Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

 

[Rigby5]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

But the only way any weapons law could be consistent with the 2nd Amendment if if they are state or local.
It is absolutely clear the 2nd amendment prohibits any federal jurisdiction over weapons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

 

[Rigby5]

I have to say that even I have a problem with this.

First off, you need to know the laws when carrying a concealed weapon, and also have to accept the consequences if you decide to break the law. It doesn't mean you have to approve of the laws, but just abide by them.

The problem here is that if this guy was a kook who did have a permit, allowed to enter the school armed, he could use that permit to carry out a mass murder of students. That's why there's a law against going to certain places with a firearm which of course excludes authority.

The guy wasn't there to commit a crime. He was there to pick up his granddaughter.

The law is wrong. There should never be a crime to posses or carry a firearm. The crime should be what is illegally done with the firearm, not the possession of the firearm.

Had there been a real criminal at the school this man could have prevented the criminal from doing a lot of harm. Then he would have been a hero. A school posted as a gun free zone is just asking for trouble. We have seen it several times.

You would have better chances at hitting the lottery than this guy being there when a school shooting took place.

The fact is schools are trying to take preemptive measures so that a shooting doesn't happen in the first place. That's an impossible task if allowing strangers to carry guns into the school legally. They don't know who is or is not a threat. So the best thing to stop a shooting is keeping the school gun free, again, with the exception of security, authority, or perhaps an armed teacher or two with additional training outside your standard CCW course.

Ray, I agree with you 99% of the time but I respectfully disagree with you on this.

No sign is ever going to do a darn bit of good. A sign does not provide any meaningful protection but it does serve notice to a potential shooter that he has little to worry about from any of his potential victims.

In any other public setting, I would agree with you. I'm a licensed carrier, and I strongly resent those signs, but I obey them because that's what I agreed to when I singed the application to obtain a license.

Let me put it another way: Let's say a school did allow people with firearms into the building. A guy kills 20 or so students. How do you think the parents would feel knowing the city, school and state allowed this to happen? How about you as a parent? It would be anti-gun media fodder for many years to come.

Now I'm all for security, off duty police, and even specially trained teachers to have firearms in a school to protect our children. But I strongly disagree with anybody being able to walk into a school armed simply because they have a license. Some of these mass killers were first time offenders, and even purchased their firearms legally. So it would be nothing for them to apply and get a carry permit.

Ray, I don't think restrictions on carrying will have any effect on school shootings.The bad guys will do it regardless of the laws or signs or good intentions of the government to prevent them from committing a crime.

All those silly laws do is make it difficult for law abiding citizens like the Grandpa just trying to pick up his granddaughter..

When I was in High School there were very few laws against carrying on campus. The students kept guns in their vehicles and no parent would have been arrested for concealed carry while picking up child. Everything was fine.

I posted that story because it is a great example of how "reasonable" gun control is not reasonable. Never trust Liberals with our Liberty.

I have a concealed weapon permit like you. I obey the stupid laws but I think they are un-Constutional in addition to being worthless.

Like I said earlier, you and I agree on almost everything so lets just agree to disagree on this.

Agreed.
When I was in high school, no student could afford gun, but they did have knives, and 2 dies in knife fights.
So the PTA insisted that there always be more than one teacher or staff armed at all times on school premises, when it was open.
That ended all the knife fights.

 

[Rigby5]

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

Does not seem right.
Has anyone ever sued over this police arbitrary and abusive behaviour?
It would seem to me that time is money, so being stopped without probable cause, is essentially theft.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

Does not seem right.
Has anyone ever sued over this police arbitrary and abusive behaviour?
It would seem to me that time is money, so being stopped without probable cause, is essentially theft.

Yes it is, and whether or not they find something, the average time to conduct their inspections and make out the paperwork is about an hour.

Many years ago I did do a search on it and found that the courts ruled we did not have forth amendment protection because of our line of work. I forget what level of court that was, but in any case, who has the money to fight it?

A friend of mine works at another company. They had a retirement party for their supervisor. The cops found out about it, and pulled over the off duty drivers in their cars. Some were arrested for DUI because they had two drinks. While that's not even applicable for people without CDL's, it is if you have a CDL because our "drunk" limit is much lower than those who only have a regular drivers license. So it doesn't matter whether you are in your truck or not.

We are not allowed to have two licenses: a CDL and a regular drivers license. We can only have one.

So we have no forth amendment rights.
We have no equal protection under the law.
Most of the laws written were by bureaucrats who have no constitutional authority to write laws, impose fines, or levy taxes against us.

But again, they do it all the time.

 

[Flash]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

According to the report I read he had he had 14 rds in two extra magazines. That says to me that he was carrying a 1911. If you are carrying a 1911 then you pretty well better have a couple of extra magazines. He certainly was not carrying enough ammo for a mass shooting.

Since he didn't do a crime the police should have reminded him of the stupid law and let him go. His only crime was possession of a firearm in a place where the filthy government says it shouldn't be.

The Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By the filthy government telling otherwise law abiding citizens where they can bear arms and where they can't is obviously a major infringement.

The filthy government was wrong passing the law and the government thugs were wrong arresting him.

Our government is out of control on all levels.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

According to the report I read he had he had 14 rds in two extra magazines. That says to me that he was carrying a 1911. If you are carrying a 1911 then you pretty well better have a couple of extra magazines. He certainly was not carrying enough ammo for a mass shooting.

Since he didn't do a crime the police should have reminded him of the stupid law and let him go. His only crime was possession of a firearm in a place where the filthy government says it shouldn't be.

The Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By the filthy government telling otherwise law abiding citizens where they can bear arms and where they can't is obviously a major infringement.

The filthy government was wrong passing the law and the government thugs were wrong arresting him.

Our government is out of control on all levels.

Police have discretion but only in certain matters and the discretion has it's limits. This story made it to the media and I'm sure a lot of citizens would have given the Mayor a hell of a time about a police officer letting some guy off the hook after he clearly took the weapon into a school building with him.

If you ever talk with police officers, most will tell you that the hardest part about their job is the politics of it all. If your supervisor tells you to bring the suspect in, you just cuff them and bring them in no questions asked.

 

[Flash]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

According to the report I read he had he had 14 rds in two extra magazines. That says to me that he was carrying a 1911. If you are carrying a 1911 then you pretty well better have a couple of extra magazines. He certainly was not carrying enough ammo for a mass shooting.

Since he didn't do a crime the police should have reminded him of the stupid law and let him go. His only crime was possession of a firearm in a place where the filthy government says it shouldn't be.

The Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By the filthy government telling otherwise law abiding citizens where they can bear arms and where they can't is obviously a major infringement.

The filthy government was wrong passing the law and the government thugs were wrong arresting him.

Our government is out of control on all levels.

Police have discretion but only in certain matters and the discretion has it's limits. This story made it to the media and I'm sure a lot of citizens would have given the Mayor a hell of a time about a police officer letting some guy off the hook after he clearly took the weapon into a school building with him.

If you ever talk with police officers, most will tell you that the hardest part about their job is the politics of it all. If your supervisor tells you to bring the suspect in, you just cuff them and bring them in no questions asked.

I mostly have respect for the police and I understand they have a very difficult job. However, at the end day they are the armed thugs for the politicians.

I like the Sheriffs that say that if the politicians pass anti gun laws they will not enforce them. The Sheriff in my county is one of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

According to the report I read he had he had 14 rds in two extra magazines. That says to me that he was carrying a 1911. If you are carrying a 1911 then you pretty well better have a couple of extra magazines. He certainly was not carrying enough ammo for a mass shooting.

Since he didn't do a crime the police should have reminded him of the stupid law and let him go. His only crime was possession of a firearm in a place where the filthy government says it shouldn't be.

The Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By the filthy government telling otherwise law abiding citizens where they can bear arms and where they can't is obviously a major infringement.

The filthy government was wrong passing the law and the government thugs were wrong arresting him.

Our government is out of control on all levels.

Police have discretion but only in certain matters and the discretion has it's limits. This story made it to the media and I'm sure a lot of citizens would have given the Mayor a hell of a time about a police officer letting some guy off the hook after he clearly took the weapon into a school building with him.

If you ever talk with police officers, most will tell you that the hardest part about their job is the politics of it all. If your supervisor tells you to bring the suspect in, you just cuff them and bring them in no questions asked.

I mostly have respect for the police and I understand they have a very difficult job. However, at the end day they are the armed thugs for the politicians.

I like the Sheriffs that say that if the politicians pass anti gun laws they will not enforce them. The Sheriff in my county is one of them.

And there you go, police work is a lot of politics. It's just like the Ferguson effect that's still going on in many cities across the country. Police still have to respond to calls, but they don't put in the extra effort to find crime where it exists. Nobody can prove they are not putting their all into it, but they are doing their job.

When I go to work, I can spot many mistakes my employer makes. One time I tried to address him about it years ago, and he flew off the handle; telling me to do what I was hired to do. Okay, so lose a ton of money, I don't really care. So now when I see things going on that I know are wrong, not profitable, or even a loss for the company, I just keep my mouth shut and do what I'm told to do.

Believe it or not, there are police officers out there that are against armed citizens. If it were up to them, they'd arrest every one. But their job is not to make laws, their job is to enforce them. So when they run across somebody with a gun, they have to bite their tongue and live with it.

 

[Blues Man]

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

But the ownership of guns doesn't have anything to do with advocating for imminent lawlessness

In fact the ownership of guns has nothing to do with criminal behavior at all

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

The word itself isn't harmful

And what do you think would happen today if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

The guy yelling fire would be booed and told to STFU while people threw popcorn and other foodstuffs at him then he would be escorted out by security.

So it's really not a very good analogy any more

Buildings tend to not be wood any more, and have built in sprinkler systems.
But recently several people were killed at a 4th of July celebration when some kids set off little fireworks, the crowd thought it was a gang shooting, and they all panicked, ran, and trampled people to death. So similar concepts are always going to be valid.

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

I think causing any sort of panic in a crowded place can and does, and I think obsessing over a narrow focus on specific wording just reveals that you know you're wrong on the broader issue, and you're trying to avoid that fact.

You think incorrectly


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Throwing fireworks is nowhere near the same as yelling fire.

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

Case law is horseshit. It was the first major violation of the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

The cops know that the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A politician, judge or cop has not authority to do so. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, isn't it?

If the cops become the thugs of the idiots that passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are no better than the idiots, are they?

"I was only following orders" has been debunked as a moral justification many times in the past, hasn't it?

The Grandfather did nothing wrong. The law was unjust. The cops were assholes enforcing a law passed by shitheads that had no understanding of personal liberty.

Decisions by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That means that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and that laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Courts have been reluctant to apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do other Constitutional rights and that is despicable.

The Courts have allowed the states and Federal government to get away with restricting our Constitutional liberty. That needs to stop.

The laws is very straightforward; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't make any difference who in the government takes away the liberty. Filthy asshole politicians, cops or judges it is still wrong.

This is as ridiculous as it is wrong; laws enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law do not infringe on any rights.

Case law is horseshit. It was the first major violation of the Constitution.

The Courts have upheld many violations of the Constitution. Not all the time but some of the time they just simply get it wrong.

Judges can be just as oppressive against our Liberties as any filthy politician.

A great example. The Heller case was about DC prohibiting the possession of a firearm, even in Heller's own home. Four of the stupid shithead Libtard Justices sided with DC and completely ignored what the Bill of Rights said. The Bill of Rights very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but yet DC was outright prohibiting the right to keep and bear arms. How could anybody be confused about that? Four confused Libtard Justices were. Thank god there were five Justices that got it right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Apparently, it was. The whole problem with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was that it would cause a panicked stampede and endanger people.

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

You don't have a right to drive

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I didn't say the right to drive. I said the other constitutional rights that any American should have regardless what they do for a living.

 

[Flash]

Moon Bats are confused about the Constitution. This explains it to them but I doubt they are smart enough to understand.

The think thy can use the democracy to vote in oppression like taking away the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Rigby5]

[


Then that is an issue with the state and courts, not the police. Police simply enforce the law--not create it.

That is not excuse for putting the grandfather in jail for doing what the Constitution says he has a right to do.

Jackbooted thugs "just doing their duty" has never been an excuse for oppression.

Of course it's their excuse. He broke the law, and that's what the law says to do with them. What kind of police would we have if they didn't arrest people they were supposed to because of their political beliefs?

Your issue isn't the police. They are only doing the job they are ordered to do. If this guy wants, he can press your issues to the Supreme Court if they're willing to hear it. But you can't blame cops for simply doing their job. What would the media do if they found out the cops let this guy go? What would the police chief do to these officers?

No, many laws are intended to allow police discretion, where it would be wrong for the police to prosecute most of the time, but the law is only there for those rare situations when it is right to prosecute.
Take the example of the law against carrying concealed in a Post Office.
If a night duty nurse forgets to take her carry pistol out of her purse before going to the post office, there is no harm done and no criminal intent.
If the police were to prosecute in those sorts of circumstance, they would be committing a crime.
Police are supposed to remember they are ONLY authorized by the need to protect the rights of others.
When it protects no one, then it is actually illegal for police to arrest and prosecute.
They MUST remember that their bosses, the politicians, and the legislators are NOT where their authority comes from/
The ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic, comes from the need to defend the rights of individual. If police harm someone without it being needed in order to protect the rights of others, then police are committing a crime.

The police have to follow the law like everybody else. If you have issues with the laws, penalties, or arrests, that's to be taken up with the politicians and courts, not the police officer.

The guy in the school was suspicious. He not only broke the law by taking the gun into the school, but he had an extra magazine which most people don't carry around just for personal protection. The police did the right thing by arresting him. They did their job.

No, you are NOT supposed to follow the law.
You are supposed to do what is right, and laws are supposed to help you do that.
But by understanding what the authority for law is, which is the defense of the rights of others, and by intent of the particular law, you can do what is right instead.
For example, speed limits are to make driving safer normally, but when you have a medical emergency, by understanding the arbitrary and general nature of speed limits, you can drive faster and possibly save a life.
About the only law which does not have circumstances when you should violate the law is the one against rape.
I can't imagine any circumstances when it would be better to commit rape than not.

Laws against firearms near or in schools make no sense at all.
Just like the tradition shotgun over the mantel, schools MUST be armed in order to protect the children they are responsible for.
And I also disagree that an extra magazine is suspicious.
Everyone I know carries an extra magazine at least.
The holsters provide for them because they are desired.

 

[Rigby5]

You really think shouting fire in a crowded theater will cause a stampede?

And here's the thing Justice Holmes made that remark regarding a case that was overturned 40 years ago.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Regardless, the fundamental premise is correct: no right is ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited’; no right is comprehensively immune from regulation and restriction by government.

Speech advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence is not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Fourth Amendment case law allows for the police to conduct searches absent a warrant given specific circumstances.

And the Second Amendment is no different.

Not really disagreeing with your general principles.
But with the Second Amendment, clearly what restrictions can legally be places are to only be state and local, with a total prohibition on any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
While speech inciting violence is normally wrong, it can be right if violence is necessary in order to defend rights.
Like Jefferson said, since corruption is inherent, likely revolutions are needed on a reoccurring basis.
But I am unaware of police ever having the right to conduct warrant-less searches, ever?
What did you have in mind?

They do it to us truck drivers all the time. But then again, truck drivers never had constitutional rights.

Does not seem right.
Has anyone ever sued over this police arbitrary and abusive behaviour?
It would seem to me that time is money, so being stopped without probable cause, is essentially theft.

Yes it is, and whether or not they find something, the average time to conduct their inspections and make out the paperwork is about an hour.

Many years ago I did do a search on it and found that the courts ruled we did not have forth amendment protection because of our line of work. I forget what level of court that was, but in any case, who has the money to fight it?

A friend of mine works at another company. They had a retirement party for their supervisor. The cops found out about it, and pulled over the off duty drivers in their cars. Some were arrested for DUI because they had two drinks. While that's not even applicable for people without CDL's, it is if you have a CDL because our "drunk" limit is much lower than those who only have a regular drivers license. So it doesn't matter whether you are in your truck or not.

We are not allowed to have two licenses: a CDL and a regular drivers license. We can only have one.

So we have no forth amendment rights.
We have no equal protection under the law.
Most of the laws written were by bureaucrats who have no constitutional authority to write laws, impose fines, or levy taxes against us.

But again, they do it all the time.

Agreed.
But it is also something to fight.
Government abuse must never be allowed, it only get worse.
And there is nothing worse then abusive police.
A dozen trucks parked around the state capital building, blocking traffic, would likely do the trick I would bet.
Lots of family memebers, relatives, etc., would not hurt either.