CONFISCATION HAVE BEGUN

“this may be a completely crazy question... but what does the taking away of guns in CANADA have to do with us folks in AMERICA? Please someone explain. I know that ultimately we'll quietly annex Canada and abolish curling and Molson Ice, but until then, the fact that this conversation has turned to American politics and the American constitution seems... kinda... dumb
last edited: 9/24/09 2:24:12 PM”

“How dare you try and keep a thread on subject!”

“Thread degredation has many forms.”

“I hear they're taking people's rights away in China right now... that goddamn American government!”

““this may be a completely crazy question... but what does the taking away of guns in CANADA have to do with us folks in AMERICA? Please someone explain. I know that ultimately we'll quietly annex Canada and abolish curling and Molson Ice, but until then, the fact that this conversation has turned to American politics and the American constitution seems... kinda... dumb
last edited: 9/24/09 5:24:12 PM”
pepsisformosa
5:52:03 PM
9/24/09

I view it more as just something to be mindful of. The smart man learns from his mistakes. The wise man learns from others mistakes.
last edited: 9/24/09 2:31:38 PM”

“Ever have Molsen XXX. Now that is a fine adult beverage.”

“I agree Zac, I wasn't criticizing you... it was more the way that this conversation suddenly spun into talk about the American Constitution, as though some people may've lost sight that the thread was about an event that occurred in Canada”

“WK - just had a beer conversation with a client. Bama finally changed it's beer laws allowing craft brews to be sold. Before about 2 months ago we were limited to 4.5% or so.”

“If you want to take this thread degredation away from me, you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands!”

“I've been wanting to go shooting sporting clays. This thread is a good reminder for me to get my butt out there and shoot.”

“Daang, I can't even remember the last time I had a 4.5% beer...”

“http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/433/3829

7.3% alcohol

Buy it at this store when I am up paddling the Quetico

”

“4.5%? I think the average micro-brew around here is around 5%”

“Dang, they didn't rate it very high.

I bought a growler of a local brew a couple weeks ago. It had 8.1% and I didn't know it. I had a bit over a pint and wondered why I had a buzz...then I looked it up.

I seem to like the idea of the craft brews better than the brew itself. The hops seem overwhelming. I'm pretty happy with PBR in the summer around the pool and Yeungling or Abita Amber most other times.”

“Then again, this is all I drink these days...

”

“I may have to try this one.
http://www.davidsonbrothers.com/2009/08/strong-ale/

strong-ale
The Strong Ale is a type of English Old Ale, typically aged for at least a decade before being served. The ale is pale golden, although not as light as its obvious cousin, the Belgian Tripel. This beer is vastly more bitter than our Double Hop IPA and our Mega IPA, making it our bitterest ale. This bitterness is offset by the sweetness of the beer, and the distinct finish. The robust flavorings have been well-rounded and the result is a very mellow beer with an absolutely incredible amount of flavor. We only tap a keg of this ale a year, typically in March.
8.9%ABV”

“Here's the growler I had: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/17282/52107”

“Now all we need to do is talk about sex and our degeneration of this thread is complete.”

“Where is hyway with the pool sex photo?”

“Local brewery produces a fine wheat beer.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/26/9478

I'll be helping to finish a keg this Saturday evening. Smoking good cigars and drinking good beer...life is good!”

“Dang, don't temp him. WW would do, not the whale humping.”

“Where can I get some Alaskan Ale down here in the Lower 48?
Yo Lumberzak.....I am free to be free at last with my GUN in my hand legally and proud of it.”

“Racer 5, baybee!

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/610/2751

I'd have to say, this is my second fave:
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/2743/22505
last edited: 9/24/09 3:09:21 PM”

“No. That has nothing to do with being able to defend your rights with the 2nd amendment without the government seizing your property

let's say you get your way, and no one has to register their guns anymore. what's to stop some whacko tea party from escalating into the next civil war?”

“confiscate tinfoil instead... they wouldn't go out en masse without their protective headgear”

“let's say you get your way, and no one has to register their guns anymore. what's to stop some whacko tea party from escalating into the next civil war?

Nothing. That's the beauty of it. Is this thing on?”

“beauty is in the eye of the beholder”

“"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-Thomas Jefferson”

“you know, those great and powerful nations that don't exercise very much (if any) gun control and, consequentially, have a civil war every decade or so... they're doing great! We should totally model ourselves after them. Nothing like a series of civil wars to put a country on track for continued success and might”

“I mean, hey, I'm probably closer to an anarchist than any other political belief, so I'm all for the romanticism of a person defending himself from his government... but these days, all that'll get you is a bullet in the brain or a life in prison. The time when a government actually needed to fear its people is long past.

And tying into my anarchistic beliefs - any "revolution" to remove the corrupt government today (and oh by god is it ever corrupt) will only lead to it being replaced by equally corrupt and idiotic people who will mismanage the country in their own inept and selfish ways. The purpose of any government system by any name is not to help the people - it's to gain power, keep power, and grow that power. There isn't a government on the planet today that isn't corrupt and, truth be told, there never was.”

“That is because people have slowly given their freedoms to the government in exchange for "security" and "support". The federal government was never designed to be big enough nor powerful enough to disarm it's own citizens.

Weak people have made the government strong. And it just keeps going on and on. Years ago it was Social Security taxes today it is health care.

Blame yourselves.”

“The time when a government actually needed to fear its people is long past.

I wouldn't say fear, but you need to keep an eye out for the kooks: Oklahoma City, weaponized Anthrax, et c. Semi-organized takeover, no, but a few nuts could cause a lot of damage give the right resources and expertise.

They just have to be crazy enough.... and motivated.”

“The time when a government actually needed to fear its people is long past.


You mean the US? Or are you talking about the world in general.”

“Right on cue once again ----”

“



Mutt's Front Door

”

“I agree Nigal”

“The following article appears in the current issue of the Illinois State Rifle Association newsletter, and is reproduced here with permission of the author:

"What would you do if the police knocked on your door and wanted to take your guns away? This question arises in Chicago from time to time. In order to understand what could happen in Chicago, we can look at a case that arose on July 17, 2004.in Wisconsin. After an Oshkosh Wisconsin Police Officer was shot in the arm, the police established a perimeter around the six block area to contain the suspect. Their investigation quickly centered on six homes where the shot could have originated. Two homes were unoccupied and were not searched. Three homes were searched after conversations with the owners. Firearms were found in only one of the three homes searched after conversations with the innocent owners, and firearms were seized from that one home. A search warrant was obtained for the last home, where additional weapons were seized and arrests were made.

In Oshkosh, a problem arose for the innocent party about the nature of the consent and the removal of his weapons. The police believed they had consent to search the home, but the police acknowledge they never told the homeowner that his firearms would be taken. The police did promise to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime and they were indeed returned a few days later. A police spokesman described this as a “miscommunication rather than a deliberate, secretive seizure.” The homeowner accepted the apology from the police department and was satisfied by their explanation. What would you do if this happened to you?

Knowing what to do and what to say when the police come knocking on your door requires that you understand what is going through the police officer’s mind. Police work by its very nature is dangerous, and the police officer is rightly concerned foremost about his own survival. Unfortunately, criminals do not come with a tattoo on their forehead labeling them felons so the police can tell them apart from ordinary citizens. Those suspects will often pose as innocent civilians to put themselves in a position to either harm the officer or escape arrest. Studies have shown that an assertive police officer is less likely to be murdered during the course of his duties. When an officer is shot, his fellow officers will act instinctively in self defense of themselves and their brother officers. In such a dangerous situation, any uninformed citizen should expect conversations with the police to be somewhat intimidating.

But police know their rights and how far they can go in searching for an offender and seizing firearms as evidence, and so should you. We all know that the police can search your home if they have a search warrant. Police do not have to display the search warrant first, nor do they have to knock or announce their presence to gain entry in every situation. They can lawfully detain most people inside as well as those entering or leaving.

The police can legally search your home without your consent or without a search warrant in certain very limited emergency situations. Those emergency situations arise in assisting ambulance calls, helping fire departments, settling violent disputes or otherwise saving lives or property in their community caretaking role. The police may enter a home also in immediate pursuit of a dangerous criminal, or under very limited circumstances where destructible evidence is present and there is insufficient time to get a search warrant. Whether the police can legally search your home in all these circumstances depends on what the officer reasonably believes. So the homeowner is in no position to physically obstruct the police search or seizure, and if he did, in these circumstances, he could be arrested and convicted of Obstruction if the police officer had a valid reason to search.

In Chicago, most Judges will not sign a search warrant for a municipal code violation involving unregistered firearms. Consequently, Chicago Police Officers seeking to seize unregistered firearms do so by obtaining some sort of consent to enter the premises. What many people do not realize is that if they refuse to consent to the police entry, the police will rarely return with a search warrant. And police will rarely break down a door without a search warrant because the damage is almost always irrefutable proof that the police acted without any consent whatsoever. The subsequent fear of lawsuits keeps the police from forcefully entering and leaving physical damage. So instead, the police seeking to seize unregistered firearms in Chicago will resort to trickery involving mild deceptions.

What constitutes a valid consent? The police can enter your home if the policeman reasonably believes that the person giving consent has the authority to do so, and that the consent is voluntary, without improper threats or coercion. That consent could be given in writing, verbally, or even by your conduct. The person giving the consent could be you, your spouse, your child, and practically any person who spent the night in your home. Each type of consent must be voluntary. Consent can be found to be voluntary in a court of law even if the person who gave the consent was surrounded by police, handcuffed, had asked for an attorney, or was held at gunpoint. Most legal tests for the voluntariness of the consent hinge on the exact words used in the conversation between the police officer and the person giving the consent. For instance, saying “yes” to a police officer’s question, “Can I check your home?” can be legitimately construed as your consent to search your home. Once inside, the officer can seize anything that he reasonably believes is evidence of a crime. You do not even need to respond verbally to give consent, because merely opening the door and stepping back in the presence of a police officer has been construed as a consent to search.

But every time a police officer asks someone for consent to search, the person has the right to refuse the consent. That forces the police officer to either apply for a search warrant or seek an alternative theory to justify entry. Why would an innocent homeowner not want to assist the police in apprehending a dangerous person who maybe nearby? The officer’s ultimate arrest will make the community safer, and the majority of citizens will cooperate with the police. Helping the police exclude you as a potential suspect allows the police to continue their search for the real culprit.

When the police come unexpectedly knocking on your door asking to come in, the homeowner should make some inquiries of his own. The homeowner should find out if he is being treated as the focus of the investigation, or he is being treated merely as a cooperating citizen. If the police inform the homeowner that they are seeking unregistered firearms, or firearms possessed after a FOID card has expired, then the homeowner is the focus of the investigation. Every defense attorney will tell a client who is the focus of an investigation to politely refuse the consent, refuse to answer further questions without his attorney present, but not to physically obstruct the officers. If the homeowner who is the focus of investigation can close and lock the door without touching the police officers, he should do so promptly. The homeowner who talks to the police with his closed and locked door between them is tactically in a much better position of protecting his Second Amendment Rights. But if the police are already inside and are searching, the homeowner should remain quiet and totally passive. This means the homeowner should neither surrender his keys nor give out the combination to his gun safe, as this is evidence of possession of the items seized. Additionally, giving out the keys or the combination to the safe could be viewed in a court of law as evidence the homeowner consented if the conversation was ambiguous to the police. Under Constitutional law, the failure to consent to police can rarely be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution against the homeowner in court.

Most often in Illinois, the persons whom the police deal with are just cooperating witnesses. The homeowner should ask a few simple questions to the police to quickly see whether the police are trying to exclude him as a potential innocent person or whether they are trying to gain enough evidence to arrest him as a suspect. If it appears the police are trying to exclude you as a suspect, your subsequent consent can be limited and restricted in many ways. The homeowner can restrict the number of officers entering his home, can require the searching officer not leave his sight, and can require that he be given a written signed receipt for any items removed from the premises. The homeowner could insist that any firearms so removed be first photographed by an evidence technician called to the home. Such a photograph would show the firearms were surrendered for testing in perfectly undamaged condition. The homeowner could also insist that the firearms be transported and stored in a cased condition. Evidence custodians have a habit of treating firearms roughly, and firearms are typically stored stacked in mass one on top of another. At this point, the homeowner should take a page from the police playbook. Police officers are often required to surrender their personal and duty firearms for forensic testing to aid in an investigation. These guns are tagged that they are not to be marked or etched with identifying information by the persons in the chain of evidence. A homeowner could additionally require that all bullets and forensic results be returned to the owner after an exclusion of culpability and that no permanent record be kept by the testing agency. Someone experienced in firearms might also require as a prerequisite to removal for testing that the testing be performed within a day or two, and that the owner should be present and observe the actual testing of the weapons. Persons cooperating with the police should insist that all these requirements of photographing, storage, care, and prompt return be agreed to prior to giving the consent to the remove the firearms.

More and more officers are learning from the studies of Professor Lott and other academic researchers that private ownership of firearms actually deters violent crime in the United States. For the average citizen, understanding the police point of view will likewise help the police do their job in keeping us all safe from those dangerous criminals whose use firearms to break the law. Knowing your rights as a citizen is the best way to eliminate confusion and potentially illegal searches that no one wants, when the police come knocking on your door."”

“Weak people have made the government strong. And it just keeps going on and on. Years ago it was Social Security taxes today it is health care.


Right on and yet look at the mass of sheep who keep voting for these dopes because they either STILL think they're helping the poor and disenfranchised (witness the two standard-bearer fruit loops on this thread alone) or that someone is finally sticking it to the man. I'd love to see one of the do-gooders here on TT go into an inner-city neighborhood and tell the residents they cannot get ahead in life without his help, lol. Perpetuating the myth for years and years and never fixing the problems....classic.


PS: I will give up my aborted fetus when they pry it from my cold dead vagina.

PPS: we just had an Oktoberfest in which one of the featured beers was 14.5%! Tasty, but it sure packed a punch.”

“Pepsi is kind of right in a sense because there's not a damn thing you can do about it. After Katrina some states passed laws protecting gun owners rights but I don't think it'd mean damn thing.

What happened in N.O. after Katrina.

And they call us paranoid?”

“And speaking of your homegrown crazies,here's the latest face of terrorism.”

“Nice to see you're finally doing something about that loose vajayjay tilt. Stovey's been hittin' it hard, huh?”

“LMFAOOo0o0OOooOo0o0o!”

“The correct question which completes the preceding Visual Daily Double is this:

�How are gun threads like the Super Kegel Exerciser?�”

“They both make your pu$$y clench?
last edited: 9/25/09 6:03:27 AM”

“Tilt has no interest in guns or pu$$y?”

“Only the pu$$y he sees every morning in the mirror.”

““There in lies the problem, dh. If the medical community is not in agreement on the question of whether it is a "life" and the theological community is not in agreement on the question of whether it is a "life", how can we force others to adopt "our" stance that it is?

Thus, an Indivdual's Liberties allow them to make that decision on a personal level...and the Constitution protects that Right.

Somehow, BOTH sides want individual freedoms to be protected ONLY when its the freedom they care about. If it is something they don't agree with, then they scream for governmental intervention. It is hyprocricy at it's finest.”
chili36
4:49:37 PM
9/24/09

I am on the pro-life side only because there is no middle ground and because I don't think that abortion will ever be made illegal again in the US. What I want is some sanity returned to the laws involving abortions. No underage child should ever be given an abortion without the permission of her parents. No woman should ever be allowed an abortion if the father chooses to raise the child. late term abortions should be outlawed. If you can't decide in the first trimester, then you lost your chance to kill the baby.

To get these changes I HAVE to be on the ProLife side because the ProChoice side only pushes for less restrictions on abortions.”

“No woman should ever be allowed an abortion if the father chooses to raise the child

i couldnt agree more. however, i fear that this will never happen. i mean, how do you regulate that? does the father sign a contract. how do you enforce that? great idea in theory, very difficult (but worthy) goal in practice”

“No underage child should ever be given an abortion without the permission of her parents.

What about children of abusive parents? Or incest for that matter?”