A gun can be directly used to commit a crime. Money at least has to go through some other motion to. You can't hurt someone directly with money (unless it's a bag of nickels and you beat someone with it). Plus, if you are carrying a gun you have to know that certain responsibility comes with it, if it's shown you cannot do that responsibly then I have no problem with the police taking all your guns.
I have $5 in my wallet right now, are you saying I should be as careful as if I had a gun in my pocket?
It's a ridiculous, absurd comparison. You've twisted logic so badly you got a pretzel.
Nope. You are justifying the theft of the man's property from his house
under color of law, because someone stole a gun from his vehicle
, where it was not in plain sight.
While it might not be advisable for him to leave the firearm in his vehicle glove box, it should not be criminal.
Theft, however, is a crime, which he reported.
You are the one contorting things by saying that because someone could hurt someone with the gun, it's okay to take the rest of his guns.
If he'd left a crowbar in the back of his pickup, (which can directly be used to kill someone, and as a burglary tool), would you be okay with the police seizing the rest of his tools in the garage?
It's the same principle, either way.
If something is stolen from you does that give the police the right to come in and steal more of the same? I'm saying no. Youre good with it, apparently.
The person is a victim, here, twice. Once by a thief (presumably not in uniform) and again, having his guns taken from his HOUSE under color of law
The auto and house aren't comparable except that they are both his property, too, and people aren't supposed to steal from either one, nor enter them without his consent. Such entry, in either place, without permission, is considered a crime, locked or not.