[TheOldMan]

Boy did this thread ever get out of hand ...

[operator0]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

That has been defined, and re-defined by your president Klinton and several other folks with WAY too much power.

Oh, hold on. Are you confusing me with a progressive liberal? I'll tell you this; I am one of the most conservative members on this board.

Quite frankly if a person ( regardless of sex, race, age, color, creed or monetary worth ) makes statements about hating his co-workers, wishing them harm, stalking from cubicle to cubicle with a gas powered, magazine fed weapon or that someone "will regret this" - I fully expect someone to look further into this situation and I don't give a good god damn what YOU think.

If a person did that I too would hope the authorities would arrest and prosecute. The thing is, do we know that's what happened in this case? Not according to the info I have. They simply "felt" he was a threat.

One saved innocent life is worth several thousand dollars in "settlement" dollars.

A single life is not priceless as so many in this society advocate. That path surely leads to tyranny because then laws can easily be enacted that slowly strangle the liberties that we have out of existence. All they have to say is that it will save lives..at the cost of your freedom. Would you be willing to make that trade?

If you doubt this, you need to spend some time with the victims of 09/11 or Virginia Tech.

Those were tragedies but sometimes in a free society those things happen. The only way to prevent them from happening is to restrict our freedoms. The public are the ones who need to be vigilant. We shouldn't be giving the governement carte-blanche superpowers to protect us. We, as individuals, have that responsibiliy.

This statement disqualifies you from discussion on this topic.

Who says?

No matter what "perceived" Right has been stepped on, it is not worth more than the life of one innocent person.

Surely then, you advocate the abolishment of cars for the general public. Because, without a doubt, having no cars will save tens of thousands of lives. How about back yard swimming pools? Skydiving, hang-gliding, mountain climbing? Rcae car driving? Where do you draw the line. Is one innocent life worth the abolishment of their right to do something dangerous in their leisure time?

How about government monitored cameras on every street corner? Surely that piece of technology will save lives. If it does and can be proved, then perhaps we should put cameras in our houses. FYI, That's exactly what some far left wingers are advocating in England where street cameras are already the norm.

Don't laugh. I'm sure if you could go back in time 30 years and tell the British public that cameras would be used to monitor them on public streets, they would dismiss you as a kook.

It's a slippery slope my friend. A very slippery slope.

If you doubt this, take a look at the provisional settlements paid to people who have settled out of court versus the pain of ONE mother losing a child who did nothing wrong.

The tort laws in this country are another matter completely. They need reform. We need to stop using the court system as our lottery ticket.

If you would advocate another 09/11, then you are no friend of this forum and you need to reconsider our "online persona".

I only advocate it if the alternative is to give the government powers strictly prohibited in the constitution. If I'm being honest, I'd rather see 4000 Americans killed a year in terrorist attacks than give the government any more power over our lives than it already has.


Benjamin Franklin said: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[diggsbakes]

Yeah operator. . . I'd have agree that you are blind to reality and totally ignorant to what the real world is all about. You speak of "laws" in need of change and other political crap influencing your views, even quoting Ben Franklin. .

Let me tell you something that you can't get from a book:

Life is more than black and white, pal. It's more than what you read on paper. Life is 3 dimensional.

So you know right and wrong from what? From your posts I can tell it's definitely not life experience. Tell me Ben Franklin or any other American legend would not have acted upon the combination of instinct and information in order to protect their families. . . (prevent deaths ? ? ?)

And I'll tell you that you're not a conservative since you haven't figured that out for yourself yet. I was somewhat neutral on this subject when I first read the article. I even waited a couple days before making a comment on this as I didn't want to be judgmental or partisan in any way. Now that I see what kind of weirdo radicals are on the "protect liberty" side of this, I'm all for acting on human instinct alone in order to save and protect lives.

[jpattersonnh]

3 in a week is ATF and all states follow the law. 2 in a week is no big deal. Even if he decided that he wanted a Safari and bought a .375H&H, .416 Rigby, and a whatever caliber in a week, he would have been flagged. Even if he was liquidating his entire retirement plan and buying them as an investment.

[operator0]

Argues for sport

[Dzscubie]

Originally Posted by operator0

I can quote many more than Ben Franklin.

"In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" -Samuel Adams

Is security so dear, or wealth so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -Patrick Henry




So, you're OK with the government arresting someone on the grounds that someone else says he's disgruntled?

Ok, enough of your moronic blather.. First read the frelling article again. 1. The gentlemen was NOT arrested he was taken in for a mental evaluation. 2. There are too many missing pieces on what generated this incident and how the police even got involved and how they found out he had purchased weapons for a reasonable and prudent person to determine if this incident was a violation of his rights or not.

So with that said please take your opinions elsewhere. This is my opinion and my opinion only, I have a very low threshold for stupidity and people preaching half truths and twisting history to their own ends.

You lack of compassion and claim of acceptance of any loss of human life due to your ideas of liberty places you in the same category as the Nazi SS to me.

IGNORE BUTTON from now on.

[operator0]

Argues for sport.....

[orangello]

The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.

Because the police didn't have a search warrant, they had no right to even enter Pyles' home, much less seize guns inside that he bought and possessed legally.

From the restofthestory article.

Now that i've heard a few more details, i hope he cashes in big time. I have a HUGE problem with police action that endangers (or utterly ignores) the civil rights of the public without judicial supervision or a declared state of emergency. The police shouldn't have acted without an arrest warrant unless there was an eminent threat; had he been fully gatted up & headed in from the parking lot at his old office, fine take him downtown. I have a problem with the illegal seizure that resulted from him giving himself up "voluntarily"/at multiple muzzle point. No arrest or search warrant + no reason to believe there was a crime in progress in his home (where they looking for tied up ex-fellow coworkers ) should = no entry for the police period, IMO.

It is a damn shame that Johnnie Cochran has passed away & cannot represent this guy; i hope he gets a public apology from each & every participating officer and their commanders. I also hope he finds it INCREDIBLY unnecessary to apply for unemployment compensation due to a LARGE monetary settlement of the compensatory & punitive nature. I hope he ends up alternating his driving between a marked police cruiser, the armored SWAT vehicle, and the mayor's car.

It occurs to me that i left my state job in a state of questionable gruntlement, no grievances but rather suddenly and most of my two weeks notice was covered by vacation time. I also cashed out some retirement and credit union savings to pay off a car; to think, i could've been planning to run down my ex-boss. Hell, i was an even bigger risk; i was still teaching for my other state job; i could've been planning to run some students down with my car.

Next thing you know, they will be requiring shrink sessions at the exit of the gun show. I think the comparison to that Tom "couch hopping" Cruise movie is very appropriate, because this situation is batshat nuts crazy in an allegedly "free" society with rights protected by the 2nd and 4th amendments.

[Benning Boy]

Not getting involved, other than to ask this: If three guns is a flag, how does the purchase go through in the first place?

Had he been a disgruntled kill em all guy, he could have gone from the store straight back to work.

[orangello]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

stalking from cubicle to cubicle with a gas powered, magazine fed weapon

LOLz at the "fight club" reference. Nice!