Like this one...
| To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
|
And then there is this one...
| To: Boot Hill I'll ignore it. Thanks 792 posted on 11/21/2002 6:59 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson To: Boot Hill (like I do 98.6% of TPaine's posts) 793 posted on 11/21/2002 7:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson |
Wow, a posting history so disreputable that Jim Robinson felt it necessary to point out to everyone that, of any 70 tpaine posts, you would be lucky to find even one that doesn't deserve to be outright disregarded. Personally, I think tpaine caught him in a very benevolent mood that evening.
--Boot Hill
First the article says: "...the homeowner [Arford] threatened the fire chief with a rifle..."
But then is says: "Arford...then grabbed an unloaded M-1 rifle...and attempted to point it at the chief..."
Which finally devolves to: "[Officer] Robert Frank...grabbed Arford and the rifle before he could raise the weapon...."
If he hadn't raised the weapon, then how was that an attempt to point it at the chief? Does officer Frank moonlight as a mind reader? And if he hadn't raised the weapon, why does the lead paragraph state that he threatened the chief? Can you "attempt to threaten", sort of like an attempt to attempt?
The article claims: "Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons."
But then it admits: "Police soon discovered rifles, shotguns, handguns, machetes, samurai swords and spears..."
I won't even touch the idiocy of their "live ammunition" comment, but notice how the lead paragraph leaves the reader with the notion that they confiscated 500 firearms, when that, in fact, was not true?
A police official claims: "..."tens of thousands" of rounds of live ammunition could have had a catastrophic effect if Sunday's fire had grown worse..."
In my younger days, I was a member of a fire department in a small Midwestern town and I can tell that claim is pure, unadulterated BS. Those rounds posed no more danger than some of the other clap trap people store in their houses, like propane tanks, gasoline, kerosene, paint, solvents, spray cans, poisons, acids, etc.
The article say: ..."the fire department responded to a chimney fire...Fire Chief John Feeny ordered Arthur L. Arford to leave his smoky home...Arford told Feeny the department had no right to force him off his property..."
Come on folks, it's not like his whole house was engulfed in flame, it was just an itsy bitsy chimney fire. As long as he doesn't get in the way (and there is no evidence of that), he can provide a valuable service by informing the firefighters about the layout of the house, occupants, hazards, etc. Absent any interference with the firefighters, the 5th and 14th Amendment guarantee, that a person may not be deprived of property without due process of law, takes precedent. Other than war, invasion or insurrection, the Constitution contains no escape clause for those rights, not even for a chimney fire.
Call me a dinosaur, but when the Second Amendment to the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", I'm just old fashioned enough to believe that it means "shall not be infringed". It doesn't matter whether it is one gun or a thousand.
The order evicting Mr. Arford from his home was unconstitutional, the arrest for "attempting to point" a weapon was a false arrest and a gross abuse of power, but more importantly, the confiscation of Mr. Arford's weapons violated, what I consider, to be the single most important guarantee of the entire Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms.
Regards,
Boot Hill