Authorities seize grenade launcher, weapons cache from Virginia man at motel

[sleeplessknight]

So what you're saying is that if someone commits a really horrific crime...OR IS MERELY ACCUSED OF ONE then the constitution doesn't apply. You just raised the Godwin factor of this thread by a factor of about a million.



We managed to deal with criminals, spies, saboteurs, war criminals and terrorists for 210 years without throwing the constitution out the window. You want us to just give up everything the country was built on? Why? Because you're peeing in your pants in fear of a big bad terrorist coming to get you?

Man the Hell up.

This is the ACTUAL MEANING of "Freedom isn't free." You pay a price to live in a free open society. Sometimes that price is that we get attacked on our own soil. Sometimes a guilty man goes free so we don't falsely imprison many others. Did you not take civics or what?

I am sick to death of people willing to trade freedom for a false sense of security including attacking the institutions that have always separated us from dictatorships. Reactions like yours are exactly what got us the Patriot Act, illegally interned thousands of American citizens in WW2 and pretty much every other unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch I can think of.

The threat we face from the Jihadi scumbags is real and serious, but it doesn't hold a teeny little candle to the existential threat we faced from the Russkies for 50 years. A threat we managed to deal with, including many fifth column and espionage attempts, without resorting to military tribunals.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who assume a right to keep and bear arms doesn't even need to be explained will throw out every other right we have as soon as the going gets tough.

You're making precisely the same kind of hysterical argument I hear from the Antis every time there's a mass shooting. And guess what? We lose more people to those every year than we do from terrorist attacks. Maybe you should turn in your EBRs. At least you'd be consistent.

This +10,000,000. Rep point inbound.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

So what you're saying is that if someone commits a really horrific crime...OR IS MERELY ACCUSED OF ONE then the constitution doesn't apply. You just raised the Godwin factor of this thread by a factor of about a million.



We managed to deal with criminals, spies, saboteurs, war criminals and terrorists for 210 years without throwing the constitution out the window. You want us to just give up everything the country was built on? Why? Because you're peeing in your pants in fear of a big bad terrorist coming to get you?

Man the Hell up.

This is the ACTUAL MEANING of "Freedom isn't free." You pay a price to live in a free open society. Sometimes that price is that we get attacked on our own soil. Sometimes a guilty man goes free so we don't falsely imprison many others. Did you not take civics or what?

I am sick to death of people willing to trade freedom for a false sense of security including attacking the institutions that have always separated us from dictatorships. Reactions like yours are exactly what got us the Patriot Act, illegally interned thousands of American citizens in WW2 and pretty much every other unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch I can think of.

The threat we face from the Jihadi scumbags is real and serious, but it doesn't hold a teeny little candle to the existential threat we faced from the Russkies for 50 years. A threat we managed to deal with, including many fifth column and espionage attempts, without resorting to military tribunals.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who assume a right to keep and bear arms doesn't even need to be explained will throw out every other right we have as soon as the going gets tough.

You're making precisely the same kind of hysterical argument I hear from the Antis every time there's a mass shooting. And guess what? We lose more people to those every year than we do from terrorist attacks. Maybe you should turn in your EBRs. At least you'd be consistent.

Bill, I agree with you on some things and disagree on others.

You are absolutely right about people being too willing to give up a lot of rights for a little security. The movie "V for Vendetta" is a great depiction of how a government can become a dictatorship when fear causes people to let the leaders run wild in the name of security. Part of the reason for this is that people are no longer taught to be self-sufficient. The government wants to provide everything so they can control us. So when a threat appears and people get scarred, they have no means to attain personal security. Then they turn to the government, which is only too happy to provide it....just give up these rights and we have a deal!

I have to disagree with you on the legal preceedings for terrorists. They are organized in such a fashion to wage war against Americans on any front. Even though they do not wear a uniform, they are organized enemies of our country, thus should be treated as military combatant. This means those who commit war crimes should be subject to a military tribunal.

 

[sleeplessknight]

I have to disagree with you on the legal preceedings for terrorists. They are organized in such a fashion to wage war against Americans on any front. Even though they do not wear a uniform, they are organized enemies of our country, thus should be treated as military combatant. This means those who commit war crimes should be subject to a military tribunal.

I am of the opinion that calling these scumbags 'military combatants' demeans the men and women who do serve in the armed forces. Bring back the death penalty nation-wide, give the scumbags their due process and their day in court, and then hang 'em high.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I am of the opinion that calling these scumbags 'military combatants' demeans the men and women who do serve in the armed forces. Bring back the death penalty nation-wide, give the scumbags their due process and their day in court, and then hang 'em high.

We called the Italian army 'military combatants' and by your statement, that would also demean our soliders!! LOL

 

[CJKarl]

Eh, he'll be out in 3 years....or less.

 

[terraformer]

Maybe I missed something, but there was no report I saw on whether or not he had a permit. Did anyone else see anything? One would assume no with the charges filled, but you never know what a DA will file in hopes of making it stick.

It was NJ. I am pretty confident he didn't have a permit.

 

[sleeplessknight]

We called the Italian army 'military combatants' and by your statement, that would also demean our soliders!! LOL

Que? Wouldn't the "Italian Army", by definition, be military combatants? I presume Italy has a standing, uniformed armed services, although I could be wrong...

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Que? Wouldn't the "Italian Army", by definition, be military combatants? I presume Italy has a standing, uniformed armed services, although I could be wrong...

It was more of a joke on the quality of their military! LOL

 

[Bill Katt]

Permit or not, Jersey or not, if I read the article correctly, it would be illegal for anyone to posses those firearms due to the defaced serial numbers. Yes?

 

[TomH]

So what you're saying is that if someone commits a really horrific crime...OR IS MERELY ACCUSED OF ONE then the constitution doesn't apply. You just raised the Godwin factor of this thread by a factor of about a million.



We managed to deal with criminals, spies, saboteurs, war criminals and terrorists for 210 years without throwing the constitution out the window. You want us to just give up everything the country was built on? Why? Because you're peeing in your pants in fear of a big bad terrorist coming to get you?

Man the Hell up.

This is the ACTUAL MEANING of "Freedom isn't free." You pay a price to live in a free open society. Sometimes that price is that we get attacked on our own soil. Sometimes a guilty man goes free so we don't falsely imprison many others. Did you not take civics or what?

I am sick to death of people willing to trade freedom for a false sense of security including attacking the institutions that have always separated us from dictatorships. Reactions like yours are exactly what got us the Patriot Act, illegally interned thousands of American citizens in WW2 and pretty much every other unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch I can think of.

The threat we face from the Jihadi scumbags is real and serious, but it doesn't hold a teeny little candle to the existential threat we faced from the Russkies for 50 years. A threat we managed to deal with, including many fifth column and espionage attempts, without resorting to military tribunals.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who assume a right to keep and bear arms doesn't even need to be explained will throw out every other right we have as soon as the going gets tough.

You're making precisely the same kind of hysterical argument I hear from the Antis every time there's a mass shooting. And guess what? We lose more people to those every year than we do from terrorist attacks. Maybe you should turn in your EBRs. At least you'd be consistent.

Probably the best post I've ever seen by you, +'s incoming. This isn't some guy picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan people. He's a US citizen as far as I can tell. Caught on US soil with two rifles, a map, and a certain type of hat?

Permit or not, Jersey or not, if I read the article correctly, it would be illegal for anyone to posses those firearms due to the defaced serial numbers. Yes?

Rifles become at least twice as dangerous when the number is filed off.

 

[jasons]

Rifles become at least twice as dangerous when the number is filed off.

Not any more dangerous, but it is circumstantial evidence that he was up to no good. He'll get his day in court. (As he should.)

 

[Fixxah]

ALL MILITARY PERSONELL SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ARMED, PERIOD. He might get one but it won't turn out good for the BG. I suspect these people with bad intent will avoid armed communities, I wonder why.

 

[Ski]

When anyone (Foreign, or Domestic) who takes (or attempts ) terrorist actions against, in particular innocent civilians shall be deemed an enemy combatant! Period.

We managed to deal with criminals, spies, saboteurs, war criminals and terrorists for 210 years without throwing the constitution out the window. You want us to just give up everything the country was built on? Why? Because you're peeing in your pants in fear of a big bad terrorist coming to get you?

It's apparant that sheeple who turn this as being a threat to OUR constitutional rights that our forefathers have created which have made this country so great is quite frankly a way to liberally spin your faulty logic into an argument.

Man up?
Pull up your panties and stop being a pussy!
I guess some equate military tribunal as equivilent to SS Nazi Law.

These public trials will make a mockery of our judicial system to the world...
"If the armored vest dont fit, you must acquit)

Lets just give away rights to people that want to destroy our way of life. (Our rights!
Better yet, lets just offer them Sharia Law)

 

[jasons]

When anyone (Foreign, or Domestic) who takes (or attempts ) terrorist actions against, in particular innocent civilians shall be deemed an enemy combatant! Period.


It's apparant that sheeple who turn this as being a threat to OUR constitutional rights that our forefathers have created which have made this country so great is quite frankly a way to liberally spin your faulty logic into an argument.

Man up?
Pull up your panties and stop being a pussy!
I guess some equate military tribunal as equivilent to SS Nazi Law.

These public trials will make a mockery of our judicial system to the world...
"If the armored vest dont fit, you must acquit)

Lets just give away rights to people that want to destroy our way of life. (Our rights!
Better yet, lets just offer them Sharia Law)

First of all, this guy didn't actually attempt anything. He got caught with some incriminating evidence, and I agree that it APPEARS that he was up to no good, but he didn't actually do anything past having a few guns and a bunch of ammo. If you want to define this as a "terrorist action," what stops certain left-leaning member of our government from defining "owning more than 3 guns" or "stocking more than 1000 rounds" a terrorist action?

Lastly, this guy is an American citizen. (Unless he's denounced his citizenship, but nobody has mentioned that.) The bottom line is that regardless of how you feel about him or what he did (or may have been planning to do) he's entitled to certain Constitutional protections. If we take those away from this guy (as big a dirtbag as he may be,) we are by definition giving away OUR rights. (Our meaning American citizens. He's one, for better or worse.)

Nice avatar by the way. (Ogier the Dane, right?)

 

[Speedway]

Gentlemen, the Jihadists would love nothing more than to start fights umongst us. It sound like they succeeded....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not any more dangerous, but it is circumstantial evidence that he was up to no good.

Possession of guns with defaced serial numbers is also a crime in and of itself in many jurisdictions.

 

[Bill Nance]

When anyone (Foreign, or Domestic) who takes (or attempts ) terrorist actions against, in particular innocent civilians shall be deemed an enemy combatant! Period.

It's apparant that sheeple who turn this as being a threat to OUR constitutional rights that our forefathers have created which have made this country so great is quite frankly a way to liberally spin your faulty logic into an argument.

Man up?
Pull up your panties and stop being a pussy!
I guess some equate military tribunal as equivilent to SS Nazi Law.

Military tribunals are what you establish overseas to deal with enemy combatants who have violated the laws of war, not something you use for accused criminals caught on American soil, accused of violating U.S. law. In other words you use a tribunal because in a foreign country under occupation by U.S. troops, the lawful governing authority is the U.S. military and that's the system of justice under which it operates.

That is not the case when someone commits, or once again, IS MERELY ACCUSED of committing a crime on U.S. soil. Certainly not in the case of an American citizen.

If you cannot see how giving up our fundamental rights won't lead to a tyranny far worse than anything we have to actually fear from the Jihadis, you are extremely short-sighted. Have you no concept that the beast you unleash on your enemies can turn and rend you next? We've already had many terrorist trials in this country, including Islamic terrorists. I must have missed the parts in those trials where somehow the BGs won because we put them through the criminal justice system.

Your own urge to give less than basic human rights to accused criminals speaks volumes of your own opinions on the fairness of a military tribunal. If it's the same justice as we'd get in a normal court, why would you favor a military tribunal?

Lets just give away rights to people that want to destroy our way of life.

The government doesn't confer rights. Every human being has them. They are innate. Try reading our founding documents and the books and writings of the founders.

And how is a Jihadi in anyway different in his desire to destroy our way of life than the Sovs were? We managed to deal with communist terrorists through our courts when we caught them with far less destruction to our civil liberties than we've suffered since 9/11.

Finally:

"If Tyranny and oppression ever come into this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Rob Boudrie]

When anyone (Foreign, or Domestic) who takes (or attempts ) terrorist actions against, in particular innocent civilians shall be deemed an enemy combatant! Period.

Doing so domestically is a slipper slope on two fronts:

- Today, it's someone who tried to light a bomb in public - easy, obvious evidence of guilt. What about the case where someone is accused in less obvious situations (for example, the govt claims it has classified evidence the subject planted a bomb that killed a bunch of people, therefore, he is not entitled to counsel; confronting the evidence against him; or even his day in court). The purpose of a trial is to prove something. Where does the link get drawn of what does not need to be proven?

- Once the concept of "crimes so serious no trial is needed" becomes accepted, what is to prevent this concept from, some years down the road, being applied to crimes like drug dealing where the evidence is so obvious no trial is required?

 

[EddieCoyle]

When anyone (Foreign, or Domestic) who takes (or attempts ) terrorist actions against, in particular innocent civilians shall be deemed an enemy combatant! Period.

Define terrorist action.

I know plenty of moonbats that would consider any NES shoot as a terrorist training camp. After all, most of us (although not you apparently) mistrust the government.

 

[terraformer]

- Once the concept of "crimes so serious no trial is needed" becomes accepted, what is to prevent this concept from, some years down the road, being applied to crimes like drug dealing where the evidence is so obvious no trial is required?

Or treason? Or murder? No trial, no evidence of self defense allowed.

It is amazing how many people here who have been screwed by the "moonbats" and MA state aren't making the connection that they are part of "the government" you are so willing to trust on this one topic.

 

[pdm]

This guy can't be equated with foreign terrorists captured by the .mil in foreign countries.