| Author | Post |
|---|
Sa45auto
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 09:56 pm |
|
mkl wrote:
Sa45auto wrote:
mkl wrote:
Sa45auto wrote:
[user=2744]
While it is true that all men are created equal, with God Given rights, BUT the US Constitution, protects those rights ONLY for law abiding CITIZENS of The United States of America.
The people, whose rights are in question here are neither law abiding nor citizens, but illegal aliens.
.
This is not true. The constitution spells out some rights for CITIZENS and some rights for PEOPLE.
See 14th amendment.
" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Earlier in the amendment it spells out who "citizens are" then also includes any person within the jurisdiction in that next part.
The 4th amendment does not say citizens. It says people. The 5th amendment says no "person".
That is the whole purpose of a place like GITMO. We could not have that in the US, as each of those prisoners would get the full protection of the US Constitution.
Nice try, but you are wrong.
The Preamble defines the word people as used in the document,
"We the people of the United States of America, do ordain and establish this Constitution...."
The Constitution does not protect the rights of illegals alians, legals yes, illegals NO!
It does not protect the rights of people in any other country of the world either.
IANAL
You didn't even read the 14th amendment did you? You are clearly wrong here. I could post supreme court cases if that is what sways you (it doesn't me). Really, the easiest way to prove you are wrong is to...READ IT yourself.
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How can you argue that the last line is not talking about non-citizens who are in America? Are you that blinded by your fears?
If you will re-read my last post, you will see a clarification that answers your question.
As soon as I posted it I noticed the need for a clarification, and started to edit my post.
I am posting using my phone which makes the process a little slow.
Personal attacks usually denote a weekness in the atacker's argument.
|
Wynder
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Jul 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bear, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1233 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 09:58 pm |
|
LEO 229 wrote: In this case... one guy with a smart mouth.  Well, maybe not that smart. He was begging to get pulled over and boasted about getting paid. At that point he was creating RS to pull them over.
I guess this is just perception then -- if an officer flags me down and I don't feel I can lawfully ignore his command (e.g. blow through the checkpoint without stopping), then I'm being detained. That's essentially the same test that's used in courts -- when someone believes they're not free to leave, they're being detained.
Granted the minor he said/she said facts are hashed out in court, but with a checkpoint, it's pretty obvious that your freedom of travel is being restricted without initial reasonable suspicion to do so.
I'll concede to counter-arguments about border proximity having their influental place here. 
|
Armed4Life
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 11:00 pm |
|
Sa45Auto,
1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.
The thread topic (freedom & liberty related) is consistent with the Forum Rules.
|
Armed4Life
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
LEO229,
I think questioning the constitutionality of the tactics used to fight the illegal immigration problem are completely relevant. Like you, I want the problem addressed. I just think that this particular tactic is unconstitutional....hence my outrage.
|
Sa45auto
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 12:03 am |
|
Armed4Life wrote: Sa45Auto,
1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.
The thread topic (freedom & liberty related) is consistent with the Forum Rules.
Who am I to say anything, I have posted on this thread as much as anyone. 
I didn't say I wasn't enjoying the dialog, I was just observing.
When it comes to rules I am sure that "freedom and liberty" can be stretched just about anyway you want to.
|
mkl
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Arlington,va |
| Posts: | 273 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 12:08 am |
|
I re-read it. You're still wrong.
"
The phrase "the people of" means legal residents, who have the right to frame a government. They were all citizens. We do have legak resident alians. They have been allowed many rights of citizens, Bug they cannot fram the government.
The Constitution does not protect the rights of illegals alians, legals yes, illegals NO!"
Yes, we framed the government. But we framed the government to give rights to ANY person who is in the jurisdiction of the United States. I will repeat:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
See the first part where it says "citizens"? That is talking about , CITIZENS. see the last sentence, where it says "any person within its jurisdiction"? That means ANY PERSON in the United States. So what does ANY PERSON get? They get "equal protection of the laws". So you are in fact, unarguably wrong. Unless you want to do what we love to complain about, and start twisting the wording of the constitution.
So even illegal aliens, as long as they're physically in the boundaries of the US, get the protection of life liberty, property, and due process.
BTW, I am posting from my phone as well. I know it can be tricky. iphone ftw.
|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6640 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 12:08 am |
|
Armed4Life wrote: LEO229,
I think questioning the constitutionality of the tactics used to fight the illegal immigration problem are completely relevant. Like you, I want the problem addressed. I just think that this particular tactic is unconstitutional....hence my outrage.
I understand.... Here is my take on it....
If the government builds a wall we are somehow offending Mexico and cutting them off.
If we man the border with Troops we are at war with Mexico
If we set up check points to help stop or limit the easy access of illegals headed North we are violating the rights of the people.
If we check the status of those that appear to be illegals up North we are racists and discriminating against them.
The people scream they want something done but then you cannot do anything without offending someone.
|
protector84
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 02:23 am |
|
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "Anyone who is willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." The problem with this society is that the people constantly want the government to take care of them when they can take care of themselves. The people consistently vote for more police and more money for law enforcement when nothing changes except less freedom for everyone.
Granted something like an immigration issue clearly is a government issue. There is a simple way of handling it. Build two solid concrete walls along the border about 50 feet high and 8 feet thick. Then dig a 50 foot trench between the walls and add an electric fence between the walls. Between the fence and both walls, fill up the entire area with land mines. Problem solved.
The problem with the sheeple is they are willing to let their own lives get interfered with for a false sense of security. Take airport security for instance. If you don't want a plane to get hijacked, you make sure that every other passenger on board is carrying a firearm. No, instead they do a half-ass job searching everyone for lipstick, nail clippers, and shaving cream in the name of "safety." I can accept law enforcement searching bags for explosives. What I have an issue with is the fact that you cannot get on an airplane without giving your name and personal information to the police. You have to "show your papers" to get on a plane. That has nothing to do with security. The government does not have any business knowing about your travel habits or who you are unless you are endangering someone.
This really is not a free country anymore because if you dare do anything outside of the box, you have to deal with the police. For instance, not too long ago I was jogging late at night in an up-scale neighborhood and carrying a firearm. Three cop cars stop me and question me about what I was doing. Techincally I could sue because I never broke the law and they did not have probable cause to believe I was breaking the law. The old mantra, "if you are not doing anything illegal, why worry about it" is a bunch of BS. If you aren't at home sedated on the couch fully absorbing mindless cable television, you are a suspect.
It shouldn't make a difference if it is 1:00 am when I am on the street. It is supposed to be a free country. A free country means that you have the right to go about your business without A) having to tell the government your intentions and B) not having to show your papers when moving from one place to another. It doesn't matter if someone looks or seems weird, it if isn't illegal, it is none of their business.
The police used to be a respected organization at one time by the general public. Nowdays, virtually nobody has respect for them. Rich, poor, white, black, employee, or owner, you ask anyone their opinions on the police and it is the same answer. They never help you when you need help and when you don't need their help, but have to deal with them for some reason, you are the one who always gets in trouble.
This is another reason why I think gun ownership and particularly open carry are important. Citizens should be able to handle themselves first and the police should be there second only when the people aren't able to handle it. If there is some situation that people cannot work out or are not trained to handle, that is where the police can step in. We are supposed to believe that we don't need to protect ourselves because the police are there to help us. Baloney. The number one "crime" people are arrested for are drug violations. It is obviously the opinion of the government that removing dangerous people from society is less important than telling people what products they can put in their own bodies. I have dealt with the cops so many times that I would know how pathetic and disturbing the situation really is. In total, many hours of time have been wasted by the authorities on me for petty meaningless stuff while dangerous offenders are on the loose. You ask any citizen if they would prefer that the police be there to help keep society safe from violent offenders such as robbers, rapists, and murderers, most would say yes. You ask if they would prefer that the police be there to make sure that Mom is wearing a seatbelt, your son is not smoking pot, and that your wife is not a prostitute when she is walking home from the club, most would say no.
Unfortunately, that is what law enforcement has come to in society. Not keeping you safe but getting in your business making it increasingly difficult to do the most basic things without having to give your social security number out or your mother's maiden name. As to the not worrying if you aren't doing anything illegal, the fact is that you are doing something illegal. The legal system has been corrupted to the point where nobody can do anything without breaking some law or another whether it is a traffic law, zoning law, drug law, city ordinance or some such. Sad to say the ones most to blame are the stupid public for increasingly wanting the government in their lives. Another poor argument is that the police are just doing their job. They do a great job when they get lucky and actually catch a dangerous criminal but most of the time it is just hassling the general public, charging good citizens with petty infractions, and making everyone's lives more difficult. Therefore if a cop wants to do something good in society, the first step would be turn in their badge and get a different job.
As for us who are aware of this state of society, I would not allow intimidation to get you to change your habits. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to explain. Therefore, when encountered by the cops, you should keep your mouth shut and ask to speak to a lawyer. Don't give them any information, don't let them search, and if they violate your rights, file a lawsuit. Also, it is a wise idea to fight every infraction in court. Do you really believe that you deserve a $200 fine for forgetting to signal when no one is around? If the general public stood up to this crap, either all of the cops would get off of the streets which probably would make things safer or they would all have to miss their court dates and actually do something productive.
Back to open carry, you should carry your firearm. You are a soverign individual and can handle yourself. Don't you feel better about yourself knowing that if something happens you can take care of yourself and your family or friends rather than having to depend on someone hiding under a bridge with a radar gun in his hands, a cup of coffee in his lap, and a donut in his mouth unable to help you.
|
nitrovic
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 488 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 03:34 am by nitrovic
|
freesignal
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 09:14 am |
|
protector84 wrote:
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "Anyone who is willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." The problem with this society is that the people constantly want the government to take care of them when they can take care of themselves. The people consistently vote for more police and more money for law enforcement when nothing changes except less freedom for everyone.
Granted something like an immigration issue clearly is a government issue. There is a simple way of handling it. Build two solid concrete walls along the border about 50 feet high and 8 feet thick. Then dig a 50 foot trench between the walls and add an electric fence between the walls. Between the fence and both walls, fill up the entire area with land mines. Problem solved.
The problem with the sheeple is they are willing to let their own lives get interfered with for a false sense of security. Take airport security for instance. If you don't want a plane to get hijacked, you make sure that every other passenger on board is carrying a firearm. No, instead they do a half-ass job searching everyone for lipstick, nail clippers, and shaving cream in the name of "safety." I can accept law enforcement searching bags for explosives. What I have an issue with is the fact that you cannot get on an airplane without giving your name and personal information to the police. You have to "show your papers" to get on a plane. That has nothing to do with security. The government does not have any business knowing about your travel habits or who you are unless you are endangering someone.
This really is not a free country anymore because if you dare do anything outside of the box, you have to deal with the police. For instance, not too long ago I was jogging late at night in an up-scale neighborhood and carrying a firearm. Three cop cars stop me and question me about what I was doing. Techincally I could sue because I never broke the law and they did not have probable cause to believe I was breaking the law. The old mantra, "if you are not doing anything illegal, why worry about it" is a bunch of BS. If you aren't at home sedated on the couch fully absorbing mindless cable television, you are a suspect.
It shouldn't make a difference if it is 1:00 am when I am on the street. It is supposed to be a free country. A free country means that you have the right to go about your business without A) having to tell the government your intentions and B) not having to show your papers when moving from one place to another. It doesn't matter if someone looks or seems weird, it if isn't illegal, it is none of their business.
The police used to be a respected organization at one time by the general public. Nowdays, virtually nobody has respect for them. Rich, poor, white, black, employee, or owner, you ask anyone their opinions on the police and it is the same answer. They never help you when you need help and when you don't need their help, but have to deal with them for some reason, you are the one who always gets in trouble.
This is another reason why I think gun ownership and particularly open carry are important. Citizens should be able to handle themselves first and the police should be there second only when the people aren't able to handle it. If there is some situation that people cannot work out or are not trained to handle, that is where the police can step in. We are supposed to believe that we don't need to protect ourselves because the police are there to help us. Baloney. The number one "crime" people are arrested for are drug violations. It is obviously the opinion of the government that removing dangerous people from society is less important than telling people what products they can put in their own bodies. I have dealt with the cops so many times that I would know how pathetic and disturbing the situation really is. In total, many hours of time have been wasted by the authorities on me for petty meaningless stuff while dangerous offenders are on the loose. You ask any citizen if they would prefer that the police be there to help keep society safe from violent offenders such as robbers, rapists, and murderers, most would say yes. You ask if they would prefer that the police be there to make sure that Mom is wearing a seatbelt, your son is not smoking pot, and that your wife is not a prostitute when she is walking home from the club, most would say no.
Unfortunately, that is what law enforcement has come to in society. Not keeping you safe but getting in your business making it increasingly difficult to do the most basic things without having to give your social security number out or your mother's maiden name. As to the not worrying if you aren't doing anything illegal, the fact is that you are doing something illegal. The legal system has been corrupted to the point where nobody can do anything without breaking some law or another whether it is a traffic law, zoning law, drug law, city ordinance or some such. Sad to say the ones most to blame are the stupid public for increasingly wanting the government in their lives. Another poor argument is that the police are just doing their job. They do a great job when they get lucky and actually catch a dangerous criminal but most of the time it is just hassling the general public, charging good citizens with petty infractions, and making everyone's lives more difficult. Therefore if a cop wants to do something good in society, the first step would be turn in their badge and get a different job.
As for us who are aware of this state of society, I would not allow intimidation to get you to change your habits. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to explain. Therefore, when encountered by the cops, you should keep your mouth shut and ask to speak to a lawyer. Don't give them any information, don't let them search, and if they violate your rights, file a lawsuit. Also, it is a wise idea to fight every infraction in court. Do you really believe that you deserve a $200 fine for forgetting to signal when no one is around? If the general public stood up to this crap, either all of the cops would get off of the streets which probably would make things safer or they would all have to miss their court dates and actually do something productive.
Back to open carry, you should carry your firearm. You are a soverign individual and can handle yourself. Don't you feel better about yourself knowing that if something happens you can take care of yourself and your family or friends rather than having to depend on someone hiding under a bridge with a radar gun in his hands, a cup of coffee in his lap, and a donut in his mouth unable to help you.
Well... I was gonna write a reply of my own but I think this one pretty much covers it.
|
LEO 229
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | NOVA, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 6640 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
nitrovic wrote: Armed4Life wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFEj-UBU9Q
Steam comes out my ears everytime I watch this.
Do the rest of you feel the same way?
I'm glad our borders are being protected. Good for those immigration guards. That guy in the back seat was such a tool anyway.
Agreed.... it was not necessary to give the border patrol a hard time for doing what they have been instructed to do. Would he have them refuse and be fired? They have families and bills like everyone else.
The task is so simple and basic.... just ask if they are all US Citizens.. and let them be on their way. They are not even asking for "papers" either. The occupants could even lie.
The only reason the vehicle was told to pull over is because the guy in the back seat begged for it when he acted like an ass. I know.. the cops abused their authority.. well this guy abused them so all is fair at the moment in my eyes.
So in turn.... the border patrol exercised their authority and pushed back by having the vehicle pull over. I would love to have seen what happened when he exited the vehicle.
Honestly.. this guy was a total schmuck. And if there is anyone here that thinks otherwise... you got issues.
You cannot treat other people like he did. He was not asking "questions" either. He was making a statement and being antagonistic. He even said "I am going to get paid!"
|
mkl
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Arlington,va |
| Posts: | 273 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
LEO 229 wrote:
nitrovic wrote: Armed4Life wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFEj-UBU9Q
Steam comes out my ears everytime I watch this.
Do the rest of you feel the same way?
I'm glad our borders are being protected. Good for those immigration guards. That guy in the back seat was such a tool anyway.
Agreed.... it was not necessary to give the border patrol a hard time for doing what they have been instructed to do. Would he have them refuse and be fired? They have families and bills like everyone else.
The task is so simple and basic.... just ask if they are all US Citizens.. and let them be on their way. They are not even asking for "papers" either. The occupants could even lie.
The only reason the vehicle was told to pull over is because the guy in the back seat begged for it when he acted like an ass. I know.. the cops abused their authority.. well this guy abused them so all is fair at the moment in my eyes.
So in turn.... the border patrol exercised their authority and pushed back by having the vehicle pull over. I would love to have seen what happened when he exited the vehicle.
Honestly.. this guy was a total schmuck. And if there is anyone here that thinks otherwise... you got issues.
You cannot treat other people like he did. He was not asking "questions" either. He was making a statement and being antagonistic. He even said "I am going to get paid!"
I think people who the government treats unfairly should get paid. The guy was probably a schmuck, but I don't care. I see this as activism, just like some people OCing to prove a point, this guy refused to answer their question. Would I do it? Probably not, but I am still glad there are some people to question authority.
|
protector84
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 02:24 am |
|
I have also noticed a number of times police officers getting jumpy and nervous when they see me packing. I will be in a coffee shop with some friends and will get quite a few stares at first from the general public who is not used to seeing open carry but most of the time the stares go away and they don't worry about it. Some girls the other day thought it was "hot" that I carried. The police on the other hand will continuously watch my every movement as I am going to the counter to order another product, to the bathroom, to another table, etc. A friend of mine was open carrying a knife in the same establishment and reached in his pocket right next to the knife to get his wallet to pay for a beverage when a cop behind him made a scene telling him to get his hands out of his pockets and to "hold it right there."
Maybe I changed the topic a bit but it is this type of micro-management from law enforcement against the general public such as these checkpoints that is very disturbing. The fact is that the police have no jurisdiction on private property unless they have probable cause to be there (such as someone calling the cops). Just as the management allows me to carry a gun in their establishment and my friend to carry a knife in there, they also have the right to ask the police to leave if they wish. The police have no more rights to be there than anyone else. They sure think they do, though. Not to mention that you don't have to obey their commands because it is private property and they are given a privilege to be there just like any citizen.
Unfortunately, if you don't obey them and are lucky enough not to get shot 19 times for reaching for your Visa credit card, you then have to deal with a judge and prosecutor both of whom are on the same payroll as the cop and regularly have lunch out together. The only way this nonsense is going to end is with the public standing up to this crap. That might mean filing a HUGE lawsuit against a cop who even puts a hand on you when on private property when it is none of their business what you are doing or maybe in a gun-friendly establishment having the management actually asking the cops themselves to leave. The cops are not the "law" and they are not above the law. A citizen can even arrest a cop if the cop is breaking the law and maybe it is time this starts happening.
|
Lysander
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21st, 2008 02:46 am |
|
protector84 wrote: I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "Anyone who is willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither."
Just to clarify, but I believe the quote actually is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
|
Obe
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
| Punkass. They should detained him for being stupid. Simple enough.
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
LEO 229 wrote: This video ticks me off too!!
This "former marine" was looking for trouble and was being a complete jerk on purpose.
The border patrol guys were very casual and only asked "Are you all US citizens?"
All they had to say was "yes" and they would be on their way. The border patrol are looking for those that are not citizens. There is no secret to being a citizen so it was rather pointless not to answer.
And did I hear him say "I am going to get paid off this!"
This single guy was begging for confrontation and dragged his friends into the mix. I would be kicking his ass once we were allowed to leave.
Much as I hate to agree with LEO on anything but the flavor of jelly doughnuts ...he is dead on. I have no problem in saying I'm a citizen of the country I fought for, pay taxes to, and am proud to live in. If a cop asked me in COS, I'd ask why do you want to know? Near a border, I know why he is asking.Last edited on Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:35 pm by Gunslinger
|
Phat Shantz
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Greetings Patriots,
As this is my first post on OpenCarry, I appreciate your site and the passion with which you pursue liberty. Precisely to that point, this is one of those topics that should and must spark debate among patriots and lovers of liberty.
Every citizen is unfettered in their debate and latitude in defining our freedoms in the United States, so long as certain well-established legal and Constitutional boundaries are respected.
One of those well-respected and historically acknowledged boundaries comes from the fact that The Constitution is a legal contract between the governed and the government, establishing and placing rigorous limits ON THE GOVERNMENT, not on the governed. To this point, men like Samuel Adams and James Madison were opposed to ratification of The Constitution while it lacked the amendments we recognize today as the Bill of Rights.
I am personally grateful to these men for their vision. It is exactly because of their foresight, honor, and resistance, that I still have protected liberty to exercise my God-Given rights to my person, my property, my liberty, and my security. Without these timeless and unchanging (take that, living-document liberals) legal statements, I am certain my rights would have, long ago, been breached by home-grown tyrants. We are fertilizing a few of these home-grown tyrants as political candidates even today. The Tree of Liberty is looking pretty old and tired.
While this site is almost singly-dedicated to one of those liberties as specified in the second amendment to The Constitution, the right to self-protection and the rest stand or fall on our resistance -- armed or unarmed -- to the erosion and encroachment of our liberties.
John Jay and Henry Clay -- yes, even Thomas Jefferson -- was considered, in their day, what we would call "punks." They were brash, unapologetic, and were pressing a new nation to war. What else can be said? They were (in whispers, all together) revolutionaries.
This fellow, regardless of whether he is old enough to drink (a government regulation that should never have seen the light of day) or whether he was really a Marine (semper fi), is expressing the same manner and tone of challenge to the armed pacification of the southern states as the Minutemen of Concord expressed to the armed pacification of their colony. And one day, I believe, it will result in exactly the same action as on that fateful day at Concord Bridge.
The way to delay that fateful day (when patriots must take up an armed struggle against their tyrannical government), is to gently and legally express our knowledge and right to resist armed intimidation and pacification. The quasi-military forces (possibly even un-Constitutional forces, if I read my document aright), know they are on shaky ground. One of the uniformed bullies actually admitted, "there is no gray area here." And he was right. What the Greenshirts were doing was clearly unConstitutional, and they know it!
Their use of language is a give-away: never answer the pertinent question, repeat the unlawful request, change the subject, describe -- not explain -- what is occurring (like the subjects couldn't figure that out on their own).
Refusal to place the subject under arrest, only detention, is a court-sanctioned ploy. The Greenshirts know if they arrest this fellow, it better be for something that will stand up in court, and because they failed to inform him of probable cause and failed to establish their jurisdiction where a crime may have been committed, they are on shaky ground and they know it. And the camera is rolling. Worst of all, all actors were showing extraordinary respect and compliance in the face of clearly intimidating tactics -- designed, by their training, to elicit resistance so they can arrest for something purely unrelated to the initial stop.
It is highly possible that this fellow is a jerk. But he's a jerk clearly on the side of liberty and doing something that you may not have the courage to do. He may go to jail some day for his views. But, my friend, if he doesn't, you may be going sooner than you thought for exercising liberties that you thought were clearly understood.
They aren't.
It is interesting to see, though these video blogs, that the Greenshirts are more frightened by a video camera (and the concomitant and inevitable civil suit) than they are of intra-mural judicial restraint. One of the commenters above noted that it is futile to resist the commands of the Greenshirts because they will be supported by the judges and lahwyahs that are all a part of the same, tyrannical system. This is only true if the video-tape never sees WorldNetDaily or Hannity and Colms. Once the video is out, so is the dirty little secret. The Greenshirts are all part of the same armed intimidation and confiscation movement within our own government that has made the the ATF slogan, "Always Think Forfeiture."
Open carry is another one of these issues. By expressing, through actions (louder than words) your knowledge and understanding of your rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights of The Constitution, you are announcing to many law enforcement tyrants that you are resisting their armed intimidation in your home, your neighborhood, and your community. Open Carry is as informative as truth serum to the question, "Are You A Tyrant?"
When a police officer ignores you and your weapon (or at least pretends to), they are acknowledging that you have the right to keep and bear arms, that The Constitution and the Bill of Rights clearly limits governmental intrusion, and that the property owner is the ultimate authority in that situation. When a uniformed tyrant makes a public display of his tyranny, it is a public declaration that he (or she) considers himself superior in authority to both the citizen (for whom he works) and to The Constitution (to which he/she took and oath to uphold). In either case, it is, at best, a breach of trust, and at worst, a criminal act. No gray area.
I heartily welcome both the restrained resistance to tyranny and those acts that clearly cross the line of civil disobedience and stray into pure disobedience. I especially welcome them when they are videotaped. We all learn how our Greenshirts, Blueshirts, Brownshirts, and Black Robes think of us, the sheep; and how they think of themselves as either the shepherds or the sheep dogs. We also learn the extent of the line between the government and the governed, and how broad it is. The closer it comes to us and our comfort zones, the more we should be scared. The more we are scared, the more we should prepare.
The Constitution enumerate no rights to the sheep. It enumerates some very important ones for citizens (and even just persons). It even specifically bars the federal government from any encroachment on those unenumerated rights and relegates the free exercise to the people and governmental authority of those to the several states. What brilliance by the framers. What foresight!
The Constitution places restrictions on the government and (by clear implication) on the armed enforcers (there is something in The Constitution about prohibiting a standing federal army except in times of war.... hmmm) like the BATF, ICE, and the myriad of jack-booted thugs that populate the national police-state.
If the citizen does not push back, tyranny will seep into every weave of our national fabric.
Remember, the Redcoats were Thomas Jefferson's legally authorized police agents at the time of the Declaration of Independence.
He was being a jerk.
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 06:01 pm |
|
Great first post, Phat!
|
KBCraig
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
Obe wrote: Punkass. They should detained him for being stupid. Simple enough. If stupidity were a crime, posts like yours would constitute probable cause.
|
Obe
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 03:33 pm |
|
KBCraig wrote: Obe wrote: Punkass. They should detained him for being stupid. Simple enough. If stupidity were a crime, posts like yours would constitute probable cause.
Thanks Craig. Because clearly the fact that he had the right to cause trouble for a casual question. If they had stopped them. Pulled them out of the car, asked for I.D., and ran his name into a computer, then you can get pissed. But come on. The guy was doing his job. He was stationed there. Regardless of whether or not he was not supposed to be there or whatever, it was his job. Why hassle the guy? Being a little punk rebel just makes problems worse. I did not see any violation of rights there.
"Are you a citizen?" "Yes." "Ok, thank you, move along." Done. That's it.
|
Current time is 09:16 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
