It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tea Party Patriots Co Founder arrested at Laguardia trying to board plane with gun!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by macman

Ok then.
It is not how Immaculated presented it.
He did follow the Federal Law and Guidelines.
He did, however break the local law.


OK then, I know all that.
I did not say # about federal laws in any of my posts.
I did not latch on to Immac's version of the story for one post.
I did however, acknowledge this dirty scumbag broke the law and got busted.

So you posted this because....?
Crushing on me? If you want to talk to me that badly, do not do this to do it. It makes one of us look stupid.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)


So he is a dirty scumbag because he broke a local law, that as a whole, is unique to the locality?
Ok, then. I guess all those OWS'ers are dirty scumbags as well, when using your logic.

Further, never said one was a justification of the other.
The facts have been not been presented by the OP correctly.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
What was he thinking?

Although in his defense, it's perfectly understandable that he may have overlooked the fact that he was packed.
I mean, it's almost second nature for the folks that carry on a daily basis to pick up a their gun and wallet at the same time every morning.
Not as bad as leaving a child in a hot car, but it happens.

Sure it's embarrassing, but the difference here is that he did it to himself and only himself.
It's not like he pooped at the airport or something.
It's not like he kept people from getting to work.
It's not like he kept people from entering a bank.
It's not like it happened at a Tea Party event or something.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
In other words NYC feels that their law superceeds federal law that protects the constitutional rights of citizens.

That's the key issue in this from my opinion. If they choose to press this issue it will go all the way to the Supreme Court and get tossed just like the D.C. gun laws did. They're harassing him because they think their state laws supersede the federal laws and the rights granted in the Constitution. They're sadly mistaken and this is one guy that won't just roll over and take the charges.



"In almost every other state in the nation, he would not have been arrested,"

"The City of New York is known for prosecuting legal and lawful gun owners and not prosecuting the 'bad guys' with guns,"

newyork.ibtimes.com...

edit on 12/16/2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

So he is a dirty scumbag because he broke a local law, that as a whole, is unique to the locality?

No, that is the "logic" I am reading from reading posts about OWS on here from people like you.


Ok, then. I guess all those OWS'ers are dirty scumbags as well, when using your logic.


Cart before the horse, my friend.


Further, never said one was a justification of the other.
The facts have been not been presented by the OP correctly.



Further, never said you did.
The facts have been correctly represented by every one of MY posts.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


I love when people don't read....

He didn't break the law.. It was in a locked safe to be transported as a checked bag which is perfectly legal.


You are allowed to transport a firearm that you legally own on an airplane as long is it is a checked bag in the cargo compartment where it would be inaccessible during flight..

They think a city ordinance (not state law btw) supersedes federal mandate.. Do you?

You seem to be talking yourself blue in the face but at the end of the day this man followed proper procedure and was well within his rights.
edit on 16-12-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by macman

So he is a dirty scumbag because he broke a local law, that as a whole, is unique to the locality?

No, that is the "logic" I am reading from reading posts about OWS on here from people like you.


Ok, then. I guess all those OWS'ers are dirty scumbags as well, when using your logic.


Cart before the horse, my friend.


Further, never said one was a justification of the other.
The facts have been not been presented by the OP correctly.



Further, never said you did.
The facts have been correctly represented by every one of MY posts.


Never said OWS were dirty scumbags.
SO, that is not MY logic.
Nice try though.

SO, to apply your logic, a person being a "dirty scumbag" when breaking the law, OWS fall under that category.
. Ok then, sure sure.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


I love when people don't read....

He didn't break the law.. It was in a locked safe to be transported as a checked bag which is perfectly legal.


You are allowed to transport a firearm that you legally own on an airplane as long is it is a checked bag in the cargo compartment where it would be inaccessible during flight..

They think a city ordinance (not state law btw) supersedes federal mandate.. Do you?

You seem to be talking yourself blue in the face but at the end of the day this man followed proper procedure and was well within his rights.
edit on 16-12-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


New York is one of he infamous "gotcha" states when it comes to gun laws.
So, with that being said.
The City law was broken.
He should have reviewed one of the numerous gun rights websites, but he did not.

Should the discussion now turn to Gun laws of the city being unlawful?
Or, stay on topic and show out right Immaculated incorrectly stated numerous times what happened?

I say stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
The facts have been correctly represented by every one of MY posts.

Not true.

Originally posted by DaMod
He didn't break the law.. It was in a locked safe to be transported as a checked bag which is perfectly legal

Very true.

Originally posted by Alxandro
What was he thinking?

He was thinking that he was following the letter of the federal aviation laws, the federal laws, and was exercising his constituitional rights. And because he did ... a far leftie is calling him a 'scumbag'. Ahhhh .. the tolerance.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourboycal2
". But why would you carry a gun on an airplane and possibly endanger the lives of all on board if a hijacked scene came to play. Althought if a hijack did occur he would be locked and loaded .


But for the safety of the passengers and people on ground , GUN IS A BAD IDEA on a plane.


As for the guy i don't think he is that bad.


This is false logic.
Name one instance in history where a man with a legal registered handgun WITH CCW permit from California ( The reason CA is relevant, is that it is impossible to get a CCW without your local Sherrif signing off and saying you have a need, and are not a threat.) has ever endangered a passenger with said handgun.

In fact, as you quoted, the gun was secured in a lock box.

Exactly what danger is there to another passenger?
Causing their wall of ignorance to shatter?

Sounds like the guy got buried in the red tape surrounding gun restrictions, and the media along with the TSA are making a huge deal out of it.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadNinja68


Sounds like the guy got buried in the red tape surrounding gun restrictions, and the media along with the TSA are making a huge deal out of it.




Thank God for the Govt to protect the people on the plane, by stopping someone with a locked, secured, unloaded, registered and licensed firearm from getting on the plane in the locked checked baggage under compartment.

Disaster averted by the Govt.

That could have been a REALLY bad situation.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
What a moron


I mean, that act alone should make it abundantly clear that you should vote the exact opposite of whatever that clown says



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a moron


I mean, that act alone should make it abundantly clear that you should vote the exact opposite of whatever that clown says


Moron for not knowing the laws for the City of New York, as he is inside the airport?

No more moronic then anyone else that has broken laws of this nature.
No more moronic then the people that vote other moronic politicians in that have broken the law.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a moron


I mean, that act alone should make it abundantly clear that you should vote the exact opposite of whatever that clown says


Moron for not knowing the laws for the City of New York, as he is inside the airport?

No more moronic then anyone else that has broken laws of this nature.
No more moronic then the people that vote other moronic politicians in that have broken the law.



He's a moron because he claims to need 19 clips (lol) for "self defence", not only because he broke the law. If he needs 19 clips, he's either expecting to be attacked by hordes of zombies, or he simply can't aim


I've been Thai boxing for years, and teach self defence classes once a week...and if someone tells me he "needs it for self defence" after I find a gun and a 19 clips in his bag, he's a complete moron and probably not mentally stable enough to carry a gun in the first place.

Either way, the laws are clear, and he broke them...and his excuse is laughable. So not sure why this is even an controversy



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh here we go. Another Anti chiming in.
Not to mention a Foreigner Anti chiming in about what is and what is not used for self defense.
Sure sure. Ok.
And further, it states 19 cartridges of ammo, 19 rounds.

But, I guess you knew that.

edit on 16-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh here we go. Another Anti chiming in.
Not to mention a Foreigner Anti chiming in about what is and what is not used for self defense.
Sure sure. Ok.
And further, it states 19 cartridges of ammo, 19 rounds.

But, I guess you knew that.

edit on 16-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.


The selfe defence excuse is moronic either way. And I'm not sure where the problem is, he BROKE THE LAW. You might not like that law, but it is the law. I don't like that I get fined for taking a piss in the park on my way home if I can't hold it in any longer, but it is the law...and if the law states no guns on planes without a license, he should stick with that.

It's not as if I'm totally against guns. If he received threats, he should have reported them. For his sake I hope he did before getting caught and using it as an excuse...because he'll look stupid if he called "wolf" without a cause. I don't care who you are, no guns on planes. And just because it's checked in doesn't mean you can't get to it. We have a choice of either having planes with everyone armed, or none armed at all. I vote for option 2...mostly because if option 1 wins, there's always a remote chance some Virginia Tech like psycho gets on a plane with a chance to access a gun.
edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's nice.
Way to TOTALLY glaze over the fact that you were wrong.
Did not state 19 mags.
19 rounds of ammo.

I would also love to see your Thai Boxing up against the Pistol.
Wonder who will win?

Oh well, don't even think you will address the mag vs. round discrepancy.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

The selfe defence excuse is moronic either way. And I'm not sure where the problem is, he BROKE THE LAW. You might not like that law, but it is the law. I don't like that I get fined for taking a piss in the park on my way home if I can't hold it in any longer, but it is the law...and if the law states no guns on planes without a license, he should stick with that.


I forgot, you get to define how people will defend themselves.
Lets just forget that whole 2nd Amendment thing as we go.


Originally posted by MrXYZ

I don't care who you are, no guns on planes. And just because it's checked in doesn't mean you can't get to it. We have a choice of either having planes with everyone armed, or none armed at all. I vote for option 2...mostly because if option 1 wins, there's always a remote chance some Virginia Tech like psycho gets on a plane with a chance to access a gun.
edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Yep, because there are SO many reports of people checking a firearm into the "CHECKED" baggage, getting the firearm and shooting people on planes.
Happens all the time.

edit on 16-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





Oh well, don't even think you will address the mag vs. round discrepancy.


Does it matter if he broke the law?


Let's wait and see what amazing proof of threats he comes up with



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Your logic is flawed. If there is always a chance of some Va Tech type psycho slipping by and getting a gun on a plane, then the best defense is to have everyone armed. That way it isn't a lone gunman massacre.

Plus, as this thread has repeatedly shown, this guy did not break the law. He will win in court. NYC ordinances do not override state and Federal ordinances in this case, because his destination was not NYC, and the airport is still Federal land. He abided by all the laws necessary.

Also, someone does not have to have a threat to want to carry a gun. There are real risks in the real world everyday. I would never dream of travelling without my gun. Just craziness. I was in a hotel once, and I heard my door click to unlock. I jumped up, grabbed my gun, and stepped behind a corner of a wall. A little Mexican lady walked into my room, and I stepped out behind her and asked what she was doing. The sight of me, naked, with a gun, freaked her out and she started apologizing. Apparently she was sneaking into uninhabited rooms and sleeping at night before her maid shift in the morning, and she thought my room was empty. I didn't shoot her, I didn't even tell her boss, but the fact is, I'm glad I had my gun!!!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





A little Mexican lady walked into my room, and I stepped out behind her and asked what she was doing. The sight of me, naked, with a gun, freaked her out and she started apologizing. Apparently she was sneaking into uninhabited rooms and sleeping at night before her maid shift in the morning, and she thought my room was empty. I didn't shoot her, I didn't even tell her boss, but the fact is, I'm glad I had my gun!!!



Always good to have a gun ready to protect oneself from those evil little Mexican ladies
:lol

Look, I'm not even arguing against guns here. But the "self defence" excuse is used way too often...which is exactly what he did here. And I HATE people using it as an excuse without a valid reason. Just like I hate people calling "fire" without a fire.
edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join