Man ordered to surrender guns – just for blogging

These types of "Dip Stick" rulings cut both ways and sometimes make for landmark case law decisions, for the people and upholding constitutional rights.

Let's hope that happens here.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

Thus far, the only gun grabbing was done by Dubya in New Orleans. Shrub had a small ass so I will give him a pass, but Cheney did a lot of ass wiping with the constitution.

A few more things.

No awarding winning journalist would work for WND.

If you read it in WND, it is probably crap.

Just so you know, I was very much against many of Bush's policies. Was not a fan. But this happened during this administration which is why I refrenced them in particular.

After reading this I don't feel so bad about my unfortunate boating accident that put all of my guns on the bottom of a very deep lake.

It's a real shame.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

Thus far, the only gun grabbing was done by Dubya in New Orleans. Shrub had a small ass so I will give him a pass, but Cheney did a lot of ass wiping with the constitution.

A few more things.

No awarding winning journalist would work for WND.

If you read it in WND, it is probably crap.

How on earth can you blame what happened in New Orleans on Bush when it was the local police in a city run by democrats that did the gun grabs?

source

Judge Carl J. Barbier presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Barbier signed the permanent injuncation against the City of New Orleans. The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley were unconstitutional and illegal.

Funny you'd get down on WND, when in your post you're guilty of doing what people say WND does - just make things up.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
After reading this I don't feel so bad about my unfortunate boating accident that put all of my guns on the bottom of a very deep lake.

It's a real shame.

I would give you a dozen stars for that if I could. My current tools were all bought under the table. I have never and will never buy any new tools. Used tools work just fine.

Originally posted by EvolEric
reply to post by OldCorp

 

So many unconstitutional rulings are being issued lately I weep for the future of our nation. Considering the things I've written (and stand by) I'm expecting a Hellfire missile to slam into my house at any m

Why didnt you finish that?
Why did your message just cut off?

....Oh..
...My...
...God...

You Bastards You killed Kenny...
(I mean OldCorp)

I'm glad somebody caught that bit of black humor.

So some guy threatens some womans life online because he considers her a 'sinner', and a judge decides he's too dangerous to own guns.

Seems reasonable.

A more accurate headline would be :

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for threatening someones life

reply to post by OldCorp


You're a funny guy.... I know I like my hunting rifles and guns and whatnot...

Apparently it's okay now to DRONE US citizens anywhere in the world, and knowing how DANGEROUS bloggers can be, I guess it makes sense to put them on the list of potential TERRORIST too!

The madness just never ends...

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by OldCorp

 

You're a funny guy....

I know I like my hunting rifles and guns and whatnot...

I try.

In my experience taking life too seriously all of the time causes stomach ulcers and severe gastrointestinal distress, which I like to avoid if at all possible. I will, however, indulge in a large plate of Habanero flavored Buffalo-style chicken wings and cheesy fries a couple of times a month. I've found that if you wash it down with a moderate amount of ice cold beer, the resultant buzz from the alcohol - combined with the endorphins released as a result of your mouth being on fire - can be quite pleasant.

So... You're a lady who likes to hunt. I like that. My wife isn't much for hunting, or even fishing. I usually cook my fish outside on the grill because she doesn't even like the smell. I even wash my own bloody clothes after I gut a deer - I'm considerate like that. Her idea of "roughing it" is camping in a Winnabago. We've really camped only twice in our 22 years together: once when we moved to Colorado Springs on a whim, with no place yet to live, because I got a sweet job offer; then in 1999 we spent a month in two six-person tents and a small 5th wheel camper on the shore of Lake Huron with two of our youngest kids and a dear friend of ours. Now THAT was a vacation. (But if there hadn't been hot water showers and restroom facilities it would have ended much sooner.)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5be15d55da1b.jpg[/atsimg]
(My sweet little boys on that trip... now they're repulsive, willful teenagers that I hardly recognize. J/K - they are still sweet. )

Anyway, I digress. The topic...

Was he targeted because he was a Christian? I think this is a very interesting point to mull over. At the very least, I think it would be the judge who would be guilty of ignorance in this case. The facts are that the blogger was speaking only about the woman's soul, not her physical well being, when he referred to her "death." The quotation marks around that word are important, especially because even the woman who felt "threatened" used them repeatedly throughout her complaint, implicitly acknowledging that she knew he was not referring to any type of bodily harm.

She was well aware that the blogger was only speaking about her spiritual death if she did not repent, and the judge should have been too. As far as I'm aware the blogger never threatened her physically; he only told her that God would punish her if she didn't change her ways. How the judge can justify taking away this man's 2nd Amendment right to own firearms in the here and now because of something that God might do to her soul in the afterlife is beyond me.

Maybe the judge is the exception to the expression "sober as a judge" and was ####faced drunk when is ruled on the case.

No matter the circumstances of the judges lunacy, I do hope that his ridiculous verdict will be overturned on appeal like the other case in Quartzite was. And if it turns out that the man's religion was in anyway used against him, the judge should be impeached or recalled, depending on what type of system they have there. He doesn't sound like he's the sharpest tool in the shed.


ETA: Oh my! I really went smiley-happy there! I don't usually do that; then again, I'm having chicken wings for dinner.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
After reading this I don't feel so bad about my unfortunate boating accident that put all of my guns on the bottom of a very deep lake.

It's a real shame.

I would give you a dozen stars for that if I could. My current tools were all bought under the table. I have never and will never buy any new tools. Used tools work just fine.

I hear that kinda thing is going around..

btw it wasn't "just blogging".. nobody with "authoritah" arbitrarily decided this dudes opinions negated his gun possession.. some tart took him to court for a harassment beef.. and won, THEN.. right or wrong.. he was "ordered" to surrender his firearms.

"Man ordered to surrender guns – just for losing harassment case in court"

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
A more accurate headline would be :

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for threatening someones life

This is what I was wondering about. How much do we have to read to find out WHAT the man actually said in his blog? I spent a few minutes reading and I see NO mention of the offending phrase or words in his blog. It would be nice if the OP had quoted what the man said.

I can't form an opinion on this without knowing what the threat was. And I KNOW his guns aren't being taken away because he was blogging, so I'm not inclined to read further. This kind of sensational title is misleading and endeavors to hide the real reason he was ordered to surrender his guns. Since I know it's not because of blogging, we should at least explore what he said.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
So some guy threatens some womans life online because he considers her a 'sinner', and a judge decides he's too dangerous to own guns.

Seems reasonable.

A more accurate headline would be :

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for threatening someones life

edit on 30-9-2011 by ARealandTrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Spiritual death is what he is talking about, not her physical death. Spiritual death to the religious is a person's soul being doomed to hell. But I'm pretty sure you already know what he's talking about and are here to troll.

/TOA

reply to post by seabag


WND has the journalistic integrity slightly less than the Weekly World News, so I am not sure if this story actually exists in reality or if it's something they pulled out of their own rectums.

But on the face of it, as long as he wasn't directly threatening the woman in question, he has done no wrong and should not have had his guns taken away.

But, again it's WND, the same people who were damn sure that Obama was an alien or born in Kenya, or a Muslim, or the Anti Christ. So, their journalism is quite suspect.

reply to post by seabag


I haven't read the entire thread.I am wondering on how long it
will be before a member here faces losing their gun rights for
what they post here?This is not good at all.

I'm confused. I skimmed through the website the article linked to. What was the original post this lady Melody Thomas-Morgan was offended by?

the internet is not an anonymous free zone where laws don't apply. you have to underatnd this. this is why websites have terms and conditions and moderators

just assume anything you post is part of the public record, and remember what your mama taught you

simple

ok, I've just spend a bit of time reading about this case, finding more web sites that dive into the background, the court appearances, and to sum up my opinions, this blogger is a complete nutcase with a violent and sexual obsession towards this woman.
She was right to seek an injunction against him, the judge was right to grant it.
This guy is a wackjob that should never be allowed to own a gun.

oh, and of course the subject of this thread is misleadingly sensationalist.
It goes way way beyond the simple reference to "spiritual death" in his blog.

Here are some extracts of his interactions with her...

Mr Palmer... would oftentimes warn me not to make any fast moves around him because he might "accidentally" go into martial arts mode and do a quick chop to my neck and kill me.

...a letter that Mr. Palmer had sent to my pastor. In it he falsely accused me of adultery, naming the person, place, time, amount of money that I spent on this alleged sin, being demonically influenced, being an immoral sister, being loaded down with sin, and plagued by all kinds of evil desires, conning the government to get food stamps, and then he warns my pastor that I may go murdering a bunch of people, him thinking that my pastor was my employer. Murdering a bunch of people including children.

And as the judge put it...

THE COURT: Speech is not totally free, and in reviewing the letters written to the minister, to the son-in-law, honestly, you're frightening. You seem to think that your evangelicism gives you the right to make accusations of any nature against people and send those out to their friends, their relatives. It's amazing.

Some links...
petition
court transcript
There's more stuff on the net if you google it.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
So some guy threatens some womans life online because he considers her a 'sinner', and a judge decides he's too dangerous to own guns.

Seems reasonable.

A more accurate headline would be :

Man ordered to surrender guns – just for threatening someones life

edit on 30-9-2011 by ARealandTrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Spiritual death is what he is talking about, not her physical death. Spiritual death to the religious is a person's soul being doomed to hell. But I'm pretty sure you already know what he's talking about and are here to troll.

/TOA

No. That's a sad, sad justification for the utterances of what appears to be a particularly disturbed individual.

Yet another example of how ineffective a piece of paper is to stop the ever growing scope of government.
The constitution does not give us our rights.

That paper is not necessary. It is not effective. It is meaningless.