Has Michigan officially submitted to Allah?

[lostfan]

hey man, no one ever said being a true patriot doesn't come with a cost (possible radiation poisoning).

I'll just pay a neighbor to store it then. It's the American way.

[mr_genius]

Really what law is that?

 

I really doubt that if I go to the game tonight and yell:

 

"Im going to kill you Felix Hernandez"

 

Ill be arrested, but maybe I will be...

 

My guess is the prosecutor tried his best to convict this person of the most punishable offense he could, most likely just did not have the evidence to support it.

 

Although i doubt that they really went into the whole dragon/dog argument and how troublesome it is that "The Never Ending Story" has an ending.

 

A serious threat to kill someone is illegal. having an AK-47 threatening to kill people is illegal. sorry bud.

 

here is an example of someone being arrested for threatening to kill someone else.

 

http://www.witn.com/entertainment/headlines/26475659.html

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/080..._on_threat.html

Edited August 19, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

haha i love how the liberals actually defend this goof with the AK-47, claiming he has the right to run around with a machine gun threatening to kill people

 

 

 

you guys are making my day

[Balta1701]

haha i love how the liberals actually defend this goof with the AK-47, claiming he has the right to run around with a machine gun threatening to kill people

He certainly doesn't have the right to threaten to kill people with the gun, but right now he certainly has the right to own the AK-47 and possibly to carry it around places depending on the local laws. The Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago, so if you want to go and stockpile AK-47's, it's not against the law as long as you follow whatever registration rules the state you're in has set.

[Soxbadger]

I dont really feel like getting into this, but the bottom line is that most lay people do not interpret attempted murder and assault properly.

 

Words alone are not enough, there has to be action.

 

I stated that if he had just threated to kill people that was not enough.

 

You cant add into that he was wielding a AK-47, because thats not the statement I quoted. The AK-47 would be actions coupled with words.

 

Words alone are not enough.

 

(Now threats against the president are slightly different.)

[longshot7]

you say terrorist like it's a bad thing.........

[mr_genius]

He certainly doesn't have the right to threaten to kill people with the gun, but right now he certainly has the right to own the AK-47 and possibly to carry it around places depending on the local laws. The Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago, so if you want to go and stockpile AK-47's, it's not against the law as long as you follow whatever registration rules the state you're in has set.

 

oh well thats good to know, i guess i'll buy some.

 

BUT i also want to be able to use it while threatening people, freedom of speech.

 

Best Buy Employee: "Sir that plasma TV is $3000"

 

Me (holding assualt rifle): Nope. Nope. It's free.

 

f*** yea

[Soxbadger]

Well what you just posted would be armed robbery...

 

Thats an entirely different law.

 

But go ahead and try it, Ill even defend you for free.

[lostfan]

Also, please pick me up a TV while you're at it.

[mr_genius]

Well what you just posted would be armed robbery...

 

Thats an entirely different law.

 

But go ahead and try it, Ill even defend you for free.

 

sweet. if i'm found not guilty maybe i'll let you barrow my new tv for a superbowl party. impress your friends.

[Soxbadger]

Nice.

 

We just gotta play this right, Im thinking that we argue that you are a disturbed Cubs fan who was so heart broken over the Cubs 2008 collapse that you just kind of "broke down". In your state of illness you could only find solace in the idea that if you had that tv that some how the Cubs would make the playoffs and all the wrongs in the world would be righted (world hunger, children with aids, cancer whatever).

 

As long as we get a mainly cubs fan jury I think youre set.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Soxbadger

[mr_genius]

Nice.

 

We just gotta play this right, Im thinking that we argue that you are a disturbed Cubs fan who was so heart broken over the Cubs 2008 collapse that you just kind of "broke down". In your state of illness you could only find solace in the idea that if you had that tv that some how the Cubs would make the playoffs and all the wrongs in the world would be righted (world hunger, children with aids, cancer whatever).

 

As long as we get a mainly cubs fan jury I think youre set.

 

we need to keep an eye on the prosecutions witness list (aka cubs fans who know me that will try to derail my defense with eye witness testimony of me rooting for the White Sox and laughing at the Cubs)

[EvilMonkey]

He certainly doesn't have the right to threaten to kill people with the gun, but right now he certainly has the right to own the AK-47 and possibly to carry it around places depending on the local laws. The Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago, so if you want to go and stockpile AK-47's, it's not against the law as long as you follow whatever registration rules the state you're in has set.

I can assure you that there are no states where it is legal to carry around a machine gun either on your person in public, or in your car when not disassembled, in a case and/or in the trunk. Even a regular shotgun needs to be unloaded, and unreachable. Even if he had a carry permit, they are for handguns only, and usually concealed carry. Some states do allow open carry, but they are not many.

[Texsox]

From the story,

And when did I whine about guns? I have several, am in the NRA and have fired an AK-47. It is loud and has a nice kick. And he can say all the jihad stuff he wants. but coupled with the guns and resisting arrest, i can't see how he got no jail time. Tex, even in the gun-happy state of Texas, if you were driving around with a gun in the back seat and resisted arrest, you would be spending a few nights in jail.

 

There are two quotes and they seem to contradict each other.

An officer at the scene observed the AK-47 in the vehicle's backseat, and alerted her fellow officers that the Dearborn resident was armed. Zorkot was then forcibly removed from the vehicle through the driver's side door — although he initially refused to let go of the door.

 

The article claims the officers saw him sitting in his car with the engine running, when they approached, he drove off. I don;t see where he was ever out of his vehicle. If he was earlier, they would have known he was armed, instead the article states they announced he was armed.

haha i love how the liberals actually defend this goof with the AK-47, claiming he has the right to run around with a machine gun threatening to kill people

 

 

 

you guys are making my day

Genius,

And yep, it's the liberals and liberal organizations like the National Rifle Association who defend our firearm rights. We have to stop conservatives who are always trying to take them away.

[EvilMonkey]

There are two quotes and they seem to contradict each other.

 

 

The article claims the officers saw him sitting in his car with the engine running, when they approached, he drove off. I don;t see where he was ever out of his vehicle. If he was earlier, they would have known he was armed, instead the article states they announced he was armed.

 

Genius,

And yep, it's the liberals and liberal organizations like the National Rifle Association who defend our firearm rights. We have to stop conservatives who are always trying to take them away.

The cops arrived to begin for some reason, maybe because he was reported walking around the park with a gun. By the time they got there, he was in his car.

[mr_genius]

Genius,

And yep, it's the liberals and liberal organizations like the National Rifle Association who defend our firearm rights. We have to stop conservatives who are always trying to take them away.

 

I don't think the NRA would support this guy

 

I think they take an approach which is more along the lines of responsible gun ownership; not a free for all with everyone roaming around with assault rifles making threats. But I'm fairly conservative and I do disagree with gun shows being able to sell guns with no background checks, so i guess they might consider me to be an enemy of 2nd amendment rights.

[Texsox]

The cops arrived to begin for some reason, maybe because he was reported walking around the park with a gun. By the time they got there, he was in his car.

 

Perhaps, but then they would have known he was armed before seeing the AK47. I think he was well known to the police and they were looking for an opportunity.

[StrangeSox]

The feeling's mutual.

 

I understand rifles, shotguns, handguns, whatever. A f***ing AK-47? No, that I do not understand.

 

FWIW, the AK-47 he had was the same as any other hunting rifle. Semi-automatic. It just "looks more scary" to people who don't know anything about guns. It wasn't a "machine gun," as its been referred to here.

Edited August 20, 2008 by StrangeSox

[BearSox]

I don't think anyone cares that he had a gun (or rather owned a gun)... I think people do care however that this guy hates America, supports people who have/want to do very bad things to this country, was walking around a park with a loaded and very deadly assault rifle, and on top of it all resisted arrest.

 

I love it how people defend this piece of crap human being, saying he has all the rights to run around with a loaded AK-47, while supporting terrorist organizations.

[EvilMonkey]

FWIW, the AK-47 he had was the same as any other hunting rifle. Semi-automatic. It just "looks more scary" to people who don't know anything about guns. It wasn't a "machine gun," as its been referred to here.

They sound scary as well. Very loud and intimidating. As for it being a semi-automatic, just remember that the press generally doesn't know beans about guns. It could be a shotgun and they would call it a semi-automatic.

[Texsox]

I don't think anyone cares that he had a gun (or rather owned a gun)... I think people do care however that this guy hates America, supports people who have/want to do very bad things to this country, was walking around a park with a loaded and very deadly assault rifle, and on top of it all resisted arrest.

 

I love it how people defend this piece of crap human being, saying he has all the rights to run around with a loaded AK-47, while supporting terrorist organizations.

 

I love the Constitution, and there doesn't seem to be an asterisks on the Bill of Rights. The AK 47 is no more deadly a rifle as any other semi-automatic. You have to pull the trigger each time you want to discharge the weapon. Same as a innocent looking Remington. The article is unclear that he was ever observed holding the rifle. They say they saw it in the backseat and *then* knew he was armed. Based on that interpretation, it doesn't seem as if he was walking around. But I respect those that read the article and believe he was.

 

I also support the right to free speech. There are ways of supporting terrorism that are legal. Sad, but true. Once we start restricting anti-government speech, we also restrict the "good stuff" we agree with. Dangerous territory.

 

To be accurate, I support our Constitution, our right to arms and our right to free speech. The end result may be someone I do not agree with is using those rights. But that is a far different reality then saying anyone here is supporting this guy.

[EvilMonkey]

I love the Constitution, and there doesn't seem to be an asterisks on the Bill of Rights. The AK 47 is no more deadly a rifle as any other semi-automatic. You have to pull the trigger each time you want to discharge the weapon. Same as a innocent looking Remington. The article is unclear that he was ever observed holding the rifle. They say they saw it in the backseat and *then* knew he was armed. Based on that interpretation, it doesn't seem as if he was walking around. But I respect those that read the article and believe he was.

 

I also support the right to free speech. There are ways of supporting terrorism that are legal. Sad, but true. Once we start restricting anti-government speech, we also restrict the "good stuff" we agree with. Dangerous territory.

 

To be accurate, I support our Constitution, our right to arms and our right to free speech. The end result may be someone I do not agree with is using those rights. But that is a far different reality then saying anyone here is supporting this guy.

So do you think he should have served jail time, or was probation appropriate? As I stated earlier, just the resisting arrest should have warrented jail time. The rest would just be mitigating factors into making it longer. Felony arms possession is also jail time (which it said he was charged with). In gun-friendly Texas, if you were pulled over with an AK-47 in your backseat and resisted arrest, would you be out of jail?

[Soxbadger]

My guess is that the facts in the case file are not the same as the facts in the article.

 

Without actually seeing the testimony and evidence used at trial its really hard to guess what type of sentence he should have received.

[StrangeSox]

I love it how people defend this piece of crap human being, saying he has all the rights to run around with a loaded AK-47, while supporting terrorist organizations.

 

He doesn't have the right to support terrorist organizations financially, but he does have the right to support them through his words and own an AK-47. We cannot give the government the power to limit who can and can't bear arms based on political or religious ideology.

 

As Soxbadger said, there's probably some information missing from the article that appeared in the court case. It does sound like he was up to no good, but what were they able to prove? Is this sentence out of line with other people charged with similar crimes?

Edited August 20, 2008 by StrangeSox

[BearSox]

He doesn't have the right to support terrorist organizations financially, but he does have the right to support them through his words and own an AK-47. We cannot give the government the power to limit who can and can't bear arms based on political or religious ideology.

 

As Soxbadger said, there's probably some information missing from the article that appeared in the court case. It does sound like he was up to no good, but what were they able to prove? Is this sentence out of line with other people charged with similar crimes?

I don't give a s*** if he owns an AK-47. I give a s*** that he's walking around public places with it fully loaded, and stores it in the back seat of his car.

 

I also give a s*** that he fully admits and admires terrorists and terrorist organizations. I don't care if you fund them or not, anybody who does support them should be hung for treason.