Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Bfgrn]

[
You know, maybe the government should hire you to walk the malls and parking lots to spot who the next mass murdering gunman will be.

Painful Memories for the Moms of Mass Killers "He did not give me any hint of what he would do"

This past week, it was the shooting at the Azana Spa in Brookfield, Wis., that triggered those flashbacks. There, Radcliffe Haughton Jr. reportedly shot seven women, three of them fatally, including his wife, before turning the gun on himself.

It didn’t take television crews long to reach the man’s distraught father, Radcliffe Haughton Sr., the following day. “All I can say is, I want to apologize to the people of Milwaukee who have been hurt,” Haughton Sr. told a reporter on Monday. “He did not give me any hint of what he would do.”

He did not give me any hint of what he would do.

Haughton Sr. appeared to be answering an implied question, one that’s asked either directly or indirectly of parents and other relatives every time such a tragedy unfolds—“Did you see this coming? Why didn’t you stop it?” It’s why, when Arlene Holmes told a reporter “You have the right person,” after her son allegedly went on a shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., last summer, many assumed she was saying, “I knew it was him.” Holmes later clarified she was talking about herself, not her son.

Susan Klebold, mother of Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold, took 3,800 words to answer the question in a 2009 piece she penned for O Magazine titled, fittingly, “I will never know why.” The stepmother of Wade Michael Page, the shooter in the August killings at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., told The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that she had “no idea” why the child who grew up “precious” became a mass murderer.

“He was the most peace-loving person in the world,” she said. So when she first heard the news, “I thought, ‘Surely he couldn’t do that. He’s too good-hearted. Too kind.’”

So what you're suggesting is any adolescent with any proximity to a firearm should be considered a potential mass murderer.

I am not the one suggesting anything, YOU are. You want to make all kinds of value judgements based on a snapshot. What do most photographers say just before they take a picture...snarl???

And there are scientific reasons adolescents aren't issued driver's licenses. And it is not because they can't reach the pedals.

The Teen Brain: Behavior, Problem Solving, and Decision Making

Many parents do not understand why their teenagers occasionally behave in an impulsive, irrational, or dangerous way. At times, it seems like they don’t think things through or fully consider the consequences of their actions. Adolescents differ from adults in the way they behave, solve problems, and make decisions. There is a biological explanation for this difference. Studies have shown that brains continue to mature and develop throughout childhood and adolescence and well into early adulthood.

Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala which is responsible for instinctual reactions including fear and aggressive behavior. This region develops early. However, the frontal cortex, the area of the brain that controls reasoning and helps us think before we act, develops later. This part of the brain is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.

Other specific changes in the brain during adolescence include a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and pruning (refinement) of brain pathways. Nerve cells develop myelin, an insulating layer which helps cells communicate. All these changes are essential for the development of coordinated thought, action, and behavior.

Changing Brains Mean that Adolescents Act Differently From Adults

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents’ brains function differently than adults when decision-making and problem solving. Their actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex. Research has also demonstrated that exposure to drugs and alcohol before birth, head trauma, or other types of brain injury can interfere with normal brain development during adolescence.

Based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more likely to:

act on impulse
misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions
get into accidents of all kinds
get involved in fights
engage in dangerous or risky behavior

Adolescents are less likely to:

think before they act
pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions
modify their dangerous or inappropriate behaviors

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know. Does it have a maximum effective range of 430 meters and the ability to rip a huge hole in it's target like AR-15/M16 variants do?

No, it doesn't. It is one step up from a BB-gun and is mainly suitable for shooting targets and small game, such as squirrels and the like.

Let us not kid ourselves. The M16 was designed to fight in the Jungles of vietnam, which meant is was designed to have all the killing power of the M14 with half the weight.

Are you aware the rifle the boy in the photo is holding is not an M-16? It's a .22 -- a squirrel shooter. It just looks like an M-16 -- which is the reason for all the hysterical concern.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/scar-lookalike-in-an-economical-package.html

and teh people at CPS are supposed to know that how, exactly?

 

[JoeB131]

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all. Your oppinion should not be the basis for government investigations
Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11. A semi-auto .22?

Is bed wetting hereditary in your family?

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

 

[MikeK]

Are you aware the rifle the boy in the photo is holding is not an M-16? It's a .22 -- a squirrel shooter. It just looks like an M-16 -- which is the reason for all the hysterical concern.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/scar-lookalike-in-an-economical-package.html

and teh people at CPS are supposed to know that how, exactly?

It doesn't matter if the people at CPS know it or not. They have no need to know it. At the level of what this photograph implies they have no need to know what caliber that rifle is. It is in fact none of their business.

That information is posted to mollify the level of social hysteria affecting the law enforcement buffs inhabiting this thread. To let them know the rifle is a simple plinker, not a horrendous, demonic "assault weapon."

But it doesn't seem to matter. The image is just too much for them.

 

[MikeK]

And there are scientific reasons adolescents aren't issued driver's licenses. And it is not because they can't reach the pedals.

And I fully agree with those reasons.

But need I remind you we're not discussing the photo of a boy behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? And need I advise you there are no laws which prohibit teaching young boys to shoot? In fact, I can recall when a local Brooklyn high school had a rifle team that trained regularly with .22 rifles. And need you be reminded the boy in the photo was fully authorized by law to handle and train with firearms? His father is a state certified firearms instructor.

Everything about this issue is predicated on the hysteria of anti-gun authoritarian/submissives.

 

[MikeK]

I am not the one suggesting anything, YOU are. You want to make all kinds of value judgements based on a snapshot.

It is you who is making judgments based on a snapshot.

On the basis of that photo you don't know if that rifle is loaded, or what caliber it is, or whether or not it is even real. For all you know it could be a cast aluminum dummy. What you refuse to understand is this incident was caused by overly-officious CPS bureaucrats who haven't yet learned when to move and when not to.

The fact is every police agency in the Nation deals every day with tips from busybodies whose imaginations, primed by tv police dramas, get the better of them. It is up to the police receiving these tips to determine which provide sufficient information and/or evidence to justify acting on.

In this example it was not the police who made the determination to visit these people. They were assigned to support and protect the CPS bureaucrats -- who in fact were acting without sufficient cause. That photograph afforded them sufficient cause to do nothing more than conduct a preliminary inquiry, which could have been done by telephone. Instead, what they did was premature and provocative.

You may rest assured these CPS eager beavers will be better instructed on what constitutes cause to aggressively act and what does not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know, maybe the government should hire you to walk the malls and parking lots to spot who the next mass murdering gunman will be.

Painful Memories for the Moms of Mass Killers "He did not give me any hint of what he would do"

This past week, it was the shooting at the Azana Spa in Brookfield, Wis., that triggered those flashbacks. There, Radcliffe Haughton Jr. reportedly shot seven women, three of them fatally, including his wife, before turning the gun on himself.

It didn’t take television crews long to reach the man’s distraught father, Radcliffe Haughton Sr., the following day. “All I can say is, I want to apologize to the people of Milwaukee who have been hurt,” Haughton Sr. told a reporter on Monday. “He did not give me any hint of what he would do.”

He did not give me any hint of what he would do.

Haughton Sr. appeared to be answering an implied question, one that’s asked either directly or indirectly of parents and other relatives every time such a tragedy unfolds—“Did you see this coming? Why didn’t you stop it?” It’s why, when Arlene Holmes told a reporter “You have the right person,” after her son allegedly went on a shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., last summer, many assumed she was saying, “I knew it was him.” Holmes later clarified she was talking about herself, not her son.

Susan Klebold, mother of Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold, took 3,800 words to answer the question in a 2009 piece she penned for O Magazine titled, fittingly, “I will never know why.” The stepmother of Wade Michael Page, the shooter in the August killings at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., told The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that she had “no idea” why the child who grew up “precious” became a mass murderer.

“He was the most peace-loving person in the world,” she said. So when she first heard the news, “I thought, ‘Surely he couldn’t do that. He’s too good-hearted. Too kind.’”

Did he post a Facebook picture of himself with a gun before he went off?

Didn't think so.

Oh, I see Sherlock, as long as they post a picture with a gun we are all safe...good to know...

You are the one trying to link a Facebook photo to the shootings, I am just pointing out how stupid that is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
You know, maybe the government should hire you to walk the malls and parking lots to spot who the next mass murdering gunman will be.

Painful Memories for the Moms of Mass Killers "He did not give me any hint of what he would do"

This past week, it was the shooting at the Azana Spa in Brookfield, Wis., that triggered those flashbacks. There, Radcliffe Haughton Jr. reportedly shot seven women, three of them fatally, including his wife, before turning the gun on himself.

It didn’t take television crews long to reach the man’s distraught father, Radcliffe Haughton Sr., the following day. “All I can say is, I want to apologize to the people of Milwaukee who have been hurt,” Haughton Sr. told a reporter on Monday. “He did not give me any hint of what he would do.”

He did not give me any hint of what he would do.

Haughton Sr. appeared to be answering an implied question, one that’s asked either directly or indirectly of parents and other relatives every time such a tragedy unfolds—“Did you see this coming? Why didn’t you stop it?” It’s why, when Arlene Holmes told a reporter “You have the right person,” after her son allegedly went on a shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., last summer, many assumed she was saying, “I knew it was him.” Holmes later clarified she was talking about herself, not her son.

Susan Klebold, mother of Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold, took 3,800 words to answer the question in a 2009 piece she penned for O Magazine titled, fittingly, “I will never know why.” The stepmother of Wade Michael Page, the shooter in the August killings at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., told The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that she had “no idea” why the child who grew up “precious” became a mass murderer.

“He was the most peace-loving person in the world,” she said. So when she first heard the news, “I thought, ‘Surely he couldn’t do that. He’s too good-hearted. Too kind.’”

So what you're suggesting is any adolescent with any proximity to a firearm should be considered a potential mass murderer.

I am not the one suggesting anything, YOU are. You want to make all kinds of value judgements based on a snapshot. What do most photographers say just before they take a picture...snarl???

And there are scientific reasons adolescents aren't issued driver's licenses. And it is not because they can't reach the pedals.

The Teen Brain: Behavior, Problem Solving, and Decision Making

Many parents do not understand why their teenagers occasionally behave in an impulsive, irrational, or dangerous way. At times, it seems like they don’t think things through or fully consider the consequences of their actions. Adolescents differ from adults in the way they behave, solve problems, and make decisions. There is a biological explanation for this difference. Studies have shown that brains continue to mature and develop throughout childhood and adolescence and well into early adulthood.

Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala which is responsible for instinctual reactions including fear and aggressive behavior. This region develops early. However, the frontal cortex, the area of the brain that controls reasoning and helps us think before we act, develops later. This part of the brain is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.

Other specific changes in the brain during adolescence include a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and pruning (refinement) of brain pathways. Nerve cells develop myelin, an insulating layer which helps cells communicate. All these changes are essential for the development of coordinated thought, action, and behavior.

Changing Brains Mean that Adolescents Act Differently From Adults

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents’ brains function differently than adults when decision-making and problem solving. Their actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex. Research has also demonstrated that exposure to drugs and alcohol before birth, head trauma, or other types of brain injury can interfere with normal brain development during adolescence.

Based on the stage of their brain development, adolescents are more likely to:

act on impulse
misread or misinterpret social cues and emotions
get into accidents of all kinds
get involved in fights
engage in dangerous or risky behavior

Adolescents are less likely to:

think before they act
pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions
modify their dangerous or inappropriate behaviors

Yet every state has provisions that allow adolescents on farms to drive on public roads, strange.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My facebook page has 8 (maybe 10) pics of my pre-teen sons firing my AR15 and M1A in a Friends of Camp Perry pop-up shoot at Camp Perry OH.
No one has broken down my door.
But then, I don't live in a state run by lunatics.

 

[MikeK]

Please provide any federal, state or local proposed bills that would totally disarm the citizenry? You right wing gun nuts have taken reasonable and moderate gun sense and turned them into radical and extreme measures. The TRUTH is the only radicals and extremists are on the gun nut side.

This specific discussion is less about guns and gun control as it is about imposition of authority by agents of the state. It has less to do with pro-gun vs anti-gun advocacy than with individual disposition toward authority.


Back in the 1950s a highly respected psychiatrist, teacher, and lecturer, Dr. Erich Fromm, published the now classic work, Escape From Freedom (available from Amazon), in which he deals with the emergence of a social phenomenon called authoritarianism, now a widely recognized social observation within the Behavioral field. An updated observation of this behavioral phenomenon, The Authoritarians, was published by Prof. Robert Altemeyer in 2006 (also available from Amazon). The foregoing academic references are posted for benefit of any who wish to further explore in greater depth the phenomena referred to by behaviorists as the authoritarian/dominant and authoritarian/submissive personalities.

Jumping ahead, evidence of the emergence of a strongly authoritarian component in the American culture is the phenomenal rise in popularity of police drama. Anyone who doubts this is invited to compile a list of every movie or television drama, whether fictional, documentary, or fantasy (Spider Man, Batman, Judge Dredd, etc.) he/she can recall which deals with some form of law-enforcement theme. They will find the list is virtually endless, increasing and broadening in thematic scope every day. The popularity of this entertainment genre unmistakably affirms that a significant percentage of the American population harbors a preconscious fascination with and appreciation of forcefully imposed authority. Some enjoy this type of entertainment because it satisfies their authoritarian/dominant inclination. Others like it because it appeals to their authoritarian/submissive nature.

In the example of this thread, we see those who approve of four uniformed police officers (manifest authority) appearing on the doorstep of someone who has broken no laws nor harmed anyone. Some of those who approve of this occurrence are guided by their authoritarian/dominant tendency to support such behavior. Others approve of it because of their innate acceptance of authority and their willingness to submit. Both categories present some rationalized justification for behavior which is in fact a clear manifestation of authoritarian disposition.

Now I await angry criticism, which I intend to welcome by expanding the theme of this message onto the example of the Waco massacre -- which is far more relevant to this issue than it might seem to be at first glance.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am not the one suggesting anything, YOU are. You want to make all kinds of value judgements based on a snapshot.

It is you who is making judgments based on a snapshot.

On the basis of that photo you don't know if that rifle is loaded, or what caliber it is, or whether or not it is even real. For all you know it could be a cast aluminum dummy. What you refuse to understand is this incident was caused by overly-officious CPS bureaucrats who haven't yet learned when to move and when not to.

The fact is every police agency in the Nation deals every day with tips from busybodies whose imaginations, primed by tv police dramas, get the better of them. It is up to the police receiving these tips to determine which provide sufficient information and/or evidence to justify acting on.

In this example it was not the police who made the determination to visit these people. They were assigned to support and protect the CPS bureaucrats -- who in fact were acting without sufficient cause. That photograph afforded them sufficient cause to do nothing more than conduct a preliminary inquiry, which could have been done by telephone. Instead, what they did was premature and provocative.

You may rest assured these CPS eager beavers will be better instructed on what constitutes cause to aggressively act and what does not.

No, it is YOU who is making a judgement based on a snapshot:

They are supposed to respond to clear indications of abuse, inappropriate conduct, unhealthy or unlawful conditions. Does a photo of an apparently healthy, happy boy properly holding a firearm call for a visit by CPS bureaucrats and four uniformed police officers?

In America there are millions of lawfully owned firearms, many of which belong to parents of young boys who are trained in the proper use and handling of those weapons. This photo is representative of one such example. Except for a purely subjective impression in the anti-gun mentality there is absolutely nothing about this photo that justifies the actions of the CPS.

To suggest it is okay for CPS bureaucrats to make subjective judgments about when it's okay to conduct aggressively invasive investigations without concrete indications of violations is to condone emergence of a Big Brother atmosphere in America.

We don't want that!

Let me reconstruct what actually happened here, instead of your out of control emotionalism.

1) The father of this boy posted a picture of his son holding what looks like an assault weapon on facebook. (no one forced him to put that picture on the internet)

2) Because the only people who can see that picture on facebook are those allowed by the account holder, CPS did NOT see this picture and act on it. People (more than one) who WERE allowed to see that picture called CPS and lodged a complaint/concern. CPS probably never saw the picture.

3) The case worker requested police assistance (probably because a weapon was reported)

4) The proper procedures were followed.

5) The father later called the police and apologized for the way he acted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not the one suggesting anything, YOU are. You want to make all kinds of value judgements based on a snapshot.

It is you who is making judgments based on a snapshot.

On the basis of that photo you don't know if that rifle is loaded, or what caliber it is, or whether or not it is even real. For all you know it could be a cast aluminum dummy. What you refuse to understand is this incident was caused by overly-officious CPS bureaucrats who haven't yet learned when to move and when not to.

The fact is every police agency in the Nation deals every day with tips from busybodies whose imaginations, primed by tv police dramas, get the better of them. It is up to the police receiving these tips to determine which provide sufficient information and/or evidence to justify acting on.

In this example it was not the police who made the determination to visit these people. They were assigned to support and protect the CPS bureaucrats -- who in fact were acting without sufficient cause. That photograph afforded them sufficient cause to do nothing more than conduct a preliminary inquiry, which could have been done by telephone. Instead, what they did was premature and provocative.

You may rest assured these CPS eager beavers will be better instructed on what constitutes cause to aggressively act and what does not.

No, it is YOU who is making a judgement based on a snapshot:

They are supposed to respond to clear indications of abuse, inappropriate conduct, unhealthy or unlawful conditions. Does a photo of an apparently healthy, happy boy properly holding a firearm call for a visit by CPS bureaucrats and four uniformed police officers?

In America there are millions of lawfully owned firearms, many of which belong to parents of young boys who are trained in the proper use and handling of those weapons. This photo is representative of one such example. Except for a purely subjective impression in the anti-gun mentality there is absolutely nothing about this photo that justifies the actions of the CPS.

To suggest it is okay for CPS bureaucrats to make subjective judgments about when it's okay to conduct aggressively invasive investigations without concrete indications of violations is to condone emergence of a Big Brother atmosphere in America.

We don't want that!

Let me reconstruct what actually happened here, instead of your out of control emotionalism.

1) The father of this boy posted a picture of his son holding what looks like an assault weapon on facebook. (no one forced him to put that picture on the internet)

2) Because the only people who can see that picture on facebook are those allowed by the account holder, CPS did NOT see this picture and act on it. People (more than one) who WERE allowed to see that picture called CPS and lodged a complaint/concern. CPS probably never saw the picture.

3) The case worker requested police assistance (probably because a weapon was reported)

4) The proper procedures were followed.

5) The father later called the police and apologized for the way he acted.

Yawn.

1. So what, it is legal.
2. It is possible to see any picture posted on Facebook, even the private ones. That is one of the many gripes intelligent people have with Facebook.
3. The caseworker required nothing because the caseworker had no reason to investigate.
4. Do you have a copy of the procedures? If not, how do you know they were followed?
5. Which proves that the idiots who said the father deliberately posted the picture to cause a problem were wrong. Weren't you one of those idiots?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all. Your oppinion should not be the basis for government investigations
Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11. A semi-auto .22?

Is bed wetting hereditary in your family?

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

If you think that is an M-16, you need glasses,a shrink, or both.

Hmm...I wonder if my uncle still has that photo of him (age 12) holding a BAR...

 

[Jarlaxle]

My facebook page has 8 (maybe 10) pics of my pre-teen sons firing my AR15 and M1A in a Friends of Camp Perry pop-up shoot at Camp Perry OH.
No one has broken down my door.
But then, I don't live in a state run by lunatics.

If I need to dress like that, it's too damn cold to go to the range!

 

[Bfgrn]

It is you who is making judgments based on a snapshot.

On the basis of that photo you don't know if that rifle is loaded, or what caliber it is, or whether or not it is even real. For all you know it could be a cast aluminum dummy. What you refuse to understand is this incident was caused by overly-officious CPS bureaucrats who haven't yet learned when to move and when not to.

The fact is every police agency in the Nation deals every day with tips from busybodies whose imaginations, primed by tv police dramas, get the better of them. It is up to the police receiving these tips to determine which provide sufficient information and/or evidence to justify acting on.

In this example it was not the police who made the determination to visit these people. They were assigned to support and protect the CPS bureaucrats -- who in fact were acting without sufficient cause. That photograph afforded them sufficient cause to do nothing more than conduct a preliminary inquiry, which could have been done by telephone. Instead, what they did was premature and provocative.

You may rest assured these CPS eager beavers will be better instructed on what constitutes cause to aggressively act and what does not.

No, it is YOU who is making a judgement based on a snapshot:

They are supposed to respond to clear indications of abuse, inappropriate conduct, unhealthy or unlawful conditions. Does a photo of an apparently healthy, happy boy properly holding a firearm call for a visit by CPS bureaucrats and four uniformed police officers?

In America there are millions of lawfully owned firearms, many of which belong to parents of young boys who are trained in the proper use and handling of those weapons. This photo is representative of one such example. Except for a purely subjective impression in the anti-gun mentality there is absolutely nothing about this photo that justifies the actions of the CPS.

To suggest it is okay for CPS bureaucrats to make subjective judgments about when it's okay to conduct aggressively invasive investigations without concrete indications of violations is to condone emergence of a Big Brother atmosphere in America.

We don't want that!

Let me reconstruct what actually happened here, instead of your out of control emotionalism.

1) The father of this boy posted a picture of his son holding what looks like an assault weapon on facebook. (no one forced him to put that picture on the internet)

2) Because the only people who can see that picture on facebook are those allowed by the account holder, CPS did NOT see this picture and act on it. People (more than one) who WERE allowed to see that picture called CPS and lodged a complaint/concern. CPS probably never saw the picture.

3) The case worker requested police assistance (probably because a weapon was reported)

4) The proper procedures were followed.

5) The father later called the police and apologized for the way he acted.

Yawn.

1. So what, it is legal.
2. It is possible to see any picture posted on Facebook, even the private ones. That is one of the many gripes intelligent people have with Facebook.
3. The caseworker required nothing because the caseworker had no reason to investigate.
4. Do you have a copy of the procedures? If not, how do you know they were followed?
5. Which proves that the idiots who said the father deliberately posted the picture to cause a problem were wrong. Weren't you one of those idiots?

CPS did the right thing. What about the rights of the concerned neighbors who called CPS? Don't they have the right to know there is not an Adam Lanza living next door?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is YOU who is making a judgement based on a snapshot:



Let me reconstruct what actually happened here, instead of your out of control emotionalism.

1) The father of this boy posted a picture of his son holding what looks like an assault weapon on facebook. (no one forced him to put that picture on the internet)

2) Because the only people who can see that picture on facebook are those allowed by the account holder, CPS did NOT see this picture and act on it. People (more than one) who WERE allowed to see that picture called CPS and lodged a complaint/concern. CPS probably never saw the picture.

3) The case worker requested police assistance (probably because a weapon was reported)

4) The proper procedures were followed.

5) The father later called the police and apologized for the way he acted.

Yawn.

1. So what, it is legal.
2. It is possible to see any picture posted on Facebook, even the private ones. That is one of the many gripes intelligent people have with Facebook.
3. The caseworker required nothing because the caseworker had no reason to investigate.
4. Do you have a copy of the procedures? If not, how do you know they were followed?
5. Which proves that the idiots who said the father deliberately posted the picture to cause a problem were wrong. Weren't you one of those idiots?

CPS did the right thing. What about the rights of the concerned neighbors who called CPS? Don't they have the right to know there is not an Adam Lanza living next door?

The "concerned neighbors" should be named in public so we can all laugh at them.

 

[Pete7469]

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

Even if it was an M16, which it only looks like superfiscially, it is no basis for police and bureaucrats to be raiding people's homes. I promise you that you haven't seen nearly as many weapons as I've personally worked on, let alone fired and qualified with.

A simple phone call to the parents would have been extreme enough, but at least they could make sure the kid was supervised.

People should not be this uptight about guns, LEAST OF ALL someone who fancies himself an "Eisenhouer Republican". Even the democrooks in the days of Ike weren't bed wetting thumb suckers.

When some obnoxious EPA buearucrat bangs on your door because you left a paper label on a glass bottle in the recycling bin don't come whining to the rest of us.

 

[JoeB131]

Is bed wetting hereditary in your family?

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

If you think that is an M-16, you need glasses,a shrink, or both.

Hmm...I wonder if my uncle still has that photo of him (age 12) holding a BAR...

Okay, whatever, guy. Admittably, I didn't study the picture like you fetishists did...

But here's the thing. That little loon goes and shoots up his classmates, people would get fired by the truckload for NOT following up, as well they should be.

 

[JoeB131]

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

Even if it was an M16, which it only looks like superfiscially, it is no basis for police and bureaucrats to be raiding people's homes. I promise you that you haven't seen nearly as many weapons as I've personally worked on, let alone fired and qualified with.

A simple phone call to the parents would have been extreme enough, but at least they could make sure the kid was supervised.

People should not be this uptight about guns, LEAST OF ALL someone who fancies himself an "Eisenhouer Republican". Even the democrooks in the days of Ike weren't bed wetting thumb suckers.

When some obnoxious EPA buearucrat bangs on your door because you left a paper label on a glass bottle in the recycling bin don't come whining to the rest of us.

Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My MOS was 76Y, which meant that I was responsible for the Arms Vault.

And here's the thing. Ike wouldn't be pissing his pants in fear of a useless mutant like Wayne "Frothy" LaPeirre. Of course back in Ike's day, the NRA supported sensible gun laws.

That was before it got hijacked by the Gun Industry, and Nancy Lanza's crazy ass became the prime customer.

 

[Pete7469]

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

Even if it was an M16, which it only looks like superfiscially, it is no basis for police and bureaucrats to be raiding people's homes. I promise you that you haven't seen nearly as many weapons as I've personally worked on, let alone fired and qualified with.

A simple phone call to the parents would have been extreme enough, but at least they could make sure the kid was supervised.

People should not be this uptight about guns, LEAST OF ALL someone who fancies himself an "Eisenhouer Republican". Even the democrooks in the days of Ike weren't bed wetting thumb suckers.

When some obnoxious EPA buearucrat bangs on your door because you left a paper label on a glass bottle in the recycling bin don't come whining to the rest of us.

Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My MOS was 76Y, which meant that I was responsible for the Arms Vault.

And here's the thing. Ike wouldn't be pissing his pants in fear of a useless mutant like Wayne "Frothy" LaPeirre. Of course back in Ike's day, the NRA supported sensible gun laws.

That was before it got hijacked by the Gun Industry, and Nancy Lanza's crazy ass became the prime customer.

The NRA is actually responding in opposition to "republicans" like you. They used be refered to as "Negotiate Rights Away". They learned their lessons from the growth of groups such as Gun Owners of America that aren't willing to "compromise" with statists and sacrifice rights for political expediency.

Thank God your ideas are being marginalized. Why don't you just admit you're a democrat? If it wasn't for spineless republicrats like you the likes of McCain wouldn't have had the chance to loose against the moonbat messiah. We'd be looking at the second term of Fred Thompson.

I'm a direct support weapons repairer responsible for the maintenance a dozen battalions worth of weapons including 2 Special Forces Companies. Forgive me for not being impressed with a unit armorer who can't change a FCG.