hind legs like a real man, ignore the laws, and tell the world that you're doing it. Then you'd tell the corrupt judges to their collective face that they're corrupt. And you'd make sure they knew your real name too.

Mr. Hairless contends that if you don't go to prison, you don't have the beliefs you claim. I've seen him make this assertion multiple times. I find it ridiculous.

 

[TEDDY]

gun law??

what happens IF IF the suprems find the 2nd is the law of the land.do all the guns confiscated under the unconstional laws get returned like new orleans.
can the states be sued or the polotions for violation of their oath of office.
:banghead:

 

[jaholder1971]

jakemccoy said:It cracks me up when people throw around the "felon" term as if they're angels.

It cracks me up when people pretend that felons are misunderstood angels.

It really doesn't take much to become a felon. I'll bet most people on this forum have committed at least a few felonies. They just haven't been caught. If you claim you haven't, you're probably just not thinking hard enough.

It takes stupidity to do it in the first place and stupidity to get caught.

It takes a criminal act bad enough to be labeled a felony by law and/or repeated disregard for smaller crimes until the charges become a felony.

It also takes either someone admitting they committed a felony or a jury of 12 deciding unanimously that you are one.

Removing a man's right to own guns because he's a prior convicted felon amounts to painting him with an overly broad brush. For example, tax evasion or breaking into the school gym to perform a harmless prank, these are felonies.

Tax Evasion and burglary/ breaking and entering have been felonies for a long, long time. Anyone who doesn't understand that is short a chromosome or two.
It's been 40 years since felons were barred from owning guns and that's part of the whole penalty of being a felon. Don't like it, don't become one.

There are many more such examples.

So?

I'll bet a handful of folks here have been in conspiracies to commit arson and have just not been caught. Nothing happened of it. You still enjoy your fake "law abiding citizen" status.

He got caught and he ADMITTED to a judge that he did what he's accused of.

The general rule needs reform to apply only to certain violent felonies. Maybe the particular felony on this guy here is justified to prevent him specifically from owning firearms. That's not my point. My point is that applying the broad status of "felon" can easily infringe on a man's inherent right to defend himself.

Perhaps that should have been thought about PRIOR to committing the felony? It's universally known that being a felon come with lifelong difficulties and been that way for decades. These people have decided that whatever their goal is outweighs the consequences. Besides, looking at the recidivism rate in this country tells me that the vast majority of felons aren't interested in being law abiding, period. Their actions alone blow your argument out of the water.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Mr. Hairless contends that if you don't go to prison, you don't have the beliefs you claim. I've seen him make this assertion multiple times. I find it ridiculous."


a true hero of the revolution has commitment not just rehtoric, and internet rehtoric at that. if enough heros showed that much purpose they could/would overload the judicial system and jails causing the system to collapse but it never happens..... wonder why

 

[siglite]

I don't think there's any question as to why, CD. The answer is apathy. We currently have our bread and circuses. And very few of us are truly "oppressed." Yet. Many can see that time on the horizon. I hope we never get there. But to claim a man doesn't believe in a purist interpretation of the 2nd amendment because he's not sitting in a prison cell is rubbish.

Many here at THR, and nation-wide view all gun control laws as "illegal" and unconstitutional. Whenever Robert encounters such on this forum, he apparently uses the phrase "man of principle," and attempts to nullify and invalidate the poster's views, due to the fact that the poster is not submitting from federal prison.

Currently, most of us who hold this belief have chosen to (properly, in my opinion) express our beliefs and our positions with our dollars and our votes. The time may indeed come when many "men of principle" may have to stand up and do more. After all, for some time before our own revolution, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and many others were "men of principle" who did not feel the need to risk their lives.

Perhaps Robert would contend that these men had no "principles" prior to 7/4/1776.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i'd have to count myself as amongst those who feel similarly to mr hairless. and think that sometimes the principles the others espouse, and particularly the manner and form with which the espouse them, could easily be dismissed by some as ranting. and could very well continue to feed the stereotype of "gun nut".the more so since its seems to be a situation were there is more talk than action. the guys in 1776 hada get off the pot to make anything happen.

in this case i think trying to portry a mentally disturbed convicted arsonist as a poster child for governmental abuse is beyond reaching and once again brings that perjorative phrase "gun nut" to mind.

 

[Robert Hairless]

siglite:

Mr. Hairless contends that if you don't go to prison, you don't have the beliefs you claim. I've seen him make this assertion multiple times. I find it ridiculous.

Of course you have seen me say this before and of course you find it ridiculous each time I say it. You've seen me say exactly the same thing to you about what you call your principles and you dismissed my point as "ridiculous" then too. You're consistent in your hypocrisy.

The test of a real man's principles is not what he says but how he behaves.

Easy principles are as worthless as easy virtue, and the standard is the same for both: whether one acts on them when it's inconvenient or costly to do so.

It takes no courage to say bold things. If barracks warriors counted for much all wars would be fought and won in the bunk, and if Internet gun forum principles were worth anything at all there would be no gun control.

You might want to see The Wizard of Oz some day and pay attention to the Cowardly Lion, a highly principled and admirably bold creature who cowers when his principles or courage require him to behave well in the face of penalties for doing so.

Cowardly Lion:

Courage.

What makes a King out of a slave? Courage.
What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage.
What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist or the dusky dusk?
What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage.
What makes the Sphinx the 7th Wonder? Courage.
What makes the dawn come up like THUNDER?! Courage.
What makes the Hottentot so hot?
What puts the "ape" in ape-ricot?
Whatta they got that I ain't got?

Courage.

Courage is what it takes to stand up for your principles when there is a cost for doing so. Daring or extreme statements are neither convictions nor principles. They're idle brags and boasts. Principles without the courage to act on them aren't worth a darned thing. Cowardly Lions are not admirable figures on the battlefield or the Internet.

What is it that Internet warriors ain't got?

 

[siglite]

Ah, not only does one who believes in a purist interpretation of the second a liar, because he does not hold these views from a prison cell, but he's also a coward.

Yes, calling people cowards from across the intarwebs is indeed the very definition of keyboard commando.

Edit:

Mr. Harless, are you calling out those who believe in the fundamental principle of the 2nd amendment to arms? I believe there's a term for that. It's called "sedition."

So, we are either liars, because we're no in a jail cell, or we have to pick up arms to prove our beliefs. But, our votes, our dollars, and any activism don't count. Because only cowards use votes and donations. There's only "****" or "GO SHOOT THE GUBBMENT."

I can't believe I'm granting your argument legitimacy by even responding. I should learn not to feed them. Really I should.

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

The more people that understand that the law is wrong the better chance we have of changing it; instead we have a group of "pro-gun" people that says he should go to jail because he had an "illegal" gun.

And herein lies the big problem . . . The intentional mispreading of information because people choose to only see/read/believe what they want to rather than what the facts are.

Fact IS, Andy, this guy is not going to jail for an illegal gun. He is going to jail for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

In fact, he is in illegal possession many times over.

And as I said before, we as law-abiding gun owners shout from the rooftops that we don't need anymore new gun laws--just enforce the ones we have.

Yet when that happens, as in the case we're discussing, all the misinformation and pure BS comes out.

Makes us, collectively, look real smart in front of the rest of the nation . . .

Thanks for that.

Jeff

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and of course this guys obviously a few fries shy of a happy meal if hes riding around nyc with guns in the open after making threats so going to the barricades over "le cause" in this case makes you look a might touched
a case like this is suc most rational folks are glad e got off the street without anyone getting hurt including the disturbed young man

 

[siglite]

I actually agree in this particular case CD. As evidenced by my first post in this thread. I suspect this guy was a real problem waiting to happen. But it's often hard to tell with all the media bias/spin applied to any story with a firearm. Especially in NYC.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

this kids family is connected. the story in papers might be worse were it not so.