Anti-gun activist arrested on gun charges

[bryanthompson]

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/49173.asp

Anti-gun activist arrested after firearm found at home

A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home.

Annette "Flirty" Stevens, however, said Monday she's innocent, and the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city.

The handgun, which had a scratched-off serial number, and drugs allegedly were discovered Friday morning inside Stevens' home in the 2500 block of South 15th Street. Authorities said they obtained a search warrant for the residence as part of an ongoing investigation of a recent series of drive-by shootings. No one has been hurt in the gunplay.
...
Stevens, 47, who is free on bond, admitted she does know some of the people allegedly involved in the drive-by shootings. But she said she only knows them because her interest in stopping gun violence - sparked by the shooting death of her son Jericko Clark, 20, on July 13, 2002 - has her in the neighborhoods talking to the youths.
...
Stevens said she believes the search warrant was obtained illegally. She said no drugs were found in her home. And as for the gun, she admits to having it in the house. But she said it belonged to her son. She didn't find it until six or seven months after he died. Not knowing what to do with it, she wrapped it up, put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
...
Stevens has not been formally connected to any crime directly related to the drive-by shootings. But Friday's discoveries could lead to her being charged with defacing the identification marks on a handgun, manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance and having no valid firearm owner's ID card, police said.

If she was really that upset about her son's death, she should have turned in the gun that she says was his when she found it. Maybe it could have been used to investigate other crimes. Something isn't right here.

[legion]

Springfield in what state?

[RANDY P]

Scratched off S/N is yer ass. Highly, highly illegal anywhere in the Union it's a federal level offense.

rjp

[bryanthompson]

IL

[cmccuist]

This story didn't make sense to me. She says she socializes with some of the individuals that are involved in drive-by shootings. How does that work? She is an anti-gun activist, but socializes with drive-by shooters? That's some pretty strange company! Even if you were a pro-gun activist, you probably don't want to be associated or socialize with drive-by gang bangers.

She says the police are going after her because she wont help them solve those crimes.

And she found her son's gun after he was shot, but just wrapped it up and put it in a drawer? Then she says there were no drugs. What did the police find then? I guess if the police have it in for you, then they can frame you or whatever, but I don't believe they would do this.

This situation is wrong on a couple of levels.

[competentone]

Originally posted by cmccuist
This story didn't make sense to me. She says she socializes with some of the individuals that are involved in drive-by shootings. How does that work? She is an anti-gun activist, but socializes with drive-by shooters? That's some pretty strange company!

It's really not strange at all; most who support banning guns are socialist; socialists do not respect individual rights -- especially property rights -- this is exactly consistent with the common criminal's mindset.

The common criminal does not believe you have a right to the money in your wallet, he believes he has the right to use force to take it. The socialist also believes you do not have a right to the money in your wallet -- although the socialist normally is resistant to seize it himself, he has no problem supporting others who use force to take property from another.

[ubiquity0]

By that black & white definition isn't every government of every country with a greater-than-0% tax rate considered socialist, and criminal?

[competentone]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
By that black & white definition isn't every government of every country with a greater-than-0% tax rate considered socialist, and criminal?

Yes.

[stevepaa]

competentone,
you forgot to use the words
"commie pinko socialist"

Can you make any more gross, crass generalizations?

I'll throw one back at you. America, love it or leave it. Seems you should leave.

But is there any country you can go too???

[competentone]

What's wrong stevepaa?

You sound a little upset; maybe it's because the true nature of the socialist philosophy -- plainly explained -- is something you don't like to see exposed?

As for leaving the country: I have the right to live as a free man anywhere in the world I want! Just because criminals -- including criminal governments -- do not recognize individual rights, does not mean that they do not exist.

I see in the history of the world the constant struggle for individuals to live free from the violence the criminal element wishes to inflict upon them. I choose to make my home in the country where people have achieved the greatest success in protecting their individual rights and maintaining their freedom -- the United States of America.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by competentone
...The socialist...

I love it when people say things like, "the socialist" or "the liberal" or even "the conservative" as though they're on some nature documentary. It reminds me of the the scene in Dr Strangelove where Gen. Ripper is explaining to Col. Mandrake why he's bombing the Russkis.

In other words, I laugh to myself and instantly revoke all credibility from the speaker.

[competentone]

Originally posted by wludavid
... I laugh to myself and instantly revoke all credibility from the speaker.

One minor grammatical construction you don't like and you conclude that the speaker using it has no credibility all!

You must miss so much in life...

[wludavid]

It has nothing to do with grammar. Watch Dr Strangelove and you will understand what I mean.

[competentone]

Originally posted by wludavid
It has nothing to do with grammar.

You miss my point. I was not implying that it was a grammar issue.

I was pointing out your contradictory position.

You are talking "against" stereotyping and you are guilty of doing virtually the same thing: You are jumping to conclusions about people who use one phrase -- concluding that they can say nothing that is credible because they use that one phrase.

[stevepaa]

It must be hard to live even here. So as a free man who views our government as evil, and who is against taxes, you must live in the country, generate your own power, draw your own water, pave your own roads, etc.

It must very hard for a free independant man to live with such inconsistancies.

Society is social. Civilization requires socialism as you have defined it. It is the defining line between liberty and license.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by competentone
You miss my point. I was not implying that it was a grammar issue.

I was pointing out your contradictory position.

You are talking "against" stereotyping and you are guilty of the virtually the same thing: You are jumping to conclusions about people who use one phrase -- concluding that they can say nothing that is credible.

I'll take it from a different tack. Most people I meet start out with very little credibility in my mind. There are things that people can do to increase it, and things that can decrease it. Call it a shortcut or call it stereotyping, it doesn't really matter since everyone does it. You can't believe everything everyone says, and you can't evaluate every person and every position in total without taking shortcuts. That particular phrase is one of my biggest credibility reducers, along with people who actually don't know the difference between 'they're' and 'there', using 'LOL' more than once a month, using 'pwned', 'evar', 'j00' etc, ever.

[tabs]

WLU...it was Group Captain Mandrake....not Col. Mandrake....

[wludavid]

Originally posted by tabs
WLU...it was Group Captain Mandrake....not Col. Mandrake....

Oops. You're right. I wonder where I pulled colonel from?