Police: Man with weapons cache was preparing for Armageddon

news.bostonherald.com...

Braintree chief: Slay probe into Ala. shooter aborted in ‘86
By O’Ryan Johnson
Saturday, February 13, 2010 - Updated 1m ago

The Braintree police chief said today the woman accused of gunning down three in an Alabama shooting rampage shot and killed her brother during an argument in 1986 - but no police report exists and she was never charged.

Chief Paul Frazier said Amy Bishop shot her brother in the chest, fled the house, pointed the shotgun at another car, then fled into woods.

Police found her and arrested her, but during the booking process the former police chief called and interceded, Frazier said. No investigation took place after that and the incident report was lost or discarded.

“This would never happen in this day and age,” Frazier said.

Frazier has forwarded the case to the Norfolk DA’s office for investigation.

Bishop, a University of Alabama biology professor accused of gunning down three of her colleagues during a faculty meeting Friday, had been denied tenure and only had months left teaching at the school, a university official said yesterday. Some have said Bishop, a 42-year-old with a Harvard doctorate, opened fire because of a dispute over the issue.

Developing...

This woman was from Braintree Massachusetts and im sure since her past was covered up she was a legal gun totting American.

They have now changed this article and replaced it with a new one.

Originally posted by Astyanax

The USA also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world. 2,304,115 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails in 2008. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million inmates, while having four times the population. Source

How do you plan to crack down any harder than that?

You change what constitutes a "crime," and then change what constitutes a "punishment." As it stands right now, if you get caught downloading a movie and diddling a 15 year old, you can quite possibly get a harsher punishment for the movie.

Basically, the justice system needs a complete overhaul. We put millions of people in jail for terrible reasons, we mix them in with actual evil people, and then we make the prison system a joke where gangs can secretly run everything behind the guards' backs. People go into jail for things like shoplifting, "possession," gambling, or trying to buy some "company" on a lonely night. Then they get released a few years later once they've been indoctrinated into the criminal and gangster lifestyle. Then the politicians scream about high crime rates, failing to understand that it is their own asinine laws that create so many criminals in the first place.

They keep making things illegal that shouldn't be, and more and more people are getting away with things that are actually evil because the system is broken. That's the reason why we have a high gun crime rate. It's not because some people stock up on guns when they're afraid of the government. It's because the system is broken. The United States isn't cracking down on criminals, it's cracking down on humanity.

In short, we need to get the violent people off the street permanently and come up with more appropriate ways to deal with non-violent criminals other than mixing them in with the violent ones for years at a time.

Anyways, I'm getting way off topic... let me wrap this up. The statistics concerning our country's incarceration rates don't show that our government cracks down on criminals. It simply shows that it's making criminals out of everyone, in the true fashion of a tyrannical police state. And why was it again that some people feel the need to stock up on guns? Hmm...

[edit on 13-2-2010 by mattifikation]

Originally posted by mattifikation
People go into jail for things like shoplifting, "possession," gambling, or trying to buy some "company" on a lonely night. Then they get released a few years later once they've been indoctrinated into the criminal and gangster lifestyle. Then the politicians scream about high crime rates, failing to understand that it is their own asinine laws that create so many criminals in the first place. ... The United States isn't cracking down on criminals, it's cracking down on humanity. ...

The statistics concerning our country's incarceration rates don't show that our government cracks down on criminals. It simply shows that it's making criminals out of everyone, in the true fashion of a tyrannical police state.

Amen.

I went to jail for getting a "possession" charge and then failing to appear in court. Whoever thinks this is a good thing and society was better off for it, I have news for you. While I was there I associated with no one but harder criminals and police. This accomplished two things: (1) I no longer fear or particularly respect police in the slightest since I basically had to live with them 24/7, and (2) I learned countless tips and tricks for breaking the law more effectively, even how to effectively break laws I never even considered breaking before. The criminals there were almost all much older than me and admitted they regularly participated in much harder crime than what they were actually arrested for, and got away with it all the time. And they told me how, joked about it, and seemed very proud of themselves. Nothing but listening to this kind of talk, watching football, and waiting on the next meal.

If you can imagine a place where experienced criminals basically teach younger and less experienced criminals, like a crime university, well that's exactly what you have today. The pettier the reason they'll throw someone in jail, the wider the range of population that is going to be educated in breaking more laws.


For what politicians think they are accomplishing by becoming harsher and more and more strict in punishments for crime, I agree completely, their technique here is extremely asinine and if anything they are just shooting themselves in the foot.


Something else: hard criminals never have a problem getting weapons illegally. Making gun laws more strict and taking away gun rights only really affects one group of people: law-abiding citizens trying to defend themselves, such as the guy in the OP. The criminals that attack these law-abiding citizens will always have guns, laws or no laws. They break laws regardless. They don't care. That's what they do and why they are criminals. And even when they go to jail/prison, they'll get out, and the system is such that when they DO get out, they're FAR from "rehabilitated." Or if they are "rehabilitated" it isn't in the way most of society would like to see, they are simply smarter about their crimes and have even less respect for the justice system. So when we are talking gun rights, we are talking about gun rights for people who are trying to legally defend themselves. Not taking away guns from criminals. Because that is never going to happen.

Originally posted by debunky
But in both examples you bring an army was facing of another army.

For anyone too lazy to click back a page, we are talking about Vietnam and the Cuban Revolution.

North Vietnam had an army but they were regularly beaten very severely because they tried to fight fair with the US military, and their weapons and forces were not as strong. The real worry by troops on the ground in the jungles were the guerrillas, the Viet Cong, that were also always in hiding, laying booby traps, mines, sniping, laying all kinds of nasty ambushes and always coming out of nowhere by surprise. These were basically just Vietnamese civilians who were dissatisfied with our presence and took matters into their own hands, just like Iraqi civilians today who are not a part of any organized army and yet fight back against our forces anyway. They don't go away as long as people do NOT want us in their home land.

During the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara practiced guerrilla warfare almost exclusively, with a very small and outnumbered band of guerrilla fighters that stayed hidden until they made very quick and powerful attacks on strategic locations. It goes without saying that his military campaign was extremely effective, and that he won his war.

You are also suposing that our hypothetical tyrant would shy away from killing innocents. Now, if he does not do that, and his troops do, he will have lost controll of the military (see, whoever controlls the military wins, no matter if the slaughtered civilians had a revolver, or not) Look at the revolutions in Rumania and China in the 90ies. Look at east germany. We have the whole scale of troop control in these cases, from complete government, to 50/50, to complete alliance with the populace.

It depends on the people you are occupying, why you are occupying them, their sense of personal responsibility to their freedom, etc.

Slaughtering all the citizens until there are no guerrillas left is not only asinine and inhumane, it's just asking for increasingly escalated hatred towards occupying forces and more and more people rising up to fight. It's also going to take a natural psychological toll on the soldiers doing this. Unless you don't mind wiping out an entire population of people, at which point fighting a war for occupation becomes useless unless all you want is the land... All the industries and services that make that country worth something in the first place will go with the slaughtering of its people. And it's worth repeating that the US has the most armed civilian population on Earth. If you think the Viet Cong and Che Guevara's guerrilla army did well, can you imagine the equivalent that would develop on American soil if someone attempted to occupy this country against its will in a similar fashion?

And the Outcomes:
Germany: Not a single shot fired
Rumania: Bloody, yet sucessfull once the military turned around
China: Bloody and unsucessfull, since the military didn't turn around

You originally asked for any examples of successful revolutions in the pas 100 years. Well I gave you two off the top of my head.

Is it possible?

Yes.

Is having a well-armed and freedom-conscious population necessary for this?

Yes.


Does the United States of America have both of those things?

Traditionally, yes, very much so.


The US military had the most advanced technology in the world at their disposal, the best firepower, etc., and unorganized, poorly-armed Vietnamese civilians ("Viet Cong") beat us out of nothing but determination and persistence. But that's what you get when you attack someone's home, and their home is all they have. And no offense to the Vietnamese, who fought admirably, but we Americans, when pushed to the same test of our home land being occupied, I think we may show that we are a little more gun-crazy and militarized, and we definitely have many more people. It would be very rough for any would-be occupiers.


Look at the guy in the OP. That's just one guy and look what he was packing, and look at the revolutionary organizations he belonged to. Authorities had no idea about all of this until they executed their search warrant. Think of all the others like him who have yet to be discovered, just waiting for something to start happening, then Uncle Sam or whoever else comes for them is going to get a very unpleasant surprise. I'm telling you, if you think our Revolution was bad, if you think the Civil War was bad, then you wouldn't even want to see what would happen here today if our government tried to flat-out martial law us into totalitarianism or a foreign body such as the UN tried to occupy us. The question in my mind isn't whether or not we can successfully defend ourselves against any occupier. The question is, how in the hell can any occupying force expect to last here?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by mattifikation

i agree with you that too many Americans are shunted off to jail for crimes and misdemeanours that are better dealt with in other ways. The reason this happens is because politicians know it wins votes from law-and-order conservatives, a group which largely overlaps the happiness-is-a-warm-gun constituency. You try to change the set of gaolable offences to a more sensible one and they start squealing. They, like you, want more cracking down, not less. And look what it's got them. Look what it's got you.

Why not look around the world and take a lesson from countries, more peaceful but as free in their way as America, where guns are properly controlled?

I mean, for heaven's sake. Guns. Guns. Devices specifically made for killing. Whether a gun is used for offence or defence, the result is the same: someone is injured, maimed or dies. Such things are necessary at times, but that doesn't stop them from being loathsome. They even look hideous; yet some people seem to be in love with them. That's revolting, you know. Childish, barbaric, phallocentric, murderous and--yes, despite your objections to my saying so--mad.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Whether a gun is used for offence or defence, the result is the same: someone is injured, maimed or dies. Such things are necessary at times, but that doesn't stop them from being loathsome.

I would be careful saying such a thing, because when it's a criminal that's broken into your house, jabbed a gun into you, and starts making demands and threats, and can obviously kill you, a gun of your own would be more akin to a best friend than anything loathsome, given you want the security of knowing you will survive the ordeal. And it's exactly these situations that call for responsible Americans to be armed and able to defend themselves, and I know people personally who have had to defend themselves and their families like this, and I wouldn't want to imagine what might have happened if these people were not armed in their own homes.

In Britain, you can't have guns, and if a criminal breaks into your house with one then you are automatically screwed. Unless you have the balls to attack the guy with a blunt object or otherwise risk being shot, it's already over as soon as the guy decides to break in and is wielding. You'll do whatever he tells you and he might still kill you anyway. That must be like hell for people who have to go through that, defenseless.

reply to post by bsbray11


This is just one sole fringe loony with a supply of weapons & ammo in case the worst happens - I'd even suggest he was hoping the SHTF so he had an excuse to use his arsenal. Must be just the tip of the iceberg considering the shortage of weapons & ammo reported here for some time now and I'd worry that some of these 'apocalypse advocates' will get sick of waiting for it to happen and set about starting something just for the 'fun' of it. Won't be much fun for the innocents losing their lives simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time though.

Things like this make me glad that the USA is about 19000km from me.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Why not look around the world and take a lesson from countries, more peaceful but as free in their way as America, where guns are properly controlled?

Because when I look around, for every U.K. or France I also see a China or a Mexico. If I'm going to gamble, I'm going to roll with loaded dice.

Because I don't think living in a socialist nanny state is a fair trade off just to get rid of "guns," which by themselves are nothing more than objects.

Because there simply is no country on Earth "as free in their way as America, where guns are properly controlled."

Because for every criminal in America who would use a gun against me if he had the chance, there are probably 10 armed citizens who would protect me.

Were Im from the local newspaper showed a story in the local town were they raided a guys home and found a replica handgun....I mean those guns are used like real guns, very scary.... apparently?
So basically there getting people for buying pellet guns, thats how bad its gotten.
Kids use to play with toy dart guns....what the hell is happening?
When I replied to the news agency and told them this isnt news...
the next day the online article read, how those guns are turning up everywhere and police are scared.
Hmmmm....
Lets face it guns are going to be scarce soon.
Im in the center of Canada for reference.

www.amazon.com...=cm_cd_et_pdp

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Remarkable performance from cordless tool, October 22, 2007
Among many other tasks cutting stainless steel and various grades of aluminum stock, my current project includes cutting massive 5/8" thick solid plates of cast aluminum, each over four feet long and weighing in at over 100 lbs each. These plates must be cut to exact specs, then the final dimension achieved by trimming to +/- 1/164th inch tolerance for the whole length of the cut. I originally purchased this Makita saw for general cutting of lighter aluminum stock and, on lark, tried it on these big aluminum plates. This very demanding cutting task seemed, on the face of, absurd to consider trying with a cordless handtool given the sheer amount of metal to cut, its thickness, binding potential, and the need for accuracy. Though my saw had seen much other use (so the blade was not razor sharp), I was absolutely amazed that tiny little saw aggressively cut through these big aluminum plates as if they were made of brie cheese. I cut at a moderate rate, running the saw edge along a straight edge guide, such that it took me about 3-5 minutes to cleanly and accurately slice off a full length aluminum "plank" from one of the aluminum plates. This extremely demanding task required installing a freshly charged 3.0 Amp battery just before the cut was complete. The cut was so clean and straight that it looked almost as if it had been milled, with virtually no significant irregularities. My heavy-duty saw, previously serving to cut this big plates, had been completely outclassed: it was noisier, took three times longer due to binding and sticking of the blade, was exhausting to use, made four times as much metal chip waste, and could not duplicate the near-perfection of the cut achieved by the Makita. It has now been set aside, replaced by the "new guy" (the Makita BCS550). I have continued using the Makita cordless for my work on these aluminum plates (in addition to other far less demanding tasks). I also got rid of my wood circular saw that I use cut plastic plate material, plywood and other wood stock, since the metal-cutting saw really doesn't really care what cuts, within the hardness limits of the blade installed. The stock blade works great for everything, so I picked up a spare to have on hand. Do not hesitate to buy this saw for fast, efficient, convenient (cordless) cutting of stock, whatever that stock may be.I use it in conjunction with a 14" dry-cut metal-cutting cut-off saw, which is perfect for cutting things off squarely and precisely to length.

This is a review Gregory Girard did about a cordless saw cutting 5/8" thick solid plates of cast aluminum. My question is what could 5/8" thick aluminum be for? Doesn't seem like it would be good for his gun range or even for plates for his bullet proof vest.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd worry that some of these 'apocalypse advocates' will get sick of waiting for it to happen and set about starting something just for the 'fun' of it. Won't be much fun for the innocents losing their lives simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time though.

Yeah, I don't really see these guys blowing their cover by deciding to go out and start shooting random civilians.

That doesn't even remotely conform with the reasons these people are stocking up on guns, ammo and other supplies. They aren't serial killers.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would be careful saying such a thing, because when it's a criminal that's broken into your house, jabbed a gun into you, and starts making demands and threats, and can obviously kill you, a gun of your own would be more akin to a best friend than anything loathsome, given you want the security of knowing you will survive the ordeal.

Mattifikation already made this point. I have had plenty of guns pointed at me in my lifetime, believe it or not. Your assumption that I am such a coward as to renege on my convictions in such an extremity reflects badly on you; it suggests that you might do the same yourself. I would not; I would no more be be a killer than be killed.

And it's exactly these situations that call for responsible Americans to be armed and able to defend themselves, and I know people personally who have had to defend themselves and their families like this, and I wouldn't want to imagine what might have happened if these people were not armed in their own homes.

This is just the tired old lie, 'if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns' less pithily rephrased. Actually, if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws and officers of the law would have guns. Which is just as it should be.

[edit on 15/2/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your assumption that I am such a coward as to renege on my convictions in such an extremity reflects badly on you; it suggests that you might do the same yourself.

I have made it pretty clear I would kill in self-defense, so no, I wouldn't be turning back on my convictions, I would just be executing them.

I would not; I would no more be be a killer than be killed.

Too bad you can't say you would always survive such a situation, especially if someone had broken into your home already. It's definitely possible you could be shot and killed defenselessly. It's not an uncommon thing to hear about.

This is just the tired old lie, 'if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns' less pithily rephrased.

That's not an "old lie." I know lots of people who have illegal guns already. Whether they be unregistered, or flat-out illegal to possess at all. It's no different than the drug trade or anything else "underground."

Actually, if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws and officers of the law would have guns. Which is just as it should be.

Nope. You're not American, are you? I hope not. We have a 2nd amendment in what we call our "Bill of Rights" that protects the possession of firearms. I'm going to have to side with our founding fathers when I say every citizen has the right to bear arms, and that should NEVER be infringed upon. I hope you realize this is something people WILL fight and die for if it comes to it. Ie the NRA, "From my cold dead hands." Same sentiment here buddy and trust me you are more than welcome to go on a personal crusade against firearms in the US, and see how well that goes for you. Times may change but the reason they had for making this amendment (so people could not be overpowered by a totalitarian government) is more relevant today than it has been in decades, if not over a century.

reply to post by Astyanax


BSBRAY11 is correct when he states that the 2nd ammendment is part of our constitution, And I will be presumptuous enough to say that most people world wide that are familliar with the US. constitution know about it..

With that being said, I believe it should be somewhat evident that because of the history of the US. "guns" are a part of our "culture", And although(or maybe because) the USA. is only a bit over 230 years old, and it was founded in violence.

Compared to the rest of the worlds nations, "Americans" are still not very far removed from the original "settlers" and alot of thier Ideologies. (generally speaking)

The USA. was not so much "settled" by the point of a sword, as it was "conquered and established" at the end of a gun..

It seems to me, that quite a few "Europeans" consider "Americans" as a bunch of uncivillized barbarians, and have, going back as far as the original "Brittish Colonies"

That opinion, I have no problem with, and I will admit that there may be some truth to that perception.. I do believe though, that if "Americans" were not "uncivillized Barbarians" we would still be "Brittish subjects"

How old is Great Britian?? and what was its populace like when it was 230 years old?.. I know different times and such..
But my point is, The USA. is very young..

Yet, with all the above being said, I am not for "gun control" (again generally speaking) I still believe that one of the greatest freedoms, as well as one of the greatest acts of an "open fair" government, is its willingness to allow its citizens to be "armed"

I know the US. government is not exactly "open and fair" (not the point) so please don't harp on that statement..

my point is, that there are "cultural" differences between the US. and other older nations, Heck the US. is geographically large enough that there is quite a bit of "cultural" differences within the US.

As far as guns having only one purpous "killing" well, ultimately I must agree with you.. just as a sword, mace etc. any other "weapon"
Although all the above may be used for other endeavors, the end reason of thier design is for "killing"be it human or animal.

In regards to outlawing all guns, with the exception for law officers and the military, in the US. I will say that at this point in time, I do not believe it is feasable, and what may work and be good for other countries does not always mean that it will be viable for the US.(vauge statement for the sake of brevity)

As far as guns being ugly and disgusting, that sir, is a personal opinion.. and one that I will not argue with you. But I will give you mine, I find some guns, (especially antiques) very beautiful, in design and craftsmanship, some modern fire arms I find very interesting in a mechanical point of view.

As for the story in the OP. that man probably (in my opinion only) is a bit "unbalanced" and is possibly a "danger" (I fully accept that I may be completely wrong)

Yet what the "big" story was, is how many firearms, and ammo he had.. To me (as has been stated before) all that hype, was just "scare tactics"
it is also a good example of the differing cultures in the US. For I doubt that in "Texas" for example they would have harped about that small ammount of guns or ammo...(comparitively speaking)



[edit on 15-2-2010 by SideWynder]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by SideWynder]

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is just the tired old lie, 'if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns' less pithily rephrased. Actually, if guns were outlawed, then only outlaws and officers of the law would have guns. Which is just as it should be.

[edit on 15/2/10 by Astyanax]

This would be a police state. I would rather die for what I believe in than to let a police state take over.

Originally posted by SideWynder
It seems to me, that quite a few "Europeans" consider "Americans" as a bunch of uncivillized barbarians, and have, going back as far as the original "Brittish Colonies"

That opinion, I have no problem with, and I will admit that there may be some truth to that perception.. I do believe though, that if "Americans" were not "uncivillized Barbarians" we would still be "Brittish subjects"

Exactly. And I would rather be free of not only Britain but also free of the pettiness of our own government today, and so many civilians possessing firearms is one of those built-in defense mechanisms against full-out tyranny. This is exactly why our ancestors raised their guns at the British in the first place, because they didn't want any of it, either, obviously, and they were adamant enough about that to fight a war for it. And what are you going to do if you don't agree with our sentiments, when we are expressing them at gunpoint? You might as well just leave us be, which is exactly what we want...

I don't care if we're thought of as barbarians either, or uncivilized, because we have our own opinions of people in the UK and other countries, where you can't even have a knife of a certain size because your Nanny State thinks you'll hurt yourself. And as far as being civilized, what is called "Southern hospitality" is every bit as gentlemanly as what your well-to-do British "lords" are used to, if not a little less arrogant.

Yet what the "big" story was, is how many firearms, and ammo he had.. To me (as has been stated before) all that hype, was just "scare tactics"
it is also a good example of the differing cultures in the US. For I doubt that in "Texas" for example they would have harped about that small ammount of guns or ammo...(comparitively speaking)

You know, I'm really grateful that Texas is what it is, even if it does execute the handicapped and is generally very homophobic, which are both awful, at least they are still crazy for the Bill of Rights and gun ownership. I spent some time in Texas and you could stand around on your porch having a smoke and hear gunshots going off pretty regularly in various areas. I hear the occasional gunshot here in Virginia but nothing like in Texas. My friend even invited me to go skeet shooting with him, and I would have liked to, but we never really had a chance to before I had to leave.

But you're right that gun collections, rifles, shot guns, lots of ammo, are pretty damned common in the right parts of the country. I even know people who are probably as well-stocked as the guy in the OP, though for the same reason as demonstrated in the OP it's kept quiet today in times of stricter gun laws and I don't even need to know the extent of these peoples' collections. As long as they're there, plenty of them from the looks of it, you know I actually sleep a lot more soundly at night, because I can trust these people with my life. Can't say the same for Uncle Sam today unfortunately, when he's building prison camps in my back yard...

This does not surprise me, that a Boston police force could get a warrant
on such a flimsy premise. I hope this guy gets lawyered up and sues the force and city. Hope he gets a million and puts there finance in more ruin than it is. One more example of how this country is becoming one big
dictatorship, day by day. Try and find me and my collection! Good luck!

reply to post by eaglepatriot55


Maryland

Baltimore

Just think what government computers could do with the traces you leave.

CNSNews.com - Group That Alerted Media to Biblical Markings on ...
Jan 22, 2010 ... eaglepatriot55 (18 days ago). when will mainstream America realize The Nation of Islam IS the enemy of our country. ...
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60240


White House: No matter what, we're sending Gitmo prisoners back to ...
eaglepatriot55. Jan 4, 2010. If this man and his henchmen and women are not out of office next term, we may be going into the worst ten years in this ...
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White


Dixon Vows To Run City - Baltimore News, Weather, Breaking News ...
Dec 2, 2009 ... eaglepatriot55 - 12/2/2009 8:46 AM. 1 Vote. Report User. In a nation where transparency and fair government is being cried for, ...
www.abc2news.com/content/mayordixon/story/Dixon-Vows-To-Run-City/GO


Governor Releases Statement on Mayor - Baltimore News, Weather ...
Dec 2, 2009 ... eaglepatriot55 - 12/2/2009 8:35 AM. 0 Votes. Report User. Governor O'Malley, do you think the shoe should step down or not? ...
www.abc2news.com/content/mayordixon/story/Governor-Releases-Stateme


News | The Independent UK - Are planned airport scanners just a scam?
Jan 3, 2010 ... eaglepatriot55 wrote: Monday, 4 January 2010 at 01:31 pm (UTC). This problem can b e handled by using explosive sniffers that would have ...
news.independentminds.livejournal.com/5394783.html?page=3

...

And it is scary that you joined ATS just to say that.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by JBA2848]

reply to post by JBA2848


JBA2848........ You scare me..........LOL... I know everything that you have posted is free public documentation.. ( I am just not all that computer literate is all)

And I understand your point... everything that is sent out on the web, is subject to being traced and read by just about anyone...

And although we seem to have differing takes about the story in the OP. I truly would like to thank you for all of your posts in regards to the man in the story..

You have been able to put forth alot of "backround" information.. That information has influenced my perception (to a certain extent) of the man involved in the OP.

That being said, I believe it is a good example of how your "freedom of speach" can be used against you, for either "good" intents or "malicious"
Thus a "two edged sword"

Originally posted by GenRadek
Although I am not too sure about the bullet-proof vests. Are those legally to own as a civilian, or are they police/military use only?

In most states they are legal to own if you haven't been convicted of a felony and are not using it to commit a crime.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Ding! I guess everyone missed the OPENING PARAGRAPH of the story in the OP:

Gregory D. Girard, 45, was arrested Tuesday night for allegedly storing several tear gas grenades and explosive pepper ball projectiles. He was also charged with the illegal possession of four police batons.

In VA pepperballs are not illegal unless you are a felon or commiting a crime. Smoke grenades are legal except incendiary type smoke grenades. All types of batons are legal in VA, I can't speak for other states though.


As an officer I can say we have serve search warrants for things like this, they are usually because of and ECO order the subjects family obtained.


Secure