AR15 confiscated after man deters intruder

Posted in the Louisville Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Politically incorrect

United States

#1 May 31, 2013
Now your all sitting piggies. This is why cops are tyrants, a man has everyright to defend his home. So begins the end of America. If a cop were to do this very same thing NOTHING would be done. Just another step in the disarmament of citizens. Creating more dependence on the police is good for corporate Congress business. Ya don't wanna get rid of something that your forced to need. What a pathetic country this is becoming, America in a nut shell : unarmed whimsy helpless defenseless homosexuals
Politically incorrect

United States

#2 May 31, 2013
Whiney not whimsy
Politically incorrect

United States

#3 May 31, 2013
DHS operation : vigilant eagle, program aimed at disarming and terrorizing veterans. Look it up.
bob

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Jun 10, 2013
A man doesn't "have every right" to illegal weapons. Where do you draw the line? Should he be allowed to have nuclear warheads too?
Politically incorrect

United States

#6 Jun 10, 2013
bob wrote:
A man doesn't "have every right" to illegal weapons. Where do you draw the line? Should he be allowed to have nuclear warheads too?
lets use some commonsense here now buddy...noone should have a nuke. Big difference in small arms vs nukes, come on man wake up, sleepy time is O V E R.
just curious

Louisville, KY

#7 Jun 10, 2013
While politically incorrect and I may differ on many issues, this is not one of them. Taking the headline at face value, there is absolutely no reason why an officer can or should take this weapon from a law abiding citizen. An AR-15 is not an illegal weapon and trying to compare it to nuclear weapons is most certainly a red herring. Unless there was some valid reason to take the firearm, the officer basically commited theft.
bob

Brooklyn, NY

#8 Jun 10, 2013
Nobody's "comparing" anything. Sorry I confused you. We agree that there's a line. Where is it?
just curious

Louisville, KY

#11 Jun 11, 2013
If you can't see how what you posted was a comparison then I'm not the confused one in this equation. But in any case, to answer your question, any person not prohibited some way by law, and arguably even some who are, should be allowed to possess any type of firearm that could possibly be used to harm them. Or, to say it another way, if law enforcement officials are able to use it to defend themselves, then civilians should also. The 2nd amendment was written as a guarantee that free men would always have the means to defend themselves against any kind of aggressor, including a tyrannical government. Our founding fathers were afraid of a return to English rule but also of a unchecked federal government. They didn't have the benefit of knowing how successful their system of checks and balances would be but that doesn't mean the amendment has become superfluous. Nearly all States recognize that a person has a right to defend their home against intruders. Why in the world would we want to limit their ability to do so?
bob

United States

#12 Jun 11, 2013
You don't seem to understand what a comparison is. Your parroting of the "tyrannical gov't" nonsense notwithsttanding. I don't remember the constitution making reference to law enforcement.

Either way, it definitely wasn't a comparison. The fact that you think it is indicates you might be out of your element. Reading comprehension is necessary if you're going to try and keep up.

Or maybe just devote all your time to debilitating paranoia. I don't really give a shit.
just curious

Louisville, KY

#14 Jun 12, 2013
Typically I wouldn't respond to someone who uses ad hominem as a means to argue a point but since it is an indicator of low intelligence, perhaps you just don't know any better. Comparison is defined as "the considering of two things with regard to some characteristic that is common to both". We were discussing an AR-15. You implied it was illegal to own one and then asked if he should be able to own nuclear warheads too. So the two things are the AR-15 and nuclear warheads. The common characteristic, at least as far as you think, is that they are both illegal to own. Sorry, I can't make it any plainer or simpler to understand for you.
As for my comment on tyrannical government, this was not a reference to our system but rather a reference to what our founding fathers came to think of England. Seems reading comprehension is your issue, not mine!
just curious

Louisville, KY

#15 Jun 12, 2013
Why can't you simply admit you were wrong about an AR-15 being an illegal weapon and explain why you think people should't be able to defend themselves with weapons that could conceivably be used against them by a criminal? Also, tell us whether you think the officer was justified in confiscating the weapon assuming the owner possessed it legally (wasn't a convicted felon, subject to a domestic violence order, etc.).
bob

United States

#16 Jun 12, 2013
If you do, as you claim, comprehend the question, why not answer it? What level of weapons do you think a civilian should be allowed to have? The gov't has nukes, and you seem to be implying that we should have weapons equal to theirs. If not, then where do you draw the line?
just curious

Louisville, KY

#17 Jun 12, 2013
I already have...twice. A civilian should be able to possess any type of weapon that could conceivably be used against him/her by a criminal. While I do believe the founding fathers were adamant that a citizens ability to bear arms was necessary to ensure government never overreached its authority, I don't think that equates to someone being allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Even if there came a day we as a citizenry had legitimate cause to seek to change our system of government, I don't think nuclear weapons would be a factor in that conflict. That's why I say the mere mention of nuclear weapons in a debate on firearm possession is a red herring.
I hope that explains my position. A law abiding citizen should never be at a disadvantage because of firearm legislation when having to defend themselves against someone who pays no heed to any law.
Politically incorrect

United States

#18 Jun 12, 2013
Bob is a government piggy, he thinks nothing will ever happen to him and believes wheel of fortune is gonna be on everynight for him and if someone does threaten he or his family he thinks the police will magically appear, catch the bullet going for his loved one, cuff the criminal all in a matter of seconds and everything will be ok. This isn't the movies Bob, wake up, in real life the had guys CAN win. Sorry excuse for an American. Not even govt should have nukes, we shoulda fought that back when they were first made, but everyone is too cowardly. Enjoy your leash Bob. Oh and fyi, the police don't give a damn about you or your family .....recognize
bob

United States

#19 Jun 12, 2013
What a bunch of ridiculous horseshit. Fascist cop worshippers are on the right wing, btw.

You guys still can't get any more specific than "what a criminal might have," huh? We both agree civilians shouldn't have nukes, so that's a start. What about anti-aircraft guns?

Getying a straight answer out of you is like trying to nail jello to a tree.
bob

United States

#20 Jun 12, 2013
The notion that we shouldn't have laws if some people break them is moronic, btw.
just curious

Louisville, KY

#21 Jun 13, 2013
Talk about a problem with comprehension, as well as excessive use of hyperbole. I guess if you are unable to argue the facts, you just throw out anything that sounds argumentative and hope no one notices you don't have a clue.
As for your last comment, the argument was that laws shouldn't be enacted that effectively turn those who would abide by them into helpless victims to those who won't. What you posted is not what I said and absolute proof that you are incapable of honest debate.
bob

United States

#22 Jun 13, 2013
And still, no straight answer. Big surprise.
just curious

Louisville, KY

#23 Jun 13, 2013
Just because the answer doesn't suit you doesn't mean there is no answer. Quit being a coward and answer my question from yesterday (post #11)
bob

United States

#24 Jun 14, 2013
No, a vague, empty, non-specific answer doesn't "suit me," but it's obviously above and beyond your standards.

It's up to the cop to justify his actions, not me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thomas Clay Jr. (Apr '14) 5 hr hereyougo 4
Dana "Soserious" Cox. ..... (Jun '14) 5 hr Say_it_aint_true 7
KFC yum! center 7 hr ForumCommando 15
Tymberwood trace apts 9 hr mudslinger 3
Review: Allen's Moves Are Us (Jul '09) Tue givemeabreak 14
white girls or miexed Tue JCM 1
Mr. T Tue Hewasborninchicago 2
Louisville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Louisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Louisville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Louisville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:47 pm PST

NFL 1:47PM
One Preview: Passing and rushing yardage leaders meet in Big D
NBC Sports 2:30 PM
Manziel looking for better showing in second start - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports 3:51 PM
Luck trying to work out issues before playoffs
Bleacher Report 5:47 PM
Denver Broncos vs. Cincinnati Bengals Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick
Bleacher Report 5:55 PM
Indianapolis Colts vs. Dallas Cowboys Betting Odds, Analysis, NFL Pick