It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by macman
Ok then.
It is not how Immaculated presented it.
He did follow the Federal Law and Guidelines.
He did, however break the local law.
OK then, I know all that.
I did not say # about federal laws in any of my posts.
I did not latch on to Immac's version of the story for one post.
I did however, acknowledge this dirty scumbag broke the law and got busted.
So you posted this because....?
Crushing on me? If you want to talk to me that badly, do not do this to do it. It makes one of us look stupid.edit on 16-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MikeNice81
In other words NYC feels that their law superceeds federal law that protects the constitutional rights of citizens.
"In almost every other state in the nation, he would not have been arrested,"
"The City of New York is known for prosecuting legal and lawful gun owners and not prosecuting the 'bad guys' with guns,"
newyork.ibtimes.com...
Originally posted by macman
So he is a dirty scumbag because he broke a local law, that as a whole, is unique to the locality?
Ok, then. I guess all those OWS'ers are dirty scumbags as well, when using your logic.
Further, never said one was a justification of the other.
The facts have been not been presented by the OP correctly.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by macman
So he is a dirty scumbag because he broke a local law, that as a whole, is unique to the locality?
No, that is the "logic" I am reading from reading posts about OWS on here from people like you.
Ok, then. I guess all those OWS'ers are dirty scumbags as well, when using your logic.
Cart before the horse, my friend.
Further, never said one was a justification of the other.
The facts have been not been presented by the OP correctly.
Further, never said you did.
The facts have been correctly represented by every one of MY posts.
Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
I love when people don't read....
He didn't break the law.. It was in a locked safe to be transported as a checked bag which is perfectly legal.
You are allowed to transport a firearm that you legally own on an airplane as long is it is a checked bag in the cargo compartment where it would be inaccessible during flight..
They think a city ordinance (not state law btw) supersedes federal mandate.. Do you?
You seem to be talking yourself blue in the face but at the end of the day this man followed proper procedure and was well within his rights.edit on 16-12-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
The facts have been correctly represented by every one of MY posts.
Originally posted by DaMod
He didn't break the law.. It was in a locked safe to be transported as a checked bag which is perfectly legal
Originally posted by Alxandro
What was he thinking?
Originally posted by yourboycal2
". But why would you carry a gun on an airplane and possibly endanger the lives of all on board if a hijacked scene came to play. Althought if a hijack did occur he would be locked and loaded .
But for the safety of the passengers and people on ground , GUN IS A BAD IDEA on a plane.
As for the guy i don't think he is that bad.
Originally posted by BadNinja68
Sounds like the guy got buried in the red tape surrounding gun restrictions, and the media along with the TSA are making a huge deal out of it.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a moron
I mean, that act alone should make it abundantly clear that you should vote the exact opposite of whatever that clown says
Originally posted by macman
Originally posted by MrXYZ
What a moron
I mean, that act alone should make it abundantly clear that you should vote the exact opposite of whatever that clown says
Moron for not knowing the laws for the City of New York, as he is inside the airport?
No more moronic then anyone else that has broken laws of this nature.
No more moronic then the people that vote other moronic politicians in that have broken the law.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by MrXYZ
Oh here we go. Another Anti chiming in.
Not to mention a Foreigner Anti chiming in about what is and what is not used for self defense.
Sure sure. Ok.
And further, it states 19 cartridges of ammo, 19 rounds.
But, I guess you knew that.edit on 16-12-2011 by macman because: Spelling.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The selfe defence excuse is moronic either way. And I'm not sure where the problem is, he BROKE THE LAW. You might not like that law, but it is the law. I don't like that I get fined for taking a piss in the park on my way home if I can't hold it in any longer, but it is the law...and if the law states no guns on planes without a license, he should stick with that.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I don't care who you are, no guns on planes. And just because it's checked in doesn't mean you can't get to it. We have a choice of either having planes with everyone armed, or none armed at all. I vote for option 2...mostly because if option 1 wins, there's always a remote chance some Virginia Tech like psycho gets on a plane with a chance to access a gun.edit on 16-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Oh well, don't even think you will address the mag vs. round discrepancy.
A little Mexican lady walked into my room, and I stepped out behind her and asked what she was doing. The sight of me, naked, with a gun, freaked her out and she started apologizing. Apparently she was sneaking into uninhabited rooms and sleeping at night before her maid shift in the morning, and she thought my room was empty. I didn't shoot her, I didn't even tell her boss, but the fact is, I'm glad I had my gun!!!