GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 23:54   #176
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.
This is your original post. No mention of gun control anywhere in it. Actually, you deny the importance of determining constitutionality at all. Clearly, you state that the oath is to the enforcement of laws.

You may call my questions "idiotic" and "buckshot" but that only proves my point about your inability to remember, much less support your own contentions.

I'll give this one more try: the point of this thread is not to argue the constitutionality of this gun restriction or that gun restriction--that goes nowhere and is a waste of time. The point of this thread is, should all laws be enforced blindly and without discretion? Your original position is that they should.

Do you still feel this way in light of multiple examples regarding the inherent evil of this doctrine?
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:03   #177
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
This is your original post. No mention of gun control anywhere in it. Actually, you deny the importance of determining constitutionality at all. Clearly, you state that the oath is to the enforcement of laws.

You may call my questions "idiotic" and "buckshot" but that only proves my point about your inability to remember, much less support your own contentions.

I'll give this one more try: the point of this thread is not to argue the constitutionality of this gun restriction or that gun restriction--that goes nowhere and is a waste of time. The point of this thread is, should all laws be enforced blindly and without discretion? Your original position is that they should.

Do you still feel this way in light of multiple examples regarding the inherent evil of this doctrine?



So you went back to the very beginning to quote me, and you still couldn't be bothered to read some of my replys and figure out what I was talking about?

Clearly I was on to something with my first remark.


Cops do not decide what is constitutional. And in this case, they're very clearly, before any law is passed, declaring that its unconstitutional, and that they won't enforce it.


That is why they should be fired. They're trying to grasp power much above their level, and give themselves the ability to dictate law to the people. That is not the job, nor role of law enforcement.


We have a body who's job it is to determine what laws are constitutional, and what are not. I would dare say, that they are actually suited to making such decisions. And that your rank and file LEO is not. Their politician brass is especially unsuited to deciding what laws are and are not.



My issue, has always been with the police officers who are greatly abusing, and overreaching their position.





However, a great many of you, can't seem to be bothered to read before you jump in with a nazi reference, or some other wild shoot from the hip attempt at a comparison at an argument that you mistook from the very first moment.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:05   #178
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
You say that "reasonable" restrictions have been found to be constitutional.

What case(s) has the supreme court given that ruling in?

Define "reasonable".

I guess if an officer/soldier is to follow order on "reasonable" gun control because then it is constitutional, what is "reasonable"?
District of Columbia v. Heller would be the specific reference to "reasonable restriction" although we also have specific examples to other rights as well. (Like yelling fire in a theater)

As far as what is "reasonable" my definition is not what law is based off of, so it is as inapplicable as yours.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:20   #179
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
So you went back to the very beginning to quote me, and you still couldn't be bothered to read some of my replys and figure out what I was talking about?


I had to go back to beginning because the rest of this argument meanders so far around the issues that it's like a descent into madness just to read it. Your original post is clear enough, the rest is just cover and confusion.

However, a great many of you, can't seem to be bothered to read before you jump in with a nazi reference, or some other wild shoot from the hip attempt at a comparison at an argument that you mistook from the very first moment.

Clearly, I disavowed the use of the Nazi argument from the start. Pointing out numerous instances of past enforcement of unjust laws and requesting a direct response to them can hardly be called a "wild shoot from the hip attempt." Any reasonable person would find those enforcement actions to be questionable at best. Why can't you?


My issue, has always been with the police officers who are greatly abusing, and overreaching their position.


If exercising sound judgement is abuse; then up is down, black is white, and 2 plus 2 = 5 in your world.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:26   #180
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,820
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
District of Columbia v. Heller would be the specific reference to "reasonable restriction" although we also have specific examples to other rights as well. (Like yelling fire in a theater)

As far as what is "reasonable" my definition is not what law is based off of, so it is as inapplicable as yours.
I was hoping you would say that. Lets examine what you have said. AWB is CONSTITUTIONAL. You have said that (shall I quote you?)

Now lets look at Helle rwhere they talk about "reasonable restrictions"

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

So the Supreme court ruling that you have seemed to point out UPHELD that the weapons protected under the 2A are wepaons in "common use as the time".

Now that you have that clear from the Supreme court, in both US v Miller and DC vs Heller, it is clear that an M4/M16 is "in common use at this time". An AR15 is "in common use AT THIS TIME." A 30 round magazine is "in common use at thus time".

You have not one but TWO supreme court rulings saying an AWB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they ban weapons "in common use".

Should the officer STILL be fired for refusing to confiscate what the Supreme Court has TWICE ruled are CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED weapons?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:30   #181
GunHo198
Senior Member
 
GunHo198's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,116
I know this Hot girl that has had about 18 partners in the past year, both male and female. She says she just can't find a suitable partner as there all idiots.

So if 1 person can't find love in 18 partners, who's the idiot?

What I'm saying here is, your the one who can't comprehend what everyone else is saying.

People in Law Enforcement with thick heads like this is what puts Us vs Them into context.

And they wonder why over 27 firearms distributors are boycotting sales to LEO's in the Obamanist States of America!?..


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
This Message Sponsored in Part by "One Angry White Guy"!
GunHo198 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:33   #182
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
Good job on the "common use" argument from Miller. I think, given the current membership of SCOTUS and the millions of AR-15s purchased in the last few months, this would be the lynch pin for the unconstitutionality of a future all-out AWB.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:33   #183
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
I would also say since Miller gave us the ruling that didn't protect short barrel shotguns, that that ruling, then could also be expanded to cover assault weapons.



Also,

From the same article you cherry picked to present that argument

" Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[74][75]

The courts have upheld every one of these laws as being constitutional.[75] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[76]

Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[74] "
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:39   #184
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,820
Blog Entries: 1
I didnt cherry pick. I quoted the RULING. Not some article. You seem to have added to the ruling in Heller. Here is the ruling in its entirety. Please show me where machine guns are talked about.




1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:42   #185
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
#74, would be "Adam Winkler: The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right". Huffington Post. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
#75, Liptak, Adam (18 December 2012). "Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
#76, ''District of Columbia v. Heller''". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-30.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 00:45   #186
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
I know this Hot girl that has had about 18 partners in the past year, both male and female. She says she just can't find a suitable partner as there all idiots.

So if 1 person can't find love in 18 partners, who's the idiot?

What I'm saying here is, your the one who can't comprehend what everyone else is saying.

People in Law Enforcement with thick heads like this is what puts Us vs Them into context.

And they wonder why over 27 firearms distributors are boycotting sales to LEO's in the Obamanist States of America!?..


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
The validity of the argument, is not made by the number of people who agree with it.


Lots of people thought re-electing Obama was a great idea.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:20   #187
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
So if 1 person can't find love in 18 partners, who's the idiot?

What I'm saying here is, your the one who can't comprehend what everyone else is saying.


The validity of the argument, is not made by the number of people who agree with it.


This reminds me of an ex-girlfriend from long ago. Her instinctive response to a disagreement was emotional. She would stake out a position and then never come off it no matter what. A lack of reason, personal attacks, and lashing out was her stock in trade.

An easy and compelling tactic was reducing the argument to the absurd. Once, she was determined to argue that the use firearms for self-defense was never advisable. I started with the simple situation of her using a gun to end a burglary and took it out to the point of burglars raping and murdering an entire family in front of her. If she could prevent such actions with a gun would she? Sure enough, she wouldn't budge. Usually, rational thought would kick in after a day or two and she would come to her senses and see the light. This gun argument was so visceral though, I don't think she ever recovered from it. She still thinks it's better to be raped and murdered than to defend herself, as far as I know.

We may have come to a point where the Nazi argument is useful and proves a valid point. For some, it's not about truth--it's about not looking like a fool. Sadly, that's when foolishness is the most likely outcome.

The best that can come from a situation like this is not to convince an individual of the error of his ways. The best that can come is everyone who sees it is convinced of the absurdity of the position and moves forward from there.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 03:17   #188
jim7777b
E9 USN Ret
 
jim7777b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Wichita
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieG59 View Post
In my federal oath, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So did the President...
__________________
NRA Range Officer, Glock Armorer quals, expired since 2K--guess I know nothing about them any more--- G17--Gen 1, G19--Gen 3, G23--Gen 3, G22--Gen 3 RTF2 ))))))) ....Other guns too numerous to list.....
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
jim7777b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 06:00   #189
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
So, none of your 4 examples, really have anything to do, or could be used to draw a comparison to the topic at hand.
Sorry, Sergeant. You've painted yourself into this corner.

You've been given four examples of things that were explicitly held as Constitutional by the people you yourself said were the authorities.

Here they are again, so no one needs to flip a page. Each was law, passed, signed and upheld:
1. the Runaway Slave Act?
2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

You said
Quote:
We have a body who's job it is to determine what laws are constitutional, and what are not. I would dare say, that they are actually suited to making such decisions. And that your rank and file LEO is not. Their politician brass is especially unsuited to deciding what laws are and are not.

My issue, has always been with the police officers who are greatly abusing, and overreaching their position.
So whatchya gonna do?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 03-02-2013 at 06:24..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 06:20   #190
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Hey, hundreds of thousands of police officers, only obeying and enforcing the laws they personally decide were constitutionally passed and legal under the Constitution.

What could possibly go wrong?
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 06:53   #191
hsprincipal
Senior Member
 
hsprincipal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
So if you walked up to your boss and said, I object to doing what you pay me to do, what exactly do you think would be his recourse?


Thats exactly what those cops are saying. We're not going to do our jobs, and you can't make us do it.

Complete and utter horse crap.
What's the difference in not enforcing gun laws and not enforcing immigration laws? Obama has set the example. He chooses which laws get enforced and which don't. Should he resign too?

Both the President and law enforcement took an oath. Shouldn't both be true to that oath? Can't have it both ways.....
__________________
G23, G21, G22, G26, G17, G27, G20, G19, G34, S&W 1911sc, Ruger SR1911, S&W M&P .40, S&W New .38 Bodyguard, Beretta Neos, Beretta Nano, Walther PPQ, Sig 2022 9mm, Victory model .38 S&W, Colt LE6920, PPS, M9, 870, S&W 637, CW9, CW45, RO 9mm
hsprincipal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 08:36   #192
NMG26
Senior Member
 
NMG26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Hey, hundreds of thousands of police officers, only obeying and enforcing the laws they personally decide were constitutionally passed and legal under the Constitution.

What could possibly go wrong?
Don't they ask them in the interviewing process if they will enforce laws they don't agree with?

I'd think that would be an interview question. "Are their any laws you disagree with"?
__________________
Bickford Schmeckler: ******* tyranny of logic!
http://tentmaker.org
NMG26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 10:03   #193
fg17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
Trying to compare LEO's upholding a legal, and constitutional AWB, to Nazi's executing Jews and other war crimes is beyond silly.



To do so 15 times in one thread, is ludicrous. Especially when given a modicum of thought, you would see its a fallacious argument.
AGREE, Give me a break with the Nazi comparisons. Besides if Germany would have won the war a lot of people in this country would have been put on trial for war crimes. People do the victims of real atrocties a disservice when they compare what happened to them and a few little gun laws that might go through.
fg17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 10:29   #194
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Hey, hundreds of thousands of police officers, only obeying and enforcing the laws they personally decide were constitutionally passed and legal under the Constitution.

What could possibly go wrong?
And what happens when they decide one of the laws we want to be enforced is not Constitutional......
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 10:44   #195
fg17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 442
I understand this is an intense issue. I was in the military and know about not following unjust orders. but I think AK is technically correct. A few years ago my state got open carry without a permit and ccw with a permit. I was talking to a local police officer and he said he did not care about the law and anyone he saw with a gun on he woud put on the gound until he new what was going on and then give them at the least a dissorderly conduct ticket. I guess he thought he was doing what was right
Also I understand following your priciples, a few times I have said the job be darned and did what I thought was right. On the other hand I have a family to feed and they cant eat my principles.
fg17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 11:28   #196
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by fg17 View Post
I understand this is an intense issue. I was in the military and know about not following unjust orders. but I think AK is technically correct. A few years ago my state got open carry without a permit and ccw with a permit. I was talking to a local police officer and he said he did not care about the law and anyone he saw with a gun on he woud put on the gound until he new what was going on and then give them at the least a dissorderly conduct ticket. I guess he thought he was doing what was right
Also I understand following your priciples, a few times I have said the job be darned and did what I thought was right. On the other hand I have a family to feed and they cant eat my principles.
Your buddy is very afraid of guns and/or he wants to play bada**. The fact is that true Americans will stand up and support the COTUS (including the 2nd Amendment). That includes military and police. Some of them will not, due to fear, or brainwashed, or money, or dislike of the American liberties; and the biggest one.....The need to control other people. Usually due to their own inadequacies.
__________________
Travel light and come well balanced.
oldman11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:21   #197
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Sorry, Sergeant. You've painted yourself into this corner.

You've been given four examples of things that were explicitly held as Constitutional by the people you yourself said were the authorities.

Here they are again, so no one needs to flip a page. Each was law, passed, signed and upheld:
1. the Runaway Slave Act?
2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

You said

So whatchya gonna do?

Sigh. Again with the invalid comparisons?


Is that truly the best you can do? To re state tired arguments that are nothing like the situation being discussed?
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:27   #198
*ASH*
Senior Member
 
*ASH*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nc
Posts: 21,971
seriously !!! 8 pages and still going . im super serial !!!! 8 pages . well hell when it reaches that count number its usually time for this ...

The Okie Corral







__________________
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
*ASH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:31   #199
sheriff733
NRA LIFE MEMBER
 
sheriff733's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by *ASH* View Post
seriously !!! 8 pages and still going . im super serial !!!! 8 pages . well hell when it reaches that count number its usually time for this ...

The Okie Corral







__________________
Sent with Probably Cause and Irrisputable Proof

"This isn't domestic abuse. This is hilarious!" -Peter Griffin
sheriff733 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 13:38   #200
BamaTrooper
Almost Done
 
BamaTrooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: football heaven
Posts: 11,670
Send a message via Yahoo to BamaTrooper
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
I don't see telling the whole world that you refuse to do the job you're being paid to do as common sense.



Then again, its not exactly a common virtue these days.
Can they prioritize? You know, violent felonies over felonies over misdemeanor over violation?
__________________
"Some people learn by words, some people learn by consequences, some people can't learn." CNS
BamaTrooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:07.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,320
394 Members
926 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42