NJ Mom forced to turn over guns and charged for peaceful protest

[martybegan]

notice you don't know, don't have an actual clue, what you are talking about, marty.

How about retorting with some actual quotes from an article that contradicts what I posted?

Run with your tail between your legs, you no-rep having progressive hack.

 

[JakeStarkey]

#78 above, rain man.

 

[martybegan]

#78 above, rain man.

Yea, #78 has no quotes, or no links.

Run boy run.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not afraid of anyone, much less the rabid reactionaries, but I recognize that some are rabid wolves.

As far as the lady, she talks about a gun, then I take her seriously. She should watch her mouth.

Right?

 

[martybegan]

Not afraid of anyone, much less the rabid reactionaries, but I recognize that some are rabid wolves.

As far as the lady, she talks about a gun, then I take her seriously. She should watch her mouth.

Right?

Where is the link that shows someone else besides her accuser heard her talk about "a gun" or "shooting" or anything else?

Still waiting on the links.

 

[konradv]

What a difference a liberal administration makes. Forty years ago they were burning the Flag and turning over cars and now the same people consider it a breach of the peace to read the Constitution at a public meeting. God help us.

What evidence do you have that any of the people involved burned flags or turned over cars? You're constructing a strawman, when the real question is, can the article be trusted to be correctly reporting that she only "read the Constitution"? It doesn't seem likely that that's all she did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not afraid of anyone, much less the rabid reactionaries, but I recognize that some are rabid wolves.

As far as the lady, she talks about a gun, then I take her seriously. She should watch her mouth.

Right?

Where is the link that shows someone else besides her accuser heard her talk about "a gun" or "shooting" or anything else? Still waiting on the links.

One, your deflection reflects your weak mind.

Two, the necessary posts were made above.

Three, you are the weakest link.

Four, she should watch her mouth about bringing guns. So should you if you are in such a meeting. Or pointing your fingers if they are a gun.

 

[konradv]

I just find it amazing that some people assume guilt when it involves someone who is politically on the right, yet assume innocence when it involves someone on the left.

What I find amazing is that you'd try and convince us that the opposite scenario doesn't happen all the time, too. Do you think we were born yesterday?

 

[martybegan]

Not afraid of anyone, much less the rabid reactionaries, but I recognize that some are rabid wolves.

As far as the lady, she talks about a gun, then I take her seriously. She should watch her mouth.

Right?

Where is the link that shows someone else besides her accuser heard her talk about "a gun" or "shooting" or anything else? Still waiting on the links.

One, your deflection reflects your weak mind.

Two, the necessary posts were made above.

Three, you are the weakest link.

Four, she should watch her mouth about bringing guns. So should you if you are in such a meeting. Or pointing your fingers if they are a gun.

Nowhere in anything anyone linked is the corroberating statements that said she threatened anyone with a gun at the meeting. You lose.

 

[tjvh]

Isn't it amazing that it seems all we need to destroy people's Rights, and Freedoms is an accusation without any proof at all. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in America?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many Righties think lefties are wrong, and accuse many of them maliciously and falsely.

Many Lefties think Righties are wrong, and accuse many of them maliciously and falsely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is the link that shows someone else besides her accuser heard her talk about "a gun" or "shooting" or anything else? Still waiting on the links.

One, your deflection reflects your weak mind.

Two, the necessary posts were made above.

Three, you are the weakest link.

Four, she should watch her mouth about bringing guns. So should you if you are in such a meeting. Or pointing your fingers if they are a gun.

Nowhere in anything anyone linked is the corroberating statements that said she threatened anyone with a gun at the meeting. You lose.

You have nothing to make such a specious statement.

She was handled appropriately: none may dare make afraid. Including you, Sam.

 

[konradv]

Reading the constitution = Terrorist threats

Welcome to Obama's America!

Reading the Constitution then making threats is terroristic. Even Glenn Beck acknowledge that today.

If anyone was making it threats, it was the person who had her arrested and told her she would pay for speaking out.

How do you know that was said? Who's making assumptions now?

 

[konradv]

Isn't it amazing that it seems all we need to destroy people's Rights, and Freedoms is an accusation without any proof at all. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in America?

How have her rights been destroyed? She'll get her day in court, won't she?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reading the Constitution then making threats is terroristic. Even Glenn Beck acknowledge that today.

If anyone was making it threats, it was the person who had her arrested and told her she would pay for speaking out.

How do you know that was said? Who's making assumptions now?

Link for a corroborating statement please. Oh, that's right, you are making this up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She is being handled with due process. Her rights are being protected far better than it would ever be protected by reactionaries.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Im sorry. You don't arrest someone for speaking out against a government official in a public meeting.

If you threaten them with a gun, you do. But this sounds like a "he said, she said" thing. If there ends up being no evidence she threatened to bring a gun, her guns SHOULD be returned post haste.

The presence of a gun at times can be intimidating. No one in our communities were ever permitted to intimidate in speech and action in such a manner. Never. If the DA cannot prove such was the case, then the weapon(s) should be returned immediately.

The only people I ever met that were intimidated by speech were politicians that don't like the truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

She did not act the idiot unless you think challenging an excessive tax valuation is idiocy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She should have thought of all that, MartyBegan, before she acted the idiot, huh.

So voicing your opinion is "acting the idiot"

I guess we all gotta suck up to big massa govmint if we's wants to keep our rights...

"voicing your opinion" while threatening to bring a gun is idiotic.

If you or she done it in my meeting, you would have gone to jail that night, not home.

You don't get to threaten.

Why do you assume she is guilty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not afraid of anyone, much less the rabid reactionaries, but I recognize that some are rabid wolves.

As far as the lady, she talks about a gun, then I take her seriously. She should watch her mouth.

Right?

Where is the link that shows someone else besides her accuser heard her talk about "a gun" or "shooting" or anything else? Still waiting on the links.

One, your deflection reflects your weak mind.

Two, the necessary posts were made above.

Three, you are the weakest link.

Four, she should watch her mouth about bringing guns. So should you if you are in such a meeting. Or pointing your fingers if they are a gun.

This is typical of the way Jake debates, he says something, someone else posts actual evidence, and Jake then insists that what he posted trumps any evidence.