In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

lt496 - Hypocrite?????

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
lt496 and other yellow canary * here preach that because of the constitution there should be absolutely no laws providing for even a minimual amount of gun control.

Yet picture (or ask lt496) what does he do when he does (or used to do) when he executes a felony car stop and realizes the suspect has a firearm on him. Does the good lt pull his gun and force that suspect to surrender his firearm? Or, does lt follow his own preaching and tell the suspect to go ahead and keep his firearm as lt processes the felony car stop and then later arrests and takes the suspect to jail.

I will bet money lt496 impliments his own form of gun control and takes possession of that suspects firearm. Isn't that a violation of that suspects constitutional right according to lt496 and the other yellow canary *?

And don't give me any lame crap about how lt496 is just doing his job or that he has a right to protect himself by taking the suspects gun. In the story I just told, the suspect is just that. A SUSPECT. meaning he is INNOCENT until proven guilty. In regards to lt496 just doing his job, we all know that someone doing their job should not violate the consitutuional rights of a citizens. In regards to lt496 taking possession of the suspects firearm, remember that suspect is innocent at that point. Innocent until found guilty in a court.

Besides, all the yellow canary * here always preach that even violent convicted felons should have legal ownership of firearms and if that violent felon threatens a canary * with that firearm then the canary * will just kill him and remove yet another threat from the community.

So, how about it. What is constitutional about lt496 either taking someone's firearm or standing by while another "peace officer" violates the constitutional rights of an innocent American citizen.

Comments

  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    trfox, the gift that just keeps on giving.[:)]

    Once again, a pictorial illustration of his thought processes and his allegiance, in the face of cognitive reasoning... quote:Three-ToedNRATRSloth.jpg
  • RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    Oh, I think I got it: tr fox, you are high. Or drunk. Or on medication. There is no other explanation.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    lt496 and other yellow canary * here preach that because of the constitution there should be absolutely no laws providing for even a minimual amount of gun control.

    Yet picture (or ask lt496) what does he do when he does (or used to do) when he executes a felony car stop and realizes the suspect has a firearm on him. Does the good lt pull his gun and force that suspect to surrender his firearm? Or, does lt follow his own preaching and tell the suspect to go ahead and keep his firearm as lt processes the felony car stop and then later arrests and takes the suspect to jail.

    I will bet money lt496 impliments his own form of gun control and takes possession of that suspects firearm. Isn't that a violation of that suspects constitutional right according to lt496 and the other yellow canary *?

    And don't give me any lame crap about how lt496 is just doing his job or that he has a right to protect himself by taking the suspects gun. In the story I just told, the suspect is just that. A SUSPECT. meaning he is INNOCENT until proven guilty. In regards to lt496 just doing his job, we all know that someone doing their job should not violate the consitutuional rights of a citizens. In regards to lt496 taking possession of the suspects firearm, remember that suspect is innocent at that point. Innocent until found guilty in a court.

    Besides, all the yellow canary * here always preach that even violent convicted felons should have legal ownership of firearms and if that violent felon threatens a canary * with that firearm then the canary * will just kill him and remove yet another threat from the community.

    So, how about it. What is constitutional about lt496 either taking someone's firearm or standing by while another "peace officer" violates the constitutional rights of an innocent American citizen.


    Ok Fox, Sloth or whatever. You again have strayed afar from reality and the law.

    First, you said it was a "felony stop"... Well, if it's a felony stop then they are NOT just suspect. To qualify for a felony stop, the person had to commit a felony in the view of the officer or be wanted for a felony and is in the process of evading the law.

    Do us all a favor, quit trying for theme alliteration and go to law school then come back to reality to talk with those of us who work in this world.

    COB
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member, Moderator, Sr. Moderator Posts: 37,604 ***** Sr. Moderator
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    trfox, the gift that just keeps on giving.[:)]
    Just like a case of the clap, and just as handy.

    The guy's a piece of work, ain't he?[xx(]
  • reloader44magreloader44mag Member Posts: 19,356 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    lt496 and other yellow canary * here preach that because of the constitution there should be absolutely no laws providing for even a minimual amount of gun control.

    Yet picture (or ask lt496) what does he do when he does (or used to do) when he executes a felony car stop and realizes the suspect has a firearm on him. Does the good lt pull his gun and force that suspect to surrender his firearm? Or, does lt follow his own preaching and tell the suspect to go ahead and keep his firearm as lt processes the felony car stop and then later arrests and takes the suspect to jail.

    I will bet money lt496 impliments his own form of gun control and takes possession of that suspects firearm. Isn't that a violation of that suspects constitutional right according to lt496 and the other yellow canary *?

    And don't give me any lame crap about how lt496 is just doing his job or that he has a right to protect himself by taking the suspects gun. In the story I just told, the suspect is just that. A SUSPECT. meaning he is INNOCENT until proven guilty. In regards to lt496 just doing his job, we all know that someone doing their job should not violate the consitutuional rights of a citizens. In regards to lt496 taking possession of the suspects firearm, remember that suspect is innocent at that point. Innocent until found guilty in a court.

    Besides, all the yellow canary * here always preach that even violent convicted felons should have legal ownership of firearms and if that violent felon threatens a canary * with that firearm then the canary * will just kill him and remove yet another threat from the community.

    So, how about it. What is constitutional about lt496 either taking someone's firearm or standing by while another "peace officer" violates the constitutional rights of an innocent American citizen.


    Ok Fox, Sloth or whatever. You again have strayed afar from reality and the law.

    First, you said it was a "felony stop"... Well, if it's a felony stop then they are NOT just suspect. To qualify for a felony stop, the person had to commit a felony in the view of the officer or be wanted for a felony and is in the process of evading the law.

    Do us all a favor, quit trying for theme alliteration and go to law school then come back to reality to talk with those of us who work in this world.

    COB
    Not true, You could have a felony stop on a stolen vehicle and the person driving has no idea the car is stolen.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,936 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A perfect example of how supporting anti-Constitutional legislation destroys the fabric of society. We ask good men to support the beast knowing that absent those good men, the beast becomes uncontrollable.

    What, Mr. Fox, would you prefer?

    1. Obedience to anti-Constitutional legislation?

    OR

    2. The elimination of that legislation?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    lt496 and other yellow canary * here preach that because of the constitution there should be absolutely no laws providing for even a minimual amount of gun control.

    Yet picture (or ask lt496) what does he do when he does (or used to do) when he executes a felony car stop and realizes the suspect has a firearm on him. Does the good lt pull his gun and force that suspect to surrender his firearm? Or, does lt follow his own preaching and tell the suspect to go ahead and keep his firearm as lt processes the felony car stop and then later arrests and takes the suspect to jail.

    I will bet money lt496 impliments his own form of gun control and takes possession of that suspects firearm. Isn't that a violation of that suspects constitutional right according to lt496 and the other yellow canary *?

    And don't give me any lame crap about how lt496 is just doing his job or that he has a right to protect himself by taking the suspects gun. In the story I just told, the suspect is just that. A SUSPECT. meaning he is INNOCENT until proven guilty. In regards to lt496 just doing his job, we all know that someone doing their job should not violate the consitutuional rights of a citizens. In regards to lt496 taking possession of the suspects firearm, remember that suspect is innocent at that point. Innocent until found guilty in a court.

    Besides, all the yellow canary * here always preach that even violent convicted felons should have legal ownership of firearms and if that violent felon threatens a canary * with that firearm then the canary * will just kill him and remove yet another threat from the community.

    So, how about it. What is constitutional about lt496 either taking someone's firearm or standing by while another "peace officer" violates the constitutional rights of an innocent American citizen.


    trfox I hate to bust your bubble but on any felony stop the suspect (armed or not) will be taken out of the vehicle at gunpoint, searched, disarmed (if necessary), and arrested, whether or not he is charged with felon in possession of a firearm is up to the arresting officer.

    When Lt arrests someone on any charge, including misdemeanors, he takes possession of them, any evidence he needs, and everything they have on them to include a firearm if they have one, on a form called an Evidence and Property Custody Document. (or something of similar name) What this does is establish who is responsible for their property and any evidence for the case. Then it can be passed on to someone else such as the jail's property office, and/or the evidence custodian, keeping a written chain of custody. So if he arrests an armed felon for another charge and they have a gun on them he takes possession of that gun and it goes to the evidence custodian, whether or not he charges them with felon in possession of a firearm or not. Even if they are not a felon the gun would be secured in the evidence locker, as its not allowed in the jail.
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member, Moderator, Sr. Moderator Posts: 37,604 ***** Sr. Moderator
    edited November -1
    C'mon now don't be tryin' to confuse ol TR with logic. That's his story and he's stickin' to it.
  • COBmmcmssCOBmmcmss Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    [/quote]Not true, You could have a felony stop on a stolen vehicle and the person driving has no idea the car is stolen.
    [/quote]

    Anyone driving a car, and not sure that it's stolen doesn't have enough horse sense to handle life, let alone a weapon. Albeit true, they are committing the felony of driving a stolen car and are not aware of it. It is still a felony.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss

    Not true, You could have a felony stop on a stolen vehicle and the person driving has no idea the car is stolen.
    [/quote]

    Anyone driving a car, and not sure that it's stolen doesn't have enough horse sense to handle life, let alone a weapon. Albeit true, they are committing the felony of driving a stolen car and are not aware of it. It is still a felony.
    [/quote]

    Well..... They ARE liberals that we are dealing with. They seem to lack in the area of common sense.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    trfox, the gift that just keeps on giving.[:)]

    Once again, a pictorial illustration of his thought processes and his allegiance, in the face of cognitive reasoning... quote:Three-ToedNRATRSloth.jpg

    ROTFLMAO
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:32:12 PM lt496


    Good Lord!

    What is the matter with you guys?

    Does the simple concept of 'shall not be infringed' escape you?

    Can you grasp the idea of obedience to law, because force of government is looming over you, yet understanding that the 'law' is against the principles of the Constitution and expressly against the text of Amendment II?

    Is there somehow something wrong with keeping this 'basic concept' in the forefront of discussion, that 'basic concept' being that our government is acting outside its constitutional authority in regulating firearms?

    Once again, Good Lord!

    END OF lt496's POST.

    Above is a post by lt496 on the general forum. In red above. If lt496 takes you into custody, even though just for investigation, he WILL INFRINGE on your firearms rights by being sure you don't take your firearm with you. Even if you merely go to lt496's police station to file a report, if you walk in with a visible firearm, eithr lt496 or one of his fellow peace officers will order you to remove that firearm from their publically funded police station. If you walk into their station with a legally concealed firearm, and are found out, you will be in trouble and your firearm rights will be "infringed."

    In blue above. Since lt496 is a government employee, all the actions I have described above would be the very thing that lt496 whines about in the in blue above. He would be the "government (agent) actiong outside his constitutional authority by unlawfully" controlling you and your gun carrying rights.

    Course all you yellow canary * here are fine with all that I am sure.

    Naive Hypocrites!
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member, Moderator, Sr. Moderator Posts: 37,604 ***** Sr. Moderator
    edited November -1
    Fox.....Please see a doctor......Please!
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:32:12 PM lt496


    Good Lord!

    What is the matter with you guys?

    Does the simple concept of 'shall not be infringed' escape you?

    Can you grasp the idea of obedience to law, because force of government is looming over you, yet understanding that the 'law' is against the principles of the Constitution and expressly against the text of Amendment II?

    Is there somehow something wrong with keeping this 'basic concept' in the forefront of discussion, that 'basic concept' being that our government is acting outside its constitutional authority in regulating firearms?

    Once again, Good Lord!

    END OF lt496's POST.

    Above is a post by lt496 on the general forum. In red above. If lt496 takes you into custody, even though just for investigation, he WILL INFRINGE on your firearms rights by being sure you don't take your firearm with you. Even if you merely go to lt496's police station to file a report, if you walk in with a visible firearm, eithr lt496 or one of his fellow peace officers will order you to remove that firearm from their publically funded police station. If you walk into their station with a legally concealed firearm, and are found out, you will be in trouble and your firearm rights will be "infringed."

    In blue above. Since lt496 is a government employee, all the actions I have described above would be the very thing that lt496 whines about in the in blue above. He would be the "government (agent) actiong outside his constitutional authority by unlawfully" controlling you and your gun carrying rights.

    Course all you yellow canary * here are fine with all that I am sure.

    Naive Hypocrites!


    Say it aint so Cap, say it aint so..
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Say it aint so Cap, say it aint so..
    Since tr's attempted 'gotcha' is directed at others here, in an attempt to trip them up, I will allow it to develop awhile before I address the specifics of his utterly stupid 'point'.

    Let's see how the boys do at picking it apart and exposing the massive and glaring weakness of tr's 'point'. I fully expect that a member of The Brethren, is capable of addressing such a clear distinction and simple point.

    Think government 'legislation' vs. specific actions, taken in a specific situation, against a specific individual, by another specific individual, for a specific set of circumstances.

    Then ponder the issues that revolve around 'collectivism vs. individualism' and relate them to the above paragraph.

    One should also take into account the critical and distinct difference between the ethic/philosophy of 'Peace Officer' as opposed to that of a 'Law Enforcement Officer'. This certainly plays into the tr-equation.[:)]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    lt496 and other yellow canary * here preach that because of the constitution there should be absolutely no laws providing for even a minimual amount of gun control.

    Yet picture (or ask lt496) what does he do when he does (or used to do) when he executes a felony car stop and realizes the suspect has a firearm on him. Does the good lt pull his gun and force that suspect to surrender his firearm? Or, does lt follow his own preaching and tell the suspect to go ahead and keep his firearm as lt processes the felony car stop and then later arrests and takes the suspect to jail.

    I will bet money lt496 impliments his own form of gun control and takes possession of that suspects firearm. Isn't that a violation of that suspects constitutional right according to lt496 and the other yellow canary *?

    And don't give me any lame crap about how lt496 is just doing his job or that he has a right to protect himself by taking the suspects gun. In the story I just told, the suspect is just that. A SUSPECT. meaning he is INNOCENT until proven guilty. In regards to lt496 just doing his job, we all know that someone doing their job should not violate the consitutuional rights of a citizens. In regards to lt496 taking possession of the suspects firearm, remember that suspect is innocent at that point. Innocent until found guilty in a court.

    Besides, all the yellow canary * here always preach that even violent convicted felons should have legal ownership of firearms and if that violent felon threatens a canary * with that firearm then the canary * will just kill him and remove yet another threat from the community.

    So, how about it. What is constitutional about lt496 either taking someone's firearm or standing by while another "peace officer" violates the constitutional rights of an innocent American citizen.


    Ok Fox, Sloth or whatever. You again have strayed afar from reality and the law.

    First, you said it was a "felony stop"... Well, if it's a felony stop then they are NOT just suspect. To qualify for a felony stop, the person had to commit a felony in the view of the officer or be wanted for a felony and is in the process of evading the law.

    Do us all a favor, quit trying for theme alliteration and go to law school then come back to reality to talk with those of us who work in this world.

    COB


    Ok, then I will simply remove the "felony stop" from my description. Simple matter since I put it there anyway. In fact I will use another example such as:

    Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:32:12 PM lt496


    Good Lord!

    What is the matter with you guys?

    Does the simple concept of 'shall not be infringed' escape you?

    Can you grasp the idea of obedience to law, because force of government is looming over you, yet understanding that the 'law' is against the principles of the Constitution and expressly against the text of Amendment II?

    Is there somehow something wrong with keeping this 'basic concept' in the forefront of discussion, that 'basic concept' being that our government is acting outside its constitutional authority in regulating firearms?

    Once again, Good Lord!

    END OF lt496's POST.

    Above is a post by lt496 on the general forum. In red above. If lt496 takes you into custody, even though just for investigation, he WILL INFRINGE on your firearms rights by being sure you don't take your firearm with you. Even if you merely go to lt496's police station to file a report, if you walk in with a visible firearm, eithr lt496 or one of his fellow peace officers will order you to remove that firearm from their publically funded police station. If you walk into their station with a legally concealed firearm, and are found out, you will be in trouble and your firearm rights will be "infringed."

    In blue above. Since lt496 is a government employee, all the actions I have described above would be the very thing that lt496 whines about in the in blue above. He would be the "government (agent) actiong outside his constitutional authority by unlawfully" controlling you and your gun carrying rights.

    Course all you yellow canary * here are fine with all that I am sure.

    Naive Hypocrites!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Say it aint so Cap, say it aint so..
    Since tr's attempted 'gotcha' is directed at others here, in an attempt to trip them up, I will allow it to develop awhile before I address the specifics of his utterly stupid 'point'.

    Let's see how the boys do at picking it apart and exposing the massive and glaring weakness of tr's 'point'. I fully expect that a member of The Brethren, is capable of addressing such a clear distinction and simple point.

    Think government 'legislation' vs. specific actions, taken in a specific situation, against a specific individual, by another specific individual, for a specific set of circumstances.

    Then ponder the issues that revolve around 'collectivism vs. individualism' and relate them to the above paragraph.

    One should also take into account the critical and distinct difference between the ethic/philosophy of 'Peace Officer' as opposed to that of a 'Law Enforcement Officer'. This certainly plays into the tr-equation.[:)]





    Blah, blah, blah. You still wear a badge and gun, are employeed by the government and you take people to jail and/or you deal with citizens when you encounter them in public or when those citizens come to your station. And you, or your fellow "peace officer" UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING OF THEIR FIREARM.

    Then you come on GB.com and preach about how ANY gun control is unconstitutional.

    Explain that mr. hypocrite.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    In addition, for a peace or law enforcement officer to TAKE any action against an innocent or even guilty citizens, that officer is supposed to be operating within the law. So how can lt496 come on here and, along with the yellow canary *, preach about how the constitution doesn't allow for ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL, and then lt496 and his other officers go out (or if you come into his station to file a report) and disarms citizens? Sure, some guilty citizens but also some innocent citizens? How can lt496 have it both ways. Here on GB.com he preaches there must be no gun control because of the constitution yet he goes out and controls guns?

    Why is that conflict in logic so hard to see? I'll tell you why. Because many here just don't want to admit it.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Say it aint so Cap, say it aint so..
    Since tr's attempted 'gotcha' is directed at others here, in an attempt to trip them up, I will allow it to develop awhile before I address the specifics of his utterly stupid 'point'.

    Let's see how the boys do at picking it apart and exposing the massive and glaring weakness of tr's 'point'. I fully expect that a member of The Brethren, is capable of addressing such a clear distinction and simple point.

    Think government 'legislation' vs. specific actions, taken in a specific situation, against a specific individual, by another specific individual, for a specific set of circumstances.

    Then ponder the issues that revolve around 'collectivism vs. individualism' and relate them to the above paragraph.

    One should also take into account the critical and distinct difference between the ethic/philosophy of 'Peace Officer' as opposed to that of a 'Law Enforcement Officer'. This certainly plays into the tr-equation.[:)]





    Blah, blah, blah. You still wear a badge and gun, are employeed by the government and you take people to jail and/or you deal with citizens when you encounter them in public or when those citizens come to your station. And you, or your fellow "peace officer" UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING OF THEIR FIREARM.

    Then you come on GB.com and preach about how ANY gun control is unconstitutional.

    Explain that mr. hypocrite.
    How can one explain anything to a man who lacks basic cognitive reasoning ability and a basic understanding of simple concepts?

    It is akin to discussing quantum physics with a retarded child, who wears a helmet to keep from hurting himself whilst sitting on the floor eating pudding and graham crackers with his fingers.
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,902 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Say it aint so Cap, say it aint so..
    Since tr's attempted 'gotcha' is directed at others here, in an attempt to trip them up, I will allow it to develop awhile before I address the specifics of his utterly stupid 'point'.

    Let's see how the boys do at picking it apart and exposing the massive and glaring weakness of tr's 'point'. I fully expect that a member of The Brethren, is capable of addressing such a clear distinction and simple point.

    Think government 'legislation' vs. specific actions, taken in a specific situation, against a specific individual, by another specific individual, for a specific set of circumstances.

    Then ponder the issues that revolve around 'collectivism vs. individualism' and relate them to the above paragraph.

    One should also take into account the critical and distinct difference between the ethic/philosophy of 'Peace Officer' as opposed to that of a 'Law Enforcement Officer'. This certainly plays into the tr-equation.[:)]





    Blah, blah, blah. You still wear a badge and gun, are employeed by the government and you take people to jail and/or you deal with citizens when you encounter them in public or when those citizens come to your station. And you, or your fellow "peace officer" UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING OF THEIR FIREARM.

    Then you come on GB.com and preach about how ANY gun control is unconstitutional.

    Explain that mr. hypocrite.
    How can one explain anything to a man who lacks basic cognitive reasoning ability and a basic understanding of simple concepts?

    It is akin to discussing quantum physics with a retarded child, who wears a helmet to keep from hurting himself whilst sitting on the floor eating pudding and graham crackers with his fingers.


    Oh man,.......I came so close to spewing my last swig of water all over the place![:0][:D][:o)][:D]
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Oh man,.......I came so close to spewing my last swig of water all over the place![:D]Mark, I can visualize it in my minds-eye, both lil' fox smearing pudding and graham cracker goo all over his face and your spitting water on the screen when you too visualized it.[:)]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Here's another one. Say lt496 stops you for speeding well over the posted limit. He has to take you in so you can post bond for a MISDEMEANOR. Even if you have a CCW he will disarm you! Then later that day he will come here on GB.com and preach about how the US Constitution does not allow for ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL.

    Now with said, if you here cannot see the hypocrisy then I have no more time to waste on you and am moving on to something else.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Here's another one. Say lt496 stops you for speeding well over the posted limit. He has to take you in so you can post bond for a MISDEMEANOR. Even if you have a CCW he will disarm you! Then later that day he will come here on GB.com and preach about how the US Constitution does not allow for ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL.

    Now with said, if you here cannot see the hypocrisy then I have no more time to waste on you and am moving on to something else.
    Wrong again, Dufe.

    I have never and will never make an arrest for a civil traffic violation, nor a simple malum prohibitum traffic violation.

    Never have I, nor will I ever disarm a citizen on such a stop.'

    Why don't you go eat some pudding and graham crackers, but dont forget to put your helmet on first.

    I certainly can't stop you if you choose to address me directly, but I ask that you never directly address me again on a topic.

    I can't abide a liar and an ignoramus. You have proven yourself to be both and as such, are not worthy of any attention from me.

    Carry on, fox, but do it away from me, please...
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,902 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Here's another one. Say lt496 stops you for speeding well over the posted limit. He has to take you in so you can post bond for a MISDEMEANOR. Even if you have a CCW he will disarm you! Then later that day he will come here on GB.com and preach about how the US Constitution does not allow for ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL.

    Now with said, if you here cannot see the hypocrisy then I have no more time to waste on you and am moving on to something else.
    Wrong again, Dufe.

    I have never and will never make an arrest for a civil traffic violation, nor a simple malum prohibitum traffic violation.

    Never have I, nor will I ever disarm a citizen on such a stop.'

    Why don't you go eat some pudding and graham crackers, but dont forget to put your helmet on first.

    I certainly can't stop you if you choose to address me directly, but I ask that you never directly address me again on a topic.
    I can't abide a liar and an ignoramus. You have proven yourself to be both and as such, are not worthy of any attention from me.

    Carry on, fox, but do it away from me, please...





    Very bad form for sure. I have chosen to simply try to stay out of 'discussions' with a few members here.

    BTW,.....I saved my screen, but I had water up my nose and almost choked trying to swallow it in time. Funny how I was reading your post, and right before I got to the end, I raised the bottle and emptied it.

    Very bad timing on my part needless to say![:)]
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • Mr. FriendlyMr. Friendly Member Posts: 7,981
    edited November -1
    You suspect?

    How does what you suspect come into play with what happens in the real world?

    I "suspect" a lot of things, but it makes them neither fact, or true.

    You would do yourself a great favor by sticking to facts that have been presented, and real data rather than making your own up as you go.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Here's another one. Say lt496 stops you for speeding well over the posted limit. He has to take you in so you can post bond for a MISDEMEANOR. Even if you have a CCW he will disarm you! Then later that day he will come here on GB.com and preach about how the US Constitution does not allow for ANY GUN CONTROL AT ALL.

    Now with said, if you here cannot see the hypocrisy then I have no more time to waste on you and am moving on to something else.
    Wrong again, Dufe.

    I have never and will never make an arrest for a civil traffic violation, nor a simple malum prohibitum traffic violation. Damn. Sounds like you don't do much real cop work. Are you a school crossing guard by any chance?

    Never have I, nor will I ever disarm a citizen on such a stop.' Are you claiming you have never disarmed a citizen? Or otherwise control the manner in which he possessed his firearm?

    Why don't you go eat some pudding and graham crackers, but dont forget to put your helmet on first.

    I certainly can't stop you if you choose to address me directly, but I ask that you never directly address me again on a topic.

    I can't abide a liar and an ignoramus. You have proven yourself to be both and as such, are not worthy of any attention from me.

    Carry on, fox, but do it away from me, please...
Sign In or Register to comment.