| Author | Post |
|---|
DT4E31
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
| So now ccw should be based on how often you go to the range......its that a rational argument for individual rights or just sour grapes
|
kparker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 892 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 05:12 am |
|
Riddle me
Ouch! I don't think you should use that phrase in the current context!
|
Smurfologist
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
DT4E31 wrote: So now ccw should be based on how often you go to the range......its that a rational argument for individual rights or just sour grapes
DT4E31, I am not suggesting that CC should be based on how often someone goes to the range (although, I know of at least one state - Texas - that has a range test in order to fulfill their CC requirement). The reason I said what I said is because it has been suggested that only private citizens should not be able to CC (or OC) because they are not "special" in some way (i.e. a Judge or a DA). I am not aware that "special people" are required to go through the same requirements that private citizens do to CC a weapon (i.e. like private citizens have to in Texas). I may have said what I said because I had just returned from the range where I have to re-qualify with my 9mm three times a year in order to work (300 out of 300, perfect score). So, there you have it. Oh, I do apologize if I offended you by the way I presented my post.
2nd Amendment........Use it.........Or, lose it!! Last edited on Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:55 pm by Smurfologist
|
Smurfologist
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
kparker wrote: Riddle me
Ouch! I don't think you should use that phrase in the current context!
Don't you just love the United States of America?!?
2nd Amendment........Use it........Or, lose it!!
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2008 09:23 pm |
|
'Been readin' all of these comments... in this thread 'n others. There's a common 'Mother-May-I" perception among many that you need 'permission' to do something that's already a recognized Right. By doing so... you've already accepted the tyranny of the State or Municipality in which you reside. Major difference between License and Rights. The "State' cannot grant you license to do anything that was your Pre-Existiing Right at birth. The 'Inalienable' Rights'... of which self defense is one.
I've posted this all over this forum... but I'm gonna do it again 'til it 'sinks in' somewhere.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, aptly noted in 2005:
"As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote:
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. ... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'."
Amazingly... the MSM and even the talk radio wonks won't touch this decision.
Subset meaning 'The Milita' argument... and Municipality... Which is now Dead. 'All instrumets that constitute bearable arms. Arms, people! Not just 'firearms'... or even some type specific arms or firearms. 'Bearable arms... for self defense or defense of the State. The news weenies focused attention on DC... but this is a Constitutional decision affecting ALL of us.
Those states and municipalites which prohibit free exercise of the 2A by legitimate citizens are in violation of Constitutionally recognized Rights. They have been for a long time. So long in fact, it's been accepted as the norm. The Constitution does NOT bestow Rights... It's recognition and codification of their pre-existance.
The people who 'inhabit' government have all sworn the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (all of it). They do not. They have no intention of ever doing so.
Tyranny!
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.": Ben Franklin
Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 09:24 pm by Sonora Rebel
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 01:09 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: 'Been readin' all of these comments... in this thread 'n others. There's a common 'Mother-May-I" perception among many that you need 'permission' to do something that's already a recognized Right. By doing so... you've already accepted the tyranny of the State or Municipality in which you reside. Major difference between License and Rights. The "State' cannot grant you license to do anything that was your Pre-Existiing Right at birth. The 'Inalienable' Rights'... of which self defense is one.
I've posted this all over this forum... but I'm gonna do it again 'til it 'sinks in' somewhere.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, aptly noted in 2005:
"As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote:
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. ... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'."
Amazingly... the MSM and even the talk radio wonks won't touch this decision.
Subset meaning 'The Milita' argument... and Municipality... Which is now Dead. 'All instrumets that constitute bearable arms. Arms, people! Not just 'firearms'... or even some type specific arms or firearms. 'Bearable arms... for self defense or defense of the State. The news weenies focused attention on DC... but this is a Constitutional decision affecting ALL of us.
Those states and municipalites which prohibit free exercise of the 2A by legitimate citizens are in violation of Constitutionally recognized Rights. They have been for a long time. So long in fact, it's been accepted as the norm. The Constitution does NOT bestow Rights... It's recognition and codification of their pre-existance.
The people who 'inhabit' government have all sworn the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (all of it). They do not. They have no intention of ever doing so.
Tyranny!
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.": Ben Franklin
Can I get an amen?
Freedom!
Power to, from, and for the people.
It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
|
GlockLover
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 05:08 am |
|
Smurfologist wrote: DT4E31 wrote: There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7??
DT4E31, people have been complaining (i.e. "Special People"). I wonder how good of a shot they are; I wonder how often they go to the range. Do these "special people" just go get a gun and CC because they can? Riddle me that, Batman!!
2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!
Sorry to say judges and DAs and ADA, both have to apply for a CCW in NYC; but they get placed to the front of the line before everybody else.
|
GlockLover
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 05:11 am |
|
Smurfologist wrote
DT4E31, people have been complaining (i.e. "Special People"). I wonder how good of a shot they are; I wonder how often they go to the range. Do these "special people" just go get a gun and CC because they can? Riddle me that, Batman!!
2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!
The police only have to go to the range twice a year, and they all dont go (NYCPD that is).
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
As a former cop... You're never 'off duty'. One of these 'Take the oath' jobs that those who've never done it don't understand. I was required by the Department to carry off duty... handcuffs too. They even specified the mfg. 'Colt, S&W or Charter Arms'... nuthin' else. '38 spl `156 gr. semi-wadgutters only... Nuthin' else.
'Even effected an arrest in a restaurant for 'Disorderly Conduct & Resisting Arrest' (he was a real piece of work... trust me... ) 'n a street wimp for 'Soliciting 'n whatever else went with that... 'Lewd 'n Lacivious Conduct' or somethin'. 'Sent a drunk German merchant sailor out the door at the request of the owner... 'cause this sheeetfaced clown spoke no English... 'n I speak enuff German to get the job done. "Komen sie bitte... Ich bin Baltimore Polizei... Aus machen. Verstadt? Schnell..." That worked. This guy could hardly stand up.
Sometimes I'd stay 'til the barkeep locked up in this one joint... He closed at midnite. (I'd done the 7-11 shift.) Sort'a iffy neighborhood. At that time... since the BPD Commish was appointed by the Gov... we had jurisdiction Statewide... Which P.O'd the Statts Polizei to no end. I didn't 'look' like a cop in civvies. (Boots, Levis, leather jacket... ) 'Most people never knew 'n I didn't announce it.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
openryan wrote:
if you don't like it, become a cop -- or vote.
Yeah, cuz, you know, the 2nd amendment is easily and effectively defended by merely voting in today's political climate. 
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 11:50 am |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: As a former cop... You're never 'off duty'. One of these 'Take the oath' jobs that those who've never done it don't understand. I was required by the Department to carry off duty... handcuffs too. They even specified the mfg. 'Colt, S&W or Charter Arms'... nuthin' else. '38 spl `156 gr. semi-wadgutters only... Nuthin' else.
'Even effected an arrest in a restaurant for 'Disorderly Conduct & Resisting Arrest' (he was a real piece of work... trust me... ) 'n a street wimp for 'Soliciting 'n whatever else went with that... 'Lewd 'n Lacivious Conduct' or somethin'. 'Sent a drunk German merchant sailor out the door at the request of the owner... 'cause this sheeetfaced clown spoke no English... 'n I speak enuff German to get the job done. "Komen sie bitte... Ich bin Baltimore Polizei... Aus machen. Verstadt? Schnell..." That worked. This guy could hardly stand up.
Sometimes I'd stay 'til the barkeep locked up in this one joint... He closed at midnite. (I'd done the 7-11 shift.) Sort'a iffy neighborhood. At that time... since the BPD Commish was appointed by the Gov... we had jurisdiction Statewide... Which P.O'd the Statts Polizei to no end. I didn't 'look' like a cop in civvies. (Boots, Levis, leather jacket... ) 'Most people never knew 'n I didn't announce it.
Baltimore PD? That goes a long way towards explaining your attitude towards the average citizen having the same rights as the police. At least you had sense enough to leave the Peoples Republik of Maryland.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 03:41 pm |
|
Yeah... Baltimore PD... Southern District... Sector 2. Cherry Hill, Westport, Highlandtown, Morrell Park 'n Hollinswood area. Ay-yi-yi... OY!
Yeah, I did have the good sense to flee. I never did belong in that environment (I've always been a cowboy at heart). Now I are one! 
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 03:56 pm |
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Yeah... Baltimore PD... Southern District... Sector 2. Cherry Hill, Westport, Highlandtown, Morrell Park 'n Hollinswood area. Ay-yi-yi... OY!
Yeah, I did have the good sense to flee. I never did belong in that environment (I've always been a cowboy at heart). Now I are one!
Yippee -ki-yay! Glad to hear that you found a good home in a gun friendly state.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
| I came to this desert over 40 years ago with a Navy Ordnance crew... 'been in/out over the years... and finally had the good sense to pack it in and leave that 'place' behind forever. Maryland is a basket case... and we all know why.
|
hudson valley
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 03:29 am |
|
ilbob wrote: Part of the reason for the special privileges is to bond the cops to the government hacks that hired them. if they didn't get special privileges, the job would just be a job, and cops might be inclined to just move on when they didn't like what was going on. the special perks tend to keep them in the group. Read COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine....Police and almost all city employees are the "Knights" serving the "King"....if you've read it ya know what I mean and no disrespect intended to LE or City employees.....great respect for both and the jobs they do...
|
Current time is 11:01 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
