Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[struth]

Superbadbrutha no it’s like saying americans didn’t exist until they became their own country. our founders weren’t americans when they came here from england. just like the moors weren’t moors until they founded their own kingdom

 

[struth]

Educated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.

somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese origin

The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.

.

they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.

Not a race, like black or white

What does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?

Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-Andalus

LMAO if they settled there it means they came from somewhere else.

agreed. as i said they settled in the places you mentioned after the kingdom of Al- Anduslus fell

They settled there because they conquered it.

they didn’t settle there because they conquered it...the were refugees in the countries you mentioned because they were conquered and their kingdom destroyed

In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from northern Africa led the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. The Iberian peninsula then came to be known in Classical Arabic as al-Andalus, which at its peak included most of Septimania and modern-day Spain and Portugal.

In 827, the Moors occupied Mazara on Sicily, developing it as a port. They eventually went on to consolidate the rest of the island.

Did you ever attend World History class.

the term Moor was created by the English centuries later to refer to the folks living in the kingdom.

They didn't just come into being when the Brits called them Moors, hell they probably called themselves something else.

agreed they likely did call themselves something else...citizens of the kingdom of al-andalus...the brits called those people moors

 

[struth]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. **** 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.

yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possibly

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

derp

You’ve become a tedious and ridiculous troll in your own thread.

Well done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A Massachusetts Non-Resident Class A LTC is one of those wonderful objects that exists in law but not in the real world.

Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether.

 

[pknopp]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. **** 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.

yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possibly

Which would apply to the driver.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know why I’m an Authoritarisn? You REALLY want to know why???….

Because stupid motherfuckers like you and these eleven idiots get to vote in a Democracy and that scares the living shit out of sane people like me.

Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer.

 

[struth]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. **** 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.

yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possibly

Which would apply to the driver.

sure...but when everyone else fled the scene to go into the woods it sort of escalated the situation and the police had every right to continue their investigations

you can have a right to do something and your actions may or may not be perfectly legal...but your actions can also raise suspension, and law enforcement is justified in investigating

and you are right having an attitude with an officer is not illegal per se, but it certainly can man the officer have an attitude right back

 

[pknopp]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. **** 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.

yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possibly

Which would apply to the driver.

sure...but when everyone else fled the scene to go into the woods it sort of escalated the situation and the police had every right to continue their investigations

you can have a right to do something and your actions may or may not be perfectly legal...but your actions can also raise suspension, and law enforcement is justified in investigating

and you are right having an attitude with an officer is not illegal per se, but it certainly can man the officer have an attitude right back

The officer can get as pissy as he wants but he can't violate your civil rights or simply make laws up.

 

[Anathema]

Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer

I’m more than willing to give it a try to determine that for myself.

 

[Anathema]

Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether

Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….

RI > MA > ME

or

RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME

Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.

They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer

I’m more than willing to give it a try to determine that for myself.

I just posted this in another thread, and it applies to you and your fellow conservatives well:

It’s the right’s dystopian, Orwellian dream of a future America: private armies, private cops, and private wealth maintaining Republican minority rule; democracy is gone, the will of the people ignored, and the rule of law abandoned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether

Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….

RI > MA > ME

or

RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME

Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.

They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.

When gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What law did they break?

Illegal possession of firearms, for starters.

yes they lose their rights So they also lose their right to life when they leave prison don't you agree?

I partially agree with you. ...
If a person went to prison for a non violent offense like writing bad checks. I have no problem with them having all their rights restored after a few years.
But if they went to prison for things like rape, robbery, murder, etc.
Then no, they have forfeited their rights. Period.

if a person went to prison for a violent crime they shouldn't be allowed out of prison
But if the state said they paid their debt they should get their rights back period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What law did they break?

Illegal possession of firearms, for starters.

illegal possession of a firearm? How did the cops know they were illegal?
It must be one of those unconstitutional laws you have wet dreams over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether

Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….

RI > MA > ME

or

RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME

Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.

They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.

When gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ignorance of the constitution is also not an excuse for unconstitutional laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether

Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….

RI > MA > ME

or

RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME

Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.

They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.

When gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

the 14th amendment says otherwise

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[freyasman]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. **** 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

They have to by law, assume the legality of every armed citizen, just as they have to assume that anyone operating a motor vehicle is fully legal to do so.


I understand that them not having the legitimate authority to demand ID and force everyone to explain themselves and justify their every move to agents of the state offends your latent totalitarian tendencies, but that's the way freedom works, guy. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

 

[freyasman]

I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one

I have the benefit of having the local news stations here in Boston in my cable package.

Inly two may have needed them, but none had them. I looked it up this morning and apparently MA law also allows LEOs to request IDs from all individuals in a vehicle being stopped or investigated.,

MA has a lot of truly fucked up laws that are inconsistent with the US Constitution and a free country, IMO. NY state is the same way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

state law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution why are those law enforcement officers not following the U.S. Constitution?

They are following the Constitution – which holds that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Should at some point the Supreme Court rule that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm are invalid, state law enforcement will stop enforcing the licensing requirement thereby following the Constitution.

the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land says shall not be infringed