AZ man ordered to surrender guns due to blogs... - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: AZ man ordered to surrender guns due to blogs...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation

    As a Christian Missionary he probably spoke the truth that some left wing libtard nearly wet themselves over. When all the hand ringing was said and done...the judges deemed him dangerous because of what was perceived as extremist views when in fact it is nothing more than freedom of speech.
    Let's look at what is really being attacked here...

    1st amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    2nd amendment:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    4th amendment:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    5th amendment:
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    6th amendment:
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    THESE ARE JUST THE OPENING GRIEVANCES...I AM SURE OTHER RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED BUT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST...THIS MAN HAS BROKEN NO LAW. HE HAS USED FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND AS A RESULT A JUDGE HAS TAKEN HIS RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION............
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple View Post
    Irregardless of the circumstances surrounding this BS and the guy who wrote it, it speaks volumes of the problems with the courts rubber stamping a 'harassment complaint' as valid without any investigation, and then taking action against the defendant that revokes his/her rights. Civil complaints like this should include the need to have it investigated and validated by LE or a court appointed investigator before any action is taken - not take cation now and then reverse the decision later.
    (OPENS ENVELOPE)

    And the award for unsuccessfully using "irregardless" which is not a word in the English language, goes to Purple. Please come up on stage and give a brief acceptance speach and pick up your CCW Badge on the table next to the podium.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    G50AE: Beat me to it.

    And yeah, the McDonald's Coffee Woman is NOT, I repeat *NOT*, once more with feeling *NOT* and example of a frivolous lawsuit, regardless (the actual word used correctly) of how many people think otherwise, or how often that lie is perpetuated. That particular McDonald's restaurant had been warned by the local food safety inspector that their coffee was injuriously hot and that they were REQUIRED to turn the temperature down on numerous occasions. But this particular McDonald's franchisee was pinching pennies and using an inferior grade of coffee and needed to insure that buyers would be incapable of tasting the crap until they were WELL down the road, and forcing them to wait until it cooled seemed like a good way to do it.

    When someone (read: McDonald's and their franchisees) are doing wrong (knowingly, and with premeditation, placing people at risk of serious bodily injury or death) then a civil lawsuit is the very, very, VERY LEAST that needs to happen. I would have that Franchisee in prison for a couple of years for sexual assault since his illegal actions led directly to the lady burning her lips, and not while taking a sip.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    G50AE: Beat me to it.
    CathyInBlue, how are you? I haven't seen you on these forums in a while. Thanks for the info, it's good to see you back.

  6. #15
    Treo:

    It seems to me that the sweat pants manufacturer should have anticapted that event and is just as responsible as MacDonalds. I would also guess that the manufacturer of the cup and cover are partially liable, to say nothing of the car maker who put the steering wheel in such an inconvenient and dangerous postion.

  7. #16
    Careful, everyone...all it takes is one person to become offended by one of YOUR posts, and who on this site doesn't have guns?

    My 2 cents...The Constitution never once tried to assert that we have a God-given right to freedom from differing opinions or from feeling offended. That would have been, and still is, pathetically silly. If it crosses the line into the realm of a threat, that would be entirely different. But then most penal codes require things like "specificity" "immediacy" "ability and intent to carry out the threat" and "irreparable harm". I don't expect everyone out there to understand the concept of spiritual death, but (without having access to all the transcripts of the posts in question) I don't see a threat that meets these criteria, or even one or two of them.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    G50AE: Beat me to it.

    And yeah, the McDonald's Coffee Woman is NOT, I repeat *NOT*, once more with feeling *NOT* and example of a frivolous lawsuit, regardless (the actual word used correctly) of how many people think otherwise, or how often that lie is perpetuated. That particular McDonald's restaurant had been warned by the local food safety inspector that their coffee was injuriously hot and that they were REQUIRED to turn the temperature down on numerous occasions. But this particular McDonald's franchisee was pinching pennies and using an inferior grade of coffee and needed to insure that buyers would be incapable of tasting the crap until they were WELL down the road, and forcing them to wait until it cooled seemed like a good way to do it.

    When someone (read: McDonald's and their franchisees) are doing wrong (knowingly, and with premeditation, placing people at risk of serious bodily injury or death) then a civil lawsuit is the very, very, VERY LEAST that needs to happen. I would have that Franchisee in prison for a couple of years for sexual assault since his illegal actions led directly to the lady burning her lips, and not while taking a sip.
    The franchises don't choose their own coffee. It is supplied by McDonalds. And the temperature was set that way because they were told to set it that way. That was the best way to get the flavor from the coffee they were using. That was what came out in court and that is why most of the damages were reversed on appeal. The original multi-million dollar punitive award was reduced to medical expenses and pain and suffering.

    It all still comes back to one inescapable, simple fact. If you open a hot cup of coffee in your lap, you have a good chance of burning yourself. That's plain old common sense. The only way to avoid it is to not do it. If you can't wrap your brain around that, it isn't somebody else's fault. It's like the lawnmower company that had to put a caution in the owners manual not to use the mower in the bathtub due to a lawsuit that was filed against them. At some point common sense has to kick in and people have to take responsibility for their own stupidity and stop trying to blame it on someone else.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Seems to me if money changed hands the lady making the purchase owned the coffee, MD's did not spill the coffee.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098
    Thread drifters
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  11. #20
    First of all about the OP. I am not sure what the confiscation of his guns had to do with what he wrote or how the judge came up with that so I can't really say one way or the other but it does appear to me that is was an overreaction. Unless there was more to it that I can find the guns were not a part of the deal. As for calling him a Christian Missionary I can't go that far. To me he is nothing but a "Nut" trying to justify his rantings, ravings and hatred for someone by using the Bible. There is nothing Christian about his postings or actions. His actions are pushing the limits of 1A and I really don't think the Founding Fathers has such mess in mind about personal attacks being covered.

    As for the coffee deal I agree that McDonalds coffee is too hot for my liking but they also server it in cups rather than just pour it on people. The responsibility to not spill your food is yours, not the servers and studies show that eathing while driving is a distraction just like using cell phones. The lady in the lawsuit was as responsible for what happened as anyone else. We try to shift blame for our actions to everyone else. If she had been seated in a McDonalds when she spilled the coffee I would have much more sympathy for her but while driving shifts the majority to her.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast