Gun-Seizure Lawsuit

GUN-SEIZURE LAWSUIT

www.nypost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Mod Edit: All Caps Title

[edit on 25-7-2008 by MemoryShock]

As usual, An Liberal Antigun Politician doesn't like being constitutionaly redressed by a constituent.

Zindo

www.nypost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Woah! I'm in Nassau County, and a constituent of McCarthy. Unfortunately. Her entire running platform was anti-gun, owing to the death of her son back in 1993.

I can only hope that this helps get McCarthy out of Congress. But I'm a little scared to keep sending her hate mail now...

I see lots have clicked on it but no one seems to comment. This is going to be more common in the future folks. Its going to take more suits to compell our congress critters to stop rewriting our constitution to further they're agenda!

Zindo

If they were really thinking on there toes . They would have had a gang banger break in while he was at work steal them and then "discover" them in an abandon car or something .

I think people have a right to bear arms . Sure . But i will never see the reason for DOZENS . Of weapons . (Unless there all collectible war memorabilia ect)

Isn't this why waco happened ? Cause some body thought they needed a ass load of weapons . I guess he's lucky they didn't burn his house down with tear gas.

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

***Amazed***

Shades of New Orleans. Just curious, but what was the no doubt trumped up 911 call about?

reply to post by centurion1211

---

It hasn't been released yet by the police. They better have it because its now evidence in a lawsuit. Also the suit is on a violation of civil rights. I'm realy curious to find out myself.

Zindo

Why would he let them take his guns away without a fight?

I guess we deserve to be slaves afterall. If we wont fight to protect our freedoms.

Im serious guys, if you wont defend your rights, you dont have any afterall.

Just letting them trample us like that , only sets precedent , and emboldens the enemy.

Hell im scared of even posting in this thread saying this. What if im next?

reply to post by muzzleflash

---

Just so I'm clear. Does not RPG's hand grenades . Nukes, missiles And biological weapons count as arms?

Why is no one mad they cant have these weapons? It is right there in the constitution.
Oh.. Cause it only means a reasonable weapon or reasonable ammount of said weapons. Right?

Once again i don't agree with this case and how it was played out . It was obviously a show of force/power. I just think the laws need to be clarified a little, You know maybe a limit on the amount of guns one man can own that are not protected under the "grandfather clause"
By which guns passed down through generations wouldn't count against the total .

[edit on 25-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Limits are wrong. I shoot in 6 differant regemines. I shoot Single Action Shooting Society, 5 differant arms needed for one match. 2 sixguns, 1 pistol caliber rifle, 1 shotgun, 1 longrange rifle, preferably a Sharps. I shoot Benchrest large bore black powder, 2 rifles needed. I shoot Service rifle, 2 rifles of military vintage. I shoot NRA bullseye, large bore and small bore. Thats 4 more pistols 2 for the matches and two backups. I shoot bench rest large bore, 2 rifles. I shoot trap, and skeet, thats 2 more shotguns plus various barrels and chokes. Why should I have limits placed on me because some stupid politician thinks I shouldn't have my guns? Who the hell are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my personal free time from paying they're taxes??? Its NONE of they're damned business...PERIOD!!!


Zindo
sorry, can't spell today
[edit on 7/25/2008 by ZindoDoone]

[edit on 7/25/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

Jeeze you sound like a terrorist to me . And with that crazy attitude no wonder people want to take your guns away . I have yet to meet a person that owns a gun that should be anywhere near one let alone own an arsenal..

How bout we just give you all psych/IQ tests . If you do horrible we take your guns . If you do good and could maybe talk your way out of a situation without using deadly force . You can keep them .

Just seems like a dangerous game of Russian roulette giving angry inbred mental midgets weapons . But hey that's just me right?

Also in all that unneeded cometary about your life . You didn't answer my question . What about your right to hand grenades? Rpg's and Nukes?
Why are you not "up in arms" (Pun intended) About them ?
I think you not being bent about them makes a huge statement that you agree with me in some ways . Limits ARE necessary.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05

---

I love listening to gun control nuts rant.They will preach that people don't need guns for protection,that's why we have police.I have known two gun control proponents that seperately were assualted at knife point.They have both had a change of heart about gun ownership.
Your question to Zindo about R.P.G.s and nukes is rather silly.These are weapons of mass destruction.They have nothing to do with self protection or sport shooting.I would hope that even with the liberal intelligence which you've shown,you would not purposly blur a common sense line of reason.

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
While you're handing out psycho tests, might as well give me one too. I own probably twenty guns, maybe that many hunting/war knives, a few trinkets I have assembled (like home-made num-chuks(sp?)) and an assortment of bows.

I like weapons. So do a lot of my friends. One used to keep his 'carrying' weapons in an army duffel bag, and it was filled to the brim. He kept his favorites in his home.

As far as I know, no one I know has ever shot anyone.

Oh, and I hope they impeach and remove Ms. McCarthy from office, prosecute her for felonious abuse of authority, and the poor guy who brought the lawsuit wins the full $5 mil. I would say deport her to France, but she might like it over there...

TheRedneck

reply to post by daddyroo45

---

One of them is a WMD. .. But you agree there needs to be some line of reason .
And i would hardly call my wanting a good definition of "reason" To be a rant. I have outlined some points i question . Or think about and go Hmmm..
And i wanted some serious feedback.

There are plenty of less than lethal ways of defending your home . I mean who can shoot 25 guns at once? Do you guys have them rigged all over the house and you sit in the center with ropes in your hands? (Sorry the mental picture was too tempting)


Nobody really touched on the rest of the points so i'll just see where this goes.

Please don't think my posts are here to solicit life stories. If they come off that way im sorry.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Once again i want to express the line was crossed here . This was harassment . I just want to know what good 20+ guns does ya. Is it kinda like buying a "Hummer"?
----------------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 25-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Reasonable is an opinion, and that is the problem.

Some one might believe it is reasonable for us to have RPGs and military weapons just in case anything "crazy" happens.

Is having 50 pistols any less crazy than having a single grenade?

Notice how after he said "Limits ARE necessary." he posted a laughing face, which indicates to me that he is kidding.

Personally, I have read the one sentence that makes up the 2nd ammendment and it says nothing about limits of any sort. As such the Bill of Rights does garruntee me the right to assult rifles, grenades, thermonuclear devices, etc.

Vas

reply to post by d11_m_na_c05


I am assuming you're talking about owning RPGs, nukes, etc.? I don't have a prob with that. Go ahead, I know you wanna call me a nut...

TheRedneck

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth

---

I was laughing at the poster not with them . The key word is ARMS. You argument has no LEGS. It dont say "right to small arms" Or "Personal firearms" It simply says ARMS...

Does an arms dealer only sell small weapons? I just want to see the line in the sand . Till then its all up for interpretation . Is the BOR the new bible?


Not at all . I would like to believe your sane cause if your not you sure have a decent amount of weapons for a nut
If you feel that way its cool too . I am wondering if this is like the last stand against no weapons period ? Or what . Did people fight like this for there right to own said weapons . Or was it reasonable to assume you shouldnt have them so there wasnt much protest.
I admit i probably need to read a few books on the past history of said weapons. Im just applying my un-biased (well, non polar bias) and my brand of logic to the problem (my words obviously)

[edit on 25-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Great post Zindo!

It appears to me this politician is making it personal. No matter how many times, no matter how many ways, some people just don't get it.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Exactly, it says "arms". Which is any weapon. So you agree we DO have the right to own any weapon of any type, knife right up through nuclear arms.

Vas