SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kim Gardner Confiscates McCloskey's AR-15
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Kim Gardner Confiscates McCloskey's AR-15 Login/Join 
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
No you're not. Just be quiet, and you know where you can shove your "yeah, sure".
 
Posts: 102911 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Note to self,
Make sure the mansion
Comes with licenced,bonded,insured
off duty law enforcement security
Team.

Would that be tax deductable ?





Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.



Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
 
Posts: 53205 | Location: Henry County , Il | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
Come on now, everyone here knows the only reason this happened is because Kim Gardner is a . . . commie. Commies hate private gun ownership, and they will make up any excuses to grab your guns.


Guns for me, but not for thee. A common theme among authoritarians.
I'm starting to think all those FTF purchases I've made over the years is turning out to have been a really good idea. Guns? What guns?


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33845 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
quote:
Originally posted by Boss1:
Didn't see this posted here yet:

I really like Colion Noir, but I disagree with him continuing to refer to that group as protestors. The moment they broke down that gate, they became rioters. When then they threatened to murder the McCloskeys and burn their home, they became even more volatile criminals. They aren't protestors.


.
Bingo. The media as a whole is still perpetuating the lie these are protestors rather than referring to them correctly as rioters/criminals.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33845 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ I agree.
But... Kim Gardner is an activist with intent to bring down the "White power structure".
The McCloskey's, in her mind, are guilty of being white and rich... and standing up to the "mostly peaceful" protesters.
But luckily, for the McClocky's and us, Kim Gardner appears to be a very low IQ, racist, moron. As such, she's likely to fare about as well as the Baltimore bimbo who tried to railroad the cops who dealt with Freddy Gray and lost every single case.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33845 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of FiveFiveSixFan
posted Hide Post
quote:
The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.


This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.
 
Posts: 7157 | Registered: January 10, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
I don't know how the law addresses the threat of a mob.

But in reality, a group of a hundred or more people who are yelling in a threatening manner are just as dangerous as anyone armed with a weapon.

(You can adjust the number of people to whatever you find reasonable)

A large mob can overwhelm a person, or two people, in seconds.

Couldn't be a better example of why we need the second amendment.
 
Posts: 18651 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Blume9mm
posted Hide Post
So this is telling me they only owned two guns?

After watching the video of them pointing the two guns in all directions... I'm not surprised... since they apparently had no training in firearms.... if they only owned two guns then that drops their IQ rating down about another 20 points....


My Native American Name:
"Runs with Scissors"
 
Posts: 3754 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Distinguished Pistol Shot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
quote:
The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.


This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.


So I guess it will be ok for police to go door to door confiscating guns when the democrats finally pass the appropriate laws?
 
Posts: 788 | Location: South Central MO | Registered: August 25, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Raptorman
Picture of Mars_Attacks
posted Hide Post
Why would the authorities raid someone who defended their property within their rights and then refuse to arrest the mob that is destroying the city?

Not a good way to keep the friendlies on your side.

/rhetorical question

I get the have to feed the family and all that, but right is right and some of us have sacrificed a career to do what it right and it is frustrating to watch.


____________________________

Eeewwww, don't touch it!
Here, poke at it with this stick.
 
Posts: 33577 | Location: North, GA | Registered: October 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Based on what video I've seen so far, were it me I would have never allowed my wife to come outside and wave a gun around at a bunch of people who were walking past their home on a sidewalk. I understand their fear and I think this confiscation of the rifle is bullshit. But I think they would have been much better served if Mr. McCloskey had simply just stepped outside with the rifle pointed at the ground, stood there and remained mute. No conversation, no wandering around with gun pointed at anyone. His point would have been made. Now, if anyone of those thugs attempted to enter his property, throw a molotov coctail etc at him, all bet's would be off at that point.
 
Posts: 5665 | Location: Chicago | Registered: August 18, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
No you're not. Just be quiet, and you know where you can shove your "yeah, sure".


Apologies for my behavior last night and the smart-ass remark.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." ~Isaiah 5:20
 
Posts: 29368 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blume9mm:
So this is telling me they only owned two guns?

After watching the video of them pointing the two guns in all directions... I'm not surprised... since they apparently had no training in firearms.... if they only owned two guns then that drops their IQ rating down about another 20 points....

I agree with above, also we have all been trained about pointing a firearm.
 
Posts: 2714 | Registered: March 22, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
quote:
The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.

This happened because the duly elected Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis sought, and received, a search warrant from a duly appointed judge. The responsibility of the police with respect to warrants is to ensure that the warrant is valid and then execute it as directed.

It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.

Right, FiveFiveSixFan. The police officers who execute a valid warrant should not be castigated.

However, we should all realize that when the SHTF, the police won't be there for us. We are on our own. The police will protect politically important targets, or they will be told to "stand down" but they will not be there to protect the small businesses or the individual homeowners. We have all seen this and it surely changes our perception of how the police are used by their political masters.



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 22471 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Keystoner
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I can't see their actions doing anything positive for firearms owners, and the publicity generated is negative.

How is this an argument against a citizen using their right to defend themselves with a firearm? I noticed their actions did something very positive when it came to defending their lives and property.



Year V
 
Posts: 2528 | Registered: November 05, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arabiancowboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:
quote:
The only reason it happened is because the cops tasked with this job didn’t tell their superiors to go fuck themselves.


It is not in their job description to pass judgment on which warrants they will or will not execute. It is certainly not in their job description to tell their superiors to go fuck themselves when they receive a lawful order to execute a valid warrant with which they may disagree.


Help me understand— you’re saying as long as you are ordered to do it, you’re doing it. Is this correct?

It’s very different in the military; I’m taught from day one to refuse immoral or unethical orders, and ultimately I’m personally responsible for the orders I execute and the consequences of how I execute. It seems you have a totally different philosophical approach in law enforcement... that so long as someone with authority gives you an order it’s not in your job description to disobey?

Not intending to be disrespectful. I don’t know anything about LEO and just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.
 
Posts: 2301 | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Objectively Reasonable
Picture of DennisM
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


Help me understand— you’re saying as long as you are ordered to do it, you’re doing it. Is this correct?

It’s very different in the military; I’m taught from day one to refuse immoral or unethical orders, and ultimately I’m personally responsible for the orders I execute and the consequences of how I execute. It seems you have a totally different philosophical approach in law enforcement... that so long as someone with authority gives you an order it’s not in your job description to disobey?

Not intending to be disrespectful. I don’t know anything about LEO and just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.


An attorney didn't develop PC for a search or seizure. A police officer did, perhaps at the suggestion of an attorney or with guidance of an attorney, but that's the threshold for issuance of ANY warrant: Probable Cause. It's not a particularly high burden.

So there's apparently PC, demonstrated to a neutral magistrate, suggesting that a offense was committed, and that evidence of the offense was likely to be found in a specific place. From what I've read here (and the links from here) and nothing else, there might well be a DEFENSE to that charge... but it's just that, a defense, which can and should play itself out in court. Po-Po doesn't get to adjudicate that.

This isn't an order to round up all the Jews and turn them over for extermination.
This isn't an order to seize guns because of a "state of emergency."
It's an order, from the court, to search a specific place for a specific piece of evidence of a specific offense, one for which there's facial evidence on video.

You don't get to ignore court orders unless they're clearly unlawful (and even then, be ready to bear the heat until you prevail.) Pretty much the same as the military, right? If it turn out that military order WAS lawful, is there a "Yeah, well, I THOUGHT it was unlawful" defense?" I ask that sincerely, because I was never in the armed forces.

Unless there was something clearly defective about this warrant, serving it isn't optional.
 
Posts: 2349 | Registered: January 01, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unflappable Enginerd
Picture of stoic-one
posted Hide Post
quote:
mostly peaceful protesters.
The very instant you have to add the preface "mostly", the argument should be lost... Mad


__________________________________

NRA Benefactor
I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident.
http://www.aufamily.com/forums/
 
Posts: 5602 | Location: Headland, AL | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:

Yes, private property, but it wasn't remotely the "storming of the Bastille" that McCloskey claimed

Have you seen this picture?


This appears to be 'evidence' of a crime committed....But we haven't heard any reporting re: the rather apparent PC, or ANY efforts otherwise to secure 'warrants' in order to prosecute this crime! Roll Eyes


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 7451 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ammoholic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgshooter:
So I guess it will be ok for police to go door to door confiscating guns when the democrats finally pass the appropriate laws?

That is certainly one viewpoint.

Mine would differ slightly. I’d suggest that depending on what “appropriate laws” (and further adjustments to the Bill of Rights) “the Democrats finally pass”, it may become legal, but it will never become okay.

It is possible that one or two other folks might have similar viewpoints and things might get “sporty” should such laws pass. I don’t see it happening in my lifetime, but I have been wrong plenty of times before...
 
Posts: 6533 | Location: Lost, but making time. | Registered: February 23, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 30 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Kim Gardner Confiscates McCloskey's AR-15

© SIGforum 2023