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

[JakeStarkey]

99% of American constituents don't feel betrayed, if Madison and Jay and Hamilton were alive they woud join the 99% and put paid to the 1% if they acted stupidly.

Are you gonna act stupid. Hmmm

 

[Oldguy]

That is funny, isn't it?

N.J. Mother Arrested, Guns Confiscated- By Attending Property Tax Dispute Forum - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com

By the way, she does not have to prove she didn't make the threat, and there is absolutely no evidence that she actually made the threat other than the claim of one person at the hearing.

You know most rape cases involved nothing more than 1 saying they did it, and another saying they didnt. Thats why we have courts and judges. To "JUDGE" the case and see if it really happened.

All thats needed for a case to go to court is probable cause, not absolute proof. Thats how the FOUNDERS set it up.

If you have a problem with how this case is being played out, then you have a problem with the justice system our Founders put into place, because this one is following that system by the book. A complaint is made, a suspect is named, probable cause exists, she is booked and given a day to be at court.

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. Me pointing out that she does not have to prove she did not make the threat should have anyone that actually believes that people should get their day in court to agree with me, and back me up 1005.

Can you explain why you didn't? Is it because this involves someone reading the Bill if Rights?

Isn't it equally as funny that those on the right automatically presume she's not guilty of a damn thing so long as it involves guns? Yes, the law presumes innocence, but this isn't a court of law..it's a discussion forum.

In any case, she was NOT charged with any law relating to the reading of the Constitution. Why are you obscuring the real issue and concentrating on that immaterial sidebar?

 

[Oldguy]

That is funny, isn't it?

N.J. Mother Arrested, Guns Confiscated- By Attending Property Tax Dispute Forum - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com

By the way, she does not have to prove she didn't make the threat, and there is absolutely no evidence that she actually made the threat other than the claim of one person at the hearing.

She'll get her day in court and, if she's deemed by a jury of her peers not guilty of the charge as laid, she'll be vindicated. If not, she'll be found guilty as charged.

To claim her rights have been violated before that fundamental, legal step is taken is dishonest and nothing more than emotional hyperbole.

Excuse me? Tell me something, asswipe, where did I claim her rights were ******* violated? You really should pull your head out of the governments ass and take a look around the real world, you might learn something.

What were you claiming, then?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

99% of American constituents don't feel betrayed, if Madison and Jay and Hamilton were alive they woud join the 99% and put paid to the 1% if they acted stupidly.

Are you gonna act stupid. Hmmm

First of all, you just ADMITTED the legitimacy of Federalist 28. Now since you admit it, how does a disarmed population (or vastly inferior armed population) enact Federalist 28?

---------------------------------------------

Do you know what a small percent of the Colonists actually rebelled against the Crown, while more than 20% were Loyalists and the rest were sheep, afraid to look around them?

True fact is that MOST people will remain Loyal to the government, NO MATTER HOW BAD THEY ARE ABUSED. But most will also NOT take sides (which is both good and bad, best to say neutral overall).

You only need to piss off a small but ORGANIZED part of the population to end up with a successful revolution.

And that small part of the population can only grow to sufficiently large size if the government REALLY IS TYRANNICAL. Otherwise it will be quashed for insurrection (mob rule).

 

[Oldguy]

But most of the nutters will go to jail for a long time, when they act illegally. Just so.

Some will go to jail for a while yes. But once a national movement starts to mass arrest us into FEMA concentration camps, you'll get a live enactment of FEDERALIST NUMBER 28.

I've been waiting for that since 1978, when FEMA was first created, followed closely by the same bullshit you're spouting here.

It hasn't happened yet. When can we expect it?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

Apparently the OP failed to research his post, unless it was his intent to lie.

While searching for a legitimate source for this story it was interesting to read all the different accounts, and how various rightwing blogs and websites spun, twisted, and, shall we say, ‘embellished’ the incident.

Needless to say no legitimate sources were found.

There was this more objective account from what seems to be a non-partisan site:

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after gun threats at tax meeting |

No guns ‘confiscated,’ no due process violations, no arrests for reading the Constitution.

Since The Blaze is utterly devoid of credibility, the OP will need to provide the same account from a neutral, legitimate news source to be believed.

 

[Oldguy]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

Apparently the OP failed to research his post, unless it was his intent to lie.

While searching for a legitimate source for this story it was interesting to read all the different accounts, and how various rightwing blogs and websites spun, twisted, and, shall we say, ‘embellished’ the incident.

Needless to say no legitimate sources were found.

There was this more objective account from what seems to be a non-partisan site:

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after gun threats at tax meeting |

No guns ‘confiscated,’ no due process violations, no arrests for reading the Constitution.

Since The Blaze is utterly devoid of credibility, the OP will need to provide the same account from a neutral, legitimate news source to be believed.

And, this post means what...exactly? What's your point, if you have one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The nutters have none is the point.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Apparently the OP failed to research his post, unless it was his intent to lie.

While searching for a legitimate source for this story it was interesting to read all the different accounts, and how various rightwing blogs and websites spun, twisted, and, shall we say, ‘embellished’ the incident.

Needless to say no legitimate sources were found.

There was this more objective account from what seems to be a non-partisan site:



No guns ‘confiscated,’ no due process violations, no arrests for reading the Constitution.

Since The Blaze is utterly devoid of credibility, the OP will need to provide the same account from a neutral, legitimate news source to be believed.

And, this post means what...exactly? What's your point, if you have one?

Obviously it shows that if Oblamer hadn't pushed the Newtown massacre and praised Dorner we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's Oblamer's Ideology that should be discussed and ripped apart rather than his Progressive Leftist attempts to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know most rape cases involved nothing more than 1 saying they did it, and another saying they didnt. Thats why we have courts and judges. To "JUDGE" the case and see if it really happened.

All thats needed for a case to go to court is probable cause, not absolute proof. Thats how the FOUNDERS set it up.

If you have a problem with how this case is being played out, then you have a problem with the justice system our Founders put into place, because this one is following that system by the book. A complaint is made, a suspect is named, probable cause exists, she is booked and given a day to be at court.

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. Me pointing out that she does not have to prove she did not make the threat should have anyone that actually believes that people should get their day in court to agree with me, and back me up 1005.

Can you explain why you didn't? Is it because this involves someone reading the Bill if Rights?

Isn't it equally as funny that those on the right automatically presume she's not guilty of a damn thing so long as it involves guns? Yes, the law presumes innocence, but this isn't a court of law..it's a discussion forum.

In any case, she was NOT charged with any law relating to the reading of the Constitution. Why are you obscuring the real issue and concentrating on that immaterial sidebar?

I automatically assume everyone is innocent. I often continue to believe people are innocent after they are convicted, and even after they plead guilty. That might seem strange to a fascist, but it makes my world more bearable.

By the way, can you point out where I said she was charged with anything? are you floundering around because I forced you to see your dishonesty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She'll get her day in court and, if she's deemed by a jury of her peers not guilty of the charge as laid, she'll be vindicated. If not, she'll be found guilty as charged.

To claim her rights have been violated before that fundamental, legal step is taken is dishonest and nothing more than emotional hyperbole.

Excuse me? Tell me something, asswipe, where did I claim her rights were ******* violated? You really should pull your head out of the governments ass and take a look around the real world, you might learn something.

What were you claiming, then?

Have a problem reading and comprehending English? Let me see if I can help.

Here is what I said when you claimed I said her rights were violated.

That is funny, isn't it?

This was in response to auditor mentioning that the only place he could find the story is on right wing websites. I thought it was funny because he must not have looked very hard, hence the link I provided next.

N.J. Mother Arrested, Guns Confiscated- By Attending Property Tax Dispute Forum - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com

Not exactly a right wing site.

By the way, she does not have to prove she didn't make the threat, and there is absolutely no evidence that she actually made the threat other than the claim of one person at the hearing.

This is where I point out that she doesn't have to prove that she didn't say anything because, once again, I was responding to auditor, who said that the only evidence we have that she didn't say something is her word. The alleged threat to use the gun did not occur during the hearing, the only person that heard it was the guy that escorted her out of the hearing.

Gee, not making a claim at all, just straightening out the erroneous assumptions in someone's post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wehrwolfen is a little puppy barking and running around in a circle Should be called WherPuppy.

 

[bodecea]

Number one VIOLENT cause of death in the 20th and 21st Centuries combined:
DEMOCIDE, GOOGE IT FOLKS

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Police did the right thing.

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

Here's OUR three-part response:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcJT7F_BXo]2013 Epic DUBSTEP REMIX Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan [HD720p] Edit by Alex Totterdell - YouTube[/ame]

1776 will Commence Again.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crove_5qYI]The American Revolution: The Confict Ignites Ep. 1, Part 5 - YouTube[/ame]

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTqVrNkr6ug]300 Come and Get Them - YouTube[/ame]

Reactionary gun nuts, you can't frighten us, and normal America will incarcerate you or put you down if you try.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdDdHMwhU2s]300 - We will Blot out the Sun. - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw]The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law - YouTube[/ame]

Ah. Movie magic is your solution?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm entitled to my own propaganda posts once in a while Bodecea, just like the rest of you do. By all means though, come here and debate this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283515-three-things-gun-grabbers-run-from.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

The2ndAmendment is as loony as WherPuppy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And, this post means what...exactly? What's your point, if you have one?

Obviously it shows that if Oblamer hadn't pushed the Newtown massacre and praised Dorner we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's Oblamer's Ideology that should be discussed and ripped apart rather than his Progressive Leftist attempts to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

A simple “I have no point, I have no idea what I’m talking about” would have sufficed.

 

[Oldguy]

Obviously it shows that if Oblamer hadn't pushed the Newtown massacre and praised Dorner we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Probably only obvious to you. We've had this same discussion after every mass murder, no matter who was in the White House at the time.

It's Oblamer's Ideology that should be discussed and ripped apart

What is his ideology and what evidence do you have to support your perceptions?

rather than his Progressive Leftist attempts to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

How, and when, has he done that? Be specific, please.

 

[OKTexas]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

It's funny how I can only find this story from conservative blogs and news sources. I have not been able to find even a local news source that covered this story. Secondly, there is no evidence other than her word that she did not make the threat to come back with a gun. I'm not saying the story does not have merit or may not be true, but a news source other than a conservative blog would be helpful. It would be interesting to see how this turns out also. If she did make the threat, there are probably plenty of witnesses and it was probably also recorded. So if she didn't make the threat, she probably has a case for a civil suit against a lot of people and the police department.

Keep us posted on how this turns out.

Try this one: N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after alleged gun threats at tax meeting | NJ.com

 

[OKTexas]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

Apparently the OP failed to research his post, unless it was his intent to lie.

While searching for a legitimate source for this story it was interesting to read all the different accounts, and how various rightwing blogs and websites spun, twisted, and, shall we say, ‘embellished’ the incident.

Needless to say no legitimate sources were found.

There was this more objective account from what seems to be a non-partisan site:

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after gun threats at tax meeting |

No guns ‘confiscated,’ no due process violations, no arrests for reading the Constitution.

Since The Blaze is utterly devoid of credibility, the OP will need to provide the same account from a neutral, legitimate news source to be believed.

You might want to read the link I provided, they did take a .357 and a .40 Glock.

 

[Avatar4321]

NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com

Apparently citing the Constitution to a government official is a terroristic threat.

Apparently the OP failed to research his post, unless it was his intent to lie.

While searching for a legitimate source for this story it was interesting to read all the different accounts, and how various rightwing blogs and websites spun, twisted, and, shall we say, ‘embellished’ the incident.

Needless to say no legitimate sources were found.

There was this more objective account from what seems to be a non-partisan site:

Clayton Police and Franklin Township Police located Hart, who lives on Harding Highway in Franklin Township. She was brought back to the Clayton Police Department where she was processed and charged. She was released on her own recognizance pending court, police said.

N.J. taxpayers under the gun? Franklin woman charged after gun threats at tax meeting |

No guns ‘confiscated,’ no due process violations, no arrests for reading the Constitution.

Since The Blaze is utterly devoid of credibility, the OP will need to provide the same account from a neutral, legitimate news source to be believed.

Funny, I posted a legitimate source to the article.

So she is lying about her guns being taken from her? Giving the police her guns was not a requirement for her bail?