Gun owner sues mccarthy

[bossy22]

By PHILIP MESSING
An outspoken Long Island gun owner's home was raided by Nassau County detectives, who seized two dozen weapons he lawfully owns just one day after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's office made a 911 call about him.

Freeport resident Gabriel Razzano claims he was targeted in the spring raid for his "unpopular" political beliefs.

He's now filed a $5 million federal lawsuit against the Nassau PD and McCarthy, charging they joined forces to strip him of his guns unconstitutionally.


The case pits Razzano against McCarthy, the most outspoken gun-control advocate in Congress. A crazed gunman murdered her husband in the infamous 1993 Long Island Rail Road Massacre.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008/news/regionalnews/gun_seizure_lawsuit_120836.htm

[defendandprotect]

1. Maybe we should have lawsuits against the Supreme Court Justices who made the

"arms for everyone" decision . . ???

[bossy22]

5. which surpeme court would that be?

i dont know of any supreme court in the present or past that has ruled the second amendment meant "arms for everyone"

[defendandprotect]

30. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.<1> Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,<2> since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them.<3> In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

165. are you funny on purpose, or just by accident?

Iggnorant. Hahahaha!



Felons can not buy firearms. 2nd Amendment doesnt grant criminals the right to buy guns.

Really? Sez who?


Tell me where the 2nd amendemnt gives the right for these people to buy firearms and then all argree with out blanket statement that the 2nd amedment give "arms to everybody".

Nah. You tell us where it says they DON'T have that right. 'K?

Nobody has succeeded yet. Perhaps you'll be my lucky number.

[benEzra]

17. The decision protected NFA Title 1 civilian arms for mentally competent adults with clean records.

Hardly an "arms for everyone" decision. The prohibition on ownership by felons and the mentally incompetent was specifically upheld by the Court.

[defendandprotect]

35. If you are supporting the second amendment as "individual" rights, then you're

supporting ALL of it ---


"the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" . . . nary a gun mentioned there --- !!!


And obviously the individual right is based upon ignoring the opening clause . . .

i.e., "a well redulated militia."


Evidently, the Supremes can not only take away a clause while denying it ---

but they can say that "arms" means a gun ---

[Thortin]

40. You really need to slow down

Arms in those days meant guns.

The militia as you pointed out in a previous post was intended for all citizens (of good standing) to participate in. And stop a run amuck government if necessary. The SCOUS did not expand anything as you imply nor did they ignore anything as you state.

[tburnsten]

42. And it still means guns

And it will continue to mean guns, so long as guns are not only the preeminent individual weapon but also a remotely effective individual weapon. Originally "arms" tended to mean not only individual but also crew served weapons like cannon, but we have sort of eased back to just individual weapons now.

[Thortin]

43. Not to derail the thread

but I thought Arm=guns and Ordinance=Canon (old time usage)

Did I make a mistake here?

[tburnsten]

45. No you're right on

Except cannon would be spelled ordnance. Minor.

I was just saying that in the late 18th and 19th centuries private citizens keeping current ordnance was perfectly normal, whereas now private citizens arms are definitely limited to strict individual weapons.

[Thortin]

48. Thanks

Thanks for the head up on the spelling too.

Its that damned phonics thing :|

[tburnsten]

49. You're having a rough one!

Just with spelling though, whatever.

[Thortin]

53. Spelling

Spelling has always been a problem as I wasn't taught the rules of English but was to taught to spell phoneticly. Thats how the state was teaching back then, using phonics. Created a generation of kids who were poor spellers but had good reading comprehension. I would have rather learned that way than using the whole language approach, which creates good spellers but low reading comprehension.

I have just learned to deal with the spelling errors :D

[tburnsten]

54. Yeah, comprehension matters most

The occasional "hilly" or "ordinance" is nothing big, the fact that you don't need to have things shoved down your throat to understand them is.

[Thortin]

56. LOL Hilly was a typo :D n/t

[tburnsten]

58. It was hilarious! N?T

[iverglas]

60. uh huh

"Hilly" (capitalized, no less) is a typo of "highly". Yeah.

Whatever.


Oh, just to add, since I see you're blaming phonics -- "hilly" and "highly" are not phonetically similar.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Um.

Phonics didn't hurt me any. :shrug:

I'm also unsure how it could lead you away from 'programming', 'phonetically', 'don't', and spaces after periods.

But I am, of course, an ass about grammar and spelling. There's a 'check spelling' button down there on the left you can use to catch most of your errors. Highly/hilly would not be caught of course, since both are english words.

[Thortin]

97. There are always exceptions

Phonics didn't hurt me any.

There are always exceptions. I can only speak for the effects in the state of California and the studies conducted within said state. Each state has (or used to) have its own educational program.
As I stated before, I received no rules of English and was taught to spell phonetically.

If you have any information to refute what I wrote I would like to hear it.

I'm also unsure how it could lead you away from 'programming', 'phonetically', 'don't', and spaces after periods.


So I'm a bad typist and speller. I think I had already admitted that

But I am, of course, an ass about grammar and spelling.

I noticed

I had a teacher once who would catch every little error in grammar and spelling. What was funny was that he didn't know what I wrote.

I am more worried about content.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. I see.

If you were English as a second language or something, I tend to have a lot more patience. I assume not since you squarely blame California. Let me see if I can illustrate what that sort of posting is like to me. You know when you are talking to someone face to face, and they are the kind of person that flings spittle everywhere as they talk? When you post in a forum that actually has a tool to give you a good college try at getting a word spelled correctly, and you refuse to use it, it's like you're spitting at me in text.

Hope this helps.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. You might give the Chicago Manual of Style a try.

I used single quotes as a paraphrase, because I refused to mangle the words as you did. Using double quotes would have been incorrect, as I was not actually quoting you, I was correcting you. Your college computer lab source is weak. I can think of several uses for single quotes that your source is unaware of, such as a quote within a quote. For a specific example, a book title within a quote. Within technical writing, single quotes, while also used for other purposes, denote a paraphrase. As an aside, your overuse of line breaks is quite disturbing.

In any case, your previous posts were dripping with condescension, so I feel very little call to be polite, as you might see in a post above. If you look at the time stamp, apparently I am an "astute person" as well, since I asked your profession. An unexpected compliment. Thank you.

[Thortin]

112. oops

Moved

[Thortin]

113. It did mention quotes within a quote

I used single quotes as a paraphrase, because I refused to mangle the words as you did.

Mangle them, it's the proper method when you quote someone.

Using double quotes would have been incorrect, as I was not actually quoting you, I was correcting you.

Yeah, and that's when you use {sic} not single quotes.

Your college computer lab source is weak.

Possibly. I dont't revel in nitpicking English rules


I can think of several uses for single quotes that your source is unaware of, such as a quote within a quote. For a specific example, a book title within a quote. Within technical writing, single quotes, while also used for other purposes, denote a paraphrase.

My source mentioned quotes within quotes. I did not mention praphrasing.


As an aside, your overuse of line breaks is quite disturbing.

I'm not writing to please you

In any case, your previous posts were dripping with condescension, so I feel very little call to be polite, as you might see in a post above.

I don't see how they "dripped with condensation."

As a matter of fact, I went out of my way to explain the differnces of learning using Phonics .vs Whole Language. Given that she doen't even understand the two differnt learning concepts.

An unexpected compliment. Thank you.
Don't mention it

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thortin]

116. It did. That's how I have always seen it used. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Well, it might make more sense if you read that

thinking insulting, rather than moist.

But I refuse to believe you aren't actually hamming it up at this point.

[Thortin]

119. Not Hamming

Doing about 4 things at once

Called busy

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Thought I might read upstream a bit in this thread,

and re-visit some points you made here, in case you were wondering why I singled you out. If I recall correctly, Iverglas is some sort of lawyer. It doesn't really make any sense to get all snooty with her over object oriented programming. Some may specialize in it for patent, copyright, and intellectual property law, but I would guess the vast majority of lawyers in the US or Canada, do not take programming courses. A random personal jab like that is pretty pissweak if you don't actually know the person.

Now for your 'CAT' example. Sound it out indeed. The letter 'c' is pronounced like 'see'. So if in California they used Phonetic rules only, why don't any Californians I know pronounce 'cat' like 'sat'? Answer? They never did 100% Phonetic-only language classes. No one does, not without teaching exceptions. How else can I know this? Here in Washington State, not so long ago, we used California standardized testing, and textbooks. Also, the possibility you learned K-12 language arts, plus used textbooks for all your other classes, and never actually read a book, discovering all these 'new' words you didn't know, defies belief. You should be able to infer proper spelling, for most casual conversation, by simply reading your K-12 math, history, and science textbooks, in addition to your other classes. It's essentially unavoidable. If you were around for the school switchover to auto-correct and spell check, why did you never learn to touch-type? Why do you mistrust the built-in spellchecker of the forums?

If I may ask, what subject are you paid to enlighten people about?

[iverglas]

108. I just keep wanting to say ... again ...

that someone who learned to spell phonetically would not have spelled "highly" hilly.

Hily, maybe. Hilly, not.

(But hey. I spelled "sea" see in that thing that is going to get quoted from here to eternity. Not a typo properly so called; a brain spasm. We all have 'em.)

[Thortin]

111. Well

and re-visit some points you made here, in case you were wondering why I singled you out. If I recall correctly, Iverglas is some sort of lawyer. It doesn't really make any sense to get all snooty with her over object oriented programming. Some may specialize in it for patent, copyright, and intellectual property law, but I would guess the vast majority of lawyers in the US or Canada, do not take programming courses. A random personal jab like that is pretty pissweak if you don't actually know the person.

Considering she has on three different occasions told me to get an education I felt said comment was warranted. I was hardly as rude to her as she has been to me.

Now for your 'CAT' example. Sound it out indeed. The letter 'c' is pronounced like 'see'. So if in California they used Phonetic rules only, why don't any Californians I know pronounce 'cat' like 'sat'? Answer? They never did 100% Phonetic-only language classes.

"C" has two sounds "See" and "K". As a mater of fact they did teach using phonetics only as I received that education. Back in the early 70's. Then California changed to Whole Language in the 80' and went back to phonics in the 90''s. Today they use a combination of Phonics and Whole Language.

No one does, not without teaching exceptions.

It was standard practice to teach phonics only in the late 60's and early 70's. I still remember the "New Math".

How else can I know this? Here in Washington State, not so long ago, we used California standardized testing, and textbooks. Also, the possibility you learned K-12 language arts, plus used textbooks for all your other classes, and never actually read a book, discovering all these 'new' words you didn't know, defies belief.


Uh, I'm a little older than you seem to think. If you used the California standardized testing (did you use the books too?) then you had Phonics with some Whole Language mixed in.


You should be able to infer proper spelling, for most casual conversation, by simply reading your K-12 math, history, and science textbooks, in addition to your other classes. It's essentially unavoidable.

My books from K-12 are LONG gone.

If you were around for the school switchover to auto-correct and spell check, why did you never learn to touch-type?

You make incredible erroneous assumptions.
When I went to school (parochial) it was still unacceptable for people to be left handed. I learned on a MANUAL typewriter. We didn't even have electric in the school then.

Why do you mistrust the built-in spellchecker of the forums?

I didn't say I mistrusted it, I said I found it cumbersome. Two different concepts.

I am an educator in the state of California who teaches computers and business (and history when I can get the gig)

[AtheistCrusader]

114. God help the children of California.

Of course, I say that with some irony. In any case, I have a Brother Valiant model 880 sitting right here on my desk. A delightful little machine. Hard to get ribbons for it unfortunately. I find a completely manual typewriter is an exceptional workout for the fingers, and it functions when the power goes out.

My point about your other schoolbooks was not that you might have them on-hand to refer to right now, but that you were certainly exposed to volumes of correct english, even in the process of studying for your other classes. It's unavoidable. Even if your language arts teachers never taught any rule other than the q/u one you mentioned, the context of language within your other textbooks should have provided you with what you needed.

Washington State co-opted a lot of California standardized testing, and 'approved' textbooks. Plus, none of my co-workers from your State brutalize english like you have been doing here. I hope you put more effort in for your students than you do for the people in this forum. You simply cannot blame the school system for your own failings, especially with the spread of years you suggest you have had at your disposal to correct matters.

As for how the spell check could be cumbersome... Well, my imagination is failing me here.

[Thortin]

118. Thanks for the insult

My point about your other schoolbooks was not that you might have them on-hand to refer to right now, but that you were certainly exposed to volumes of correct english, even in the process of studying for your other classes. It's unavoidable. Even if your language arts teachers never taught any rule other than the q/u one you mentioned, the context of language within your other textbooks should have provided you with what you needed.

Grammar is not the issue, its spelling. I don't do spelling by osmosis

I hope you put more effort in for your students than you do for the people in this forum.

Uh, I'm typing out responses quickly, so, I would hazard a guess that I do put in JUST a little more time and effort.

You simply cannot blame the school system for your own failings, especially with the spread of years you suggest you have had at your disposal to correct matters.


I'm not blaming them. It is what is is and they taught the way they taught. I don't blame the school for my spelling any more than I blame them making me right handed when I should have been left dominant. The funny thing is that I didn't know about Phonics=bad speller until I started to become a teacher. I had a class on teaching reading at the secondary and primary levels and we did an experiment. The instructor ask all bad spellers to raise their hands. He then asked those who had some difficulty in understanding what they read sometimes to raise their hand. He then explained the Phonics .vs Whole Language and how it impacted your abilities. I STILL sound a word out when I spell it. Old habits and all that.

As for how the spell check could be cumbersome... Well, my imagination is failing me here.

Cumbersome means just that. I find spell check in word effective but again its cumbersome to cut and paste several different sections just to detect typos and spelling errors.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. I begin to think you don't read at all.

At the bottom of your reply window, there are three buttons. Check Spelling, Preview, and Post Message. If you press Check Spelling, it will in fact, check your spelling. You don't need to copy and paste anything to Word. It's right there. One click away, and you are presented with a list of possible spelling suggestions, if it finds a word that is not in the english dictionary it uses.

[Thortin]

121. Maybe I need to rephrase it

To put it simply:

I find the spell check on this site to be cumbersome. I DONT LIKE IT. I HAVE USED IT. Again, I DONT LIKE IT.

I like the spell check on word much beter but dont like the cut and past.

It's a simple concept

[AtheistCrusader]

122. I don't feel I have been enough of a bully yet tonight.

Since I do love a good derail, let’s go back to a previous statement you made.

"Created a generation of kids who were poor spellers but had good reading comprehension."

This is sort of what set me off. You are shifting blame onto the State, while making a false claim. If you had good reading comprehension, you would not mistake condensation for condescending. It is impossible to claim you have good reading comprehension, if you cannot actually understand words like this because of the 'method' in which you were taught to read.

If I type 'A is Apple', and you read 'A is Banana', that's not "good reading comprehension", that's functional illiteracy.

From an interface standpoint, I see little difference between what is built into the site, and what is built into Microsoft Word. Aside from the lack of Grammar checking on the site of course. Otherwise, they function the same.

Now, I know I’m being a dick, so as a completely friendly suggestion, if I were you, I would look into perhaps a class at a local community college or something. You are really never too old to learn. I am not kidding, or being rude. If you weren't a teacher, I wouldn't even suggest this. If you put some effort into it, and use some resources available to you, you can make this a non-issue. I'm 30, and I'm just now starting on my first second language. It's going to be a lot harder for me than if I had picked it up in grade school, but I just have to apply myself. At the very least, I would suggest the built-in spell check of this site, not to avoid offending other's sensibilities when you post, but as a training tool. It's a free thing you can use to improve yourself. Isn't the internet great? I assure you, your students will notice, they will pick up on every little thing you do. Just because you don't teach Language Arts, doesn't mean the students aren't learning your habits, and skills.

I understand what you mean by the school not suiting your needs back then, and I am sympathetic. I graduated with a 1.75gpa, not because I'm stupid, but because I had exceeded the school's ability to hold my interest by the time I was done with the 6th grade. I got into a fist fight in the 12th grade with another student because no one in the class other than myself could read Shakespeare out loud, without stuttering like an idiot. I made the mistake of showing my disgust with the other students, and one thing led to another... Fortunately I'm a pretty good boxer too. Would you like to know what insurmountable obstacle we were trying to read out loud in class? Romeo and Juliet, in a 12th grade college prep Language Arts class. Romeo and freaking Juliet. As a senior in High School. We weren't even analyzing the sentence structure. Just reading it out loud. I should have been kicking the teacher’s ass for passing all those other students, and not challenging us. The only thing really left at that point for me to learn was mathematics, but the school had pretty well crushed my will to care by that point.

If you really feel the method by which you were taught to read was an injustice, please close this vicious circle. Don't let your students pick up on it. I assure you, if you interact with them in text in any way, they are.

Edit: And don't feel bad, I'm sure that within the next 24 hours, someone even more anal retentive than I am will come in here and savage all the little mistakes I made as well. Watch.

[Seenterman]

168. LOL The Anti has nothing to say!

So he just makes fun of our spelling. When one resorts to such low tactics in a debate of wits, one's opponent must assume he has run out of ammo.
Ha Ha! (Firearm pun totally intentional)

[MicaelS]

84. Well, no

It's still legal to own a muzzle-loading black-powder cannon, at least in some states, as long as you have the $$$$$. Of course, I'm sure the Usual Suspects outlaw them.

http://www.cannonltd.com/index2.html

[tburnsten]

124. I know, I had a teacher once with a howitzer

He said he brought it out to the desert and obliterated a refrigerator with it. He was a neat guy, really into all kinds of NFA items. I can't remember the caliber of his little howitzer though.

[benEzra]

55. Guns are a subset of arms...

"the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" . . . nary a gun mentioned there --- !!!

Guns are a subset of "arms" that can be kept and borne, just as newspapers are a subset of "the press."

I don't see newspapers mentioned in the First Amendment, but they sure as heck are protected by it.

And obviously the individual right is based upon ignoring the opening clause . . .

i.e., "a well redulated militia."

No, it's based on NOT ignoring the main clause. A well-trained militia (looked up the 18th-century usages of "well regulated") was a desired outcome of protecting the individual right to own guns---after all, a militia consisted of ordinary civilians who showed up for service with their PERSONALLY OWNED GUNS in hand---but the right protected by the 2ndA wasn't ascribed to the militia, but to "the people." The same "people" as in the other amendments of the Bill of Rights.

but they can say that "arms" means a gun ---

They can, and have, also said that "press" means newspapers, magazines, and television---which it most certainly does.

[defendandprotect]

36. Where does the Constitution say "civilian arms" . . .???

... and what a shame that the man who killed McCarthy's husband wasn't of sound mind . . .

but nonetheless had a gun -- a repeating weapon, if I remember correctly?

[Thortin]

38. A lot of weapons are "reapeating" today

He had a semi-automic pistol.

It shoots everytime you pull the trigger.

A revolver does the same thing.

[defendandprotect]

39. ....and it's what allowed him to do damage to so many on that train . . .

[Thortin]

41. He could have

Done the same damage (or maybe even more as he wouldnt have been sparying and praying) with a single action Colt. There were many unarmed and terrorized people on that train. Charles Whitman did more damage with a bolt-action rifle. Your argument doesnt hold water

[defendandprotect]

57. ....or maybe not ---

[Thortin]

75. Hardly

I already pointed out one instance where a man with a non-automatic weapon did more damage than that idiot in NY. Hell, some dimwit in Japan did more damage with his family's samurai sword than Ferguson(sp) did. Your assumptions are just that. And your assertions are contradicted by other facts. You don't get anywhere in school, business, or life in general by ignoring facts.

[defendandprotect]

98. . .. and four commercial jetliners can be simultaneously hijacked with boxcutters . . !!

However, according to you, we should be impressed that so little damage was done by Ferguson . . . ??

Afterall, he might have simply had one or two box cutters and killed everyone on the train . . . !!!

:eyes:


Meanwhile, only when forced to reload for the THIRD time was Collin Ferguson overtaken by
passengers ---

25 victims --- 6 dead

[Thortin]

99. No

However, according to you, we should be impressed that so little damage was done by Ferguson . . . ??

Lets keep the discussion on track. I know this may be difficult for you but we shall try.
The arms you are railing against are no better or no worse than the man using them. As I pointed out before, much more damage has been done using weapons other than guns. You yourself brought up one. It's a simple fact. You can sit there are sling your ad absurdum's all you wish but the bottom line is that your argument is flawed, contradicted by the facts, and therefore wrong.


Meanwhile, only when forced to reload for the THIRD time was Collin Ferguson overtaken by
passengers ---

And if he had used other methods, such as a sword, those people would not have been able to get near him.
I wont even mention the sarin gas.
And you seem to dismiss Whitman.

Think about it.

Logic is a good thing

By the way, Hickok killed more men than were killed on the subway, and Hickok was using cap-and-ball pistols, of small caliber, and those guys were shooting back.

It's all about the man, not the weapon.

[defendandprotect]

109. It is about the man . . .

and you're on ignore ---

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. Lose an argument put them on ignore, mature decision.

Heaven forbid your misconceptions be challenged by a rational thought.

David

[tburnsten]

125. Why didn't they overtake him on the first or second reload?

Or during his course of fire? Would any of those times been less opportune than during his third reload?

[Seenterman]

169. And we should ban things because

some idiot does something stupid with them?

How about we ban Islam in the United States!
That would be the perfect solution to terrorism. Anyone found practicing Islam should be arrested because though 20 idiots on 9/11 crashed planes in to the World Trade Centers, and the Pentagon ruined the religion for everyone. Come on they killed 3000+ people this is for the safety of the children! Islam has killed many people through out the world it needs to stop in America!

Huh? What do you mean religious freedom is protected by the Constitution?
We need to change that the Founding Fathers could never have though of Islamic Terrorism!

Yea shred the Constitution, thats the answer to your fear and irrationality.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Would you be interested in a 20 shot repeating weapon that existed

before the 2nd Amendment was ratified? Is it so soon after the Heller decision that we start pretending modern repeating weapons were unforseen by the founding fathers?

http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm

It was fielded by the Austrian Army prior to the ratification of the 2nd, Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition, 10 years after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

To say nothing of crew served weapons that private citizens owned and carried on privately owned ships.

[benEzra]

51. The Heller decision protected arms "in common use for lawful purposes"

e.g. NFA Title 1 (civilian legal without special permission) firearms, while specifically upholding the Federal restrictions on rare NFA Title 2 restricted military weapons like machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, etc.

The most popular civilian guns since the 1860's have been repeating weapons. Repeating handguns date back at least to the 1830's, FWIW.

The man who murdered McCarthy's husband used an ordinary civilian pistol (Ruger 9mm, IIRC), nothing out of the ordinary.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I think that people who bring baseless and/or frivolous lawsuits shoud be penalized, along with

their lawyers. There should be hefty fines and perhaps some jail time. That is OUR tax money that is being wasted in the court proceedings.

[Tejas]

3. Is this a baseless frivolous lawsuit? n/t

[Real_Talk]

4. This guy seems to have a real beef.

If he didn't make any threats then why was his home invaded and his property seized?

[bossy22]

6. did you read the article?

if you did you would have realized there is some basis for his lawsuit


unless you believe the government has a right to take your property whenever they feel like it


or maybe you believe government should confiscate property you dont agree with

[bossy22]

7. protect our civil rights!!!

no unwarranted searches and seizures!!!!


....but that doesnt apply if firearms are involved

[tburnsten]

15. I agree, Bloomberg, Fenty, and Daley should be imprisoned

For wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits and clearly illegal laws.

Bloomberg especially, what with him giving direct orders to his agents to break federal laws while attempting to entrap gunstore owners in other states.

[iverglas]

8. the New York Post, eh ...

Dunno whether this is any better. But it sure seems to tell the story better.

So what might these "unpopular" political beliefs be?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-pogun225772740jul22,0,4223078.story

A member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp. is suing Nassau County to get back nine rifles and 15 handguns seized from his Freeport home by police after he made repeated visits to the office of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy to complain about what he believed to be "illegal aliens" in his neighborhood.

... Razzano began writing to McCarthy in early 2003 to complain about the "illegal aliens" in his neighborhood, and sent 15 letters over a period of several years, according to court papers.

Police seized his weapons on March 20, 2007, the lawsuit said. Aides to the congresswoman told him he did not live in her district, and that he was represented by Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), the lawsuit said.

Records show Razzano lives in King's district, but Razzano submitted in his lawsuit a certified copy of his voting records showing him registered in McCarthy's district.

Interesting chap ...


Community groups and other lawyers liked to send their crazies to me. The KGB is following you? Oral Roberts blew up your car? (I am not making this up.) You want to make a refugee claim? You need to go see iverglas. Got 'em out of their office. Unfortunately, it sometimes left my secretary alone with them, and her safety was my responsibility. She was completely authorized to call the cops if she felt unsafe.

Just like my partners did, the time a client of mine (a complete nutball and alleged associate of Jonas Savimbi ...) showed up and refused to believe I wasn't there. As they were right to do.

If a member of the Minutemen Corp. who had no business in my office had kept showing up there with complaints, you want to bet I would've called the cops.


Btw, it seems the political beliefs in question had nothing to do with firearms. Too bad, so sad.

[WWFZD]

9. The Newsday article is more informative

"Razzano said in court papers that all the handguns were licensed..."

"Det. Sgt. Anthony Repalone of the Police Department confirmed that the guns had been licensed and had been seized "based on a complaint by people in McCarthy's office."A spokesman for McCarthy, Ray Zaccaro, declined to comment."

Maybe registration does lead to confiscation?

[Real_Talk]

12. Funny thing about the post.

It is a conservative rag but is very anti gun. Sometimes politics makes for strange bedfellows don't it?

[slackmaster]

13. If anything, the Newsday version puts McCarthy in a worse light

We do have a constituational right to petition the government for redress of grievances. If she didn't like what Razzano had to say, that's too fucking bad for her. I see no lawful basis for seizure of his guns.

[tburnsten]

14. I agree, Reps are at the mercy of all in their district

If they don't want to talk to people about the issues they would like to see addressed, they can GTFO of office.

If she is short on time she can make that known without having someone's property confiscated for no particular reason. Did any of the articles even say what grounds the police had for confiscating his property?

[Thortin]

31. Interesting

Here is data that you had in post #8 "Records show Razzano lives in King's district, but Razzano submitted in his lawsuit a certified copy of his voting records showing him registered in McCarthy's district."

Do you even read what you post?
Seriously

Really? If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

You are making the assumption that Razzano threatened McCarthy. I have a feeling that no threats were made based upon... (see below)

I don't know what this individual said in his letters or in person any more than you do.

True. But we can surmise what was NOT in them by lack of certain actions. We can surmise that there were no overt threats involved as Razzano was not arrested. In this country (at least in my state, Calif) if you make overt threats (I'm going to kill you, etc.) you can be arrested and charged with a felony.

Since to the best of my knowledge Razzano hasn't been charged with anything his weapons should not have been confiscated.

But I do know the difference between petitioning a government for redress of grievances and harassment/threats, and I would not be saying that what this individual did was "too fucking bad" for the people he was petitioning/harassing/threatening until I knew what he had said and done.

It is his right as a citizen to write or visit his/her representative. If the representative doesn't like it then they need to get out.

Given the fact that Razzano was not charged with a crime the actions by the police were reprehensible

I see no people living in California. Doesn't mean there aren't any. Just means I can't see 'em.

non sequitur
FYI, all I have to do is look outside and I can verify for you that there are plenty of people in California

Are you saying there WAS NO lawful basis for seizure of his guns, or just that don't know what it was?

It appears that there was no lawful basis for the seizure of the guns.

If Razzano wasn't charged, the seizure was not legal.

There isn't really much need for you to announce that you are ignorant of something, which seems to be all you have done.


Best way to end a discussion, with a nice ad hominem attack. You seem to jump to many more conclusions than Slackmaster did.

His assessment is basically right, there doesn't seem to be any legal reason for confiscating the guns. Now mind you, the original even happened in mid-March, and here we are in late July and he still hasn't received his guns back. This smacks of abuse of police power at the behest of an elected official. Oh, by the way.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

[iverglas]

32. you appear to be speaking to me

Really? If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?
You are making the assumption that Razzano threatened McCarthy. I have a feeling that no threats were made based upon... (see below)

I MADE NO FUCKING ASSUMPTION. Grow an education, will you?


His assessment is basically right, there doesn't seem to be any legal reason for confiscating the guns.

I'm still waiting for my crystal ball. It seems to be standard issue for Guns forum posters, and I just never got mine.

[Thortin]

34. I was, I made a mistake

Hang me

I MADE NO FUCKING ASSUMPTION.

It's pretty obvious you did. Your statement being "If you made threats against your head of state..."

The link was pretty clear.

Grow an education, will you?

I have one, thank you very much, although yours seems to be lacking.

Cant even understand your own written words. (shakes head sadly).

By the way, use of profanity is hardly the mark of a highly educated person. If you want to appear to have an education, you might want to loose the cuss words.

I'm still waiting for my crystal ball. It seems to be standard issue for Guns forum posters, and I just never got mine.
I recognize you live in Canada and all, but I figure if you are going to discuss an American issue you should at least be up on SOME of laws and requirements. Simple fact of the matter is that to the best of my knowledge, Razzano has not been charged with a crime. If he has not been charged his property MUST be returned to him.




Edit:

Changed Hilly to Highly.

In reaction to the spelling and typo Nazi below

[iverglas]

44. oh dearie me

I couldn't care less what you think of my language. Fer fuck's sake.

You said:

... there doesn't seem to be any legal reason for confiscating the guns.

You appear to think you have sufficient information to make that assessment. I don't think you do.

Perhaps you could provide something to support your assertion.

Me, I'm not making any assertion. Please do try to keep that in mind.


By the way, use of profanity is hardly the mark of a Hilly educated person.

Uh, I googled "Hilly educated" and google asked me whether I might want "highly educated".

I think further comment would be superfluous here.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

145. Being able to use profanity in multiple languages...

is a possible indication of a good education. Or perhaps it's an indication of a well traveled individual.

All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity.
Gordie Howe

[iverglas]

147. câline de bine!

They didn't actually teach me to swear in French in all those many years of studying it ... I'm an autodidact. ;)

Spanish ... unable to tolerate any more of the harassment from random men in cars as I cycled around Cuba a couple of decades ago, I schooled myself in spitting. Having determined that the standard North American hand gestures meant nothing, and being as yet only vaguely familiar with the workings of the Spanish language, I asked the English teacher I was dating how to say "shove it up your ass". He looked shocked, and said "you can't say that!" so then I knew it was exactly what I did want to say.

I got as far as "your father's a dog" in Farsi.

That spitting thing ... the first time I tried it, I scored a direct hit on the man in the passenger seat of the car that wouldn't leave my side. Made a quick turn the wrong way down the one-way street my friend lived on, being fortunately close to home, and hid in her house for a couple of hours. The second time, I was stopped at what I knew to be a very very long red light on an industrial road, with a truck driver beside me kicking up a ruckus. I adopted a bored and disdainful expression, and turned my head and casually and contemptuously spat off to my side ... and hit my leg. And sat there for the two long minutes with spit trailing down my thigh, hoping I was the only one who had noticed.

Why am I regaling you with my boring tales? Well, I've been banned from the genealogy board again.

I seem to have the signal distinction of having received two suspensions at the same time, 3 days and 4 days, to be served concurrently. And had the very first locked thread ever encountered on the board, a puzzlement to everyone there. Then the thread saluting me (I've won over even the old British bores with my charming ways now) got locked too -- same rule as here, no discussing suspended members, no challenging management's decisions. And by noon GMT today a revolution was brewing, with people starting threads alluding to me with the aim of getting a lock/suspension. One out, all out! But management started ignoring or deleting instead, and it fizzled.

And why did I get banned? For posting rude horoscopes. Even though I used asterisks where appropriate, and cited the source.

VIRGO
You are the logical type and you hate disorder. Your constant nitpicking is sickening to your friends. You are cold, unemotional and often fall asleep while screwing. Virgos make either good bus drivers or pimps.


So somebody entertain me, eh?


typo, typo


btw, I'm sure I could expect similar solidarity here should management ever make the mistake of taking disciplinary action against me ...

[spin]

148. Hillarious...I suspected you had both a good education and...

were well traveled.

You gave me my good laugh for the day. I loved the spitting incidents.

I'm sure you would find sympathy and solidarity here if you were ever disciplined. Many may disagree with your views but you do make the gungeon entertaining.

[iverglas]

149. watch out

I'll start up with homemade hockey jokes again.

[iverglas]

150. here

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take?id=8835205699760878591

Guess mine.

[spin]

151. Looks like an interesting test...

but unfortunately the answers don't apply to my personality or my physical ability.

I'm a kindly older gentleman who doesn't go looking for trouble and will only resort to using violence when there is no other choice.



Never pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

an old adage sometimes attributed to John Steinbeck

[iverglas]

152. yes, but

what about *me*? ;)

(Problem is the only way to know what the various options are is usually to see what other test-takers have scored. But somebody probably scored my weapon.)

[spin]

153. And what would your weapon be? (n/t)

[iverglas]

154. that is the question!

Who can guess?

[spin]

155. How about::

If you can't convince them, confuse them.

Harry S. Truman




The pen is mightier than the sword.

Edward Bulwer-Lytton

[iverglas]

157. no, no, no, no, no

This is just me, don't you think??



Your result for The What's Your Signature Weapon Test

Desert Eagle

You preferred a weapon with 31% power over speed and 65% range over melee.

[spin]

158. Wow! I'm impressed.

I never had the opportunity to fire a Desert Eagle. I understand it's an excellent weapon.

A bit on the large size for me to use for self defense.

[iverglas]

160. well apparently

it suits my personality. Which would appear to mean it's the perfect weapon for someone who prefers to exercise that right to retreat. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJjaj7pXsA

[spin]

162. A humorous video that points out how important...

it is to train a new shooter to hold a powerful weapon firmly.

I usually start a new shooter, man or woman, with something like a .22 cal weapon, than move up to a .38. After I feel confident that they can handle the recoil of these weapons I try a .357 and eventually a .44 mag if the shooter wants the experience.

My daughter who weighs 100 pounds can fire a .44 mag revolver without problem, although she doesn't find the experience enjoyable.

To many men hand their wives or girlfriends an extremely powerful weapon just to get a good laugh. Such men are assholes.

Now the lady in this video is a lot better at handling the weapon and her boyfriend is a better instructor. I might find fault with the fact that he doesn't wear a headset for ear protection, although he might be using ear plugs. I also might criticize the fact that he is not wearing eye protection and removes his girlfriends eye protection after she shoots. And there is the fact that he allows her to have her finder on the trigger while he is showing her how the grip the weapon. Picky, picky, picky. I do, however, predict some future hearing problems for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58w2XxnK5aY&feature=related

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Man this quiz is rigged.

I wanted a simple bō and got a stinking bastard sword.

[iverglas]

161. ah, but

the quizzie was based on your true nature. ;)

[iverglas]

163. try this one

http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-forum-personality-test

and feel free to guess my result. ;)

[iverglas]

18. strange notions

We do have a constituational right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Do you actually believe that this means that you have a constitutional right to harass the staff of an elected representative who is apparently not even your own representative?

If she didn't like what Razzano had to say, that's too fucking bad for her.

Really? If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

I don't know what this individual said in his letters or in person any more than you do.

But I do know the difference between petitioning a government for redress of grievances and harassment/threats, and I would not be saying that what this individual did was "too fucking bad" for the people he was petitioning/harassing/threatening until I knew what he had said and done.

I see no lawful basis for seizure of his guns.

I see no people living in California. Doesn't mean there aren't any. Just means I can't see 'em.

Are you saying there WAS NO lawful basis for seizure of his guns, or just that don't know what it was?

There isn't really much need for you to announce that you are ignorant of something, which seems to be all you have done.

[tburnsten]

20. Strange indeed

Do you actually believe that this means that you have a constitutional right to harass the staff of an elected representative who is apparently not even your own representative?

Yet in your own post you have a statement basically saying one set of records shows him in a different district, but his certified voting records show him as being in Mrs. McCarthy's district.

Records show Razzano lives in King's district, but Razzano submitted in his lawsuit a certified copy of his voting records showing him registered in McCarthy's district.

I think you are doing your little authoritarian rain dance again. "records" is not as clear as "certified copy of voting records"

[iverglas]

27. very cute

"records" is not as clear as "certified copy of voting records"

This one is called "begging the question".

If he illegally voted in a district where he does not reside, who the fuck cares how certified the record of his voting behaviour is?


Please, please, please not that I said "if". I did not assert that he did anything. I pointed out that where he voted is of no relevance in establishing where he was ENTITLED by law to vote.



More tidbits.

Unless there are two Gabriel Razzanos involved in the Minutemen, this one plays a bit part in a movie:

http://www.crossingaz.com/other_files/pdfs/caz_presskit_110606.pdf

CROSSING ARIZONA examines the crisis through the eyes of those directly affected by it. Frustrated ranchers go out day after day to repair cut fences and pick up the trash that endangers their livestock and livelihoods. Humanitarian groups place water stations in the desert in an attempt to save lives. Political activists rally against anti-migrant ballot initiatives and try to counter
rampant fear mongering.Farmers who depend on the illegal work force face each day with the fear that they may lose their workers to a border patrol sweep. And now there are the Minutemen, an armed citizen patrol group taking border security into their own hands. As up-to-date as the nightly news, but far more in-depth, CROSSING ARIZONA reveals the surprising political stances people take when immigration and border po icy fails everyone.

In his Meetup info -- obviously submitted by himself, sometime in or after April 2007, although I will of course entertain theories that someone else submitted it w/o his knowledge -- he gives his place of residence as Lake Grove, NY. Lake Grove, NY, has this to say for itself:

http://www.lakegroveny.gov/village_directory.htm

U.S. Congressional Rep. 1 st CD- T. Bishop


McCarthy represents the 4th Congressional district:

http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/


The village of Lake Grove gives its zip code as: 11755.

Entering that zip code here:

https://forms.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep

produces:

Congressman Tim Bishop
Representing the 1st District of New York


Wot a muddle, eh?

[slackmaster]

21. The allegations of threats and distrution appear in the NY Post article, which you wrote off

The Newsday piece doesn't mention anything of the kind.

Do you actually believe that this means that you have a constitutional right to harass the staff of an elected representative who is apparently not even your own representative?

Neither article says anything about harassment.

If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

That's a Red Herring.

[iverglas]

23. damn, go back to school, will you?

If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

That's a Red Herring.


No. It isn't. It is a request that you apply your own logical process to an identical situation and tell me what the outcome is.

Person A threatens Person B.
Person B is, or works for, an elected member of the legislative and/or executive branch of government.
Person B calls the police.

?


Neither article says anything about harassment.

Forgive me. I see a pattern of behaviour engaged in by someone attemting to make someone else do something, culminating in disruptive and threatening behaviour, and my brain says "harassment". You feel free to call it what you want. We can just go with "disruptive and threatening behaviour", if you like.

[slackmaster]

24. No, we really can't go with "disruptive and threatening" becase it came from a RW source

See how that works?

[iverglas]

70. actually, it came from the police

It's in quotation marks. Know how they work?

[slackmaster]

86. Yes, I know how quotation marks work

But why would you trust the NYP to have quoted anyone accurately?

Since they are well known to be a right-wing rag, isn't everything they say automatically assumed to be misleading or false?

[iverglas]

92. why would I what now?

I'm not trusting anyone to have done anything. What's your problem here?

I AM MAKING NO ASSERTION.

I AM MAKING NO CLAIM.

What's your problem here?

[tburnsten]

25. @

Person A threatens Person B.
Person B is, or works for, an elected member of the legislative and/or executive branch of government.
Person B calls the police.

?

Except that nowhere in any article does it say he made any threats against anyone, just that the office workers "felt threatened" by his behavior. Well people felt threatened by a geek's t-shirt with Optimus Prime because he was carrying a gun built into his arm. Does that mean there was any threat, or that they were rational for feeling threatened? No.

[iverglas]

28. "felt threatened"

Can ya tell me where the words between the quotation marks there came from?

Here's an actual quotation for you -- you'll see it elsewhere in this thread, of course:

"The office staff felt that Razzano's behavior was disruptive and threatening," said Lt. Kevin Smith, a police spokesman.

You might just want to check a dictionary for the appropriate meaning of "felt" in that sentence, in case you were thinking of equivocating. I wouldn't want you to equivocate unintentionally.


In actualy fact, no one has said that anyone "felt threatened".

The person you might be wanting to quote is Rosanna Rosannadanna.

[Thortin]

37. HUH?

First you make the comparison between Razzano/McCarthy and threatening the President. You then say you made no comparison and here you say

No. It isn't. It is a request that you apply your own logical process to an identical situation and tell me what the outcome is.

Person A threatens Person B.
Person B is, or works for, an elected member of the legislative and/or executive branch of government.
Person B calls the police.


So, now you are saying Razzano threatened McCarthy again? "Identical situation" states exactly that biased on your hypothetical.
Can you please stick to one side of the street?

And you have the gall to tell me to get an education and another poster to go back to school.
I would strongly suggest that you take your own advise.

[iverglas]

47. breadcrumbs

Gawd you people are tiresome.

I replied to this statement:

If she didn't like what Razzano had to say, that's too fucking bad for her.

I wished to test the limits of the statement.

I said:

Really? If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

The point is: was the assertion that it was "too fucking bad" (dearie me, such language) for McCarthy if she didn't like what Razzano had to say intended as a statement that any member of the legislative or executive branch of government had no recourse against any person who said anything to him/her at all?

Is there a line to be drawn somewhere?

If so, WHERE IS IT?

And who here has enough information about what Razzano ACTUALLY SAID to McCarthy or her staff, or what his demeanour or behaviour was when he said it, or what context he said it in, to determine which side of that line it might fall on?

Pretty simple answer.

Nobody.


So, now you are saying Razzano threatened McCarthy again?

Will you PLEASE stop beating your poor dog?


I would strongly suggest that you take your own advise.

Yeah, if I could parse that sentence, I might try doing whatever it is you want me to do. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to write my own read, or read my own write, or any other funny combination of verbs you might want to concoct, including take my own advise.



Meanwhile, how 'bout that Razzano -- wot a racist piece of shit, eh??

[Thortin]

52. And I view you as tiresome

And who here has enough information about what Razzano ACTUALLY SAID to McCarthy or her staff, or what his demeanour or behaviour was when he said it, or what context he said it in, to determine which side of that line it might fall on?

Pretty simple answer.

So, by your own admission, you drew a false analogy. NICE

At least I have been consistent in my discussion while you on the other hand...

Will you PLEASE stop beating your poor dog?


The only thing I feel that has been getting beat around her is you. I'm not the one using by my own admission, Ad lapidem, Black-and-white fallacy, Converse accident fallacy, False analogy fallacy (what you did in the above discussion, and of course what seems to be your favorite Ad hominem.


Yeah, if I could parse that sentence, I might try doing whatever it is you want me to do. I'm afraid I haven't figured out how to write my own read, or read my own write, or any other funny combination of verbs you might want to concoct, including take my own advise.

The meaning of my sentence was clear as clear can be, to everyone other than a spelling/grammar nazi.
By the way, if you are going to criticize me for typos don't you think your typing and spelling should be above reproach????
DEMEANOR.BEHAVIOR (granted you are using the ENGLISH versions but still, if you are going to correct me while posting on a US board, be prepared to be corrected back)
You only make yourself look petty and childish when you do stuff like this.

[Tejas]

83. The NYP article made no mention of letters sent by the gunowner

So did you have a point with your red herring?

[Irreverend IX]

16. "She was completely authorized to call the cops if she felt unsafe."

If one of those "crazies" attacked her with a deadly weapon, what good do you think calling the cops would have done?

[iverglas]

19. oh, it's always about me, isn't it?

I luv my fan club.

[Irreverend IX]

76. Not interested in answering the question, I see. nt

[iverglas]

82. you could try doing this with your question

If one of those "crazies" attacked her with a deadly weapon, what good do you think calling the cops would have done?

Start a thread of your own, and then it might be relevant to the discussion in the thread.

What my secretary would or should have done if someone in my office attacked her has so hugely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion that you must hurt, having stretched the logic of discourse well past the breaking point here.

What I did do, just to satisfy your curiosity, was speak very sharply to outfits like party headquarters who were doing this, and insist that they never ever tell someone to attend at my office without telephoning for an appointment.

Do feel free to tell me what I should have done.

[tburnsten]

10. I suppose it is illegal to bother a representative

I guess she was conducting private business every time he wrote and wanted to talk? Elected officials on principal need at least some sort of open door policy, not the right to have people's property seized because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that the constituent is wasting their time. Interesting as well that the police have records showing Mr. Razzano in King's district, but that his own certified voting documentation shows him in McCarthy's district.

[JMackT]

11. This is a perfect example

Registration leads to confiscation.

[iverglas]

166. hahaha -- registration leads to confiscation, JMackT says ...

But in JMackT's case, registration led to an early death!

Let that be a lesson to Sarah Brady. Or something.



typo typo typo

[iverglas]

22. gun owner

Just a little background, offered w/o comment.

http://www.meetup.com/members/4002810/

Gabriel Razzano

Location
Lake Grove, NYUSA

Hometown
Not added yet

Meetup member since
April 6, 2007

Interests
Flat Tax, Fair Tax, American Constitution Society, Ayn Rand, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Free State Project, Constitutionalist, Right to Bear Arms, Libertarian

The somewhat relevant bit of the Post article not excerpted in the opening post is - with my emphasis:

"The office staff felt that Razzano's behavior was disruptive and threatening," said Lt. Kevin Smith, a police spokesman.

I'm betting that threats / threatening behaviour are not covered by the constitutional right of free speech or the constitutional right to petition the government, under the US constitution.


And again -- offered w/o comment:

http://www.longislandwins.com/blog/in_the_news/ill_have_guns_with_my_antiimmi.php

Razzano, an anti-immigrant activist with the Minuteman militia, is your neighbor if you live in Freeport. He is suing to get his guns, confiscated by the Nassau PD, back.

... Nine rifles and fifteen handguns were confiscated from him. Grand total-24 guns.

Getting ready for the Race War are we, Mr. Razzano?

Razzano came to the attention of the cops when he began harassing Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. He says he votes in her district. OK.

Only problem is, according to Newsday, records indicate that while he votes in her district (presumably against her), he lives in Peter King's kingdom.

You people and your bedfellows. I mean, I may not be the image of chastity, but I'm just a tad pickier, myself.

Google Gabe's name and you'll see who his are.

Damned if words like "racist" and "right-wing" don't spring to my mind when I see his name.

[slackmaster]

26. We can't tolerate things like freedom of association or expression, can we?

Damned if words like "racist" and "right-wing" don't spring to my mind when I see his name.

Those kinds of terms seem to come to your mind constantly. Now explain why someone who has views you don't like or belongs to a group you don't approve of should be deprived of his civil rights.

[iverglas]

29. okay

Now explain why someone who has views you don't like or belongs to a group you don't approve of should be deprived of his civil rights.

As soon as you explain why you're beating your dog.

[SteveM]

62. Yeah, we don't won't any of that "white-boy" stuff polluting liberal ears. (nt)

[iverglas]

63. you mean, you're dating him by choice?

I didn't say "white-boy stuff". I said racism. You appear to be saying they're the same thing.

As to what your actual point might be, I'm left without a clue once again.

[SteveM]

65. Like to forget that comment about "white boyness," wouldn't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=181151&mesg_id=181258

[iverglas]

66. hardly

You can probably find comments by me about English genealogical research here at DU -- in fact, I know you can.

And you could try to connect them to something I've said in this thread too, if you liked.

Are you going to try to connect the comments in the thread to which you refer to something I've said in this thread?

What I said in the other thread -- and this is sooooo embarrassing, a spelling error I can't fix -- was:

Surrounded by that see of white-skinned, white-haired white-boyness.

I was referring to a photograph in which the dominant presence was old white-haired white guys. Perhaps you can explain how you're seeing a connection between that photo, and my comment on it, and the racism of the individual who is the subject of this particular thread.

I doubt it. But I also doubt that this fact will deter you from persisting in your fine ad locutorem "argument".

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Irreverend IX]

77. A simple question:

Based on the information in the news articles, do you feel the New York authorities had a legally valid rationale for entering Razzano's property and seizing his firearms? If so, what do you think that rationale is?

[iverglas]

80. why would you ask me?

I don't actually give a shit, so I have not bothered to have an opinion.

Of course, the real reason I would not have an opinion, if I happened to feel like bothering to have one, is that "the information in the news articles" is so inadequate for the purpose that any opinion I bothered to have wouldn't be worth a pinch of the shit I don't give about it.

Why don't you ask me whether you look fat in those pants? My opinion would be about as worthwhile as anybody's opinion about this whole thing is.

[Tejas]

88. Not that you want to, but you just don't get

how it works in this country and probably never will.

Doesn't matter if he hates peg-legged gays or hippy-chicks that booze it up and post on message boards, either arrest him and charge him with a crime or prepare to pay the price.

[iverglas]

33. Razzano v. County of Nassau et al

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nyedce/case_no-2:2007cv03983/case_id-273571/

Just slightly old news.

Plaintiff: Gabriel Razzano
Defendant: County of Nassau, Nassau County Police Department and Carolyn McCarthy

Case Number: 2:2007cv03983
Filed: September 24, 2007

Court: New York Eastern District Court
Office: Central Islip Office < Court Info >
County: Nassau
Presiding Judge: Senior-Judge Arthur D. Spatt
Referring Judge: Magistrate-Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $100,000.00

Or that is old news maybe -- his current suit seems to be for $5 million.

Wonder what happened to that one? I don't see a record of any other.

[Real_Talk]

50. Relevence

I am sure that most cases filed in the NY fed courts would not be wrapped up in less than a year. I would not be surprised if the judge put this on the bottom end of his/her docket.The fact there is no decision less than a year later is hollow, even if the case has been dismissed does not speak to the merits.

[iverglas]

59. eh?

What's all this now?

I simply wondered whether this was the same action or a different action.

There is one in the news now. This would make one think that it is actually news, not something that happened a year ago.

The one in the news now is apparently for $5 million. The one instituted a year ago was for $100,000.

Are they the same - perhaps with an amended statement of claim? Are they different?

If they're different, it strikes me as actually somewhat relevant that the same individual had previously instituted an action against the same defendants for an identical cause of action. And I'd like to know what happened to it. That actually is somewhat relevant in considering whether a newly instituted action might be frivolous and vexatious.

[beevul]

69. It would appear...

"Are they the same - perhaps with an amended statement of claim? Are they different?"

It would appear that one suit is in federal court, and one is not. (of course I may have misunderstood however)

[iverglas]

71. not the most comprehensible tale

News report is of a seizure occurring on "March 19", the apparent implication being "of this year".

This would seem to be an incident unrelated to the action instituted in April 2007.

The inference would be that there is some history here of which we are simply not informed.


What I find entertaining is the notion, apparently held by some in this thread, and certainly held and expressed by many on the internet, that Carolyn McCarthy had this person's firearms confiscated.


What we seem to know:

A. Staff in McCarthy's office made a 911 call to report disruptive and threatening behaviour by someone in their office.
B. Local police removed firearms from that individual's home.

Do people in the US really think that local police take instructions from members of Congress?

Do we have some reason to think that McCarthy or her staff even knew that Razzano possessed firearms?

If they did know that, how/why would they have known it? Possibly because Razzano told them? And he would have done that ... why?

[beevul]

72. What we seem to know...

What we seem to know:

A. Staff in McCarthy's office made a 911 call to report disruptive and threatening behaviour by someone in their office.
B. Local police removed firearms from that individual's home.

More precisely:

What we seem to know:

A. Staff in McCarthy's office made a 911 call to report that they FELT that there was disruptive and threatening behaviour by someone in their office.

What "behavior" LEGALLY justifies confiscating someones privately owned LEGAL collection of firearms in NY? Thats the operative question.


B. Local police removed firearms from that individual's home - THE FOLLOWING DAY.

If - and I'm not saying anyone said he did - the individual in question threatened someone in the office in question, they would have raided the guy immediately.

They did not do that however.

That eliminates any discussion of whether the guy made any threats - which I am not saying you said he did. I'm simply eliminating that as a possibility.

They raided his home the following day.

So were left again with someone "felt" Razzano's behavior was "disruptive and threatening". What were NOT left with is that Razzano's behavior was "disruptive and threatening".


So once again, what grounds to seize his firearms? How exactly does due process fit into that?

"The inference would be that there is some history here of which we are simply not informed."

That is a possibility, however, the people who "felt" that behavior was "disruptive and threatening", don't seem any too interested in telling the public exactly what that history is, which does not speak well for them.

That combined with the fact that this story was buried for over a year puts this entirely into the "shady" catagory, in the minds of a reasonable people.

[iverglas]

79. whoa now

That combined with the fact that this story was buried for over a year puts this entirely into the "shady" catagory, in the minds of a reasonable people.

Buried? By whom? The individual who filed the action could have publicized it at any time.

Over a year? Are you disagreeing with my interpretation that there are two separate actions here, and that the one in question, for $5 million, is based on an incident that occurred in March of this year? This is merely my interpretation of the available information, which is completely inadequate for the purposes, I reiterate.


What we seem to know:

A. Staff in McCarthy's office made a 911 call to report that they FELT that there was disruptive and threatening behaviour by someone in their office.

How exactly would you describe a report made to police by someone regarding disruptive and threatening behaviour?

What you are quoting is nothing more than the description of what happened given by a police spokesperson. It is not a verbatim reproduction of what the staff actually said. The staff may have reported/described behaviour. The staff may then have been asked whether they felt threatened. The staff may have stated that the behaviour was disrupting their office. Who knows?? Not us. We do not know what the staff said. Period.


That is a possibility, however, the people who "felt" that behavior was "disruptive and threatening", don't seem any too interested in telling the public exactly what that history is, which does not speak well for them.

Actually, I wonder whether it speaks of the fact that the people in question are employees of someone being sued for $5 million, and are not at liberty to discuss the matter because their employer has chosen not to risk her defence being prejudiced by public discussion of her staff's decisions and actions that might end up being not quite accurate or honest, no matter what information she chose to release.


So once again, what grounds to seize his firearms? How exactly does due process fit into that?

I have no clue. Although I would find it unusual if there was no way to remove firearms from the possession of someone who had engaged in threatening behaviour.

Why doesn't somebody ask THE POLICE WHO SEIZED THEM instead of using this incident as a club against a Democratic member of Congress who was not the person who made the decision or took the action in question?

Why doesn't THE PERSON WHOSE FIREARMS WERE REMOVED put some facts about for us?

[beevul]

90. LOL

"Buried? By whom? The individual who filed the action could have publicized it at any time."

Lets just say that when an incident such as this one - the incident being the confiscation of weapons which has some direct relation to one of the most anti-gun members of congress - goes some 16 months without ever being in the press (the same press that for the most part supports that congresspersons anti-gun stance), that it becomes highly questionable as to WHY it never makes the press.

"Over a year? Are you disagreeing with my interpretation that there are two separate actions here, and that the one in question, for $5 million, is based on an incident that occurred in March of this year? This is merely my interpretation of the available information, which is completely inadequate for the purposes, I reiterate."

I'm saying that the two events YOU are talking about - both of which are lawsuits - are over the same initial incident. And that incident remains the singular incident in question - the confiscation of a mans legally owned firearm collection without due process.

Confiscating them because someone "felt" threatened due to some behavior that amounts to he said/she said just ain't good enough to me, in this case, without formal due process.


"What you are quoting is nothing more than the description of what happened given by a police spokesperson. It is not a verbatim reproduction of what the staff actually said. The staff may have reported/described behaviour. The staff may then have been asked whether they felt threatened. The staff may have stated that the behaviour was disrupting their office. Who knows?? Not us. We do not know what the staff said. Period."

Exactly, we DO NOT know. All we have to go on is that someone who apparently was not charged or arrested had his legally owned firearms confiscated. And until we are shown something that might fall under the catagory of something "we didn't know" - at least here in America, thats just not allowed. Which is why the fella apparently filed suit.


You can go on and on and speculate about things we "do not know". I'll go with what we DO know, and until the things we DO know have something new added to them that justifies the confiscation of those firearms, justifies waiting til the next day to do it rather than doing it on the day the alledged "behavior" happened, it remains unjustified.


That they waited til the next day to raid the guy is FACT. That they waited til the next day, shows that they were either completely negligent in going after somneone that was a threat, or shows that they had no urgency to go after him because he was NOT a threat. Being that this is a congress critter were talking about, its safe to say the situation was the latter.

That being the case, this is UNJUSTIFIED according to the known facts.

"Although I would find it unusual if there was no way to remove firearms from the possession of someone who had engaged in threatening behaviour."

I'd find it unusual and reprehensible if they could do so without a court ruling, which is exactly how things appear at the moment, since the lawsuit is against the congressperson and the staff and the police, rather than an appeal of a prior court ruling, and since no information about an appeal of court ruling which would be widely known about can be found.

"Why doesn't THE PERSON WHOSE FIREARMS WERE REMOVED put some facts about for us?"

The onus is not on the person who had his firearms confiscated, it is on those doing the confiscation.

"Actually, I wonder whether it speaks of the fact that the people in question are employees of someone being sued for $5 million, and are not at liberty to discuss the matter because their employer has chosen not to risk her defence being prejudiced by public discussion of her staff's decisions and actions that might end up being not quite accurate or honest, no matter what information she chose to release."

That does NOT preclude them from discussing that which is already established public record, which there would have to be if this were done "by the book". Which leads me to believe that it wasn't.

[iverglas]

93. okay, I'm bored

That does NOT preclude them from discussing that which is already established public record, which there would have to be if this were done "by the book". Which leads me to believe that it wasn't.

If you're going to insist on conflating the people who reported an incident to the police with the police who took some action, there just ain't much point.

That pretty much sums up this entire thread, actually.

[beevul]

61. Sure looks like its politically motivated to me.

Lets see...

"The office staff felt that Razzano's behavior was disruptive and threatening," said Lt. Kevin Smith, a police spokesman.

So they show up the next morning, and take the guys firearm collection.

If he HAD been threatening, why did they wait til the next day to do so?


After googling the name of the person in question, I can find no indication that charges were ever filed against Mr Razzano, nor that he was arrested.

"The flap arose on March 19, when Razzano visited McCarthy's Garden City office to discuss an article about an illegal immigrant who was deported but was later nabbed in Freeport for the attempted murder of a cop."

I have found no evidence showing the guy in question is racist, though it would appear that he has a problem with illegal immigration - particularly when an illegal immigrant who was deported comes back illegaly and attempts to murder a policeman.


It would appear that Mr Razzanos rights were violated:


4th amendment

2nd amendment

possibly first amendment

Due process, which many people seem so fond of discussing when someone shoots someone else in self defense, just doesn't seem important enough to discuss by those same people in this case.

Strange that this is now coming to light, some 16 months after it originally happened. Looks like maybe someone tried to keep this story hush hush.

[iverglas]

64. "I have found no evidence showing the guy in question is racist"

Noooo ... you refused to acknowledge the evidence in front of your eyes.

Right here in this thread, it is.

[Real_Talk]

67. I hate racists

but power tripping cops and elected officials are more dangerous to a larger group of people. If this guy wants to go sit on the border and rat out people committing a crime, so be it. I think he could save himself some airfare and find plenty of crooks in his own area. to call the authorities about.

[beevul]

68. What "evidence" are you referring to?

Do tell.

[beevul]

73. What? No answer? N/T.

[beevul]

78. Still no substantiation of your claim?

"Noooo ... you refused to acknowledge the evidence in front of your eyes.

Right here in this thread, it is.

What evidence are you referring to?

You said it, now its your job to support it.

[iverglas]

81. here's some good old Aristotelian logic for you

The Minutemen are racists.
Razzano is a Minuteman.

Now, you do the rest.

[beevul]

85. In other words, you got nothing.

Imagine that.

[Thortin]

87. LOL

You use a logical fallacy to support your argument.

Priceless

[iverglas]

91. ROFlol

That's the post of the day.

I use classic Aristotelian logic and you call it a logical fallacy.

Let us review.

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

Sound at all familiar?

[Thortin]

96. Its Also a Logical Fallacy

As you stated:


All MinuteMen are racest
Razzano is a MinuteMan
Therefor Razzano is a racist.


Formal fallacies are only found only in deductive arguments with identifiable forms. One of the things which makes them appear reasonable is the fact that they look like and mimic valid logical arguments, but are in fact invalid. Here is an example:

1. All humans are mammals. (premise)
2. All cats are mammals. (premise)
3. All humans are cats. (conclusion)

Both premises in this argument are true but the conclusion is false. The defect is a formal fallacy, and can be demonstrated by reducing the argument to its bare structure:

1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B
It does not matter what A, B and C stand for — we could replace them with "wines," "milk" and "beverages." The argument would still be invalid and for the exact same reason. As you see, it can be helpful to reduce an argument to its structure and ignore content in order to see if it is valid.


You might want to bone up on your logical fallacies

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thortin]

101. Pardon for not citing, I was in a hurry

You don't seem to grasp logical fallacies.

You assume premise A to be valid, it may or may not be. In this case I don't think you can call all MinuteMen racists. There are always exceptions and therefore the first statement is invalid. If the first statement is invalid then your whole premise is invalid. Whenever you make sweeping statements they are always invalid.

The order does not matter. The fact is that you draw an conclusion based on two premises that may not equal C. This is not math.

If you do not have any VALID data to support your assertions you are in fact wrong.

And you are using logical fallacies to support your point when you have no evidence.

Sputter and "fook" all you want, as another poster stated,

"You got nothing"

Go ahead, prove me wrong

As an asside.

Undistributed Middle



Description
All A is B. All C is B. Therefore all C is A.

B is assumed to cover all items in its category.

link
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/undistributed_middle.htm

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thortin]

106. I understood it quite well

It is you that has demonstrated a serious lack of reading comprehension and use of logical fallacies.

But hey, knock yourself out.

Oh as far and proving your premise, that is not my job. It is YOUR job to prove your premise, not for me to disprove it. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. Pretend you are in school like you enjoy telling everybody they need. When YOU write a paper, YOU have to SUPPORT your claims. Others don't have to disprove them.

You said the MinuteMen are racist, PROVE IT!!!!


Keep talking, you'll hit China sooner or later

[aspergris]

131. His argument is unsound, but it is valid. You misrepresented it

You misread his argument

The structure is

All M are R
Q is M
Therefore Q is R

That IS a valid argument.

It's an UNSOUND argument, because (1) All MinuteMen are Racist is in fact false.

But it IS valid.

Another example

All (squares) are (4 sided objects)
(This shape here) is a (square)
Therfore (This shape here) is (4 sided object)

[iverglas]

132. since my carefully formulated explanations seem to have offended someone

perhaps you will also tackle the second bizarre misreading/misrepresentation of my argument. Undistributed middle indeed.

"All Minutement are racist" is what we might just have to call a matter of opinion.

Sometimes, people claim to have opinions for reasons quite unrelated to reality.

[aspergris]

133. you are evading the point

I also strongly disagree that all minutemen are racist. Heck, I suspect MOST minutemen aren't racist.

But that's not what I was pointing out.

I was pointing out that the analysis of the argument structure was flawed.

The argument WAS valid. It just wasn't sound. The latter is a matter of opinion based on the racist comment of course. But it is ridiculous to claim all minutemen are racist. even ONE counterexaple, renders the argument unsound. But it's Opinion since I have no HARD data that refutes "all minutemen are racist". even though I know it's a crap comment.

[iverglas]

134. and you missed my now-deleted post

I had explained that the response to my syllogism was utter nonsense, already, and explained why in considerable detail. So obviously I got your point. I had already made it.

The argument WAS valid. It just wasn't sound. The latter is a matter of opinion based on the racist comment of course.

Yes. Duh.


But it is ridiculous to claim all minutemen are racist. even ONE counterexaple, renders the argument unsound.

Yeah, sure. So I'll change it.

All Minutement are racists or dupes.

[aspergris]

135. that's also crap

But typical of people who are so enamored with their side that they want to demonize the other side as evil or stupid.

This is typical of warmongers, demigogues, and blatant partisans. You are engaging in their favorite tactic.

Since you disagree with the Minutemen, instead of offering rational argumentation (lord forbid) as to why their pro-active stance against illegal immigration is wrong (either in intent or execution), you can call them "racists" and "dupes" and thus not have to actually engage in discussion - just ad hominem.

[iverglas]

136. ooooh, demagoguery in action

Since you disagree with the Minutemen, instead of offering rational argumentation (lord forbid) as to why their pro-active stance against illegal immigration is wrong

Have I said that I disagree with the Minutemen?

Hell, I can think of all kinds of things that I agree with racists about.

The Minutement are racists. That is my opinion, and it is not dependent on my agreement or disagreement with them. It's what they are.

But ya gotta love that "their pro-active stance against illegal immigration". Way to frame the discourse, eh??

you can call them "racists" and "dupes" and thus not have to actually engage in discussion - just ad hominem.

Awww. And this from the logic whiz.

Let's try it one more time. "Argumentum ad hominem" is NOT the same as "insult".

A characterization of an individual or group that is not offered as a basis for rejecting an argument made by that individual or group is NOT argumentum ad hominem.

I have not offered my characterization of the Minutemen as refutation of any argument made by them or anyone else.

If I look at you and say "you're a cutie", I am also not making an appeal to authority. Not unless I say "you're right, because you're a cutie".

Got that?

[aspergris]

137. argument by unfounded assertion...

"The Minutement are racists. That is my opinion, and it is not dependent on my agreement or disagreement with them. It's what they are."

assertion, not supported by evidence, and you hedge by saying it's "your opinion" as if that absolves you from supporting that statement

and like i said, you are using argumentation style (and calling it argumentation is giving you a lot) that is reminiscent of demagogues, and (how ironic) racists.

You are demonizing them, instead of saying why they are right or wrong.

you have not given evidence that they (implying the majority, when you make a general statement like that) are racists, just now used the kludge "it's my opinion".

That isn't discussion or rational argumentation. It's just using insults so you don't have to discuss actual IDEAS.

[iverglas]

138. I'm not looking for absolution, ta

I already said that anyone was free to dispute my premise and characterize my argument accordingly.

You are demonizing them, instead of saying why they are right or wrong.

The word "racist" presumably exists for a reason, doncha think? It means something. Using a word to describe someone really is not equivalent to demonizing him/her. Really.

I guess I wasn't plain. My characterization of them is not necessarily dependent on the rightness or wrongness of what they do. And characterizing someone as a racist does not imply any value judgment with respect to their character.

you have not given evidence that they (implying the majority, when you make a general statement like that) are racists, just now used the kludge "it's my opinion".

And I don't plan to. I'm happy to let anyone who wants to make an ass of him/herself by disputing the characterization do so.

That isn't discussion or rational argumentation. It's just using insults so you don't have to discuss actual IDEAS.

I'm not aware of any ideas being in issue here. And once again, it is just demagoguery to persist in calling a characterization (that you know full well is based on a wealth of fact, beside the point as that is) an insult.

[aspergris]

139. nor are you looking for rational discussion n/t

[iverglas]

167. well I guess if I was

It's too late now!



Enough wreath-laying. Back to work, me.

[TPaine7]

140. It's good to know where iverglas stands on racism.

"And characterizing someone as a racist does not imply any value judgment with respect to their character."

Fascinating.

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-25-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. I'm not looking for absolution, ta

Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 01:44 PM by iverglas

I already said that anyone was free to dispute my premise and characterize my argument accordingly.

You are demonizing them, instead of saying why they are right or wrong.

The word "racist" presumably exists for a reason, doncha think? It means something. Using a word to describe someone really is not equivalent to demonizing him/her. Really.

I guess I wasn't plain. My characterization of them is not necessarily dependent on the rightness or wrongness of what they do. And characterizing someone as a racist does not imply any value judgment with respect to their character.

you have not given evidence that they (implying the majority, when you make a general statement like that) are racists, just now used the kludge "it's my opinion".

And I don't plan to. I'm happy to let anyone who wants to make an ass of him/herself by disputing the characterization do so.

That isn't discussion or rational argumentation. It's just using insults so you don't have to discuss actual IDEAS.

I'm not aware of any ideas being in issue here. And once again, it is just demagoguery to persist in calling a characterization (that you know full well is based on a wealth of fact, beside the point as that is) an insult.

[iverglas]

141. I keep wondering

To whom are you speaking?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Hmmm.

I too, dislike guilt by association. I expect not all the Minutemen are actual racists by dictionary definition. But your sample logic is not necessarily supportive of your point. For instance, black people are not immune to being racist. Anyone can be. If a black Minuteman is upset because of incoming illegal mexican immigrants, he doesn't get a pass on the racism accusation, just because his skin is black.

However, I would not be surprised to meet members of the Minutemen that may not actually be racists, and are actually so 'off the grid' they are unaware of some of the organization's more overt examples of real and blatant racism among their leadership.

[tburnsten]

128. I don't think being against illegal

immigration qualifies someone as a racist, just because Mexico happens to be the point of origin for many if not most of the people crossing the border without following the proper procedures.

I don't know anything about the minutemen, but I too would not be surprised at all if they had a few vocal racist members while some less high-profile members know nothing about it at all.

[Tejas]

143. Yes

"I too, dislike guilt by association."

Yes, it's about as childish as can be when it comes to a cop-out. Sort've like lumping law-abiding gun-owners in with the criminals that use guns.

[tburnsten]

127. doesn't look like logic

looks like you are CALLING the minutemen racists and by association Razzano must be a racist. Being against illegal immigration, which is a big problem here, and being a racist isn't the same thing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Does Razzano's racism lessen his Constitution rights?

I'll stipulate the racism if it makes you feel better.

He seems to be a dickhead as well.

He is Not Nice, in other words

Does that lessen any Constitutonal protections he may be entitled to?

Do the ends justify the means employed by law enforcement?

This is the mindset displayed in the "torture memos"

I really don't dig seeing the same logic employed at DU.


The whole "Razzano = Minuteman and racist" meme is a Genetic Fallacy.

[iverglas]

129. well

Why don't you ask someone who said or suggested or implied or might have thought it did?

The whole "Razzano = Minuteman and racist" meme is a Genetic Fallacy.

Actually, it's a comment on the interesting fact that the only people whose causes the denizens of this place ever manage to take up are members of some segment or other of the usual suspect crowd.

That anyone here would claim, as has been claimed in this thread, not to be familiar with the Minutemen ... one shakes one's head in, well, disbelief.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Guess what? Civil rights aren't just for "our sort of people"

There is a very long history in American jurisprudence of people defending the civil rights of
people they wouldn't have over for dinner. Or who wouldn't have *them* over for dinner.

From John Adams (accused British soldiers in the Boston Massacre), to
the ACLU (Illinois Nazis vs. the city of Skokie), to Sabin Willett (prisoners at Guantanamo).

I wouldn't defend Razzano as a person. I would, however, defend his rights no matter how odious his ideologies.

See: Goose and gander, sauce for.

[SteveM]

146. Nice job. (nt)

[virginia mountainman]

126. All he has to do, to win, is put McCarthy on the stand..

Remember this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Put her up their, and ask her some qestions....She will do the rest.

[Indy Lurker]

159. What about a restraining order?

That could be done in a day without an arrest or trial.

That would also allow the police to remove his firearms.