User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:12:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some times I like to purposely drive in to a checkpoint and when asked if I've "been drinking tonight?" answer with a loud "YES! Koolaid!"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:12:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Do you have case law that says I should? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:13:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Knock Knock... Hello? JAD762 I thought we we discussing my JBT ways??? Actually we were discussing the checkpoint on 47. Were you there or do you just have thin skin? You're not going to put me on some secret list now are you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:14:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have case law that says I should? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Do you have case law that says I should? That you should...what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:19:34 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually we were discussing the checkpoint on 47. Were you there or do you just have thin skin? You're not going to put me on some secret list now are you? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Knock Knock... Hello? JAD762 I thought we we discussing my JBT ways??? Actually we were discussing the checkpoint on 47. Were you there or do you just have thin skin? You're not going to put me on some secret list now are you? Oh heck no. According to my DR, I'm the healthiest non-skinny guy he's ever met. Drives him insane that I can run and lift with the younger guys but still has a little "shadow over the belt", if you know what I mean... Wouldn't it be so cool if I could have a "secret list"? I mean, the possibilities are endless... Ok, truth be told I can't come up with anything for a secret list, but man, if I could... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:20:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That you should...what? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Do you have case law that says I should? That you should...what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:22:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Do you have case law that says I should? That you should...what? Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:25:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Do you have case law that says I should? That you should...what? Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. I'm confused. How does "Do you have case law that says I should? " equate to if its legal, its right? That's the trap, see? If I say if its law, its right I'm a JBT. If I don't say that, then I agree that DUI checkpoints are bad. Neither applies to me. ETA: Of course I'm a JBT: I was referring to neither argument applies to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:34:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm confused. How does "Do you have case law that says I should? " equate to if its legal, its right? That's the trap, see? If I say if its law, its right I'm a JBT. If I don't say that, then I agree that DUI checkpoints are bad. Neither applies to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you have case law that says I should? That you should...what? Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. I'm confused. How does "Do you have case law that says I should? " equate to if its legal, its right? That's the trap, see? If I say if its law, its right I'm a JBT. If I don't say that, then I agree that DUI checkpoints are bad. Neither applies to me. That's obvious. You supported the detainment of 650 people by quoting drunk driving stats. But you don't support detaining gun owners based on gun death stats. When asked why, you asked for case law...because case law is your standard of right and wrong, apparently. Don't get mad about where we find ourselves, you're the one that brought us here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:46:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's obvious. You supported the detainment of 650 people by quoting drunk driving stats. But you don't support detaining gun owners based on gun death stats. When asked why, you asked for case law...because case law is your standard of right and wrong, apparently. Don't get mad about where we find ourselves, you're the one that brought us here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms." Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. I'm confused. How does "Do you have case law that says I should? " equate to if its legal, its right? That's the trap, see? If I say if its law, its right I'm a JBT. If I don't say that, then I agree that DUI checkpoints are bad. Neither applies to me. That's obvious. You supported the detainment of 650 people by quoting drunk driving stats. But you don't support detaining gun owners based on gun death stats. When asked why, you asked for case law...because case law is your standard of right and wrong, apparently. Don't get mad about where we find ourselves, you're the one that brought us here. Nope, was referring to Eric's post. In regards to case law, it is what give me my authority to act. In regards to DUI Checkpoints, yes, yes I do believe they are right. As I stated earlier, why will all of you who are against it not change it? Clearly you have deep feelings about it. I'm sure your passion could win people over. Why will you not change the law? It clearly strikes a cord with you. Surely you can convince enough people that this law, as corrupt and illegal as you feel it is, is in fact wrong? Sorry, was checking the SCOMO Docket. Nope, no challenges http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1977 DANG!!! Nothing on SCOTUS either! Why? Do it for the children damn it! http://www.scotusblog.com/events/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:00:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, was referring to Eric's post. In regards to case law, it is what give me my authority to act. In regards to DUI Checkpoints, yes, yes I do believe they are right. As I stated earlier, why will all of you who are against it not change it? Clearly you have deep feelings about it. I'm sure your passion could win people over. Why will you not change the law? It clearly strikes a cord with you. Surely you can convince enough people that this law, as corrupt and illegal as you feel it is, is in fact wrong? Sorry, was checking the SCOMO Docket. Nope, no challenges http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1977 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms." Ah, so what you're saying is that since its legal, its right. Lets hope there's never a safe actesq law passed here. That will give you all the case law you need. I'm confused. How does "Do you have case law that says I should? " equate to if its legal, its right? That's the trap, see? If I say if its law, its right I'm a JBT. If I don't say that, then I agree that DUI checkpoints are bad. Neither applies to me. That's obvious. You supported the detainment of 650 people by quoting drunk driving stats. But you don't support detaining gun owners based on gun death stats. When asked why, you asked for case law...because case law is your standard of right and wrong, apparently. Don't get mad about where we find ourselves, you're the one that brought us here. Nope, was referring to Eric's post. In regards to case law, it is what give me my authority to act. In regards to DUI Checkpoints, yes, yes I do believe they are right. As I stated earlier, why will all of you who are against it not change it? Clearly you have deep feelings about it. I'm sure your passion could win people over. Why will you not change the law? It clearly strikes a cord with you. Surely you can convince enough people that this law, as corrupt and illegal as you feel it is, is in fact wrong? Sorry, was checking the SCOMO Docket. Nope, no challenges http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1977 Sadly, the ones who determined their legality were sitting on benches, not in congress. That does limit one's options. Hopefully the more police who see how counterproductive they are, the less they will be willing to do them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:15:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sadly, the ones who determined their legality were sitting on benches, not in congress. That does limit one's options. Hopefully the more police who see how counterproductive they are, the less they will be willing to do them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's obvious. You supported the detainment of 650 people by quoting drunk driving stats. But you don't support detaining gun owners based on gun death stats. When asked why, you asked for case law...because case law is your standard of right and wrong, apparently. Don't get mad about where we find ourselves, you're the one that brought us here. Nope, was referring to Eric's post. In regards to case law, it is what give me my authority to act. In regards to DUI Checkpoints, yes, yes I do believe they are right. As I stated earlier, why will all of you who are against it not change it? Clearly you have deep feelings about it. I'm sure your passion could win people over. Why will you not change the law? It clearly strikes a cord with you. Surely you can convince enough people that this law, as corrupt and illegal as you feel it is, is in fact wrong? Sorry, was checking the SCOMO Docket. Nope, no challenges http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1977 Sadly, the ones who determined their legality were sitting on benches, not in congress. That does limit one's options. Hopefully the more police who see how counterproductive they are, the less they will be willing to do them. Problem is, there's more than a little bit of a huge jump when it comes to DUI checkpoints and house to house firearms confiscation. You may not agree, but for most this is the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:20:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Big difference, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT protected by the full force of the U.S. Constitution. Driving has been ruled by the SCOTUS and all 50 State Supreme Courts that driving is a PRIVILEGE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:32:30 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big difference, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT protected by the full force of the U.S. Constitution. Driving has been ruled by the SCOTUS and all 50 State Supreme Courts that driving is a PRIVILEGE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Big difference, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT protected by the full force of the U.S. Constitution. Driving has been ruled by the SCOTUS and all 50 State Supreme Courts that driving is a PRIVILEGE. Police verifying the legality of guns is not legally a 2A violation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:36:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Big difference, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT protected by the full force of the U.S. Constitution. Driving has been ruled by the SCOTUS and all 50 State Supreme Courts that driving is a PRIVILEGE. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Big difference, the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT protected by the full force of the U.S. Constitution. Driving has been ruled by the SCOTUS and all 50 State Supreme Courts that driving is a PRIVILEGE. True. Although you will have Sovereign Citizens argue interference with interstate commerce. Badly argued, but still. However, your point is valid and relevant to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:39:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too...
I'm sure to be on the secret list now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:44:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest. 
My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:50:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest. My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest. My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:57:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest.
My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. There's a technical term for people that disagree with me. It is "wrong." Just ask my kids. Though wives have a habit of always being right too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:57:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest.
My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. I had a wife once....she though the same thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 10:58:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest.
My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. I had a wife once....she though the same thing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 11:00:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had a wife once....she though the same thing Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest. My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. I had a wife once....she though the same thing But see, I can't do that. She's LE, so she's a JBT too. And, according to her Krav Maga instructor, she can kick my ass. Let me use different terms. She once told me if I ever cheated, she would rabbit punch me in my ball sack, then throat punch me to extract my nads, crush them, then smear them on Keebler crackers and eat em. Nope. Looks like I'm a lifer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 11:12:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a wife once....she though the same thing
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, looks like the cops are always right too... I'm sure to be on the secret list now. I'm not a cop, but I am always right. Just ask me, I'll be honest.
My father's a cop. Maybe I got it from him. You are all wrong. My wife is right. Don't bother to ask. She is. I had a wife once....she though the same thing
One of my favorite Office quotes: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 12:11:07 AM EDT
[#24]
One of my favorite quotes:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 9:08:53 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did it fall a part? I point out legal, tested and precedented detection techniques. You lob in a fear of 2nd Amendment supporters that has never occurred in MO. Please explain how your posting your thinly linked fears to an approved and vetted technique which you have never filed a court challenge to in MO relate? Or, show me in casenet where you have challenged it? No you didn't. You defended detaining 650 people without cause by quoting the death rate attributed to drunk driving. Logic being that the drunk driving habit of some legitimizes the detainment & search of others without probable cause. I simply asked you when you were going to apply the same logic based on the death rate attributed to firearms. The answer is obvious. One dau after SCOTUS rules it constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 11:48:34 AM EDT
[#26]
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 11:56:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 12:21:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 12:25:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You I personally know so I wouldn't worry. But some others, with what they've written, ... I just don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here Not sure if the reference at me or not...being narcissistic it's sometimes hard to tell if it's about me when after all its all about me... It will be interesting to see if anyone goes out of their way to convince you they wont. Won't be me. Not because I would, but as stated previously I don't care if people think I would nor not |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 12:46:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here Wrong. It's actually a pretty logical assessment based upon the posts in this thread. Go back and read the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 1:14:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. It's actually a pretty logical assessment based upon the posts in this thread. Go back and read the thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here Wrong. It's actually a pretty logical assessment based upon the posts in this thread. Go back and read the thread. Does not take an inductive genius to see this. The entire argument for these checkpoints is based on fear of harm (perception of enhanced safety) and that it was ruled constitutional. DUI cjeckpoint, as a concept, could be swapped out for any number of actions, including gun confiscation, and the same arguments/logic could be applied, immediately following a SCOTUS ruling. My immediate family has not impacted by drunk driving, but there have been tragedies that could have been prevented by living in a police state. Yet, somehow I still believe in freedom, and that the 4th says what it clearly says, in plain English, and does not contain an exception clause. There is a cost to freedom, but the alternative is much worse. I realize cops see some awful shit, but that also can create a bubble mentality that can be used to justify infringements of all sorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2015 1:31:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You I personally know so I wouldn't worry. But some others, with what they've written, ... I just don't know.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. That is one of, if not the STUPIDEST statements I've ever seen posted here
I don't think I know any of our arfcomm cops. I'm confident that they are all good, upstanding people. But, I've grown up around cops. And while most won't admit it, they just do what the law tells them to do. Want proof? There are very few cops in the world that won't confiscate a gun now if they're legally able to. Ever been pulled over for speeding and have the cop confiscate your CCW for the duration of the stop & run its serial number? I have several times. Remember this thread where the cops confiscated all the guns of a dead guy instead of waiting for family to secure them? If a guy convicted of a felony 20 years ago was caught up in the checkpoint with a .22 in his back seat, do you think he'd be let go with a nod or do you think the cops would have taken his .22? So the question of whether or not a cop will confiscate guns in the event of a ban is a silly question IMO. Cops already confiscate all the guns they're legally allowed to. If they were allowed to confiscate more, it only stands to reason that they would. Past behavior is a great predictor of future behavior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 1:30:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I've learned from this thread is that there are a number of Missouri arfcommers who will happily confiscate any and all guns from Missouri citizens as soon as the legislature can pass a 100% confiscation law that the Supreme Court agrees to be constitutional. Agreed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 3:36:31 PM EDT
[#34]
I venture to say I've probably done more to fight for the Second Amendment than most of the naysayers here together.
I'm currently an NRA Endowment Member who is upgrading to NRA Patron, I've donated quite a bit to the NRA-ILA over the years. It's one hell of a reach from DWI Checkpoints to firearms seizure. Put your tin foil hats back on 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 5:04:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I venture to say I've probably done more to fight for the Second Amendment than most of the naysayers here together. I'm currently an NRA Endowment Member who is upgrading to NRA Patron, I've donated quite a bit to the NRA-ILA over the years. It's one hell of a reach from DWI Checkpoints to firearms seizure. Put your tin foil hats back on Meh. I no more feel the need to prove my intent here than I need to join the Oath Keepers. Years have proven that conspiracy loves company, and the vacancy sign is out 24/7 at ARFCOM. Now back to something really important. Trying to find a pumpkin in minecraft. My kid and I need to make an ice gollum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 6:03:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Wow, what a shitshow this could have been(or still might be). Thanks all for not devolving to the poo-flinging levels we've seen in the past.
I can say I do know police who wouldn't have any problem enforcing a confiscation order, but they are people I haven't and probably wouldn't want to shoot with. I also know police(not cops) who have said when that day comes they're taking off the badge. I've heard other police(my dad told me long ago not to call them cops as that is derogatory-"coppers!")say they will stay on the force and refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order of confiscation. I suppose that last group could be helpful in sabotaging any such legislation, but the whole thing seems like a road we don't want to travel. Anyway, Wife is talking so I have to put attention elsewhere at the moment. She's right about something, I need to figure out what it is this time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 6:10:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No...I think its all been covered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anything to discuss? No...I think its all been covered. I guess we showed you! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 6:56:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow, what a shitshow this could have been(or still might be). Thanks all for not devolving to the poo-flinging levels we've seen in the past. I can say I do know police who wouldn't have any problem enforcing a confiscation order, but they are people I haven't and probably wouldn't want to shoot with. I also know police(not cops) who have said when that day comes they're taking off the badge. I've heard other police(my dad told me long ago not to call them cops as that is derogatory-"coppers!")say they will stay on the force and refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order of confiscation. I suppose that last group could be helpful in sabotaging any such legislation, but the whole thing seems like a road we don't want to travel. Anyway, Wife is talking so I have to put attention elsewhere at the moment. She's right about something, I need to figure out what it is this time. This tells me you actually spoke to an officer |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:21:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wife is talking... She's right about something, I need to figure out what it is this time. That's funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:39:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's funny.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wife is talking... She's right about something, I need to figure out what it is this time. That's funny.
I get yelled at when I go "HUH?" because 'I was talking to the dog' ok dear... wtf ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2015 8:40:45 AM EDT
[#41]
They had another one last night
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2015 8:13:45 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had another one last night Yea, but we had it all over FB and Twitter. Everyone took the other way!
Fuck those muther-fuckers. If they would have been patrolling the roads they would have seen the shitty driving and got people the old fashioned way. When they broke the law.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
