Sandra Bland

[delldude]

   

Again, according to the article posted earlier he did not follow procedure.

Are you comfortable with the idea that the police officer can do what they want based on what kind of moon the suspect or the cop is in? I'm sure as hell not ok with it. Unless the actions are a threat to the cop or others there is no reason that the cop should act on it.

I think you want it to be more complicated but you have not said how. The fact that other people are helping Bundy violate the law is irrelevant unless you are saying that majority rules. He is in clear violation of the law. He has disregarded orders from officers (both federal and local). No there were no guns blazing and that's the point. Bundy and his co-conspirators stood in the way of the officers and there were no repercussions. No one got hauled off in cuffs much less shot. Yet an unarmed woman who got pissed at cop gets arrested. Another unarmed suspect runs from the cop and gets shot in the back. A teen in a bikini gets arrested.

Im trying to figure out how that is fair. Bundy refused several lawful orders (your words) at his own peril and nothing happened. Seems there is a bit more going on here.

 
He didn't do his best to diffuse the situation was the reason for 'violating' procedures, which is arguable at best.

 

[Hackman]

Actually, yes, I can buy whatever is offered for sale

I can pass any background check, or at least have so far, includimg that Secret Clearance thing back in the Navy, so I can buy what most folks can walk into the store and buy, under the same laws.

No, I can not knowingly sell firearms to certain people.

Knowingly being the key word there


Yes, one can buy some obsolete military vehicles and aircraft that have been de-weaponized.

That is not anything like buying the weapon, and is not the point.

I do not want your guns.

I do want all of everyone's rights to receive the same attention and defense and support that is lavished on guns and the second amendment.

Where is the outrage for "law and order" violations of the 4th like sobriety checkpoints and random drug testing? Yes, I know that the conservative appointed judges have ruled that the public safety trumps the individuals' rights. Really? A citizen can be stopped, compelled to give evidence, detained and possibly arrested with out any hint of probable cause? And "conservatives" support this in the name of "law and order" and "feeling safe"?

That is just plain Orwellian.

Conservatives in general and the NRA have plum gone off the reservation from the responsible and rational positions held by their heroes and predecessors just a few years ago.

All the while, They proclaim that the mentally ill, or medicated, or stressed, or this one and that one should not have access to guns - and simultaneously oppose any sensible effective improvements in the laws that would facilitate the very thing that they say is needed.

That is just plain stupid.

I said facilitate, not acheive perfection.

That ain't happening.

Comservatives clamor for the government to "protect them", and "keep them safe" from every.damn.thing. Including "those people"

And then cry when government's' attempt to do so to do affect their little world.

That is just plain hypocritical.


I personally recognize that if we choose to have some freedoms, we will also have some risk. BFD
Live with it.
Stop being afraid of life.

I'm not.

BTW, it was Dell deflecting, and I am not a Flight Attendant. I have however known a great many of them who were very intelligent people, successful business owners, no-#### real-life War Heroes, and many other things deserving of great respect, and able to engage in a more coherent and reasoned discussion on any subject than you have ever demonstrated on this forum.

Anyway, All honest work is honorable, and deserving of respect.

Unless one is an insecure ass, and must raise himself up by tearing others down for such superficial reasons, I guess.

 
 
You stated that you can buy "whatever you want" I again as I stated over and over, you cannot. I don't what Secret Clearance you had as a Squid, I had the same in the USAF.  Big F'n deal is right. Regardless, nothing to do with gun ownership. You need to be vetted and approved for a Class 3 Federal License to "buy whatever you want". This means at "Dirt Cheap" as you call it, that sweet FN Model D .30cal lite machine gun is OFF LIMITS to Ifly2. You can't buy it today, tomorrow, or next week with stacks of 100s for even double the price. Understand that yet? I know, those are just laws and details.
 
You stated you "can't buy a tank or and F16". Wrong and right. I guess being specific and details as such isn't a concern with you.
 
"I don't want your guns" But you agree with those that do. Don't BS it, really.
 
Everyone's rights should be respected, correct. I guess your referring to gay marriage. How about the Constitution? Feel the same right?
 
So check points to keep drunks off the road and drug testing isn't a good idea? Just go ahead and let the drunks and druggies do what they want while they kill people on the road, and tell those damn republican police to get off the back of that drunk that just killed that family of four on the highway, he didn't mean it. Wow. Orwellian isn't even close, anarchy is what you want. Tell that to my friend that got hit head on by a wrong way illegal mexican drunk driver on his motorcycle going to work at 3am. He'll understand I'm sure.
 
The Federal Firearm laws already address the criminal and mental element regarding firearm purchases. Read the law, educate yourself on gun laws before you make yourself look even more stupid. As I said, guns laws are only as good as the enforcement. Which libtards like you would hate, the enforcement part.
 
To say that the Federal Government is not responsible for the safety of its citizenry is simply ludicrous.  Just disband the military and melt all the jets, heavy artillery, and aircraft carriers into scrap. Let the citizens carry our rifles and hand guns into battle when Russia, Iran, or China invade or whatever it is that they plan on doing.... just say "Well hey Mr. Putin, we don't have a military anymore, but we are gonna take on the cannons, and fighter jets with our AR15's, hold on while we organize". Very nice comrade, very nice. I assume that's what you meant by "Government Agents". Again, not sure. You didn't state FBI, ATF, CIA.
 
Tell the dead folks and the families in Boston and in the Twin Towers and the four commercial aircraft that crashed on 911 that the government is not here to protect them from terrorism. I'm sure they would listen with open ears. Don't be afraid, you decimated families affected by terrorism. BFD, live with it. That's the price we pay for freedom. Don't be afraid of life. Beyond Insane. 
 
As I said to the other nutty "Fly" girl, preparedness is not fear. If I lived in fear, then I would hang a Gun Free Zone sign on my door and lock myself inside. Not the case. The liberal is the one who is terrified, of legal open carry guns in a Wal Mart where they run out the door and leave the shopping cart for the manager. That's fear.
 
Finally, I didn't disparage all F/As, just you. I know quite a few of them also, so don't try to twist my words to fit your libtard narrative. Nice try anyway.
 
PS, did you see that the Bland family filed a lawsuit for her alleged suicide? Good luck with that.

 

[Hackman]

   

Again, according to the article posted earlier he did not follow procedure.

Are you comfortable with the idea that the police officer can do what they want based on what kind of moon the suspect or the cop is in? I'm sure as hell not ok with it. Unless the actions are a threat to the cop or others there is no reason that the cop should act on it.

I think you want it to be more complicated but you have not said how. The fact that other people are helping Bundy violate the law is irrelevant unless you are saying that majority rules. He is in clear violation of the law. He has disregarded orders from officers (both federal and local). No there were no guns blazing and that's the point. Bundy and his co-conspirators stood in the way of the officers and there were no repercussions. No one got hauled off in cuffs much less shot. Yet an unarmed woman who got pissed at cop gets arrested. Another unarmed suspect runs from the cop and gets shot in the back. A teen in a bikini gets arrested.

Im trying to figure out how that is fair. Bundy refused several lawful orders (your words) at his own peril and nothing happened. Seems there is a bit more going on here.

&nbsmp &nbmsnbc
 
The article you refer to is the lefty NY Slimes? Yeah, I don't put much credence in what they say, not objective. The officer was wrong, black lives matter ect. The standard libtard jibberish before the facts are known. Just like Obammys statement, "The police acted stupidly". Not so much.
 
No, I never said I was comfortable with the police officer "doing what they want" depending on their "moon" Your words not mine. Much like the F/As, pilots, gate agents I have had to deal with over the years. Depending on their mood and attitude, it can be a nasty experience. Give them a hard time or argue with them and you could have problems. That's how it is, like it or not. Some people don't handle authority well. Same with police officers, they are human.
 
I would say Federal Land rights and laws are somewhat more complicated that simple traffic laws. That's not how I want it, that's how it is. Your taking your chances with both if you want to fight with them. That's how it works, right or wrong.
 
The simple fact is that you don't think Bland was in the wrong and shouldn't have been arrested for her actions. I say she got arrested because she decided to be the angry black lives matter activist she was. Maybe a different police officer would have taken her crap and refusal to follow lawful orders, then let her be on her nasty way. In addition, I think in your twisted mind the police somehow killed her in her cell. That's what the Bland family thinks, and has now filed a law suit, demanding millions which I don't think they will get. A court of law will decide that.
 
This topic had been beat to death, lets see what the court decides when her criminal history comes out.

 

[Ifly2]

If I comply with the various laws I can buy what firearms are for sale

There is nothing but my not knowingly doing it to keep me from selling them to someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to buy them

The state, our government is specifically charged in the constitution with defending the state against invasion, rebellion or insurrection

It is also charged with protecting the citizens liberties

It is not charged with guaranteed each individuals personal data safety, or"the public safety". That demand came later, from people such as yourself, who demand that the state make laws and take action that make you feel safer, while eroding the liberties enumerated inn the bill of rights

Until it affects the one you care about

There is zero substantive difference between abuse of the 4th done to make you feel safer, and abuse of the second to make theater goers feel safer, yet you support one and decry the other.

That I'd what I meant by everyone's rights alkyl the time

The US can have a military without having borders of armed affects roaming the streets. The fibers provided for that too

What diff does it make if a drunk driver is Mexican?

Freedoms carry responsibilities,v and risks

Your sort of conservative values consistently support abuse of other people's freedoms to make you feel less risk, while hypocritically claiming that your own freedoms are sacred

 

[Ifly2]

BTW, I became a gun owner in 1966, still do, and would not find it onerous or a restriction of my,2nd amendment rights for guns and gun owners to be subject to roughly the same licensing and registration requirements as cars and boats and drivers.

I would make a very ugly girl

 

[KCFlyer]

I don't know, is that an invitation Quagtard? I surmised Ifly2 (A perfect F/A crew member handle) was a female F/A libtard by her posts of illogical idiocy. I'll be at the gym tonight if you want to come over an be my spotter big boy, we can work on firming up those man boobs fer ya.

 
So how come you've called ME sweetykins in pretty much every response?  

 

[Dog Wonder]

 
So how come you've called ME sweetykins in pretty much every response?  

He says that to all the guys.

 

[Kev3188]

How about supporting the 4th Amendment?

 

[Ms Tree]

&nbsmp &nbmsnbc
 
The article you refer to is the lefty NY Slimes? Yeah, I don't put much credence in what they say, not objective. The officer was wrong, black lives matter ect. The standard libtard jibberish before the facts are known. Just like Obammys statement, "The police acted stupidly". Not so much.
 
No, I never said I was comfortable with the police officer "doing what they want" depending on their "moon" Your words not mine. Much like the F/As, pilots, gate agents I have had to deal with over the years. Depending on their mood and attitude, it can be a nasty experience. Give them a hard time or argue with them and you could have problems. That's how it is, like it or not. Some people don't handle authority well. Same with police officers, they are human.w
 
I would say Federal Land rights and laws are somewhat more complicated that simple traffic laws. That's not how I want it, that's how it is. Your taking your chances with both if you want to fight with them. That's how it works, right or wrong.
 
The simple fact is that you don't think Bland was in the wrong and shouldn't have been arrested for her actions. I say she got arrested because she decided to be the angry black lives matter activist she was. Maybe a different police officer would have taken her crap and refusal to follow lawful orders, then let her be on her nasty way. In addition, I think in your twisted mind the police somehow killed her in her cell. That's what the Bland family thinks, and has now filed a law suit, demanding millions which I don't think they will get. A court of law will decide that.
 
This topic had been beat to death, lets see what the court decides when her criminal history comes out.

You are correct in that I do not think Bland should have been arrested and that the officers actions were not justified.

How you can draw a conclusion about what my opinion is regarding her death is beyond me. So far as I can recall I have not even mentioned her death in any of my posts.

Can you point to any evidence at all that supports your claim that I think she was murdered or are you using the same evidence to support this claim as you do many other claims which is to say ..... nothing.


I'll have to do some checking but I believe in court past actions are not per.issbale as evidence unless they can establish a pattern relating to this specific case. I think it's unlike that her past would be admisible. I doubt the case has legs. They can ask for an investigation but I would be surprised if the case makes it to court.

 

[eolesen]

The case probably won't even be worthy of an indictment.

 

[Ifly2]

Hackums,


There is zero substantive difference between abuse of the 4th done to make you feel safer, and abuse of the second to make theater goers feel safer, yet you support one and decry the other.

The argument you make for abridging others' 4th Amendment Rights is the Exact Same one that others use to suggest restrictions that you then call an attack on the constitution by liberals.

Hypocrite

Using "Mexican" in your previous post is a rhetorical device used to provoke a visceral response, primarily one of fear, and generate anger. Sharpton, Jackson, Wright and Trump would be soooo proud of you...

 

[Hackman]

If I comply with the various laws I can buy what firearms are for sale

There is nothing but my not knowingly doing it to keep me from selling them to someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to buy them

The state, our government is specifically charged in the constitution with defending the state against invasion, rebellion or insurrection

It is also charged with protecting the citizens liberties

It is not charged with guaranteed each individuals personal data safety, or"the public safety". That demand came later, from people such as yourself, who demand that the state make laws and take action that make you feel safer, while eroding the liberties enumerated inn the bill of rights

Until it affects the one you care about

There is zero substantive difference between abuse of the 4th done to make you feel safer, and abuse of the second to make theater goers feel safer, yet you support one and decry the other.

That I'd what I meant by everyone's rights alkyl the time

The US can have a military without having borders of armed affects roaming the streets. The fibers provided for that too

What diff does it make if a drunk driver is Mexican?

Freedoms carry responsibilities,v and risks

Your sort of conservative values consistently support abuse of other people's freedoms to make you feel less risk, while hypocritically claiming that your own freedoms are sacred

I think you need to lay off the cooking wine and Xanex bars.
 
WTF does "That I'd what I meant by everyone's alky! the time". Hiccup.....hic....
 
Yes, the drunk was an illegal mexican, don't like that do ya? Too f'n bad. My friend didn't like it either.
 
"Freedoms carry responsibilities, v and risks". Hic....hiccup
 
"The fibers provided for that too"  Uh ok....
 
Go ahead and sober up tonite....sweetykins.

 

[Hackman]

 
So how come you've called ME sweetykins in pretty much every response?  

I think of extremist frothing-at-mouth libtards I think KCFlyer, then I think of the movie Blazing Saddles....and then of dancing around in KC from the funny movie (that could never be made today because of political correctness)...hence sweetykins, sweetcheeks, sugert**s.
 
Why so sensitive sweetcheeks? 

 

[Ifly2]

Hackums, dear...


Using "Mexican" in your previous post is a rhetorical device used to provoke a visceral response, primarily one of fear, and generate anger. Sharpton, Jackson, Wright and Trump would be soooo proud of you...

It's not that I don't like it, I was just pointimg out how Sharpton-like your use of it was. Which it is. Your daddy Al would be real proud.

Some of those posts were from my phone

Is it really necessary to correct them all?

Most folks of average intelligence these days can read around those things based on context

Sorry you can't

So lets see, alkyl is all phome seems to like that substitution a lot
Can't disregard a lone extra "v"?
Fibers should be founders, and they did provide for that, also.


So you have taken a red pen to my typos

Nothing to say, of any substance, about your hypocrisy or ignorance

Just a lot of childish nit-picking

G'Nite Sweetie

Maybe you can dream of taking your big 'ol guns down to the local sobriety checkpoint and helping the officers trample all over citizens' 4th Amendment Rights and Protections.

Maybe that will make you "feel" safe.

 

[Hackman]

Hackums, dear...
Using "Mexican" in your previous post is a rhetorical device used to provoke a visceral response, primarily one of fear, and generate anger. Sharpton, Jackson, Wright and Trump would be soooo proud of you...
It's not that I don't like it, I was just pointimg out how Sharpton-like your use of it was. Which it is. Your daddy Al would be real proud.
Some of those posts were from my phone
Is it really necessary to correct them all?
Most folks of average intelligence these days can read around those things based on context
Sorry you can't
So lets see, alkyl is all phome seems to like that substitution a lot
Can't disregard a lone extra "v"?
Fibers should be founders, and they did provide for that, also.
So you have taken a red pen to my typos
Nothing to say, of any substance, about your hypocrisy or ignorance
Just a lot of childish nit-picking
G'Nite Sweetie
Maybe you can dream of taking your big 'ol guns down to the local sobriety checkpoint and helping the officers trample all over citizens' 4th Amendment Rights and Protections.
Maybe that will make you "feel" safe.

Yeah yeah, I figured most of all the dysfunctional mistakes out. You might want to read it before posting. I just wondered why there were so many mistakes in one nonsensical post sweetcheeks. You might wait until you get back from your trip so you can borrow computer at the library, or take lessons from Wonder Mutt on useless one liners by cell phone.
 
I used the word "illegal mexican" because that's what he was, the only one that gets offended is the politically correct crowd like yourself. I wish for my friends sake the drunk illegal would have been stopped by a check point beforehand, and you call that wrong. Very disturbing.
 
Shapton is the Obammy go to boy at the white house, I guess you won't be voting for Billary in '16 (if she's not in prison by then), as Al might be her race-baiter-in-chief, Wright and Jackson rif raff will assist in that. Trump just says what is mostly not politically correct, and I like that. So does many in America, he doing doing well so far. 
 
The 4th amendment doesn't provide for protections and rights if your breaking the law. As I said, sometimes people can test the limits and get away with it, and like Ms. Bland, sometimes not. It's amazing to me that you seem want anarchy. How very libtard.
 
The police have their own firearms and training, they don't need my help. I feel safe when they are around, when I have been stopped I have not had too many problems so far. However I'm not an black lives matter activist with something to prove.
 
I feel relativity safe, I have a CHL and training.