Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Pastor beaten and tazed by border ghestoppo


Oedipus Rex
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

In other words, he only believe in majority rule in certain occasions. This is consistent with the constitution as well. For instance, private citizens DO NOT have the right to vote for president and never have in our history. There's a reason for that. Look in to it and you'll begin to understand TJ as well as some of the other founders.

 

As for fundamental majority rule, I think ol Ben Franklin spelled it out perfectly: "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner"

Edited by brigadier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know some of you guys are far too confrontational at the wrong times and about the wrong stuff.

 

I'll be the first to tell there is a time when fighting back or even picking a fight is fair and just. In this case it wasn't. The guy was wrong as best as I can tell. I still reserve some opinon as I wasn't there.

 

Why someone people feel the need to beat their chests and scream about the Constitution when it really isn't neccessary is beyond me. Kinda like the old man in central Texas a few years ago or so who shot and killed a state trooper on a traffic stop. His reason....he got stopped for a seat belt violation, ticketed for it and felt it was unconstitutational to cite him for it. So as a result of said citation and his misguided and misspent emotion and patriotic fervor he never paid the ticket and got a warrant issued. Well this trooper just so happened to stop him that day for...surprise surprise a seat belt violation. So yeah there is now 2 small kids without a dad cause this fuzzstick decided to not use the courts how they were intended and fight it there. Which is how the criminal justice system was designed in the United States. You can appeal a damn traffic citation all the way up the ladder just like a criminal charge chrissakes. But nah he decided just shoot this trooper instead.

 

I'm full well in support of the peoples rights. I have no intentions of abusing authority and nor do MOST officers. Most are very pro gun, pro smaller government and pretty damn conservative even more so than some of you guys. But causing a ruckus over nothing is just plain silly and I think the founding fathers would call them fuzzsticks for it. There is a time and place and reason. None of which did this apply. I think the whole Tea Party, 2nd Amendment fight, keeping socialism down and so on they would support and most people do. But defying a lawful order from a peace officer over nothing is probably not something they would condone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That response is equivalent to "I know you are but what am I?'

 

So when congress or the majority votes away gun rights, that's perfectly constitutional?

 

Edit: @ Tj

 

 

No because the 2nd Amendment says so. Where does it say in the constitution you are protected or not required to give identification or even just your name when asked by a peace officer while lawfully detained....oh wait that's right it doesn't. Because as previously established by numerous amounts of case law temporarily detaining someone is not considered a seizure of a person thus not violating the 4th amendment right.

 

However, if you detain someone without reasonable suspicous or take them into custody without PC then it does indeed violate the 4th amendment right.

Edited by Etho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want you guys to know that I would never employ violence or encourage someone else too.

 

 

Why?

 

Unfortunately, at times violence is needed. Humans are stupid and sometimes don't listen. That goes for anyone in any kind of capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because the 2nd Amendment says so. Where does it say in the constitution you are protected or not required to give identification or even just your name when asked by a peace officer while lawfully detained....oh wait that's right it doesn't. Because as previously established by numerous amounts of case law temporarily detaining someone is not considered a seizure of a person thus not violating the 4th amendment right.

 

And there's not case law defending FA bans? Do you believe those bans are constitutional?Just because the courts believe the constitution is a living breathing document doesn't mean we should. And this isn't about what's constitutional and what isn't, Tj said majority rule trumps all other rights. So I want to know how mob rule and the constitution fit in the same government paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

Unfortunately, at times violence is needed. Humans are stupid and sometimes don't listen. That goes for anyone in any kind of capacity.

 

I worded that incorrectly, I meant initiate violence. I have no problem with self-defense in a life or death situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's not case law defending FA bans? Do you believe those bans are constitutional?Just because the courts believe the constitution is a living breathing document doesn't mean we should. And this isn't about what's constitutional and what isn't, Tj said majority rule trumps all other rights. So I want to know how mob rule and the constitution fit in the same government paradigm.

 

 

Uh no actually I'm not aware of any case law regarding Class III stuff...other than Miller vs US which that douchebag didn't even show up. No I don't believe they are constitutional at all. Hence the reason if I ever go federal I won't work ATF. I couldn't enforce those laws.

 

If they ever require a door to door search of anything I won't do it. I will quit my job, principals over ride a paycheck at some point for me. If an assault weapons ban is instated again I ain't looking for violations either. I don't agree with it and officer discretion is a wonderful thing.

 

If we did infact go by referendum on laws...I hate to break it to you guys but guns woulda been banned long ago. Black rifles especially. We are a dying breed who think guns are good and not icky and bad. I think majority does rule for the most part. The problem is the fact that as time has gone on slowly and slowly we get politicians who erode the rights over time and people gradually begin to agree. The state we are in started decades ago. But yes I think majority rules in all cases just sadly it isn't confined within the parameters of the Constitution anymore because WE as a society let that happen. We let the politicians we elected fuzz us over.

Edited by Etho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh no actually I'm not aware of any case law regarding Class III stuff...other than Miller vs US which that douchebag didn't even show up. No I don't believe they are constitutional at all. Hence the reason if I ever go federal I won't work ATF. I couldn't enforce those laws.

 

If they ever require a door to door search of anything I won't do it. I will quit my job, principals over ride a paycheck at some point for me. If an assault weapons ban is instated again I ain't looking for violations either. I don't agree with it and officer discretion is a wonderful thing.

 

For that I salute you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's suspicious about merely driving down the road?

 

 

Nothing. But you think he's gonna tell you what he did that was suspicious to get stopped? Hell no he isn't. Why? Because that doesn't make for a good story..."so there I was minding my own business standing on the corner..." does make for a good story when you got your ass whooped for fighting a lawful arrest/detention.

 

I actually thought he was stopped at a checkpoint of some sort...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing. But you think he's gonna tell you what he did that was suspicious to get stopped? Hell no he isn't. Why? Because that doesn't make for a good story..."so there I was minding my own business standing on the corner..." does make for a good story when you got your ass whooped for fighting a lawful arrest/detention.

 

I actually thought he was stopped at a checkpoint of some sort...

 

He was stopped at a checkpoint. They stop everyone regardless of suspicious behavior, which I am claiming is unconstitutional within our borders.

Edited by Oedipus Rex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...