close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

I want to make sure everyone following the news now is aware of this:

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Will Beararms, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. GSSF17

    GSSF17 ...2 of 'em

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,280
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Central FL

    Yes we do. More than you know, my friend. But oh, show us the way. Lead us into the light...... :upeyes:


    Terrible.
     
  2. Annoyinglylongname

    Annoyinglylongname

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heinrich Himler would be proud of you...
     

  3. dcc12

    dcc12

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    1
    exactly.
     
  4. Glockworks

    Glockworks Ready/Aim/Fire Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    My GPS indicates Virginia, FWIW.
    As would Joseph Goebbels for drinking the kool aid to the last drop. And this grown up Nazi Youth has an issued weapon? I hope not for he gives officers a very bad name IMO.
     
  5. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,887
    Likes Received:
    2,838
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    As was recently in the news, imagine if Dorner has 100 buddies that all decided they had wanted to take on the police and the police didnt know who they were.

    I think what is not being seen is that if people were to start revolting over gun confiscation, it will come that they wont WAIT for a team to come take them. Once doors start being kicked in for confiscation, that will change everything.

    Think of it like how welcome an invading army would be welcomed.
     
  6. nmk

    nmk

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,709
    Likes Received:
    323
    Either you've chosen your words very poorly or the vast majority here see exactly what you're implying.
     
  7. dwhite53

    dwhite53

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Central North Carolina
    So they should never let anyone walk on a traffic violation regardless of reason?

    All the Best,
    D. White
     
  8. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,357
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)


    No, the problem, is in typical GT fashion, a bunch of you can not be bothered to think or read. So you fell all over yourselves trying to liken me to hitler and the nazi party, and never once actually thought about what I said.


    But somehow, in GnG logic, defending doing things the right way, and actually making the system function like it should makes one a "grown up nazi youth":rofl:


    And this is why so many people see us as loons. So many of you were in such a hurry to get your ill conceived nazi comparison off that no one actually ever took the time to read, and then understand what I had said. Which is fine, because I've had quite a bit of laughter at several of you. Especially the last oh, 30 people who jumped in with nazi or hitler comparisons, like they were the first to think of it :rofl:
     
  9. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,357
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)

    That's not a valid comparison in any way shape or form.

    Moving violation stops are about compliance. The cop can give a citation, or let you off, whatever he feels he needs to do to get you to comply with the law.


    That has nothing to do with the fact, that his job is not to decide wether moving violations are constitutional.


    What I have issue with, as I've said several times, is with LEA's deciding that they don't need the SC, and that they can dictate to the American people what laws are, and are not constitutional.
     
  10. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,887
    Likes Received:
    2,838
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    When you say an LEO should do as they are told as long as its "legal" people tend to think of the many bad things (think Syria right now) that have been done in the name of "legal acts." I doubt the Syrian courts would say the govt using Scud missiles against its population is illegal?

    During the Green Revolution in Iran, was sniping a yound girl doing nothing wrong illegal?

    But in omne post, you actually showed you know the difference, the rest of this is you just being stubborn and trying to argue that people dont understand.

    This quote from you above is the correct answer and what people are saying.

    They say that LEO who find gun confiscation morally reprehensible, or they themselves find it violates what they themselves believes the constitution stands for, should not participate.

    That does not mean their wont be backlash against these police. But often times in history, the right thing to do hasn't been the easy thing to do.
     
  11. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    18,357
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Location:
    Alaska, again (for now)
    Trying to draw a comparison between enforcing a legal, and constitutional law that one doesn't agree with, and say, the Iranian girl getting shot, is as invalid a comparison as the much tried, and still very tired hitler argument.


    It just doesn't work.

    The problem, is that the vast majority of posters are so emotionally invested in guns, especially here in GT, that they can not separate that from the argument.

    "This is a good thing, because they're breaking the rules in favor of guns" and no thought is given to the fact that were letting them completely over rule and invalidate the body who's job it is to review and decide what laws are and are not just.
     
  12. BradD

    BradD

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2000
    Messages:
    7,964
    Likes Received:
    1,790
    Location:
    KY
    AK, I read most of the thread, and I don't think anybody brought up the following. I'm an engineer, not a political scientist or govt specialist, so hopefully someone can help me understand.

    I think, in a way, you are correct, and our govt system is set up so that the SCOTUS is the last word on what is constitutional, but...

    It doesn't take a legal scholar to read quotes from the Founders and know exactly what they meant in the Second Amendment. IF the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, then we know what they'll decide: any law more stringent than a very minor limitation on citizen gun ownership is unconstitutional.

    However, we have no reason to think the SCOTUS will strictly and honestly interpret the Constitution. Does anybody here think that if we have two more left-wing presidents in a row, that the SCOTUS will not be packed with people who will (lie and) say the Second Amendment allows severe restrictions or complete bans?

    So what are citizens to do at that point? What should LEOs do that that point? We all will know that the courts will be lying and that freedom is about to go down the drain.

    It's as if there is a short-circuit in our checks and balances system. The BoR is not supposed to be up for debate and legislative whims. However, with political domination for just a decade or two, one side can stack the judicial branch with judges who will provide decisions along idealogical lines.

    So it seems to me that the LEOs are probably correct. They're just ahead of most of us on these thoughts. There's what the courts will probably (lie and) say is constitutional, and then there's what all of us KNOW is constitutional, regardless of what the courts say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  13. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,971
    Likes Received:
    16,254
    Location:
    S FL
    But if the Supreme Court ruled that a total civlian gun ban was Constitutional that would be a ruling that is very much against what significant numbers of lower courts and significant numbers, probably a majority of legislatures have determined.
     
  14. BradD

    BradD

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2000
    Messages:
    7,964
    Likes Received:
    1,790
    Location:
    KY
    They can still rule however they want, right? Who's going to step in and say "Hey, there are x number of cases in which previous courts ruled the other direction!" If there are seven very left-wing SCOTUS justices in a few years, and another case such as Heller comes up, what's stopping them from ruling that the anti-gun law is constitutional?

    BTW, I realize I'm no expert in constitutional law and other legal matters, so I am open to being corrected.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  15. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,887
    Likes Received:
    2,838
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    9 idiots in black robes that cant read is doesnt mean what is written isnt there.

    The courts are MAKING laws and that in of itself is unconstitional
     
  16. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,971
    Likes Received:
    16,254
    Location:
    S FL
    The Supreme Court could rule however they want. But if we look at the rulings historically, generally the rulings are in line with what some other court or legislature has already ruled. Consider the two recent rulings by the court regarding guns. They suggested Heller has a right to have a gun. No huge groundbreaking there; I have had a handgun since sometime in the late seventies, and a long gn before that. They ruled that a complete prohibition of allowing concealed carry for civilians is not legitimate. I have had a permit again, since the late seventies, mostly in FL but first for a few years in a state generally thought of to have very strict, prohibitive laws. Even people in New York City can get a permit. Maybe not many, but it can be done.

    My point is in my opinion while sometimes the Supreme Court may break totally new ground, generally they are closer (to me at least) to clarifying and choosing between two different schools of thought that are currently in production, based on the few items I have read that they have offered out over the years.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  17. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,887
    Likes Received:
    2,838
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    One issue with how "constitutional" is currently determined is 9 people, with political agendas, are making the decision. They are supposed to apply the law WITHOUT their political bias.

    Look, if the Constitution would say, "stars must be on a blue background on the USA flag" and that came to court because someone decided they wanted to use black dye because its cheaper than blue, the court wouldnt be able to read the word "blue"

    They would try and say blue really might mean a rainbow because we dont want to offend the GBLT community. Maybe the founding fathers meant purple and not reallt blue since back then colorad were differnt.

    The courts would try and re-define blue to fit the the judge(s)'s political agenda.

    The couldnt figureout when blue was written, they actually did mean "the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm."
     
  18. SitkaBob

    SitkaBob

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dana, I'm not sure of your intent with the following: "Originally Posted by WarCry
    Yes, rights are controlled by the government. No matter what anyone says, the rights in THIS COUNTRY are bestowed by the Constitution. And, yes, that does mean there is a risk that those rights could be restricted."

    In our country under our Constitution our right are "Endowed by our Creator." The Declaration is our founding document and the Constitution is our guarantee that our inalienable rights are protected from government over-reach.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  19. flw

    flw

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you do not believe in moral or ethical laws?

    I would hope that our LEO's are not robots. I do not believe they are.

    In the military you can disobey a order, if you believe it is a illegal order. I do not know about civilian LEO's.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  20. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    24,887
    Likes Received:
    2,838
    Location:
    CO & Baden –Württemberg
    I am sorry. My sig line didnt enough room to copy the full post.