Soju

Here is his manifesto. It appears he is looking for revenge for what in his mind, wrongful termination for breaking the blue line. Look out, this isn't going to end well. http://pastebin.com/TAzPRfPy

For exactly that reason apparently. To intimidate, exert their power, and stop anyone who opposes them. His words. And considering the recent events in CA involving police shootings, I'd say that is pretty close. It is almost nice to hear his honesty. http://laist.com/201..._for_dorner.php

1:18 is a blast. Some more new info. Did you know a bullet button turns a semi-auto into an almost automatic, legally! Wow! How did they let that one slip before...

Go to 6:30 for some fun, high quality knowledge.

Most people that say that don't even know what the 2nd Amendment is nevertheless what an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is!

Weak grounds??? He violated NY law and the NYS constitution. They arguably violated the US constitution. Documents 2 and 1 respectively, at the top of the hierarchy. Not sure how much stronger you can go before it is no longer 'weak' I guess...

Sure they can...just not lawfully. It has happened before, it would be foolish to think it couldn't again. Just saying.

Not being a record setting shooter like yourself, I am unable to tell what type of firearm you were shooting. So umm...whatcha shooting?

Damn man...I was just joking. Well, except for the guns and ammo stuff. That is true.

Love it! Totally stealing.

I wasn't disagreeing...

No, in that case FOPA applies. And PK90, it does say directly when in reference to going to the range, in addition to what you quoted. Interpret it as you will, but I would say there is at least something that might say you can't.

If you stop that isn't exactly direct...and it does say 'directly'...

I have been bumming food off people for a week, my rent is passed due, my heating has been turned off, and my car is running on fumes. However I still have electricity, internet, 4 new firearms, and added thousands of rounds of ammunition, so I'm good.

What handgun?

CCI Tactical still in stock...if you want to pay 43 dollars for 1 box......

I wasn't calling you one. I was applying your logic to a similar situation from my viewpoint. Don't read into is so much. The question marks were intentionally...you know, indicating a question or uncertainty. I could care less whether or I do or don't hurt anyones feelings. If I do, then they should grow up. But let's not be rational know. Or maybe he is trying to educate people on firearm laws...you know...kind of the reason he was in the newspaper and how they knew who he was to begin with....because he informed the PD what he was going to do. But yep, instigating douchebag. Who really is the one who needs to grow up. You don't have to agree with his actions to understand them. Clearly he was doing it for attention. That is the point of activism... I guess respect is a one way street with you, eh? I guess educating the public (well, and the dispatchers and police as it turns out) is out of the question? "I'm calling because there is someone walking around with a rifle." "What exactly is he doing?" "Well he is just walking down the sidewalk with the rifle on his back/over his shoulder." "Is he doing anything else. Are you concerned for someones safety." "No, he isn't doing anything else. I don't see him doing anything bad, I just was concerned when I saw the rifle." "Sir/Ma'am, the open carry of a firearm is legal. If he is just walking with it on his back that is okay. Feel free to call us back if he does anything else or you think he is going to do something bad. Have a nice day." "Oh I didn't know it was legal. Thanks for your time." But no...it is much better to violate 3 different rights...

Let the criminals have their way. I'm sure she'd rather let the girls get kidnapped and raped rather then even think about defending herself or anyone else. Because that would be a tragedy.

Everyone else has been talking about the video not something else. Police have no obligation to investigate the report of a legal activity. I wasn't talking about laws. I was talking about rights, specifically, the ones they were violating. Violating rights is not reasonable. Being perceived as a dick is not a crime. He wasn't wasting police resources, he didn't call them. They came, and stayed, by their choice. He wanted them to leave. No idea how you can even rationalize that HE was the one wasting anyones time watching that video. You don't have to comply with requests that are not obligatory. And the conjecture that simply giving ID and saying you are comply under duress would have allowed him to be released from the unlawful detainment earlier is just that, conjecture. In fact, there might even be videos of just that...that don't work out so well. But let us not get little things like that get in the way. Any answer to my previous questions though? "2. You saw the video, were you suspicious that he was committing a crime, about to commit a crime, or just had committed a crime? 3. What does someone's name have to do with committing a crime? Do certain names lead someone to commit or not commit a crime?"

1. Protocol does not supersede the Constitution, no matter how you try to justify it. 2. You saw the video, were you suspicious that he was committing a crime, about to commit a crime, or just had committed a crime? 3. What does someone's name have to do with committing a crime? Do certain names lead someone to commit or not commit a crime?

So doing something a different way then you would do something makes someone a douche? Well, I wouldn't have said he is a douche...so using the same logic, I guess you must be one??? You like the 2nd, but hate the 1st and 4th??? And the cops weren't being a bully by taking his stuff? Furthermore, the one officer knew who he was, AND knew why he was doing it. You mean the cops right? I was thinking the same thing. A simple "have a good day" with a head shake would have worked better...without wasting anyones time. He didn't instigate anything. He didn't confront or approach anyone, they approached him. They only dealt with him by THEIR choice. You don't get to violate people's rights just because you "deal with shit on a daily basis".

I find it pretty embarrassing and sad that so many of you that seemingly support the 2nd HATE when people exercise it, as well as their 1st and 4th.

As opposed to upholding the peace and enforcing laws? No wonder you take a lot of flak.

A judge cannot over turn a not guilty verdict. A judge can overturn a guilty verdict in much of the same manner as jury nullification.