Police Entering Homes to Make Sure Gu...

Police Entering Homes to Make Sure Guns Are Stored Safely? If This Politician Has His Way

There are 105 comments on the TheBlaze.com story from Nov 11, 2013, titled Police Entering Homes to Make Sure Guns Are Stored Safely? If This Politician Has His Way. In it, TheBlaze.com reports that:

A Massachusetts politician has put forth a proposal to allow local police to enter homes without a warrant in order to inspect whether gun owners are properly storing their firearms.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TheBlaze.com.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#37 Nov 14, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>2ndAmUnstable.
Coming from a LIEberal? I'll take that as a compliment.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#38 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming from a LIEberal? I'll take that as a compliment.
There are plenty more "compliments" where that came from, vegetable man.

Want some historical speechifying that is actually worthwhile? Try "The Liberator", by William Lloyd Garrison, given on January 1, 1831.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#39 Nov 14, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>There are plenty more "compliments" where that came from, vegetable man.
Want some historical speechifying that is actually worthwhile? Try "The Liberator", by William Lloyd Garrison, given on January 1, 1831.
And what has the personal opinion of a man have to do with the topic at hand? Especially in comparison to historical quotations which have actual bearing on the subject of discussion? Oh that's right; NOTHING.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#40 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And what has the personal opinion of a man have to do with the topic at hand? Especially in comparison to historical quotations which have actual bearing on the subject of discussion? Oh that's right; NOTHING.
I attempted to change the subject of the discussion, which I found to be shallow, and get something human and sensible into your head, from a historical period you seem to favor (actually a bit earlier). However, your paranoia seems undiminished.
Doggie

Minneapolis, MN

#41 Nov 14, 2013
In Minnesota the Sheriff of Pine County is on the record he will NEVER enter a house or vehicle without probable cause to search for anything. Much less a constitutionally protected firearm.
Mass. has a bunch of dogooders doing bad. They should consider moving to a socialist country.

Last night a 75 year old resident of Pine County shot and killed an intruder. Note the event wasn't on NATIONAL NEWS. There is no mention of the type of weapon used.

Clearly biased media!!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#42 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
And what has the personal opinion of a man have to do with the topic at hand? Especially in comparison to historical quotations which have actual bearing on the subject of discussion? Oh that's right; NOTHING.
Am aware of his abolitionist activities. And the only bearing it can have to this topic. Is how that it was the demonrat party that both supported slavery. As well as worked long and hard to keep both the enslaved and freed African-American unarmed - defenseless.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Especially in comparison to historical quotations which have actual bearing on the subject of discussion?
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

You pull your text from a website that is RANDOM- your "historical" quotations have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER! You post the SAME THING across TWENTY websites and you do the EXACT SAME ONES every few months, often in the SAME SEQUENCE!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Going back to 2008 through a truckload of your aliases!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44 Nov 14, 2013
Doggie wrote:
Last night a 75 year old resident of Pine County shot and killed an intruder. Note the event wasn't on NATIONAL NEWS.
There were 35 other firearm deaths yesterday.

It isn't national news. It isn't state news. Someone getting killed by a firearm is as common as someone getting killed in a car accident.

How many car accidents made the national news, Sweetheart?
Cat74

Elgin, IL

#45 Nov 14, 2013
It would not be healthy for anyone to try to enter my house without a warrant for any reason. This is just another Democrat blowing smoke. That would be totally unconstitutional, and if you shot, and killed the intruder you could get a good lawyer and go home before the ink is dry on the charges. Democrats are so stupid. I think they use illegal drugs, and their brains are shrinking.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#46 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You pull your text from a website that is RANDOM- your "historical" quotations have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER! You post the SAME THING across TWENTY websites and you do the EXACT SAME ONES every few months, often in the SAME SEQUENCE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Going back to 2008 through a truckload of your aliases!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is "random"? Hardly troll. And those quotes have so much relevance that it keeps you scurrying around like a little rat. In the vain attempt of hoping to detract and deflect from the TRUTH found in them.(Which attempts are horribly pathetic at best).

All you prove by your vain babbling, is just how much of a pathetic treasonous coward you really are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
The LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is "random"? Hardly troll.
You lying c*.

Here is your source:

http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap

IT'S THE ONE YOU GAVE US NOW YOU ARE PRETENDING IT CAME FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

From which building, Vince?

HAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

(quote)
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”

*******The quote is a fabrication.********* There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—

Source: Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383 (1997)(noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests).

You can find this in the Library of Congress (the real one).
1 post removed
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#49 Nov 15, 2013
This moron will never get legislation passed to enter anyone's home without a warrant for any reason, least of all to pick up the guns. This is another pot head Democrat.
2 posts removed
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#52 Nov 15, 2013
There's a way to handle home invasions.
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#53 Nov 15, 2013
You will never get the guns. The 110 million guns, and shooters in this country are the only thing standing between you and the Hitlerite Democrats in this country right now. Hitler took the guns to, so did little Joe Stalin. It won't happen in American.
1 post removed
Marginalized Congress

Minneapolis, MN

#55 Nov 15, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
You will never get the guns. The 110 million guns, and shooters in this country are the only thing standing between you and the Hitlerite Democrats in this country right now. Hitler took the guns to, so did little Joe Stalin. It won't happen in American.
Friends tell me Government will only take their guns after they are dead.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#56 Nov 15, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
You will never get the guns. The 110 million guns, and shooters in this country
Made up numbers are worthless.

As are the rest of your posts.

Let's remember this gem:

{click}
Cat74 wrote:
In the Holder-Obama Fast, and Furious project 250,000 weapons were lost,

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#57 Nov 15, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
Hitler took the guns to
Hitler made gun ownership legal in Germany for 98 percent of the population.

Eisenhower made it a crime to own a gun in Germany and collected them by the millions.

He was an American.
Marginalized Congress

Minneapolis, MN

#58 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Made up numbers are worthless.
As are the rest of your posts.
Let's remember this gem:
{click}
<quoted text>
Correct.

In Minnesoa alone there are 1/2 million hunters who buy licenses. How many COPs have guns? How many guns are in NG armories? How many guns are owned by each hunter?

Average hunters have at least one deer rifle, at least one 22 rimfire, at least one shotgun, at least one handgun.

Add them all up and in Minnesota alone there are well over 5 million guns in just Minnesota.

50 states in the USA and there are well over 300 million guns. Kind of like automobiles, many have a number of cars.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#59 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying c*.
Here is your source:
http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap
IT'S THE ONE YOU GAVE US NOW YOU ARE PRETENDING IT CAME FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!!
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
From which building, Vince?
HAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
(quote)
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
““Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”[21]”
*******The quote is a fabrication.********* There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—
Source: Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383 (1997)(noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests).
You can find this in the Library of Congress (the real one).
Twisting and misrepresenting again, eh troll? Here, sit and spin:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#60 Nov 15, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
There's a way to handle home invasions.
Remember to wear all-black, and a George Bush mask.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min sonicfilter 1,236,727
News Ukraine Crisis Facts Bring Discord to U.S. Migh... 4 min Oliver Cromwell 304
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Le Duped 183,345
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 4 min Le Jimbo 2,653
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Taletha 329,209
News Obama less popular than every living president ... 5 min wild child 1
News 'Self-appointed advocate of new Ukraine': Soros... 7 min RayOne 4
News College removes Hastert's name 43 min Le Duped 38
More from around the web