Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Free Jeffrey

OFF Alert
OFF is committed to continuing Maxwell's defense. We are shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received by the staff and the students of WOU.

We ask your continued support of our legal battle for Jeff Maxwell. We promised Jeff what he promised the men he served with. We will not leave him behind.

My position: our right to keep and bear arms is absolute. No one EVER should have to answer to "why do you need [fill in the blank]" when it comes to our rights. That holds for owning/possessing firearms just like it does for free speech and free excercise of religion.

And to the "only the government or people with training" should have guns:
1) that is a recipie for tyranny
2) please watch the second video



"I'm the only one in this room proffessional enough, that I know of, to carry this Glock .40"

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do you like guns so much, Daniel?

Anonymous said...

funny how those libs over at WOU got their panties in such a bunch over a black man with a gun.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that we should simply trust the government to have armed forces. I think companies and even people should also, if they have the means, be able to have their own armies to settle disputes among themselves. Mandatory guns (locked and loaded) for all students too, starting at the first grade. All workplaces should refuse to hire unless the employee carries a loaded gun. Let everyone have a gun, everywhere, all the time. Then we'll all be really safe. ;-)

DAVE01 said...

That is hilarious, the DEA agent shooting himself. By his reasoning only professionals should have guns so only they will shoot themselves. The idiot should not have been even handling a firearm around children. You know, they might wet their panties. I have to give him one word of positive feedback, he recovered his composure very well. You can tell he did not grow up around guns (unless he grew up around a gang).

Thanks for showing that Daniel.

I guess the next time we have a school shooting in a gun free zone, at least the victims families will say their children were safe because there were no guns there.

I think we should go have a protest there to support this young veteran. I'm a vet who believes in the US constitution unlike our current messiah and his minions. Let all of us vets show these young kids that we served so they can go about their lives and have the freedoms they do.

Maybe as a bonus we can find some criminal aliens who are stealing our childrens education.

Thanks to all of you who voted for wyden and merkely and the messiah. They are voting to steal over a trillion dollars from our families so criminal aliens can have jobs instead of American veterans.

Scottiebill said...

Don't forget that this man is a former Marine. Marines get more firearm training that any 10 ordinary citizens will ever have. If he isn't qualified to carry, then no one is.

Especially Anon 9:14.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:14, the US constitution does not say you have to like guns. It says you may keep and bears arms and that RIGHT shall not be infringed.
Why do you ask Daniel why he likes guns? I think you like Daniel too much.

Stevie said...

I love it how, after the DEA agent shoots his Glock, he then goes to pick up the M4 and all the kids are like, "No!!! Put it down!!!"

LOL!

But onto more serious matters...there's a reason this thread doesn't have as many posts as other threads. And that's because even many "liberals" like myself are skeptical of many gun control laws. Yeah, I know that goes against the conventional wisdom. But plenty of my liberal friends are gun owners themselves, and share many of the same views as conservatives when it comes to gun owners. (Although Daniel, I DON'T share the view you posted over on Arfcom, that we should get rid of the background check for buying guns altogether. In fact, I think that is an incredibly stupid idea, given that it would very obviously place guns in the hands of certain people who very obviously shouldn't have guns.)

But I disgress...

This student at WOSU was doing nothing other than exercising his LEGAL rights when he was arrested. I think the school realized after-the-fact that they were simply wrong on this one, and that they over-reacted, as such institutions are prone to doing. Hopefully they will make things right with Mr. Maxwell.

Anonymous said...

My position: our right to keep and bear arms is absolute.

Subtext: Even when it's against the law.

This message was brought to you by Daniel "rule of law" Miglavs.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:57 PM
you said:
Subtext: Even when it's against the law.

This message was brought to you by Daniel "rule of law" Miglavs.

No! If you commit a crime, your RIGHTS can be taken away. This young marine did not commit any crime. It was the police and school idiots who committed crimes.
There are a lot of laws they have to know and remember. If the cops did not know the law, they should have called their supervisor or the DA's office before kidnapping that young man. The cops need to be arrested for kidnapping and other crimes.

Stevie said...

Hey Anon 1:57 and Anon 3:26…you’re BOTH wrong.

In the first case Anon 1:57, you imply that the person in question here broke a law. He did not break any laws, however. It’s possible he broke a school regulation. But if so, that school regulation is itself illegal, as the state legislature is the only governing body in Oregon that has the legal authority to make a law, rule or regulation concerning the use of firearms in Oregon. Public institutions like WOSC cannot implement rules concerning the use of guns that usurp or otherwise contradict state law. Unfortunately, that’s what they tried to do. And they are now appropriately being held accountable for it.

Anon 3:26…the fact that the school and police messed up, does not mean they “kidnapped” anyone, nor does it mean they committed a crime themselves. They acted on what they thought was the law, and they were incorrect. For reasons that are sometimes complex, and sometimes not so complex, it happens everyday in America. But it usually gets sorted out, as this instance will. By suggesting that the cops should be arrested for kidnapping, you sound every bit as ignorant as the people you’re criticizing. And trust me…people of your political persuasion really don’t need to sound any more ignorant than they often already do.

Daniel said...

(Although Daniel, I DON'T share the view you posted over on Arfcom, that we should get rid of the background check for buying guns altogether. In fact, I think that is an incredibly stupid idea, given that it would very obviously place guns in the hands of certain people who very obviously shouldn't have guns.)

Glad to see a fellow arfcommer here. What I said about background checks was that I believe they are an unconstituional infringement of our natural right to keep and bear arms.

Same as needing a license to carry, restrictions on NFA firearms, etc.

I'll start a new thread in the OHTF about it.

beakeer said...

WHY DID YOU CANCELL THE CARD GAME????

Anonymous said...

Oh, so now it's not simply an "absolute" right, but a "natural" right. LOL!!! What a fucking crock of maggot shit. I'd like to see Daniel or Anon 3:26 walk into any municipal police station carrying a gun and test this interesting theory of theirs that the right to "bear arms" is "absolute." What a pair of fucking morons! LOL!!!

Bobkatt said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you believe in this as I do, then you believe that the government can only take away and restrict your "natural" rights as a human being. They cannot grant you any rights. Therefore the smaller the government the freer you are to live up to your own individual potential.

The Constitution was a glorious attempt to stop or impede the institution of government from usurping those freedoms and returning to the feudal state from which the founders had just declared their independence.

Anonymous said...

You're quoting from the Declaration of Independence, you moron. The Bill of Rights is a different document. When you're able to tell the difference between the two, we'll talk.

Anonymous said...

Stevie, if those cops did not know the law and arrested that kid, they should not be in law enforcement. I believe that you have to be charged with a specific law/crime to be arrested.
You stated:
They acted on what they thought was the law, and they were incorrect.
Somebody had their freedom taken away for a period of time. I call that kidnapping. If there are laws that allow these actions, they are bad laws. The problem these days is that the cops arrest somebody because they THINK they are breaking the laws and let the DA sort it out. Then that person has to spend time and money defending himself and getting his record cleared. That does not sound fair to me.
By your reasoning, I could use that excuse every time I break a law. Ignorance is no excuse. It seems as if you believe there are two sets of rules. That if the cops think somebody is breaking the law, you can be arrested then they are excused because they did not KNOW the laws. If I go out and hold somebody against their will because I think they are breaking the law, I'll have the book thrown at me if I'm wrong. I'm sure I won't get that same consideration as those cops.
If that man did not commit a crime, he should not have been arrested.

Scottiebill said...

Anon 10:36: Bobkat correctly quoted a passage from the Declaration of Indepandence. He also correctly stated the purpose of the Constitution in his third paragraph.

That is the purpose of paragraphs - to change the focus of one part of the subject matter to another part of the same subject matter, you moron.

When you are able to understand that simple concept, probably in the far distant future, you will be able to post something rationally.

Bobkatt said...

Anon 10:36- It's obvious that you are more concerned with personal attacks rather than having a discussion, which begs the question, why are you even commenting on this blog? Scottiebill seemed to grasp the concept exactly as I intended so please explain why I am the moron.

Anonymous said...

Bobkatt -


"Anon 10:36- It's obvious that you are more concerned with personal attacks rather than having a discussion, which begs the question, why are you even commenting on this blog?"

Please, spare me the bullshit. You've been posting on this blog long enough to know that it's little more than a venue for personal attacks. Don't act so naive.

Bobkatt said...

Again, thanks for the insightful comment. I feel much more enlightened.