AZ man ordered to surrender guns due to blogs...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Florida Panhandle

    Exclamation AZ man ordered to surrender guns due to blogs...

    Man ordered to surrender guns


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Daytona Beach, Florida
    While there are indeed people who should have their weapons took from them... This in not one...

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Blog Entries
    I wonder if they passed a LAW stating pro-gun, pro-Christian or anti-marxist/anti-ObaMao posters are to surrender guns if those who follow laws blindly would do so? Nobody comes to mind in particular with that question, so please read the rest of this post before commenting as I'd like to offer my reasoning for it.

    Again, why should anyone be allowed to decide where to draw the line as to the acceptable amount we are to disable our founding documents? From full confiscation on down to concealed carry limitations, where in that spectrum should the line be drawn and who authorized to decide how much of an infringement against the Bill of Rights is an acceptable amount of infringement? "Shall not be infringed except for various situations and scattered exceptions" is not what the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights says...

    I know some feel harping on this is a bit much, but I feel respecting the FIRST and SECOND Amendments fully and completely is the only way to ensure a steady encroachment against our freedoms would end. It's just my opinion, and I respect anyone elses dissenting opinion but I would simply wonder then why the Bill of Rights is so hard to understand. Lawyers make a living disecting words and sentences and twisting meanings, some with a vandetta against our freedoms and can make a simple sentence seem beyond a typical person's understanding. Some on the left will argue there is a gray area in a coin toss! It is sad that so many Americans have fallen prey to such deception in regard to their very own freedoms.

    Again, this is my opinion only and we all have one. :-)
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Document written by folks with an understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, can't surrender what I don't have and for safety reasons would have to give you the bullets first, come and take it.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    St. Louis County, MO
    This reminds me of a woman who accused McDonald's of giving her hot coffee that burned her tongue? A very frivolous lawsuit but nevertheless she won. Try doing this kind of suit in Texas...These people who sided with her should all be locked up and the keys thrown away.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker's Mom View Post
    This reminds me of a woman who accused McDonald's of giving her hot coffee that burned her tongue? A very frivolous lawsuit but nevertheless she won. Try doing this kind of suit in Texas...These people who sided with her should all be locked up and the keys thrown away.
    Actually the McDonald's woman spilled the coffe on her crotch where her cotton pants held the coffe and the heat in long enough to scald her legs. She suffered permanent damage and scarring

    ETA (since I know someone will say I'm full of it)On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.;s_Restaurants
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name. Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  8. #7
    I don't know much about the guy or who said what on which forum but it does not seem right.

  9. While the barring of him owning guns is rather worrying, he appears to be a grade A nutjob. " life's in danger now. I can't defend myself, I can't defend you." His life is in danger now? But it wasn't before? The mere ownership of a firearm does not cause or prevent someone from having their life in danger. He can't defend *ME*? His blog also appears to be set up for the sole purpose of besmirching this woman's religiousness. He ALWAYS refers to her as "the late", or that she is dead, or similar language. While it's clear to me that he means spiritually, it is still VERY strange - and if this guy is anywhere near as strange in person as he appears via his website, I might fear for my safety from him, too, if he wrote about me that way.

    Wow, I'm glad I left Prescott Arizona when I got done at college. I knew it was a kooky town, full of very strange people, but between this guy, the woman who brought the complaint against him, and the judge who approved this.......

  10. #9
    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.

  11. #10
    I too wonder why the 1st amendment is so hard to understand. For instance the famous "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" ruling is well know although often misused. How about talking loudly on a cell phone in a crowded theater. Does 1A cover that? How about protesting in front of someone's home just because you don't like them and spreading false rumors? Loud radios, shouting down a speaker, maybe interrupting a funeral, wedding or classroom. How about the part of 1A that mentions religion. Is it so hard to understand and how many have actually read it to see what is says rather than relying on idiots like the fellow in the OP. To me he is nothing more than a self-serving charlatan giving even more people a reason to distrust Christians and Christianity.

Page 1 of 3 123 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