Rifle used by couple to stop democrat party terrorists confiscated....expect to see the protestors attack...

[Mac-7]

They took the AR-15 on a search warrant FRIDAY, and the couple told police the handgun was inoperable. The cops later asked for it to make sure and it was turned over Saturday afternoon.

Thats laughable lib logic

you think the cops came for both guns on friday but didnt take the handgun because the couple said it doesnt work?

what does your fantasy tell you happened when they arrived back at police hq without the 9mm they were sent to get?

did they get an ass chewing for being so stupid?

Your imagination is running away with you

 

[Lewdog]

Lewdog writes:

"You should do more research into the couple... you'll be surprised what you'll find. For example they tried to claim "squatter's rights" on the same part of the neighborhood taking control of it rather than it being a shared community space, and he held a NEIGHBOR at gun point who was crossing it. The neighbor was not trespassing, nor a threat, yet he pulled the gun on him for being there. Mark McCloskey was also fined a couple years ago by the local court for filing too many frivolous lawsuits. There is more and more coming out."

===

I am not interested in the past, only THIS particular event under scrutiny.

Your reply makes it clear you don't have all the facts of the case, wait for the completer police report.

The past matters when it comes to grabbing your gun, especially when you get caught doing so on your neighbor without a valid reason.

No, since that is a SEPARATE incident, has no bearing on this one, you should realize it will not be admissible in court if it goes that far. The current charges levied against him doesn't include past events, it only on the THIS specific event.

They haven't been charged yet, the event is being investigated.

 

[Mac-7]

If so what is the name of the militia you joined?

It is lefties who are organizing for war

 

[Shelzin]

They haven't been charged yet, the event is being investigated.

You missed the point. On purpose?

 

[Lewdog]

They took the AR-15 on a search warrant FRIDAY, and the couple told police the handgun was inoperable. The cops later asked for it to make sure and it was turned over Saturday afternoon.

Thats laughable lib logic

you think the cops came for both guns on friday but didnt take the handgun because the couple said it doesnt work?

what does your fantasy tell you happened when they arrived back at police hq without the 9mm they were sent to get?

did they get an ass chewing for being so stupid?

Your imagination is running away with you

Maybe you should have someone read the article to you... because you obviously can't do it yourself. If it were up to me? I would have most definitely got both guns, but I don't run their police department. You'll have to take that up with them.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Lewdog writes:

"You should do more research into the couple... you'll be surprised what you'll find. For example they tried to claim "squatter's rights" on the same part of the neighborhood taking control of it rather than it being a shared community space, and he held a NEIGHBOR at gun point who was crossing it. The neighbor was not trespassing, nor a threat, yet he pulled the gun on him for being there. Mark McCloskey was also fined a couple years ago by the local court for filing too many frivolous lawsuits. There is more and more coming out."

===

I am not interested in the past, only THIS particular event under scrutiny.

Your reply makes it clear you don't have all the facts of the case, wait for the completer police report.

The past matters when it comes to grabbing your gun, especially when you get caught doing so on your neighbor without a valid reason.

No, since that is a SEPARATE incident, has no bearing on this one, you should realize it will not be admissible in court if it goes that far. The current charges levied against him doesn't include past events, it only on the THIS specific event.

They haven't been charged yet, the event is being investigated.

Not officially, but the talk is assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[freyasman]

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

Are you doing the armed resistance thing yet? If so what is the name of the militia you joined?

I AM the resistance.

I am a free man. And I always will be.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It is lefties who are organizing for war

The “Government should ban private ownership of guns” lefties? Are you crazy?

 

[Mac-7]

Maybe you should have someone read the article to you... because you obviously can't do it yourself.

You should read the article yourself

nowhere does it say the handgun was present when the police arrived there friday morning

in fact it says just the opposite

namely that their lawyer had the handgun

After the incident, Watkins took possession of the gun to be used as evidence in court. Watkins said he did this in case charges were to be filed.

 

[Lewdog]

Maybe you should have someone read the article to you... because you obviously can't do it yourself.

You should read the article yourself

nowhere does it say the handgun was present when the police arrived there friday morning

in fact it says just the opposite

namely that their lawyer had the handgun

After the incident, Watkins took possession of the gun to be used as evidence in court. Watkins said he did this in case charges were to be filed.

If the gun was on the original search warrant, the police department, or at least one that was being serious about the investigation, would have had the gun turned over right then and there. Allowing the couple and their lawyer to say it was inoperable and that they would turn it over the next day... knowing they would be using the condition of the gun as part of their defense, would not give them time to possibly tamper with it and make sure it was indeed inoperable. That's shoddy police work.

 

[freyasman]

Maybe you should have someone read the article to you... because you obviously can't do it yourself.

You should read the article yourself

nowhere does it say the handgun was present when the police arrived there friday morning

in fact it says just the opposite

namely that their lawyer had the handgun

After the incident, Watkins took possession of the gun to be used as evidence in court. Watkins said he did this in case charges were to be filed.

If the gun was on the original search warrant, the police department, or at least one that was being serious about the investigation, would have had the gun turned over right then and there. Allowing the couple and their lawyer to say it was inoperable and that they would turn it over the next day... knowing they would be using the condition of the gun as part of their defense, would not give them time to possibly tamper with it and make sure it was indeed inoperable. That's shoddy police work.

So is the warrant.

 

[Mac-7]

Maybe you should have someone read the article to you... because you obviously can't do it yourself.

You should read the article yourself

nowhere does it say the handgun was present when the police arrived there friday morning

in fact it says just the opposite

namely that their lawyer had the handgun

After the incident, Watkins took possession of the gun to be used as evidence in court. Watkins said he did this in case charges were to be filed.

If the gun was on the original search warrant, the police department, or at least one that was being serious about the investigation, would have had the gun turned over right then and there. Allowing the couple and their lawyer to say it was inoperable and that they would turn it over the next day... knowing they would be using the condition of the gun as part of their defense, would not give them time to possibly tamper with it and make sure it was indeed inoperable. That's shoddy police work.

You are really full of bs

if the gun was there the cops would have grabbed it on the spot

 

[Mac-7]

That's shoddy police work.

You would not know shoddy police work if upit bit you on the nose

“Shoddy” was the police not being on the scene to protect the couple from the mob

 

[night_son]

The situation this couple finds themselves suffering is the exact reason why, when defending one's life or property or both with a firearm, one must actually use said firearm and not wave it around "in a threatening manner". The mob made audible death threats at this couple. If they were going to be foolish enough to meet the mob outside their home, then they should have either fired warning shots into the ground or lit up the nearest couple of rioters.

Right now, out there on the streets of our towns and cities, the democrat sanctioned terrorist mobs are doing the Ghost Dance. If you don't know what that means, look it up. These mob members think they are surrounded and protected by the armor of their outrage, their ideology and social media video uploads; they think they're immortal. But in truth, ventilate a few of them, preferably those making the most noise—right in front of their mob scum brothers and sisters, and the mob's entire perception of the cosmos and their place in it will change forever.

If this couple had any inking they'd ultimately be victims of a political cult's national crucifixion, then they should have gone that extra mile and burned a few mob terrorists down.

Something else could be afoot here that no one's talking about, speaking to the inevitable prosecution of this couple. I spent lots and lots of time with the M16A2 early in my Army career. The weapon Mr. Gun Owner is holding in all the pics and video of the incident in question looks identical to the M16A2, although even in blown up photos I can't make out the trigger group settings. But if the weapon is what it appears to be, complete with military issue sling, then Mr. Gun Owner is in possession of a three-round burst capable firearm, which is federally considered to be a machine gun. If Mr. Gun Owner does not have an FFL, then he could be screwed on that premise alone.

All of that being said, I truly feel bad for this couple—both for the national humiliation they're going through and the fact that they will likely be crushed by the "law" for defending the way of life they spend decades building with hard work; with blood, sweat and tears. I also have no doubt the radical prosecutor scum who sent state sanctioned thugs to collect their weapon will make an international example out of them. An example which loudly states, "this is what happens in today's America when you successfully defend your lives and home against the radical revolutionary leftist political cult."

I hope President Trump intervenes on their behalf. If he does then CNN and many other democrat minds will self-destruct, live and on the air.

 

[Mac-7]

The situation this couple finds themselves suffering is the exact reason why, when defending one's life or property or both with a firearm, one must actually use said firearm and not wave it around "in a threatening manner".

I dont quite agree

the white couple deterred the Only Black Lives Matter rioters from attacking their home without shooting anyone

in the end I think they will win

but since the mob only threatened their safety the correct response was to only threaten the mob

which they did

 

[freyasman]

If you take your rifle out into the streets, you'd best not be playing.
Either do it all the way, war to the knife, or don't.

 

[night_son]

The situation this couple finds themselves suffering is the exact reason why, when defending one's life or property or both with a firearm, one must actually use said firearm and not wave it around "in a threatening manner".

I dont quite agree

the white couple deterred the Only Black Lives Matter rioters from attacking their home without shooting anyone

in the end I think they will win

but since the mob only threatened their safety the correct response was to only threaten the mob

which they did

Afraid I must disagree, in turn. A threat to kill, when delivered point blank and precedented by recent prior mob murder violence across the USA, was sufficient call to action. In my opinion the couple risked everything (and foolishly so) by hesitating to actually engage the mob who had surrounded them at arm's reach. Had they burned down a few rioters they likely would have been fine in the end, if they could have convinced a jury they were in imminent mortal danger or believed they were. Speaking from my own position on the matter, if someone threatens to murder my wife, and they are at arms reach, I will kill them dead. The game of lethal threat and counter-threat can get fucked.

 

[Mac-7]

The game of lethal threat and counter-threat can get fucked.

I think its the best way to keep the liberal mob at bay AND not get thrown in jail afterward

 

[night_son]

The game of lethal threat and counter-threat can get fucked.

I think its the best way to keep the liberal mob at bay AND not get thrown in jail afterward

I'd agree with you if I hadn't witnessed some of the firepower these inner-city punks are packing around like super soaker squirt guns. IF one of them is polite enough to first threaten one of us before brandishing their AKM or PP-19, then we'd better shoot first, worry later. However, I get the point you're trying to make. Just hope that when you "show" your weapon to one of these terrorists they don't turn around and show you a "bigger" one. Self-defense is not a game of chivalry or fairness. It is dirty fighting—backstabbing and throat biting when necessary, and it is never honorable or pretty.

 

[Mac-7]

Just hope that when you "show" your weapon to one of these terrorists they don't turn around and show you a "bigger" one.

When I show my weapon I wont show myself in the open like the lib couple did

Then if the liberal mob wants to engage in a firefight so be it