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 - Direct Question 4 U

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
If you stopped me for highly excessive speeding and had to take me to the station so as for me to post bail for this MISDEMEANOR, and I was legally carrying/possessing my handgun, would you or would you not relieve me of my firearm?

If you answer is "yes" you would disarm me, doesn't that violate the position of the yellow canary * (and of yourself) that the constitutional 2nd Amendment prohibits any gun control in America?

Please start your response with either a "yes" or "no" answer. You can go into excessive detail and throw the personal insults after that.

Comments

  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    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...
  • kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    I don't see any officer letting a suspect in custody walking around the police department with their sidearm.
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member, Moderator, Sr. Moderator Posts: 37,604 ***** Sr. Moderator
    edited November -1
    Hopefully you'd do sumthin' dumb like reach for your "Lawful CCW Permit Holder" badge............[xx(][xx(]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    ...that's a pretty stupid question.
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Member, Moderator, Sr. Moderator Posts: 37,604 ***** Sr. Moderator
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ECC
    ...that's a pretty stupid question.
    Ain't it though Eric? Seriously, the guy needs mental help IMO.
  • ringchildringchild Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    If you stopped me for highly excessive speeding and had to take me to the station so as for me to post bail for this MISDEMEANOR, and I was legally carrying/possessing my handgun, would you or would you not relieve me of my firearm?

    If you answer is "yes" you would disarm me, doesn't that violate the position of the yellow canary * (and of yourself) that the constitutional 2nd Amendment prohibits any gun control in America?




    as with your other asinine examples, this is just plain silly.

    has anyone here ever advocated for firearm posession by someone in custody of le?

    when you are taken into custody for a violation of the law, you are no longer a free man (as is evidenced by the cuffs you'd most likely be wearing, and the fact that you have no say in whether they come off or not).

    when your debt has been paid (whether by paying the bail or serving your time), you should have full rights restored upon release from custody.

    the example you are giving has everything to do with the regulation of criminals, and nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

    tr, your posts remind me of a child who keeps being told "no" by his parents, and keeps rephrasing the question in hopes of presenting the ridiculous request in a manner which is palatable enough to your parents to finally have your way.

    this shyte would all be quite hilarious if it weren't so sad and dangerous.
  • select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 68,115 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    They don't allow pistols in jail.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
    I don't see any officer letting a suspect in custody walking around the police department with their sidearm.


    I thought you guys believed in absolutely no gun control? Yet you are willing to let the police prohibit a lawful citizen from walking around the station with his sidearm? That's the way it is now, BTW. Whether you are in custody or just visiting the police station, you cannot carry your firearm inside.

    According to the way the yellow canary * think, EVERY living person in the USA should be legally allowed to possess and carry a firearm. The canaries always say that is fine with them and if some convicted felon who is legally carrying a firearm threatens them, they will just kill that felon.

    So........in view of that, surely the police (especially lt496) can do as well. If that citizens walking around the police station threatens any of the police, then those police can do as the canary * will do and just kill that threatening citizen.

    If this is not how it is, then somebody tell me how it is.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by select-fire
    They don't allow pistols in jail.


    Exactly, And lt496 and apparently all the yellow canary * support that state of events. However, for that condition to be legal, THERE HAS TO BE GUN CONTROL.

    Even a criminal has a constitutional right to see/speak with his attorney as well as be read his Miranda rights. The police cannot withold those constitutional rights from even a murdered. So why are the yellow canary * in favor of withholding the constitution right of firearm possession from people in jail?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    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...




    So, you want to appear to answer my question without actually providing an answer. In regards to your request, the best way to deal with it is to just ignore me.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Trfox...why do you insist on making an idiot out of yourself over and over.?.? ...and that's not intended as an insult; it's a sincere question.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,845 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    Whether you are in custody or just visiting the police station, you cannot carry your firearm inside.
    Hmmmm.....
    Someone should have told me that.
    I have done so on a number of occasions.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    So many people here preach about the constitutional 2A providing for ABSOLUTE gun rights. In fact one example the canary * gave was that should mean that spectators in a courtroom, for example, should be allowed to carry their firearms.

    So, in view of that, why are so many here so quickly willing to "obey the beast" as they refer to the government, and agree that visitors to a police station should not be allowed to have firearms? Police stations are PUBLIC PROPERTY for gawd's sake so why are so many of you willing to let the police prevent you from carrying your lawful firearms inside that police station?

    AS far as that goes, the Post Office, license bureau, courthouse, etc. are paid for and owned by the public. When you preach about uninfringed gun rights, why do you so meekly give up your rights when you enter federal, state, county and city public buildings.

    That conflict in thinking sure doesn't make any sense.
  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 25,750
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ECC
    Trfox...why do you insist on making an idiot out of yourself over and over.?.? ...and that's not intended as an insult; it's a sincere question.


    I think he is making a point. The gun was not the reason for anything to do with the apprehension, nor is it suspected of any crime.
    Eric, you said you only deal in facts, so deal only in facts. Only after a finding by a court can a man's right to possess a weapon be infringed.

    Here's a fact to deal with: The Candy * talk out of both sides of their mouthes.
  • kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
    quote:Originally posted by ECC
    Trfox...why do you insist on making an idiot out of yourself over and over.?.? ...and that's not intended as an insult; it's a sincere question.


    I think he is making a point. The gun was not the reason for anything to do with the apprehension, nor is it suspected of any crime.
    Eric, you said you only deal in facts, so deal only in facts. Only after a finding by a court can a man's right to possess a weapon be infringed.

    Here's a fact to deal with: The Candy * talk out of both sides of their mouthes.


    really?
  • ringchildringchild Member Posts: 31 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox

    AS far as that goes, the Post Office, license bureau, courthouse, etc. are paid for and owned by the public. When you preach about uninfringed gun rights, why do you so meekly give up your rights when you enter federal, state, county and city public buildings.

    That conflict in thinking sure doesn't make any sense.


    if you are in custody, you can't have a weapon, period.
    all other places you mention, under any other circumstance, i do advocate unrestricted possession/carry.
    i would go so far as to say that the father who was attending the trial of his child's killer be allowed to carry, right into the courtroom.

    the problem is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the laws and penalties regarding the mentally deficient and criminal percentage of the population is woefully inadequate.

    that father would be a hell of a lot less likely to kill his child's murderer
    (notice, there IS a definite distinction between killing and murder) if he knew that, upon conviction, he would be put to death in a timely fashion, and in a public manner.

    at the same time, a bg would be less likely to shoot his brother's accuser if he knew that most of the adults in the courtroom were also armed, and not very sympathetic to those who choose wrong action.

    it's not just one issue.
    it is the fact that many things are broken in society.....
    our laws, the consequences, the apathy of many of our citizens, the ignorance and stupidity of most.

    the answer is painfully simple.


    keep violent offenders locked up.
    keep crazies locked up.
    kill the murderers and child molesters.
    if we need a small island to keep them on permanently, so be it.

    allow citizens to properly protect/defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

    hold parents fully accountable for their kid's actions, and allow them to discipline their children without fear of prosecution..

    it wouldn't hurt to also repeal our drug laws (what was the best way to deal with the prohibition era gangsters? repeal prohibition and let free citizens be responsible for themselves).

    do you actually, really believe that gun laws placed upon law abiding free men is a more effective solution than the examples i've given above?



    good thing i'm so solid on my beliefs in personal responsibility vs prohibitions and rules....as you are the perfect poster child for why we need gun control.

    i can't believe how far some people will go just to prove an illogical point, and how they will still be convinced that the pile of shyte they're getting their nose rubbed in is a bowl of chocolate pudding.
Sign In or Register to comment.