NAVY SEAL arrested, etc... for claiming he is a navy seal!

12 years ago

Duh - the arrest was for a traffic violation, illegal possession of a 9mm semiautomatic pistol and three magazines full of ammo. Also babbling incoherently was no help. He's probably now facing a dishonorable discharge and a couple of years in prison. :rolleyes:

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5476175].message }}

Roaddog

12 years ago

Wonder where his military ID was?

If I remember correctly, one is supposed to carry that at all times.

Sounds like something was really wrong with him...article isn't that informative.

Can't understand why it would be so strange for him to be a SeaL in New York....there are just as many in the east coast as out here.
Hell SOCOM is out of Florida...Norfolk is close

I do think MYOB is right, that the gun played more into it than the babbling.
I hope the guy gets the help that he needs...who knows what the hell he's been thru...even in peacetime those guy's do missions you never hear about.

The latest known one:
World News - American hostage in Somalia rescued by US Navy SEALs in overnight raid

By the way still can't find anyone down here that remembers anything about that Jesse Ventura thing.

Thanks

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5476360].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Well, the claim is that he had some valuables that he couldn't store, and he tried to check his gun.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5476439].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate

12 years ago

"I'm in an elite military unit, you can't arrest me," ...with “top- secret clearance,”??

Well - I guess that's what he gets for not wearing his Mask and Snorkel!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5476774].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Seems from the video that the NYPD are having a lot of fun arresting Marines. Can't they just go to the doctor and get penis enlargements instead of this continual string of moronic compensation actions?

The only thing that's going to end up going on here is a fight over the law itself in the Supreme court.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5478609].message }}

David Maschke

12 years ago

Agree or disagree with the gun laws there, the guy had it coming in my opinion. Being in the service doesn't put one above the law, and it doesn't give one the right to carry a weapon anywhere he damn well pleases.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5478988].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Agree or disagree with the gun laws there, the guy had it coming in my opinion. Being in the service doesn't put one above the law, and it doesn't give one the right to carry a weapon anywhere he damn well pleases.

Sal is right. ALSO, he had a concealed weapons permit, and supposedly checked the law. Gun laws, surprisingly, in most areas, seem to be getting freeer, although they are tied to registration and training.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5479747].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Um.....actually, it's the Bill of Rights that gives him the right to carry a gun anywhere he damn well pleases.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5479666].message }}

hardraysnight

12 years ago

deport him to new zealand along with all the other international felons

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5481542].message }}

MoneyMagnetMagnate 12 years ago

Originally Posted by oncewerewarriors

deport him to new zealand along with all the other international felons

Well, yeah...you blokes invite em' in to sleep on the couch! :rolleyes:

Baby Seal Enters House, Sleeps On Couch (PHOTOS)
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5481660].message }}

David Maschke

12 years ago

That is why I added the statement, "Agree or disagree with the gun laws..." I have my own opinion on the subject, and more than likely they mirror your own views.

In this case you have an armed Navy Seal on the streets saying he can't be arrested. I'd say posse comitatus won this time.

Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5481982].message }}

Robert Michael

12 years ago

LOL mag, what a cute lil seal!

Thanks

Signature

2017's BEST Facebook Group Management Tool
Professional Quality e-Covers | Private / Shared Proxies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482020].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Um.....actually, it's the Bill of Rights that gives him the right to carry a gun anywhere he damn well pleases.

Assuming he's part of a "well regulated militia" aiding the "security of a free state", then I'll agree.

It's funny how people always forget the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Ammendment, as well as the security of a free state.

We get a pretty clear picture of what was meant by the other 2/3s of the Second Ammendment when President George Washington formed and lead a militia in the Whiskey Revolt of 1794(?). It seems pretty obvious to me that GW felt the militia was to be used to defend the USA, not to be used against it.

BTW, for those intersted in the truth, they shoud research the historic implications of the phrase "keep and bear arms", which dates back to the Romans. And we know GW (and the other founding fathers) knew Roman history very well.

Hint: To the Romans, it meant the ability to keep arms in your home in order to defend Rome against invaders.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482179].message }}

LarryC 12 years ago

<< It's funny how people always forget the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Ammendment, as well as the security of a free state.

We get a pretty clear picture of what was meant by the other 2/3s of the Second Ammendment when President George Washington formed and lead a militia in the Whiskey Revolt of 1794(?). It seems pretty obvious to me that GW felt the militia was to be used to defend the USA, not to be used against it.>> (Kurt)

I never understood why people bring this up as an argument in favor of gun control. When that law was written, it was assumed that all citizens were part of the militia, so they had a right to bear arms. It was also conceived shortly after the revolution, so they obviously had some feelings about protecting themselves from an oppressive government.

It doesn't make sense to interpret this as meaning that today only the military has the right to bear arms. Why would the government have to pass a law giving itself the right to bear arms? Who would deny them this right? Obviously, it applies to everyday people, who actually constitute the "militia."

George Washington is also famous for being critical of the whole concept of a "standing army" as opposed to a citizen's militia, so it hardly makes sense that if he were around today he'd support a powerful centralized government that has possession of all the firearms.
- Thanks
Signature
Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5488267].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Our rights are not to be viewed in separation from other rights. We have a right hold and bear arms........we also are supposed to have a right to defend ourselves, families, and property, which means ANYWHERE you need to defend them.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482308].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Our rights are not to be viewed in separation from other rights. We have a right hold and bear arms........we also are supposed to have a right to defend ourselves, families, and property, which means ANYWHERE you need to defend them.

You are the one that brought up the Bill of Rights...I'll remind you what you said:

Um.....actually, it's the Bill of Rights that gives him the right to carry a gun anywhere he damn well pleases.

I also reminded you about the other 2/3 of the Second Ammendment to the Bill of Rights, which you either forgot or like to ignore.

BTW...Some feel the best way to "defend" ourselves is not to arm every lunatic in the Country. Or that prisoners don't have a right to carry guns, despite Sal's claim about "anywhere".

And "keep and bear arms" comes from a dual phrase "keep and bear", which is similar to other legal terms such as "aid and abet". The original meaning of "keep and bear" arms meant to keep arms in YOUR HOME, then BEAR ARMS outside of your home in order to defend your country (Rome).

Here's the problem with people breaking the WF rule about "no politics". Someone like Sal breaks the rule, then when a rebuttal is posted, it turns into a political discussion and the thread is either locked or deleted. Often, if the original offending statement is left unchallenged, the thread is left open. This results in one side getting away with voicing their opinion while the other side is left out of the discussion.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482416].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

You are the one that brought up the Bill of Rights...I'll remind you what you said:

I also reminded you about the other 2/3 of the Second Ammendment to the Bill of Rights, which you either forgot or like to ignore.

BTW...Some feel the best way to "defend" ourselves is not to arm every lunatic in the Country. Or that prisoners don't have a right to carry guns, despite Sal's claim about "anywhere".

And "keep and bear arms" comes from a dual phrase "keep and bear", which is similar to other legal terms such as "aid and abet". The original meaning of "keep and bear" arms meant to keep arms in YOUR HOME, then BEAR ARMS outside of your home in order to defend your country (Rome).

Here's the problem with people breaking the WF rule about "no politics". Someone like Sal breaks the rule, then when a rebuttal is posted, it turns into a political discussion and the thread is either locked or deleted. Often, if the original offending statement is left unchallenged, the thread is left open. This results in one side getting away with voicing their opinion while the other side is left out of the discussion.

Kurt said...

Here's the problem with people breaking the WF rule about "no politics".

Someone like Sal breaks the rule, then when a rebuttal is posted, it turns into a political discussion and the thread is either locked or deleted.

Often, if the original offending statement is left unchallenged, the thread is left open.

This results in one side getting away with voicing their opinion while the other side is left out of the discussion

I say...

This, I have noticed.

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482487].message }}

Kay King 12 years ago

I agree with Kurt - if you only quote the portion of "rights" that proves your point - maybe someone else needs to point out the rest of the text. If every news story is going to be linked with "oppressive government" maybe someone needs to point out the link doesn't exist.

You run a traffic light and a copy sees you - you will be pulled over. That's the law that protects the rights of other people to be safe - they have rights, too.

This story makes no sense and I'm left with the feeling this guy has some problems - personal and (now, at least) professional.

If you carry a licensed weapon the first thing you do if pulled over by police is TELL them where the weapon and the permit are in the car. A civilian might forget to bring his permit - a professional doesn't forget that. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case.

Claiming your security clearance without having docs with you isn't a bright idea, either. Last I heard, having clearance doesn't allow you drive through red lights when you are on leave.

The guy is being treated for post traumatic stress according to the Post so there's more there the sensationalized story.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Live life like someone left the gate open
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484291].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

well kurt, you started it. I will only say that you said "free state", and you can't SERIOUSLY believe that a person from next door that came into your home to hurt you is not an invader. ALSO....

1. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T SILENCE!
3. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T INVADE!
4. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T SEARCH!
5. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T PERSECUTE!
6. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T JAIL!
7. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T JUDGE alone to defeat 8.
8. DENIES "RIGHTS"! CAN'T CHARGE excessive bail to defeat 6.
9. Well, it sums up what I am saying, so let's say it HERE!

That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution..

In other words, the other amendments *****DENY***** "rights" to the government so any lack of mention here does NOT imply assignment to the fed, and shall be assigned to the citizen according to the constitution and bill of rights.

10. DENIES "RIGHTS"! To create new rights for the federal government.

You can simply look at the wording. In the 2nd amendment it says "the right of the people ..., shall not be infringed."

So are you saying that somehow the 2nd amendment GRANTS them rights? WHY would they do such a thing, especially when it contrasts with EVERYTHING else?

Everytime this is discussed, it is expressed as giving citizens rights. It does NOTHING of the sort. The preamble says all have those rights. NOPE! The amendments TAKE AWAY any perceived right that the governments may claim that dilutes those citizen's rights. That is ALSO the reason for bail, a jury, habeas corpus, etc....

For example, the 1st amendment starts out "Congress SHALL make NO"! It never says shall, or the citizen gets whatever rights. It says "Shall NOT".

Anyway, I just wanted to have my say.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5482419].message }}

Robert Michael

12 years ago

^ hell yea. If you get to a license check or even get pulled over, when the cop asks for your license/registration/insurance, the FIRST thing you do is tell them, "I have all of that, but I also have a firearm in the glovebox - I can step out of the car so you can get my information for yourself if you like" or "I'll keep my hands on the steering wheel while your partner gets my info" or something like that..

You dont want to go reaching for your info & they see a gun. Even if it IS registered to you.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

2017's BEST Facebook Group Management Tool
Professional Quality e-Covers | Private / Shared Proxies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484764].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Whos That Guru

^ hell yea. If you get to a license check or even get pulled over, when the cop asks for your license/registration/insurance, the FIRST thing you do is tell them, "I have all of that, but I also have a firearm in the glovebox - I can step out of the car so you can get my information for yourself if you like" or "I'll keep my hands on the steering wheel while your partner gets my info" or something like that..

You dont want to go reaching for your info & they see a gun. Even if it IS registered to you.

OK, I should probably have read more. 8-( Yeah, that can get you KILLED. BTW, though what you say is right, I would ALSO add "It is unloaded and the ammo is in the trunk.".

In some areas, at least if you do not have a concealed weapons permit, the gun and ammo must be in separate areas such that nobody can get to both. That is the way it at least was in California in the 1990s.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486688].message }}

elvincans

12 years ago

Good for that man. Justice should prevail.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484875].message }}

Robert Michael

12 years ago

Oh. Well in this state, you're allowed to keep it loaded & 1 in the chamber. So that doesnt apply here. lol

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

2017's BEST Facebook Group Management Tool
Professional Quality e-Covers | Private / Shared Proxies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5487308].message }}

Kay King 12 years ago

One of my sons has a carry permit - the other son has high security clearance. When I asked one if his weapon was loaded he looked at me like I was crazy and said "Well, yeah - that's the point. Not many bad guys are willing to wait while I get the ammo out of the trunk".
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Live life like someone left the gate open
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5487890].message }}