Now I could understand if they were coming out to frisk this lady for having a "weapon"!
LOL. From the recent past: Zayn Malik sparks outrage with gun tattoo
“Police didn’t charge him.”
I swear that the tone of the article at that point shows that the ‘reporter’ was very disappointed at that particular outcome.
“Police armed with assault rifles...”
This caption, under an image of someone holding a Glock.
No wonder they always mistake one for another!
Now I could understand if they were coming out to frisk this lady for having a "weapon"!
Not a very smart tattoo --
Must be against the law to have a gun tucked in yer britches in Maine?
Another example of LEO over-reaction; or, an excuse to get some real world training in the assault techniques they’ve been learning...
Lucky the trigger happy Yahoos didn’t fill him with lead.
Can you guess where this train is going?
What's the point of having "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military if you never use it?
But is the dog okay?.........................
was it you? :)
Of course, the editor had a choice of featuring a picture of a gun, which people need to see to know what a gun looks like; or a picture of a tattoo, for those who have never seen a tattoo.
I’m somewhat surprised they didn’t put a picture of a “tramp stamp” tattoo on some young woman’s backside. But being a risk taker, the editor probably figures that those individuals who would be shocked and horrified by seeing a picture of a gun at breakfast, as is the sensibility of such cream puffs, will not have enough intestinal fortitude to cancel their subscriptions because of it.
This IS ridiculous but a couple questions come to mind:
1] How’d the crew see the “gun”? Its like 30deg in ME this time of year.
2] What made them call the cops on this guy? Could THEY not tell it was a tat?
3] The cops reaction to showing up armed is sorta understandable given that they were led to believe there was an actual gun involved.
There wasn’t one person with two working brain cells in that entire article.
So what if he did have a gun on his own property. So what if he had 100 guns on his own property.
THE MAN WAS NOT CHARGED?
Why were the police not charged for felonious assault with weapons? It is not against the law to possess a firearm on one’s own property. It is however against the law to violate someone’s rights and due process, while armed!
Felony, while armed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdhVxva5KU
Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg said that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war", and don't belong on the streets of America.
If that's true, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with?
ping
There's a couple of pictures at that link:
Officer Porkins, who has OBVIOUSLY been "eating out the substance" of the local Connecticut peasantry,
And, Officer Tacticool MaryMallNinja with his "assault weapon", 'cause he's AT WAR with American "insurgents", aka "the peasantry"...
