Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/25/2002 1:20:19 PM EDT
On the 5 o'clock local news (can't find a link yet): An anonymous tip led ATF and SBI agents to a storage unit in Raleigh where they found dozens of assault-type rifles, mostly all kinds of different AR-15s by the footage. The person who rented the storage unit was at the scene and when the investigators came after him he ran into the woods "and took his own life with a handgun." Apparently, the guy was under investigation as a felon in posession of firearms or some such nonsense. The guns pictured were likely all semi-autos, but of course the evil, anti-gun media propagandists made them out to be assualt machine guns, etc. I'm sure his felony was probably 10 or more years ago--probably some technical violation of a gun law, the same crap they nailed Bob Stewart on. Guys, if that AR-15 collector can be harassed and killed, it can and will happen to you. The war on gun owners is here. Don't believe that just because Ashcroft says the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that anything at all has changed. The move towards fascism here and elsewhere is rolling right along, on schedule. Just a heads up.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 1:49:41 PM EDT
Technically he wasn't killed, he killed himself. I do agree that the media and most people assume the worst when they see a gun or find out someone owns a gun. It will be intresting to see what his felony was.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 2:18:37 PM EDT
So it's your opinion, trickshot, that all gun owners are somehow blameless and never do anything wrong or illegal? Why do people insist on breaking the law, then complain about it when they get busted. Bob Stewart's case is not a good example. He was a guy who knew he had a felony conviction, who knew full well that he was prohibited from possessing firearms, yet had a number of them in his house. Even still, he continued to pursue a very high profile business, dealing in firearms. Then, he chose to defend himself. Not surprising he was convicted.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 3:01:21 PM EDT
Here's a link: [url]http://www.wral.com/news/1250437/detail.html[/url]
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 3:04:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Bob Stewart's case is not a good example. He was a guy who knew he had a felony conviction, who knew full well that he was prohibited from possessing firearms, yet had a number of them in his house. Even still, he continued to pursue a very high profile business, dealing in firearms. Then, he chose to defend himself. Not surprising he was convicted.
View Quote
Ahh, but should he have been a felon? I'm not 100% sure about this, but this is what I remember. BATF agents came into his shop undercover and asked him to do some menial work on an AR15. After he adjusted the scope or something lame like that, they said it was a unregistered machine gun and wham. He would have to pay hundreds of thouands to try and fight or cop to a lesser plea.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 3:08:51 PM EDT
The problem is, and always has been, that courts will base their decisions, which affect our rights, on what some scumbag criminal's case. They are reluctant to let a robber or killer walk the streets again, so they will do what it takes to put him away. Unfortunately, major decisions are seldom made on a good guy run afoul of a bad (unconstitutional) law.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 3:13:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2002 3:16:17 PM EDT by pdxshooter]
Originally Posted By sr15: Here's a link: [url]http://www.wral.com/news/1250437/detail.html[/url]
View Quote
[b]Police records show McMoli was arrested in 1993 for assaulting on a police officer with a deadly weapon. McMoli's former defense attorney told WRAL that McMoli was a former Marine with "a strange view of the government."[/b] After reading the article it appears he had his tin foil hat on too tight...
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 3:38:53 PM EDT
The fact that he ran and then took his own life suggests he was breaking the law, involved in something unlawful or not a good donor for the gene pool. Either way, problem solved. I'm grateful that he saved taxpayer's dollars and did himself in. Justice certainly was served! You are the weakest link....goodbye. I'm a hard a$$. What can I say?
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 4:38:55 PM EDT
Randy Weaver, his wife killed by an FBI sniper (very bad shot or so he claims) and his 12 year old son killed by a US Marshall. No one ever convicted of a felony. Hummmm. Janet Reno "I accept complete responsibility" before 83 innocent people were killed at Waco. Was she ever convicted of a felony? Hummmm. This poor slob in a low profile case, when your government can get away with it on national TV, ya sure he was guilty of something. Must have been. Hard ass or dumb ass?
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 4:50:51 PM EDT
It seems as if everyone who holds that the 2nd Amendment objectively means what is says has a "strange view of government." Everyone who holds the intent of framers in mind when interpreting the Constitution has a "strange view of government." It seems as if the only people capable of reasonably and rationally interpreting the Constitution are Chucky Schumer and Janet "All Handguns Should Be Banned" Reno. Hmmm...
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:25:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 7:
Originally Posted By DScott: Bob Stewart's case is not a good example. He was a guy who knew he had a felony conviction, who knew full well that he was prohibited from possessing firearms, yet had a number of them in his house. Even still, he continued to pursue a very high profile business, dealing in firearms. Then, he chose to defend himself. Not surprising he was convicted.
View Quote
Ahh, but should he have been a felon? I'm not 100% sure about this, but this is what I remember. BATF agents came into his shop undercover and asked him to do some menial work on an AR15. After he adjusted the scope or something lame like that, they said it was a unregistered machine gun and wham. He would have to pay hundreds of thouands to try and fight or cop to a lesser plea.
View Quote
There's a lot of misinformation about this case, including what the original felony was about. I doubt it was that simple, nor do I doubt it was entrapment, but I stand to be corrected. I have looked, but haven't found the original court docs from that case, but then I'm not a lawyer and don't know how to track it down. I *have* read the appeal decision upholding the decision, and from that came my opinion. Anybody want to look that original felony up? Even still, if you're a felon, for whatever reason, DON'T DELIBERATELY BREAK THE LAW! [/Sam Kinison] I'll try and look the original case up later and bring it here... there was a not-too-distant thread here that addressed that case in more detail.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:35:16 PM EDT
It's disturbing to see so many gun owners saying that so-and-so deserved what he got because he must have been breaking the law. Of course, when YOU get treated the same way it'll be a tragedy. My opinion? You're all just like the goddamned Perazzi over/under crowd who don't care about anything but being able to keep THEIR guns, and screw everyone else. "Oh, but he was a (gasp) [b]felon[/b]!" So friggin' what? YOU will be a felon when they come for your guns, and I hope the cops don't LET you get far enough away to blow your own brains out.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 5:49:02 PM EDT
"He got what he deserved" etc... What the hell was this guy doing wrong? Stockpiling arms? So? He had a felony conviction. Well he appears to be out now so what seemed to be the problem? If this guy was not in the process of harming another person or steeling their property then he was totally within his rights. This obsession with "LEGAL” and “ILLEGAL" will be our downfall. Slavery was legal, so was prohibition, so is the drug war and the war on guns. Hell, so is welfare and income tax! OR DESTRYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ALL LEGAL! The question is was he harming anyone? It would seem not.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 6:27:21 PM EDT
Some would ask "How can the people respect the government that holds the people to a higher standard". Nay, the question is "How can the people respect themselves if they allow it to be so". Halfcocked; February 25, 2002.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:25:51 PM EDT
Ever heard the phrase, "You're known by the company you keep"? I think responsible gun owners are hurt by association with nuts, losers, crackpots, and sociopoaths. We need to be more selective in who we support, or we lose credibility. Gun owner PR sucks with the non-gun owner public, and it isn't helped by these guys. Can you just picture this guy holding up his guns and saying, "I'm the NRA!" Yeah, that'd help...
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:36:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:46:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 9:53:35 PM EDT
None of you has stopped to consider that those guns might have been STOLEN?? Why dont you try finding that out first... Felons cant just walk into a store and buy AR's, they can get them on the street and from private parties- but guess where a lot of those come from.
Link Posted: 2/25/2002 10:14:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By K_Trout: It seems as if everyone who holds that the 2nd Amendment objectively means what is says has a "strange view of government." Everyone who holds the intent of framers in mind when interpreting the Constitution has a "strange view of government." It seems as if the only people capable of reasonably and rationally interpreting the Constitution are Chucky Schumer and Janet "All Handguns Should Be Banned" Reno. Hmmm...
View Quote
No shit! Because I am skeptical of authories telling me what is best for me I have a "strange view of government"?! Gee, I guess our forefathers had a God awfully strange view of government! Heaven forbid I think for myself! That would mean I might actually speak out in opposition of my government's actions. OMG, I just realized...we need to get rid of the First Amendment too! Where's my quasi-socialist lead hat? [whacko]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 7:44:03 AM EDT
Right or wrong, this guy was convicted of a felony. You're asking for trouble when you knowingly break the law. I don't have a lot of love for the ATF, but in this case, I think the raid was probably justified. After all, this guy was convicted of assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon, which leads me to believe that he had little respect for laws or law enforcement. I think that given his history and the fact that he was collecting guns that could be used again to commit similar or more serious offenses, I am glad that they raided this guy. Even if the guy was wrongly convicted, the proper way to get your gun rights back is by seeking a legal recourse (getting the conviction overturned, etc), not by flaunting the law. This guy had already committed a violent felony, and seemed to be headed down the same path. That's just asking for trouble.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 7:57:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 8:20:15 AM EDT by Shadowblade]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:30:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arc_Angel: Right or wrong, this guy was convicted of a felony. You're asking for trouble when you knowingly break the law. I don't have a lot of love for the ATF, but in this case, I think the raid was probably justified. After all, this guy was convicted of assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon, which leads me to believe that he had little respect for laws or law enforcement. I think that given his history and the fact that he was collecting guns that could be used again to commit similar or more serious offenses, I am glad that they raided this guy. Even if the guy was wrongly convicted, the proper way to get your gun rights back is by seeking a legal recourse (getting the conviction overturned, etc), not by flaunting the law. This guy had already committed a violent felony, and seemed to be headed down the same path. That's just asking for trouble.
View Quote
Well, my opinion is that this whole post above is bullshit. If you commit a crime then you are sent to jail/prison to be punished. After your punishment is finished then it should be finished, none of this...felons can do this, felons can't do that bullshit. Either you're in prison or you aren't and either you're a free citizen or you're not. A great way to make yourself a second class citizen is to commit a felony because you will be punished for the rest of your life. If someone is too violent to be allowed to own a firearm after they are released from prison then why in the hell do you release them from prison at all? Violent felonies should carry a minimum sentence of 20yrs at [b]hard labor[/b], regardless of age or physical condition. Murder should carry the death penalty with a maximum of two appeals to be completed within two years. None of this stringing it along for 10-15 years, 10 minutes after you lose your second appeal you're in the meat wagon. Commit a violent felony with a firearm and you get a maximum life sentence with no possibility of parole. Every person in prison with a life sentence would have the right to opt out at any time they wanted. Should they decide to opt out, we just kill them and get it over with, since they are never getting out of prison and the money being used to support them could be better used by getting me some brighter street lights or painting the swingset at the park. If the system would stop coddling criminals there would be a lot fewer people out there turing to crime as a viable option to working for a living. An eye for an eye and all that other BS.....
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:50:10 AM EDT
To take Ponyboy's argument a little further why is there a different crime, "attempted murder"? Should we let these people out sooner just because they goofed at their initial objective, now that they have had a practice go at it? Anyone who assails another, where it is just plain luck the victim survives, should be charged with murder. After all they have demonstrated that they have the propensity but just lack the skill. Why let them practice until they get it right. I'm with you 100% Ponyboy.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:04:55 AM EDT
Bob Stewart being busted over the "tightening a scope" issue is urgan legend. His original crime and conviction was over building some full auto Stens for a doper "business partner." He got caught and busted. A reasonable man gets burned, he learns. But not Bob Stewart. When ATF later raided his house (though the validity was questionable) they found several unregistered full auto weapons. Could he argue ignorance of the law? You go figure if this guy should be going free. I think he's terminally stupid and should be in jail for the following: Who was he selling these illegally manufactured machine guns to? The guy with the funny accent and lots of cash? I could argue that he was building arms for terrorist and criminals! Who else would want to purchase an illegal machine gun? So anyone raising Bob Stewart as an icon for the 2nd Amendment only taints their position with folly and ignorance. Don't make that mistake.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:10:57 AM EDT
I would be interested to know the actual charge he was convicted of. Felony? or not?
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:15:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Centauro97: I could argue that he was building arms for terrorist and criminals! Who else would want to purchase an illegal machine gun?
View Quote
Maybe somebody who doesn't want to pay $4000 for a $40 Sten? The question I have for you is, who the hell cares what he was doing with his "illegal" machineguns? Has he ever killed anyone? Has he ever been convicted of a violent crime with a firearm? You're just as bad as the rest....ready to hang someone over a completely victimless, most likely unconstitutional law. Even if eventually the machinegun ban and registration scheme is found to not technically go against the Constitution you can bet your ass it goes against the spirit of the Constitution. Never did the framers ever think about the federal government using a bogus intrastate taxing scheme to register weapons. The whole NFA ordeal is a giant farce....
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:29:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Ever heard the phrase, "You're known by the company you keep"? I think responsible gun owners are hurt by association with nuts, losers, crackpots, and sociopoaths. We need to be more selective in who we support, or we lose credibility. Gun owner PR sucks with the non-gun owner public, and it isn't helped by these guys. Can you just picture this guy holding up his guns and saying, "I'm the NRA!" Yeah, that'd help...
View Quote
Crackpots? Losers? Nuts? Whose definition do we use? NRA? You mean the same duckhunters who were so helpful on the 1994 crime bill? (They WROTE part of it!)
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 9:39:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By Arc_Angel: Right or wrong, this guy was convicted of a felony. You're asking for trouble when you knowingly break the law. I don't have a lot of love for the ATF, but in this case, I think the raid was probably justified. After all, this guy was convicted of assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon, which leads me to believe that he had little respect for laws or law enforcement. I think that given his history and the fact that he was collecting guns that could be used again to commit similar or more serious offenses, I am glad that they raided this guy. Even if the guy was wrongly convicted, the proper way to get your gun rights back is by seeking a legal recourse (getting the conviction overturned, etc), not by flaunting the law. This guy had already committed a violent felony, and seemed to be headed down the same path. That's just asking for trouble.
View Quote
Well, my opinion is that this whole post above is bullshit. If you commit a crime then you are sent to jail/prison to be punished. After your punishment is finished then it should be finished, none of this...felons can do this, felons can't do that bullshit. Either you're in prison or you aren't and either you're a free citizen or you're not. A great way to make yourself a second class citizen is to commit a felony because you will be punished for the rest of your life. If someone is too violent to be allowed to own a firearm after they are released from prison then why in the hell do you release them from prison at all? Violent felonies should carry a minimum sentence of 20yrs at [b]hard labor[/b], regardless of age or physical condition. Murder should carry the death penalty with a maximum of two appeals to be completed within two years. None of this stringing it along for 10-15 years, 10 minutes after you lose your second appeal you're in the meat wagon. Commit a violent felony with a firearm and you get a maximum life sentence with no possibility of parole. Every person in prison with a life sentence would have the right to opt out at any time they wanted. Should they decide to opt out, we just kill them and get it over with, since they are never getting out of prison and the money being used to support them could be better used by getting me some brighter street lights or painting the swingset at the park. If the system would stop coddling criminals there would be a lot fewer people out there turing to crime as a viable option to working for a living. An eye for an eye and all that other BS.....
View Quote
Ponyboy, I agree with your whole post, with one caveat. (ok, two) 1) Unanimous verdict by twelve jurors of "peers"(as defined in 1789) 2) A FULLY-informed jury BTW,I like yer flag!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 10:17:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/26/2002 10:18:49 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
[b]7 said: Ahh, but should he have been a felon? I'm not 100% sure about this, but this is what I remember. BATF agents came into his shop undercover and asked him to do some menial work on an AR15. After he adjusted the scope or something lame like that, they said it was a unregistered machine gun and wham. He would have to pay hundreds of thouands to try and fight or cop to a lesser plea.[/b] You need to read my posts in this thread in which the truth about Bob's original conviction comes from his wifes own words. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=89231[/url] Mike
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:09:41 AM EDT
Half of the responses on this post disgust me and the other half give me hope. Guess what? Rosa Parks was a criminal. Did she deserve to go to jail? The Jews in the Ghetto uprising were criminals, did they deserve what they got? Just because someone breaks the law, does not mean that they deserve whatever they get. Many times the law is bad and it is the law that needs to be done away with. In some ways, obeying immoral and illegal laws is immoral in and of itself. In many cases 'legal recourse' will get you thrown in jail. I don't know what the deal was with this guy, but to assume that he must've 'gotten what he deserves' is foolish and dangerous thinking. To assume that the police were out to screw the guy is also foolish. The sad part is, we will never know the truth. I do not and will not trust the Govt. to do the right thing when it comes to guns, school, taxes, and a boatload of other things. I do not trust folks that I do not know either. This guy allegedly assaulted a police officer. That could mean alot of things. Defending himself against a police assault is one of them. When the ATF and their little brothers come for you, you will be a criminal too - no matter what you have, or have not done. They will take all your guns and ammo and mags and anything else they can find and stack it all up on a table. Then they will grab any 'anti-govt' literature you have laying around the house. You know, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, any books by 'anti-govt' authors like James Bovard, or a Bible. Any porn you have on your Hard Drive will be proof that you are a pedophile. Soon, you will be an anti-govt, pedophile, right-wing, Christian, terrorist gun owner who - DESERVES WHATEVER HE GETS!
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:33:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By DScott: Ever heard the phrase, "You're known by the company you keep"? I think responsible gun owners are hurt by association with nuts, losers, crackpots, and sociopoaths. We need to be more selective in who we support, or we lose credibility. Gun owner PR sucks with the non-gun owner public, and it isn't helped by these guys. Can you just picture this guy holding up his guns and saying, "I'm the NRA!" Yeah, that'd help...
View Quote
Crackpots? Losers? Nuts? Whose definition do we use? NRA? You mean the same duckhunters who were so helpful on the 1994 crime bill? (They WROTE part of it!)
View Quote
That would be people like Tim McVeigh, Charles Ng, your average gang-banger, Purdy (or whoever the Stockton schoolyard AK shooter was), ANYBODY who leaves loaded guns around for their kids to find and "accidentally" shoot themselves or their friends/neighbors with, all Aryan BrotherhoodWhite Supremacist types, other assorted "______ (Fill-in-the-blank) Nationalists" preparing for revolution types, most of the people mentioned in the "People who scare you at the range" threads, and on and on. Since when should we associate with those people just because they share an interest in guns? Does that mean you and the homie down the street are best buddies now? Gun-owners interested in furthering the 2nd Amendment cause do ourselves a disservice when we don't recognize who hurts us the most- other, dipshit gunowners. The assault weapons bans resulted from the actions of these crazy assholes and psychopaths as much as anything, and we have a huge PR problem as a result. Blame them for the problems we have. We have no credibility if we ignore these realities and show no ability to discriminate between "good" and "bad" gunowners.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 11:43:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: ANYBODY who leaves loaded guns around for their kids to find and "accidentally" shoot themselves or their friends/neighbors with,
View Quote
You should be careful when using such broad statements.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:00:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Centauro97: When ATF later raided his house (though the validity was questionable) they found several unregistered full auto weapons. Could he argue ignorance of the law?
View Quote
First of all, if the validity was questionable, the evidence is inadmissible. Secondly, if you accept [b]some[/b] gun control laws, such as the one requiring registration of full-auto firearms, then you'll accept [b]any[/b] gun control law. What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand? Requiring that full-auto firearms be registered, taxed, banned in certain locales, etc, [b]is[/b] an infringement on the RKBA, and therefore a violation of the 2nd amendment. Like I said before, many of you have an elitist attitude and seem to be saying it's OK to ban [b]their[/b] guns, but please don't touch [b]mine[/b]. Eventually all of the "felons" will be disarmed - with your tacit approval - and you'll be the next targets.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:13:29 PM EDT
The question I have for you is, who the hell cares what he was doing with his "illegal" machineguns? Has he ever killed anyone? Has he ever been convicted of a violent crime with a firearm?
View Quote
Well that's a pretty broad burden of proof. Based upon this definition of a crime, until I kill someone, there's no problem? I can manufacture and sell illegal weapons to, uh, well, I guess only criminals would want an illegal weapon. But just for plinking and such, why else would they want one? I can't argue that Bob Stewart refused to obey laws that he obviously knew were being enforced. A moral objection? I suspect a financial incentive. Send him all the money you can afford for his appeals. Maybe he'll get a real lawyer this time. Maybe given enough money and time, he can get his case, and the GCA, reviewed before the Supreme Court. I also care how gun-owners present themselves to the general public when it involves firearms. Flagrantly flaunt the law for personal financial gain and I hope you get canned. Every time some nut uses a semi-auto rifle to shoot people, I can see the noose tighten around MY right to purchase or even own a similar weapon. Either get a clue or lose it all. A verbally threatening gun-owner is not a combination that any politician is going to support. I've seen more than one legislative report about how certain beligerent 2nd Amendment organizations are now being ignored by legislators because of the overzealous delivery of their message.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:22:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Centauro97: Well that's a pretty broad burden of proof. Based upon this definition of a crime, until I kill someone, there's no problem? I can manufacture and sell illegal weapons to, uh, well, I guess only criminals would want an illegal weapon. But just for plinking and such, why else would they want one?
View Quote
Don't you read? Someone who might want a STEN but not feel like forking over thousands for one would be a good candidate for buying an "illegal" gun. So would someone who doesn't want to pay thousands for what's basically an AR15 with a few extra parts and a few other parts whose shapes have been subtly altered...oh, and don't forget the all-important "auto" stamping on the receiver.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:52:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By DScott: ANYBODY who leaves loaded guns around for their kids to find and "accidentally" shoot themselves or their friends/neighbors with,
View Quote
You should be careful when using such broad statements.
View Quote
And which part of that statement should I be careful about? If you're not at home, your guns should be locked up, preferably in a gunlocker, or better. If you are at home, you should maintain strict security over every loaded or potentially loaded firearm you own. What gets me are people who load a weapon, stick it in a drawer or nightstand or in the closet, then go about their lives. It may not be *your* kids, but they have friends who might visit, and kids are curious and goof around. My view is that just as we are responsible for every round we send downrange, we are also responsible for the safe handling, storage, and safety of the firearms we own. When the anti-gun crowd can point to accidental deaths of children, they can argue the need for restrictions, more laws, and eventual bans on my guns. And they will be (even more) successful, unless we police ourselves better. (ducking and running...)
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 12:57:20 PM EDT
I do agree, to a certain extent, with the "You're known by the company you keep" line of thought. And we, as gun owners do have a responsibility to make a good "show" to John Q. Public. I wouldn't go to the range with a shirt that said "f*ck you" in big letters on it, for example. However:
Originally Posted By DScott: ANYBODY who leaves loaded guns around for their kids to find and "accidentally" shoot themselves or their friends/neighbors with,
View Quote
Don't blame DScott, he doesn't even have the sense to get out of Kali. Wish he (giving him the benefit of the doubt) and the other conservative gun owners would get out - so I could start praying for that big quake in earnest. [:D] DScott - you break into my house with anyone who lives here conscious and you're gonna get double tapped in the chest. Me, my wife, my **11 yr old son** - somebody's gonna pop your ass. Just as it should be. So, am I a nut, loser, crackpot, or sociopath? Tate
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:13:42 PM EDT
Our intrest in guns, rifles (full and semiauto) and our views on the 2nd Amendment makes us ALL crackpots according to the ATF, and the government. It's just when we step over some arbitrary line that they decide on (such as the Evil features issue) that they will attempt to take us down. We are ALL POTENTIAL CRIMINALS in the eyes of the government. Remember what the AZ definition of a terrorist organization is? Anyone or any group who is a STAUNCH CONSTITUTIONALIST (members of a militia) OR A STRICT 2ND AMENDMENT person. And THAT folks is ALL OF US. [smoke]
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 1:15:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Since when should we associate with those people just because they share an interest in guns? Does that mean you and the homie down the street are best buddies now? Gun-owners interested in furthering the 2nd Amendment cause do ourselves a disservice when we don't recognize who hurts us the most- other, dipshit gunowners. The assault weapons bans resulted from the actions of these crazy assholes and psychopaths as much as anything, and we have a huge PR problem as a result. Blame them for the problems we have. We have no credibility if we ignore these realities and show no ability to discriminate between "good" and "bad" gunowners.
View Quote
I agree! Just because the ATF may have had some involvement in the raid does not mean that suddenly he is one of the innocent, hapless victims of the ATF that we should immediately side with. Twelve of his peers found that he assaulted a police officer with a deadly weapon. That's reason enough for me to suspect that he is a thug. THis idea that anybody arrested by the ATF is an angel that we should all defend until the end is dangerous. You lose some credibility when you will stand up for anybody just because they had a run-in with the ATF. It is important that we pick our battles wisely, and this one seems like one to sit on the sidelines for. Occassionally the ATF does nab some bad guys too, and this to me seems like one of those instances.
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 3:02:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tate: I do agree, to a certain extent, with the "You're known by the company you keep" line of thought. And we, as gun owners do have a responsibility to make a good "show" to John Q. Public. I wouldn't go to the range with a shirt that said "f*ck you" in big letters on it, for example. However:
Originally Posted By DScott: ANYBODY who leaves loaded guns around for their kids to find and "accidentally" shoot themselves or their friends/neighbors with,
View Quote
Don't blame DScott, he doesn't even have the sense to get out of Kali. Wish he (giving him the benefit of the doubt) and the other conservative gun owners would get out - so I could start praying for that big quake in earnest. [:D] DScott - you break into my house with anyone who lives here conscious and you're gonna get double tapped in the chest. Me, my wife, my **11 yr old son** - somebody's gonna pop your ass. Just as it should be. So, am I a nut, loser, crackpot, or sociopath? Tate
View Quote
Glad we could agree on some things... FWIW, I'm talking about unsecured weapons left available to untrained or irresponsible individuals, not your right to defend yourself. Good for you if your 11 yr. old can handle a weapon like that! Who's gonna shoot if no one's home, though? And are everyone's kids that capable? That was my point. Why is this one comment causing such a stink? BTW, where do you think all these people in CA are coming from? Know how many Texans I've met here? Better be careful, we're gonna start sending people your way! [:P]
Top Top