Since my response got stifled.......(for civilians only)

[cropcirclewalker]

So DocZinn started up a thread.......http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1150325 and the first two quotes he used in it were mine so I was semi interested.

Since I read it and made a comment to the thread and then a moderator told me (actually all of us civilians) not to respond, I sort of feel like I have been stifled.

Thus I guess this is an attempt to provide us taxpayers an opportunity to state our feelings about what govt. is doing to our rights. Some of the responders at the other thread rationalize their behaviour by telling us that what they do is mostly "The big 5" (Aggrivated assault, murder, rape, and like that) and then the property crimes (robbery, you know, like that) then he talked about using the "descretion" that he used as mostly a sheriff. Like did he ever run somebody in on a "weapons" violation I don't think he mentioned.

Another responder told us that the constitution is not a "Buffet" We can't pick and choose, so they gotta enforce all the laws. I don't remember if he said the constitution or the law itself and if he was welcome to respond, which he isn't, he would be sure to correct me on it, but the question remains.....

This is a gun forum. The constitution is very clear about how the RKBA is to be treated. Many states have adopted a similar if not more citizen freindly form and then we got the 14th amendment. Some weasle worders talk about the Supremes not "Incorporating" 2A into law.

14a was expressly written IIRC expressly to prohibit the states from using their "Jim Crow" laws to deny the minorities from RKBA. I did not read the debates in congress, but I heard about them. Other weasle worders, if not the same ones, tell us that SCOTUS has not "Incorporated" it?

I thought the executive was the enforcement arm.

So here is my question.......How do you as a civilian feel that the govt and its enforcement arm can reconcile it's oath to protect, serve, follow or whatever the constitution and then run one of us in for a "Weapons Violation" , a Gun control crime or, other wise, is it right or wrong?

If the mods would show me the same consideration as they imposed on DocZinn's thread, I would appreciate it.

The best way to know if you are a tax payer or a tax eater is this....If you pay more in taxes than you receive from the govt. then you are a tax payer. Yes, I know we all drink the water, check books outa the library, turn on our REA electricity and get the mail. That don't count. If those little pieces of cardboard with all the holes in them (govt. checks, federal, state, local) add up to more than you pay in taxes, you are a taxeater. You know who you are. Kindly do not respond.

Thanks.

 

[DMF]

Since I am constantly reminded that I'm a civilian too (except when on orders with the USAF Reserves), is my input welcome too.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Let your concience be your guide. You know who you are..

Those little pieces of cardboard with the holes in them which are negotiable. (Last one I got was green) What color are they now? and Do they add up to more than you pay in taxes.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm a taxpayer -- I think the statistics are that where I live I get back about 30 cents of the dollar for my taxes.

How does government reconcile the 2nd Amendment with their actions? Simple -- they ignore it. They write laws that violate the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, then they appoint judges who will rule that those laws are not an unconstitutional infringement.

It's a shell game.

 

[Wildalaska]

If those little pieces of cardboard with all the holes in them (govt. checks, federal, state, local) add up to more than you pay in taxes, you are a taxeater. You know who you are. Kindly do not respond.

OK so that eliminates Military, retirees receiving Federal pensions, retirees recivieng social security?

This is a gun forum. The constitution is very clear about how the RKBA is to be treated. Many states have adopted a similar if not more citizen freindly form and then we got the 14th amendment. Some weasle worders talk about the Supremes not "Incorporating" 2A into law.

Ah yes, unless you follow the doctrine of anyhting goes, your views will be shouted down or not even welecome..how left liberal, the High Road goes DU!

WildproudtobeaweasleworderAlaska

 

[orangeninja]

I have to say that since posting here on the THR, my ideals of the RKBA are still solid. I believe this is a good thing. However, my general opinion of "gun nuts" has been substantially lowered. I used to think that anyone with a CHL was pretty much an okay guy who would help a LEO in need.

Not any more.

 

[Tamara]

There's the way things should be, and there's the way things are.

In this world of "The way things are," where we must coexist with people of all different kinds of viewpoints, I would be interested in finding out how you were planning on bringing a weapons violation to the attention of a local peace officer, as (absent other lawless behavior) it's not something that's likely to come up on their radar in the first place. Heck, the ATF isn't even quite the rapacious, all-seeing boogieman that they're made out to be (although when they do blunder, it's usually guaranteed to be spectacular.) I'd like to see most all the laws the ATF enforces (as well as 99.99% of local weapons laws) done away with, but I'm not to the point of frothing about shooting oppressive stormtroopers from the barricades or denouncing everyone I disagree with as jackbooted statist thug zombies. That most certainly isn't the best way to get them over to my side.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Tamara, I do not understand the question you asked.

I would be interested in finding out how you were planning on bringing a weapons violation to the attention of a local peace officer, as (absent other lawless behavior) it's not something that's likely to come up on their radar in the first place.

The constitution is very clear about what is a weapons violation.

Now, if you want to know how I would alert the local peace officer about some body doing a crime with a weapon, I can understand the question.

Possessing a weapon is not a crime.

 

[Tamara]

Tamara, I do not understand the question you asked.

How did the hypothetical peace officer in question find out about the hypothetical weapons violation? How did it come to his attention?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Ok, now I understand. I thought you wanted to know how I would tell a local peace officer about somebody doing a weapons violation.

I guess it's been a while. Forgive me Mr. Sendec, but I was arrested at the st. Louis airport for open carrying a pistol on the seat of my vehicle. In Missouri at the time that was called "Committing a lawful act". It still is except at the time it was unlawful to have a concealed weapon.

When I saw the sign that said all vehicles would be searched, I laid it on the seat. Thus, I got arrested.

That's my own experience.

My weapon was returned to me and I was released without being charged after being chained to a bench for 2 hours and after my wife had to fly to San Diego thinking that I was in orange coveralls.

That is not the crux of my question. I am asking about any "Peace Officer" running in any civilian for a "Weapons" charge. Should I dream up a hypothetical?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

One more thing, Mods.

I see that DMF got the other thread shut down.

I have asked that LEOs not respond to this thread, but he is doing it anyway.

I don't wanna get in arguments with cops. Please cops, do not respond. I have been stifled enough.

 

[Tamara]

The situation matters.

If the "weapons violation" was discovered because Joe Mindjerownbiz used his weapon in a righteous shoot in a victim disarmament zone or a benighted anti gun municipality, I'd be inclined to contribute to his defense fund in an effort to get another asinine law off the books.

If the "weapons violation" consisted of finding a loaded full-auto AK in his car after he got likkered up and drove the wrong way down the interstate, running a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans into the ditch, I probably wouldn't be all ate up with sympathy.

There's a whole spectrum of cases between these two extremes, of course...

 

[orangeninja]

DocZinn....I will try to answer your question the best I know how. I stopped reading the answering posts since some THR members seem to think their 1st amendment right has been infringed.

Note: I am not Libertarian, but I am a "neo-conservative", meaning I believe in most conservative values except when it comes to healthcare and the enviroment.




" personally do not think of myself as a cop basher. I like to think of myself as a "state" basher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis."



1.) "personally do not think of myself as a cop basher. I like to think of myself as a "state" basher."

A.) I believe in the United States. I believe our Country was built upon conflict and continues to evolve through conflict. Much like the volcanic activity in Hawaii, the conflicts appear volatile and destructive, however whenever things cool down, we are more often than not, better off. Therefore I do not believe the state to be wrong. If everyone or even the majority felt that way, we would be in the process of revolution.

2.) Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.

A.) Refer to question the answer on question 1. I cannot be conviced that a government by the people is evil. I disagree with the majority some times, however my opinion is mine alone, and no greater than anyone else's.

3.) They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis."

A.) It is not the job of LEOs to interprit the constitution. That is the job of the courts. It is the job of LEOs to follow procedure and enforce law. If you believe a law unconstitutional, challange it in the courtroom not on Main St. This is how many "gay-rights" activists win so many victories with so few supporters. The gun rights community can learn somthing from their example.

Secondly, The Constitution may be ammended by Congress, they are the writers of law. I suggest you get involved in politics if you don't like it, or use the power of the Court, which is considerable. When a court decision is made, it changes "procedure" for LEOs. Therefore the LEOs are truly of the people. Look at the civil rights movement of the 60's. Can you even begin to imagine a minority group being singled out for violence like that today by Police? It couldn't happen.

Third, I have heard it said that a society gets the cops it deserves, this is more true than I can begin to articulate. When you go to a very upscale township, the cops seem to have very very little power, due to the low priority placed upon the need to have them other than to serve the tennets of the area. Their Chief is hired by the township, budget is determined by the township and therefore controlled by the township. This is very prevelant in Texas.

When you get to a very low income area in the big city, things change vastly, the cops seem to have considerable clout, they are much more visable, will pull you over for dang near anything, because the only thing that resembles a communial effort to maintain order, is their presence. If you don't believe me, visit your local Government Project at about 2AM. Bring the kids. Have a picnic.



Sorry the other thread was closed.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Tamara, when you said:

If the "weapons violation" consisted of finding a loaded full-auto AK in his car after he got likkered up and drove the wrong way down the interstate, running a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans into the ditch, I probably wouldn't be all ate up with sympathy.

I can see that he did a crime. I just don't see the weapons crime.

If running the nunns and orphans off the road by being likkered up and driving the wrong way isn't enough of a crime to get him "rehabilitated" then we are screwed up. The "weapons charge" is irrelevant and needless piling on.

Absolute needless piling on. Answer me this.......If he did not have the "loaded full-auto AK" in the back seat would you let him off?

Finally, I just noted you refer to it as full auto. Is that a worse crime than a semi?

 

[Tamara]

cropcirclewalker,

Is that a worse crime than a semi?

According to fed.gov, it is. Whether that's right or not is immaterial outside of a courtroom.


In point of fact, I think the weapons charge in the second example would be needless piling on as well, but I sure wouldn't say that for fear of being associated with the hypothetical cretin in question. I pick my poster children with more care.

If I want to pick a Rosinante with which to tilt at the windmill of NFA '34, I'll be checking the teeth of that nag very carefully. Reynold's Wrap yarmulke-wearers and the types of militia folk who pray for the revolution will not find my lachrymal glands overflowing in sympathy when they get busted for "weapons violations," as the propaganda value that they offer the other side damages my chances of ever getting out from under the onus of bogus and unconstitutional firearms laws.

 

[DMF]

I see that DMF got the other thread shut down.

I have asked that LEOs not respond to this thread, but he is doing it anyway.

[SARCASM]Oh yeah that was all my fault.[/SARCASM]

I made one joking comment, did not address the substance of your thread, and then just observed. However, I shouldn't have to endure attacks if you don't want to me to post on the substance of the thread. Fair enough?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Tamara,

Thanks for your reply.

What you said is serious and I gotta think about it. I guess I will have to look up some of the high dollar wordage, but for the time being I contextualize that you are lifting the blindfold up a little for lady justice.

Maybe the subtle implication that they got what they deserved down in Waco?

I will have to think and reply later.

 

[Tamara]

cropcirclewalker,

Please cops, do not respond. I have been stifled enough.

You're not asking for them to be stifled, are you?





Let's all take a few deep breaths, okay?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Tamara,

I don't care what they say. I was stifled on the other thread because I was not a leo. The mods asked, not DocZinn that I not respond. I did not.

If Mr. DMF had that thread shut down just by participating in uncivility, what will keep him from doing it in this one? I am just asking for some fair play.

I asked that they not respond. Trying not to hurt their feelings. If you think it's ok and they can handle it, let them in. It's a free country.

Just don't lock me down because of some clever ploy by a leo to stifle the subjects.

OK?

 

[GeneC]

"here is my question.......How do you as a civilian feel that the govt and its enforcement arm can reconcile it's oath to protect, serve, follow or whatever the constitution and then run one of us in for a "Weapons Violation" , a Gun control crime or, other wise, is it right or wrong?"



Not so simple( you're assuming we're all in agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution), is it a Federal weapon's violation, State, local, what? Is the cop Federal, State, local, or what? Each cop is sworn to uphold WHATEVER laws are in place (right or wrong, by whose standard?), within his minicipality, AT THAT TIME. It's NOT the cops place(nor yours) to decide if a law is right or wrong and any Citizen has the option to willfully break any law they deem 'wrong' , but must realize they could be arrested and face a court.

 

[Matt G]

Hey! I'm a civilian. My badge was NOT issued by a military authority-- it was issued by a municipality, by the authority of the state. I operate under CIVIL authority when on duty.

So, why can't we LEOs respond, again?

--Matt

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

I think one has to be careful in areas of “gun lawâ€. Say you are knowingly speeding and knowingly carrying a concealed weapon and get stopped. Now here is where the gray area lies: You were speeding. You chose to break a posted and well enforced ordnance. It was your decision. You are placing yourself in the position for a potential run in with a LEO. You have also now included a weapons offense knowingly carrying a concealed weapon. Do you just get the speeding ticket or the weapons violation. If you get both then you are getting what your asking for. If you only get a weapons violation then the law is being selectively applied. My point here is if you break more than one law at a time they must each be judged separately. This does not happen however. I have never understood why the guy with 50 kilos of Coke drives down the highway at 90 mph, though the penalties are different the analogy is the same.

The cat is out of the bag now and it is too late to change anything now, gun laws in this country will continue to get more and more oppressive and the tax burden to keep the gun laws oppressive will increase proportionately. To defeat an enemy you must make them look like the enemy, vilify them and all that they stand for. This is happening all around you. Tell someone you don’t know that you enjoy shooting your AR-15 and half the time they will ask you if that is even legal to own or don’t you need a special permit for it. The public already thinks that firearms and their owners are a danger to society. The end result is if you make enough laws you will surely be guilty of something and if some obscure gun charge can be piled on to make some other charge stick then so be it. This country is headed down a very dark road and come November we’ll see how long it takes for there to no light left at all.

If I have not been clear let me know and I will try again.

 

[Don Gwinn]

If this thread doesn't turn into a genital measurement contest between two or more members, there are no personal attacks, etc., then it will not be closed, at least by me. Your assumption that one member caused the other closing is your responsibility, since I thought I made it clear that I, the guy who actually closed the thread, do not believe that's true.

Honestly, I don't have high hopes for this one.

 

[NoHarmNoFAL]

If the SCOTUS rules to uphold a law that clearly goes against the Constitution in a manner that any non-mouth breather could read and see for themselves what recourse is there. I would hope that the LEO's would not uphold it but I don't foresee that happening.

Try this one:

Who will enforce the Campaign Finance laws that say you can't run an ad so many days before the election. What LEO is going to charge whom ever with that knowing that Political speech is specifically protected by the 1A. You already know how SCOTUS feels about it, so then what?

I'm not trying to be a trouble maker, really but this has me curious....

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Sorry, Mr. Gwinn, I musta misread

the last few replies to the other thread wrong. I will try to not stirr things up too much.

I don't care if you don't require leos not to post. I was just sort of pointing out the unfairness of the rules of the other thread.

when you said

Honestly, I don't have high hopes for this one.

I agree. Mr. NoHarmNoFAL is right in there too.

When it is so simple to read 2a
and then watch the machinations that the govt. goes through to
essentially reverse what it says and
watch so many tots try to justify and rationalize
instead of just standing up for principle and
refusing to enforce the unconstitutional law
it becomes pretty evident to me that we are mostly done for.

I have more to say on this, but I am called away.