[labgrade]

(& really sorry if this comes up prior to my posting (& subsequent posts) -

My PC has been very strange lately & this thing just popped up as being posted - doing an edit right now - w/no replies as yet.

Segue, I'd guess, as I'm not here as much as of late, & never got to reply to this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=39074&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) whole thing.

A pertinent excerpt from the BoR's Preamble, & the leading paragraph:

"The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expresssed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declartory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:
..."

Y'all did know the bors has a preamble, no?

Go read the rest, which does entail the (formerly capitalized) bill of rights.

Is this, or not, clear enough?

& if not, how could one possibly "interpret" what the (clear wording of the time) constitution ever meant?

The constitution was written as a limitation on the federal government.

& beleive me, this is no character assassination, nor personal attack, but a direct quote from a poster. My most chilling cut/paste from the above linked thread is:

FedDC's,
"It is not about civil rights, it is about officer safety!"

And that, my friends, says it every bit better than I ever could.

Far as I know, every "officer of the court" (I know I did when joining the military) swore to "uphold & protect The Constitution, against all enemies, foreign & domestic."

So much for that any longer, huh?

Your rights are toast simply because they say that they have the "moral perogative" (?) to do simply as they wish - in the name of their own safety AND frankly, contrary to the constitution, bill of rights & whatever "rules" that were laid down by folks much better & far-reaching in thought than any of us.

"It is not about civil rights, it is about officer safety!"

Think long & hard what was said there.

What better statement would cause anyone to think that we are not now in a police state? & if not?

[KC]

"It is not about civil rights, it is about officer safety!"

It's all about safety. We are being made safe by stupid careless people who are trying to make us safe from everything, even if they have to imprison, hogtie, hamstring and/or kill all of us to do it.

We do need protection, but it is from those who lie awake at night in the desperate fear that somewhere, someone is having a good time living their life and not following all the rules all the time.

[BHPshooter]

Great post.

If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend LIBERTY, at www.keepandbeararms.com

This topic is covered in that essay. It is an excellent read.

Wes

[Navy joe]

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.
Theodore Roosevelt, 'The Strenuous Life,' 1900

[Sergeant Bob]

"It is not about civil rights, it is about officer safety!"

Think long & hard what was said there.

What better statement would cause anyone to think that we are not now in a police state? & if not?

It's a pretty chilling statement alright. Have you noticed whenever one of these "No Knock" or "Police Abuse" threads starts, there's always a few who can justify whatever was done? Is it any wonder there's often an "us against them" undercurrent to these discussions?

Are we in a police state? When laws are enforced for the sake of the law itself I'd say we are heading in that direction.

[labgrade]

Curious as to any responses from those who justify the no-knocks, etc. in the name of "officer safety" over "civil rights," (which I'd just as soon still cal individual liberties).

& this is seriously NOT an LEO-baiting thread. I would very much see this remain civil. - while w/a serious decussion.

Everything in the initial declaration, constitution, bill of rights, etc. firmly states that THE reason for government is to protect these liberties - primarily & foremost. A secondary benefit, if you will, is that "we get along."

I see nothing whatsoever that even allows such "illegalities" (prohibition against drugs, etc.) let alone the tactics used to enorce same.

Comments?

[Cal4D4]

A good start would be a school system that taught our young citizens about the rights they will grow into and the social responsibilities they carry. Heavy dose of personal responsibility, heavy cutback in government. Teach the BoR and Constitution complete with all the roots that support the intentions of the Founders. When kids hit the "challenge authority" years, have them examine the cause and effect of the nanny state. Teach them to recognize political pandering and its destructive effects on a free people.

[labgrade]

Cal4D4,

While I applaud your "school system" 'Fix," there are those that are currently being shot to death by those who are involved with "it's not about civil rights, it's about officer safety."

THAT, to me, is THE primary aspect here.

"These folk" have, through their job description, have decided that their way is The Truth & they will shoot us to death to preserve their interpretation of what they are allowed to do.

Clearly, there is no allowance in the constitution for these folk to violatate the 4th amendment, the fifth, the fisrt, the second, the ninth, the tenth

ut, clearly still, we have our "law enforcement aspects" who will till make way, clear 'n close & kill evryone of us who will not toe the line for evrey unconstitutional law out there.

I would very much like to hear from the LEO community where you think you draw your authority to enforce any of these laws you do.

This is no bait, it is merely a discussion about where ou think you derive your authority to shoot us in our homes for violations propsed ... where!?

Where do you derive your authority to shoot us to death with no notice, based upon a "witness" of a confirmed drug dealer? ....

not to mention, someone much "less worthy" for any legal testimony."

[Cal4D4]

labgrade

I agree that the whole "no knock" concept has no traction per our Constitution. I do not accept occasional goofs where innocents are rousted, intimidated or shot. It is an improper tool for law enforcement and risks officers lives and damages the relationship of LE with the 99% who are not a threat to the common good.

[labgrade]

Sorry Cal4D4,

... for apparently blowing off your post - wasn't intended. Knickers in a knot doing a multi-task - we've a neighborhood coup attempting to start up a homeowners' association to make things "all better," while this damnable PC is giving me fits. Darn thing won't even type straight. ;)

I agree that The Fix will be through the education of the kids. Even our "most illustrious pundits" (tongue firmly in cheek) seemingly haven't a clue regards "democracy" versus "republic." I cannot remember last I heard the latter used referenced akin our form of government.

Sad to say, I don't see the skrewl system doing anything of the sort, any more than I see any "educational program" informing our LEOs that frankly, "you're not allowed to do this."

Just because is hasn't been ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't. & anyone that has any inkling of what this country was founded on should be ashamed to enforce things you do & tin he manner conducted.

& do listen up LEOs. I am pro-LEO for the most part & in theory, but when ... I do become heated on this subject .....

Damn.

Where's the defence for "It's not about civil rights, it's about officer safety?"

What is This all about then!? You!? personally? Your job, your pension?

We were told that it was "To Protect & Serve." Honorable enough, Ma'ms & Sirs, but when you "legally" incarcerate and/or murder folks merely to ... what?

What is it you think you're accomplishing?

If nothing else, what you have done is drive a stake straight through the heart of any who used to support what you once purposed to stand for.

I, for one, am absolutely heartbroken over the schism.

[suijurisfreeman]

"for the officer's safety' :confused: When Monroe County Sheriff's deputy Darrell Ford unlawfully disarmed my son, just for 'his safety', he was diciplined by Sheriff Jerry Gee and my son got an apology! He was exercising a natural, inherent and alienable right that is supposed to be protected by Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Jerry Gee upheld his oath of office and the 'rule of law' by supporting Kentucky's Constitution. Hats off to Jerry Gee, Sheriff of Monroe County, Kentucky! When I'm out and about in Monroe County, Kentucky and I happen to see Jerry Gee or one of his deputies, we meet as equals, we're both armed, unless I've committed a real crime, they no more have a right to disarm me than I do them! They carry a weapon as a function of thier job, I carry a weapon as the natural, inherent and inalienable right of a free Human Being! The American people will only preserve the RKBA if and only if they exercise this most fundamental right! It's a right , not a privilege!