100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Declaration of Independence !!! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,, those fighting in middle east must not of got that memo nor did the Vietcong seems like the middle east got help from AMERICAN MILITARY,,lol and now that they are gone,, they are pretty much screwed,, american warfare technology has come some ways since viet cong,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Fri 07/04/14 03:50 AM
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,, those fighting in middle east must not of got that memo nor did the Vietcong seems like the middle east got help from AMERICAN MILITARY,,lol and now that they are gone,, they are pretty much screwed,, american warfare technology has come some ways since viet cong,,,, was talking about those fighting against the American military and a lot of the American military in my opinion will not fight against the American public not to mention the fed govt is prohibited to deploy troops in the united states |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,, Yes and no. Governments never bomb their own country on a large scale as it would be to their own demise. Allies and enemies must be separated or those allies soon become enemies themselves. This is done on a more, up close, and personal level. Also, look at Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. You just need enough weaponry to be useful in skirmishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous just as a 100 percent armed populous would be that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns' but who decides the govt that will opress sounds counter productive if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns, How? the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,, Yes and no. Governments never bomb their own country on a large scale as it would be to their own demise. Allies and enemies must be separated or those allies soon become enemies themselves. This is done on a more, up close, and personal level. Also, look at Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. You just need enough weaponry to be useful in skirmishes. and judging from the Information out in the Public Domain,there would be a thriving Cottage-Industry producing nearly every weapons needed by the Insurgents! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since it's almost time for me to turn in I won't be posting after dark, so here's my final tribute to our 2014 remembrance of today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Independence Day, Citizens! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sat 07/05/14 04:37 AM
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
I deplore anyone who drives incapacitated in any way. Drunk driving is indeed one of the biggest causes of unnatural death, but I think vehicles should be equipped with an analyzer to prevent starting it if you are drunk, not violating peoples rights! Congress has voted down such a bill many times. The courts refuse to hear such arguments.... probably because it would make most of them pedestrians! Such a device would not be influenced by their rank or title which they feel places them "above the law". So while I agree with you in in the fact that drunk drivers should be arrested, and have the full force of law brought to bear on them if "caught" in the act, it surprises me your acceptance to allow peoples constitutional rights to be violated to do so. People have a right to travel, but doing so with your abilities impaired violates the rights of others to do so safely. However..... These checkpoints have been found unconstitutional. Many are manned by off-duty or veteran officers acting in a private capacity, not in the performance of their duties, hired by a private enterprise in most cases for revenue generation and data collection.... and not a legal act even by law enforcement for that reason. Even at US border crossings they are only supposed to validate your right of passage unless you bring "suspicion" on yourself or your vehicle, having no other right to legally detain you. From Wikipedia: Role of checkpoints The checkpoints are described as "the third layer in the Border Patrol's three-layer strategy", following "line watch" and "roving patrol" operations near the border. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office[2] "Border Patrol agents at checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.[4] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.[5] In contrast, the Supreme Court held that Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if they have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be illegally in the United States - a higher threshold for stopping and questioning motorists than at checkpoints.[6] The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle is the same, however, and must be supported by either consent or probable cause, whether in the context of a roving patrol or a checkpoint search."[7] So to have them on Independence Day is indeed ironic! The Truth About DUI Checkpoints DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. It is that simple. Any checkpoint, which a stop is, even if it falls under the "Terry"� case law, must at minimum, meet the requirements of reasonable suspicion. To move forward and actually not allow someone to leave upon their own free will becomes an actual detention and probable cause of a crime "must"� be present. Nonetheless, police around the country violate this clearly established Fourth Amendment legal precedent with few civil liberty violation suits being launched. Citizens need to know that they are not legally required to even speak with an officer at a checkpoint and do not need to remain (one must still obey traffic laws such as the need to yield) at the checkpoint once it is determined the "detention" is without probable cause. If approaching a checkpoint, stop as directed and find out the nature of the checkpoint and why you are being stopped. This could be done by only rolling down the window a small amount. If the stop is for a random check, Fourth Amendment protections kick in. This at best gives the officers some latitude to attempt to talk and question you, but you are also free to refuse to talk and leave on your own free will. If an officer prevents you from doing so, it is usually best to comply as resisting will only give the officer more grounds to charge you frivolously. However, if no probable cause of a crime exists and the officer demands you get out of the vehicle, prevents you from leaving and going on your way, or in any way detains you further, the officer has violated your civil rights and is subject to legal suit. Further, any ensuing charges are likely to be dropped because any grounds for arrest were developed "after"� an illegal detention. As such, it is very important to understand what constitutes a Fourth Amendment detention. http://www.lastminutesurvival.com/2013/09/25/the-truth-about-dui-checkpoints/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
I deplore anyone who drives incapacitated in any way. Drunk driving is indeed one of the biggest causes of unnatural death, but I think vehicles should be equipped with an analyzer to prevent starting it if you are drunk, not violating peoples rights! Congress has voted down such a bill many times. The courts refuse to hear such arguments.... probably because it would make most of them pedestrians! Such a device would not be influenced by their rank or title which they feel places them "above the law". So while I agree with you in in the fact that drunk drivers should be arrested, and have the full force of law brought to bear on them if "caught" in the act, it surprises me your acceptance to allow peoples constitutional rights to be violated to do so. People have a right to travel, but doing so with your abilities impaired violates the rights of others to do so safely. ^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51. 
First of all... checkpoints are also implemented for safety reasons to determine drug trafficking, DUI status, proper identification and insurance coverage etc., especially during holiday seasons when a lot of people like to party and try to get away with criminal activity. So... if drivers are NOT abiding by the local laws where they are stopped and inspected they deserve to be fined and/or arrested depending on the infractions found at the location. Also... if people are legally above board and don't have anything to hide than a few minute delay for questioning can make us feel safer rather than violated. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a citizen's arrest being made if someone is breaking the law and putting others lives and health at risk, so long as the innocent and law abiding don't have to pay the price of the lawless who want to do things their way. On the roads people have the right to life, first and foremost, and any constitutional questions or concerns can be better addressed in a court of law. IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sat 07/05/14 06:24 AM
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
I deplore anyone who drives incapacitated in any way. Drunk driving is indeed one of the biggest causes of unnatural death, but I think vehicles should be equipped with an analyzer to prevent starting it if you are drunk, not violating peoples rights! Congress has voted down such a bill many times. The courts refuse to hear such arguments.... probably because it would make most of them pedestrians! Such a device would not be influenced by their rank or title which they feel places them "above the law". So while I agree with you in in the fact that drunk drivers should be arrested, and have the full force of law brought to bear on them if "caught" in the act, it surprises me your acceptance to allow peoples constitutional rights to be violated to do so. People have a right to travel, but doing so with your abilities impaired violates the rights of others to do so safely. ^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
First of all... checkpoints are also implemented for safety reasons to determine drug trafficking, DUI status, proper identification and insurance coverage etc., especially during holiday seasons when a lot of people like to party and try to get away with criminal activity. So... if drivers are NOT abiding by the local laws where they are stopped and inspected they deserve to be fined and/or arrested depending on the infractions found at the location. Also... if people are legally above board and don't have anything to hide than a few minute delay for questioning can make us feel safer rather than violated. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a citizen's arrest being made if someone is breaking the law and putting others lives and health at risk, so long as the innocent and law abiding don't have to pay the price of the lawless who want to do things their way. On the roads people have the right to life, first and foremost, and any constitutional questions or concerns can be better addressed in a court of law. IMO. It has been addressed in the courts, found unconstitutional, and they do it anyway. So they break the law to enforce the law and that's OK with you? And people wonder how things have gotten so out of hand in govt! 
Why don't we just form vigilante groups and start throwing people in cages because they have to be guilty of something! Apparently rights and the law don't matter if it's for the common good. That's Obozothink! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/napolitano-from-an-inherited-tyrant-to-an-elected-/
NAPOLITANO: From an inherited tyrant to an elected one Celebrating Independence Day the way President Obama would |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
I deplore anyone who drives incapacitated in any way. Drunk driving is indeed one of the biggest causes of unnatural death, but I think vehicles should be equipped with an analyzer to prevent starting it if you are drunk, not violating peoples rights! Congress has voted down such a bill many times. The courts refuse to hear such arguments.... probably because it would make most of them pedestrians! Such a device would not be influenced by their rank or title which they feel places them "above the law". So while I agree with you in in the fact that drunk drivers should be arrested, and have the full force of law brought to bear on them if "caught" in the act, it surprises me your acceptance to allow peoples constitutional rights to be violated to do so. People have a right to travel, but doing so with your abilities impaired violates the rights of others to do so safely. ^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
First of all... checkpoints are also implemented for safety reasons to determine drug trafficking, DUI status, proper identification and insurance coverage etc., especially during holiday seasons when a lot of people like to party and try to get away with criminal activity. So... if drivers are NOT abiding by the local laws where they are stopped and inspected they deserve to be fined and/or arrested depending on the infractions found at the location. Also... if people are legally above board and don't have anything to hide than a few minute delay for questioning can make us feel safer rather than violated. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a citizen's arrest being made if someone is breaking the law and putting others lives and health at risk, so long as the innocent and law abiding don't have to pay the price of the lawless who want to do things their way. On the roads people have the right to life, first and foremost, and any constitutional questions or concerns can be better addressed in a court of law. IMO. It has been addressed in the courts, found unconstitutional, and they do it anyway. So they break the law to enforce the law and that's OK with you? And people wonder how things have gotten so out of hand in govt!
Why don't we just form vigilante groups and start throwing people in cages because they have to be guilty of something! Apparently rights and the law don't matter if it's for the common good. That's Obozothink!
What's NOT okay with me is the fact that I created this thread in an effort to celebrate the 4th of July in a positive and meaningful way by saluting those who've stood and sacrificed for what they believe in that makes our country what it is today. Flaws and all. And as usual the topic has been utilized to make me the focus of some kind of bad judgment call on my part again. As far as what's okay with me or not if people's rights are being violated... I make my personal stands and sacrifices when and where I can in reality, I don't just talk about things here on online forums. And there is a place and a time for everything. So when I'm making an effort to enjoy the holiday spirit one way and you want thread followers to experience the holiday spirit in another way I'm going to speak up whether you agree with my point of view or not. I know our country needs some serious attitude adjustments, but I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And I try to keep my opinions as moderate as possible so as not to offend everybody else that doesn't think exactly how I do. Anyway, I'm not going to continue this discussion now that the 4th is behind us again for another year. The rest of you can though. Cheers... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Independence Day, Citizens!
WHERE IS THE PROBABLE CAUSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
I deplore anyone who drives incapacitated in any way. Drunk driving is indeed one of the biggest causes of unnatural death, but I think vehicles should be equipped with an analyzer to prevent starting it if you are drunk, not violating peoples rights! Congress has voted down such a bill many times. The courts refuse to hear such arguments.... probably because it would make most of them pedestrians! Such a device would not be influenced by their rank or title which they feel places them "above the law". So while I agree with you in in the fact that drunk drivers should be arrested, and have the full force of law brought to bear on them if "caught" in the act, it surprises me your acceptance to allow peoples constitutional rights to be violated to do so. People have a right to travel, but doing so with your abilities impaired violates the rights of others to do so safely. ^^^^ I hope they were checking for drunk drivers.
My father was murdered by one when he was only 51.
First of all... checkpoints are also implemented for safety reasons to determine drug trafficking, DUI status, proper identification and insurance coverage etc., especially during holiday seasons when a lot of people like to party and try to get away with criminal activity. So... if drivers are NOT abiding by the local laws where they are stopped and inspected they deserve to be fined and/or arrested depending on the infractions found at the location. Also... if people are legally above board and don't have anything to hide than a few minute delay for questioning can make us feel safer rather than violated. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a citizen's arrest being made if someone is breaking the law and putting others lives and health at risk, so long as the innocent and law abiding don't have to pay the price of the lawless who want to do things their way. On the roads people have the right to life, first and foremost, and any constitutional questions or concerns can be better addressed in a court of law. IMO. It has been addressed in the courts, found unconstitutional, and they do it anyway. So they break the law to enforce the law and that's OK with you? And people wonder how things have gotten so out of hand in govt!
Why don't we just form vigilante groups and start throwing people in cages because they have to be guilty of something! Apparently rights and the law don't matter if it's for the common good. That's Obozothink!
What's NOT okay with me is the fact that I created this thread in an effort to celebrate the 4th of July in a positive and meaningful way by saluting those who've stood and sacrificed for what they believe in that makes our country what it is today. Flaws and all. And as usual the topic has been utilized to make me the focus of some kind of bad judgment call on my part again. As far as what's okay with me or not if people's rights are being violated... I make my personal stands and sacrifices when and where I can in reality, I don't just talk about things here on online forums. And there is a place and a tim ":?v for everything. So when I'm making an effort to enjoy the holiday spirit one way and you want thread followers to experience the holiday spirit in another way I'm going to speak up whether you agree with my point of view or not. I know our country needs some serious attitude adjustments, but I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And I try to keep my opinions as moderate as possible so as not to offend everybody else that doesn't think exactly how I do. Anyway, I'm not going to continue this discussion now that the 4th is behind us again for another year. The rest of you can though. Cheers...
Many of us "commemorate" and celebrate the 4th as intended. I like the fireworks, friends and festivals but there are always those who wish to spoil it for others on both sides of the law. The picture was posted for the irony of it. Illegal checkpoints on the day we celebrate our independence...... go figure! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Fuhrer wants to ban all guns just like one of the other most sociopathic world leaders in history. I read Obamas book and its not much different the Mein Kampf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Fuhrer wants to ban all guns just like one of the other most sociopathic world leaders in history. I read Obamas book and its not much different the Mein Kampf. Tyrants usually are Brainbrothers,they all sound alike! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 07/06/14 03:46 AM
|
|
I dont believe anyone in this thread has read Obamas book,,, unless you count finding snippets around the internet,,
nor has Obama tried to ban 'all guns',,, then again, neither did Hitler if thats the comparison being attempted,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont believe anyone in this thread has read Obamas book,,, unless you count finding snippets around the internet,, nor has Obama tried to ban 'all guns',,, then again, neither did Hitler if thats the comparison being attempted,,,, dont need to read his book his book carries no weight in the greater scheme of things i have read the constitution and its preceding document that fathered it the declaration of independence those are the written articles that carry weight in this country not some book written by a fly by the seat of the pants politician that cant obey his oath of office |
|
|
|
|
