User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 4:02:11 PM EDT
[#1]
no it's not, the government & media are breaking the 1st,2nd & 4th already
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 4:06:07 PM EDT
[#2]
The constitution is just a wast of time! we need
total Gun control period. then kids will live and we would be much safer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 4:07:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Bill of Rights? Whats that?
Just kidding, we are being denied the power of the constitution, the bill of rights, and everything else you can think of! Though only by, silent consent! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 4:51:49 PM EDT
[#4]
WHO'S SILENT? I find someone to rant to daily (besides here!) about the loss of rights in this country. The 2nd amend. is 3/4 gone, more in some places, the fourth is 90% gone with random roadblocks being all the rage to make the streets "safe" from drunk drivers. The first is shot if you mention "God" most any place. The 10th is only a distant memory. Politico's think of us as "gun people" but I hope more than just me is concerned with the overall stripping/ignoring of rights. I would be interested in particular to hear from LEO's who seem to be numerous here. How does it feel to conduct a roadblock stopping people with no PC just because a harebrained judicial fiat says it's okay to violate the 4th if you do it to a bunch of people at the same time? I know you are just following orders, but to me that is no excuse if you value the Constitution. I am NOT anti-LEO, just very troubled by such things. Most wrong behavior becomes progressively easier with practice. Slippery slope kind of thing. We've slipped far IMO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 4:57:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Yes, the First Amendment is alive and well.
Look at all those anti-F's spewing garbage about all us lawful gunowners. It doesn't have to be true, for them it's still protected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:08:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Who the hell is this Antigunner guy? This must be someone playing a prank. No one can be that stupid. I think Sarah Brady is smarter than this freak. Lordy Lordy we must save the children. Gimme a break!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:12:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Yes, the First Amendment is alive and well. Look at all those anti-F's spewing garbage about all us lawful gunowners. It doesn't have to be true, for them it's still protected. yeah maybe it's alive for the media, but try and speak your mind thru the media & see how far goes.(not heard or shown & if it does they'll make you out to be a psycho gun nut) the media only selectfully feed the sheeple what big brother thinks they should know |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:40:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Well I see our newest troll put in his 1/4 cent worth.
As I count it there are 6 amendments that are being raped. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:42:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: Yes, the First Amendment is alive and well. Look at all those anti-F's spewing garbage about all us lawful gunowners. It doesn't have to be true, for them it's still protected. yeah maybe it's alive for the media, but try and speak your mind thru the media & see how far goes.(not heard or shown & if it does they'll make you out to be a psycho gun nut) the media only selectfully feed the sheeple what big brother thinks they should know You are correct. I've failed to mention how we have no airtime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:43:06 PM EDT
[#10]
I think Held Up would be more appropriate than Upheld
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 5:45:37 PM EDT
[#11]
see my point Save the children oboy iam a man iam a man i have a gun i have gun iam BIG AND BAAAAD!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 6:06:56 PM EDT
[#12]
I wouldn't be surprized if this ANTI GUNNER person does not even believe, or at least strongly believe, in the anti-gun position. Looks like somebody that gets off on stirring people up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 6:15:34 PM EDT
[#13]
i think it's safe to say ANTI GUNNER is a fellow member yanking our chain. and while it was fun at first, it's just f*@#ing annoying now.
as to the question of the post: [b]ABSO-SMACKIN'-LUTLEY NOT.[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 6:23:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: i think it's safe to say ANTI GUNNER is a fellow member yanking our chain. and while it was fun at first, it's just f*@#ing annoying now. as to the question of the post: [b]ABSO-SMACKIN'-LUTLEY NOT.[/b] ARlady, I love it when you talk dirty AND make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 6:29:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Everything in the Bill of Rights has been modified under guise of "reasonable police power" at one time or another. Now it seems as though it has gotten to the point where it is constantly being interpreted to restrict citizens instead of the government.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 6:51:09 PM EDT
[#16]
with pleasure, beekeeper. always glad to put a smile on a face. =)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:24:47 PM EDT
[#17]
The constitution is just a wast of time! we need total thought control period. Then kids will live and we would be much safer.
[;D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:29:17 PM EDT
[#18]
See my point brainwash the children oboy iam a man iam a man i have a bigmouth i have a closedmind i have no maturity iam big govt and can use force
[:D] [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:29:34 PM EDT
[#19]
ARlady you've got my vote!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:30:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The constitution is just a wast of time! we need total thought control period. Then kids will live and we would be much safer. [;D] libertarian, you have such a word with ways. Be careful though, as all that wast-ing of time will make you go blind! LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:30:45 PM EDT
[#21]
...by the way it wasnt me pullin' yur leg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:40:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Beekeeper,
I agree that we've slipped far. To answer your question, I was one in a small, relatively peaceful town. Took what I though was going to be a brief side trip to go back to school to further my career, and now that I'm a civilian again I'm not sure I'll ever go back. That's not my only reason why, but its one of the biggest. About the only type of agency I'd consider would be a small to medium sized Sheriff's office or municipal PD. Those guys generally have a healthy respect for people's rights, in my experience. It's the Fed's and the huge urban departments that are staffed with career politicians that seem to be the biggest problem. I talk to a lot of vetern cops who are dying to get out because they are so disgusted with whats happening in law enforcement across this country. And no, I don't think the Bill of Rights is being upheld. And I think the biggest reasons why is that we, as a populace, no longer have a dominant value system or common culture. The founding fathers saw the goverment they created as one which exists to safeguard both individual rights and collective values. Today government is more analygous to a officious babysitter attempting to control a bunch of spoiled kids in a crowded daycare. No one seems to like each other all that much, and there's no space to get away to. IMHO of course... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:53:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Originally Posted By ANTI GUNNER: The constitution is just a wast of time! we need total Gun control period. then kids will live and we would be much safer. SICK PUPPY! But I do agree with one thing you said, total gun control, but my meaning is somewhat different than yours! My, having total gun control, saves me ammo, so I can use it, when the time comes, on those who seek to destroy this nation from within! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 7:55:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Bigshooter,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I know so many good LEO's who are as concerned as I over the loss of liberty and trampling of the Constitution. I do a lot of travelling, mostly at night and on weekends, and have been through three random "checkpoints." One was a "safety check", one was a "sobriety checkpoint" and the third I never did hear an official excuse. I "passed" all three but made no friends with my caustic comments concerning the 4th Amendment. Read it and you will find it is very clear (to me, at least): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . . ." How can I be secure when stopped at random, for no reason, and searched just because my schedule tends to be fairly late at night. I am not so foolish as to challenge the LEO's involved but do use such terms as "shameful" and "repugnant." All we need now are to have the demand made to exhibit our "papers" by jack booted thugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 8:31:37 PM EDT
[#25]
I used to do sobriety checkpoints every once in a while. Never really though about them then, but I do now. There are some ligit reasons for doing check points when serious crimes have been committed in order to confine the perps to an area. Sobriety check points are a little more iffy. However, under no circumstances should they be seraching your car without PC or your consent. Did they just shine a light in or did they actually search your car?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 8:32:44 PM EDT
[#26]
The Constitution still exists?
I ask because I have to deal with driver license check points. It matters not that I haven't committed any crime what so ever, they just like to throw up a roadblock to look at the DL and inspection stickers. A democrat senator in my state has introduced a bill wanting to build a database for DNA. Private property seems to be a thing of the past. A multitude of agencies can seize everything you own for a variety of reasons. The military is allowed to carry ops against US citizens if drugs or terrorism is thought to be involved. Furthermore they plan on setting up op centers in majour cities in order to protect civilians from terrorists. I know that at least Charlotte, NC is under consideration for one of these. I had to lean over a chair and ask the gov to treat me nice so that I could legally conceal carry. Test, fingerprints, a ton of money to get through it all. But hey I'm legal until they decide otherwise. The gov.org pretty much decides what I can eat, what medicines I can take, how my car should perform, what type of fuels I should use and then I get to pay as much as 60% of my earned money to the government through a variety of taxes. Oh and the First Amendment seems to only apply to those who have the "correct" views of society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 8:49:54 PM EDT
[#27]
"bill of right, void where prohibited by law"
[V] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 8:59:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: "bill of right, void where prohibited by law" [V] Couldn't have said it better myself. A small example of the lack of property rights. Our city just enacted a smoking ban for all public places. This ordinance requires that I purchase and post a no-smoking sign. Why should I have to buy it? Especially since it makes no sense. It's illegal everywhere so why does every business have to post? Seems a little redundant to me. This has gotten me so pissed and I don't even smoke. In fact I am allergic to cigarette smoke but I don't think that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. We are turning into a Nanny State that has to look out for every need. Aggie1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 9:12:24 PM EDT
[#29]
got your vote? i didn't know i was running for anything but since i seem to be...
ladies and gentleman, if you elect me... [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 9:17:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I used to do sobriety checkpoints every once in a while. Never really though about them then, but I do now. There are some ligit reasons for doing check points when serious crimes have been committed in order to confine the perps to an area. Sobriety check points are a little more iffy. However, under no circumstances should they be seraching your car without PC or your consent. Did they just shine a light in or did they actually search your car? What really is the difference?!! Secure should be secure from being stopped, surrounded by several LEO's unknown to me as to integrity or true intent, and secure from having my vehicle peered into and intrusive questions asked. Just because they travel in packs do not mean they are "just doing their job." To answer your question, they just shined lights inside. They also asked me if I had anything with me such as alcohol, drugs, or GUNS. Prohibition ended decades ago, and my possession of firearms is absolutely none of their damned business, as long as I'm not pointing them at them. Drugs are open season, if PC exists. By the way, of these three I only use firearms. I denied having drugs or alcohol (true) but also denied having firearms (untrue), as advised by a friend who is also an Illinois State Police Officer. He said to deny having any and keep them absolutely out of sight. I guess they believed me as I was sent on my way without being asked for permission to search. I am quite clean-cut in appearance as I work as an insurance agent (no group any more "square" LOL). I agree these roadblocks are acceptable in response to a specific crime to contain perps. I just am outraged by "fishing expeditions" that violate the 4th. Also, for anyone reading this who is not LEO, make sure you know if you are ever asked permission to search your vehicle that Officer is legally admitting he has no Probable Cause and he CANNOT legally search w/o your permission. Always say, "Officer, I respectfully decline to give you permission to search my vehicle." He then can only allow you to go, or he can call Rin Tin Tin to give you the sniff test for drugs. I prefer to assume fellow gun toters do not have drugs with them, so when you are allowed to go he will spend the rest of the day wondering what in the HELL you had in there and why you were the only one in recent memory who refused to allow the search. Even morons with pounds of drugs give permission. If asked, don't ever say yes--just say NO!--like Mrs. Reagan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 10:03:23 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Well I see our newest troll put in his 1/4 cent worth. As I count it there are 6 amendments that are being raped. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th. I agree on both points! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 11:12:45 PM EDT
[#32]
All you have to do is find an immigrant that has lived through the beginnings of and in a police state. The majority would tell you they are seeing a dangerous repeating of history here. The late Bill Marcy, who frequented the old ar15.com, was one of these people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2001 11:23:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Do I feel it is being upheld? No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 6:35:35 AM EDT
[#34]
When the times come, I will joint the Task Force to order all the people from HCI along with Sarah Bandy along with her cry baby husband and all the anti-gun people in Gas chamber just like Nazi did.
I did love to tell her shouldn't have ban guns start with and weaking our Bill's of the Right. Anyone Agree? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 6:50:10 AM EDT
[#35]
I feel we have too much freedom thats why we have the highest crime rate in the world with guns; also california's laws are too weak and need to be a lot tougher. the constitution and freedom is given too you, i think you need to earn the freedom before you complain about it.
and guns are the first thing's need to go we need camera's on every street corner then have a response team ready, now i think that would be a safer sociaty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 6:51:24 AM EDT
[#36]
With 24 years in LE I can say that there has been a constant erosion of the bill of rights, and disrespect for the Constitution. I am very concerned with the new push for an expanded data base of DNA, and the taking of samples from prisoners no matter what their offense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 7:02:40 AM EDT
[#37]
You want it back? You'll have to take it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 7:20:08 AM EDT
[#38]
The "late" BIll Marcy is alive and well. His website is still
[url]http://www.wetworx.com/[/url] and the thread he started on the old AR15 is a prime example of why you cannot trust anything on the internet. I am sure Bill is still amongst us as someone else; for all I know, he is you, Imbroglio. As for the checkpoint issue, there is nothing criminal about checkpoints set up by LEO's. We have to make sure it falls within certain guidelines for safety and avoid selecting cars at random, but contrary to popular belief on this and other boards, they are still legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 7:36:38 AM EDT
[#39]
checkpoints may be "legal" but they are a violation of everything this country once stood for. Fascism is alive and well-It has simply changed geographic location and political ideology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 8:09:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Originally Posted By ANTI GUNNER: I feel we have too much freedom thats why we have the highest crime rate in the world with guns; also california's laws are too weak and need to be a lot tougher. the constitution and freedom is given too you, i think you need to earn the freedom before you complain about it. and guns are the first thing's need to go we need camera's on every street corner then have a response team ready, now i think that would be a safer sociaty. You are a complete and utter moron. I try to be polite with sheep like you...but you just keep coming back asking to look like a damn fool. And that you have succeeded in. As for your comments: Go to a Jew with numbers still tatooed on his/her arm and see what they say to your malarke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 8:30:33 AM EDT
[#41]
ANTI-GUNNER, you say we need to earn our freedom before we "complain" about uneducated simpletons like you. What have YOU done to earn your freedom?
And yes, we no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights. Anyone here know why there was such a fuss about having a writtin Bill of Rights during the Constitutional Conventions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 8:33:15 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: As for the checkpoint issue, there is nothing criminal about checkpoints set up by LEO's. We have to make sure it falls within certain guidelines for safety and avoid selecting cars at random, but contrary to popular belief on this and other boards, they are still legal. tcsd1236, you need to understand the fact that not everything "legal" is constitutional. We, as citizens of this country, have no moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws, though there is likely to be a price for not doing so. Roughly 90% of ALL laws passed in the last 40 years have been unconstitutional. Consider the Supreme Court ruling that allowed these roadblocks to be "legal"--it says LEO's may not single out vehicles to be stopped as that would violate the IV Amendment, but if many vehicles are stopped, and lots of people's rights are violated, then that is okay. Say what?!! Perhaps you can explain how that makes sense. While you're at it please explain how the Florida SC's decisions following the 2000 election make sense. LOL Rights are absolute, that's why they are rights, not privileges. BTW, don't quote me the one about yelling "fire" in a theater--the I Amendment covers political speech, not theater speech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 9:52:01 AM EDT
[#43]
The Bill of Rights are Inalienable. They are not guarantied by the constitution, they are enumerated in the document. These are god given rights. No one has the power to take away a god given right….unless we let them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 10:01:10 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: The Bill of Rights are Inalienable. They are not guarantied by the constitution, they are enumerated in the document. These are god given rights. No one has the power to take away a god given right….unless we let them. Yes, and ANTI GUNNER: just try and come and take them away from us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 10:09:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Beekeeper:
Once something has been ruled on by the SCOTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it's legal.The Legislative branch passes the laws( some of which I think are pretty stupid laws, but thats MY opinion), the SCOTUS has the final say on whether it believes that legislation passes Constitutional muster. You certainly have the right to personally believe otherwise. This argument has been been beat to death in many other threads on this and other gun boards, so I am well aware of what the typical arguments are by people such as yourself: You'd roll the country back to exactly what was enumerated in the Constitution. While that may sound good on papar or printed on your monitor screen, I think the reality would be far from the nirvana so many of you believe it would be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: as much as there are horror stories about the EPA, IRS, etc,the country could not survive in a 21st Century world with an 18th century level of government. Look what happens in third world countries when they have ineffective, weak governments; things don't get run well, and the government doesn't last long. You can make a personal decision to follow any law you choose, but as you said, you will have to suffer the consequences of whatever enforcement action is taken against you. As for your question about checkpoints, the Justices objected to the idea that a single motorist would be singled out, perhaps based on some sort of profiling; the idea that if the stop is done according to some sort of system, whether it's stopping every car, every 10th car, etc, which is blind to profiling or singling out specific vehicles,then that doesn't violate the individual rights of anyone stopped. But I suspect you already know that, you simply chooose to dislike the concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 10:36:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Beekeeper: Once something has been ruled on by the SCOTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it's legal.The Legislative branch passes the laws( some of which I think are pretty stupid laws, but thats MY opinion), the SCOTUS has the final say on whether it believes that legislation passes Constitutional muster. You certainly have the right to personally believe otherwise. This argument has been been beat to death in many other threads on this and other gun boards, so I am well aware of what the typical arguments are by people such as yourself: You'd roll the country back to exactly what was enumerated in the Constitution. While that may sound good on papar or printed on your monitor screen, I think the reality would be far from the nirvana so many of you believe it would be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: as much as there are horror stories about the EPA, IRS, etc,the country could not survive in a 21st Century world with an 18th century level of government. Look what happens in third world countries when they have ineffective, weak governments; things don't get run well, and the government doesn't last long. You can make a personal decision to follow any law you choose, but as you said, you will have to suffer the consequences of whatever enforcement action is taken against you. As for your question about checkpoints, the Justices objected to the idea that a single motorist would be singled out, perhaps based on some sort of profiling; the idea that if the stop is done according to some sort of system, whether it's stopping every car, every 10th car, etc, which is blind to profiling or singling out specific vehicles,then that doesn't violate the individual rights of anyone stopped. But I suspect you already know that, you simply chooose to dislike the concept. Well, I think we are both (mostly) right. I would take issue with your first sentence--I don't like to consider Blacks only 3/5th human (Dred Scott). I know this is the easiest example of very wrong SC decisions. Please keep in mind the Founders, in their brilliance, absolutely did not intend for judicial fiat to have a significant role in determining what is legal. It was only intended to be a fail-safe in the system of checks and balances. I heartily agree with your last sentence--you are VERY correct that I "dislike the concept" of having my rights stripped by government edict. Liberty is something I do not compromise or give away. Keeping in mind it cannot be taken--only surrendered. I suspect there are more individuals in this forum who share my oft-maligned "extremist" view of liberty. I do think the Founders would be gratified to know a few Patriots exist who understand and embrace liberty and reject tyranny, even tyranny "for our own good." I do not need a nanny state to wipe my nose or any other of my body parts. Those who do and trade liberty for false security deserve what they get. Ben Franklin was VERY wise. Also, you cannot realistically make a direct comparison between Third World despot-run crapholes and this country. They serve better as an example of why this country SHOULD move back to its Constitutional roots and away from socialism. I know we live in very complicated times, but ignoring or rewriting the Constitution is certainly not the answer to modern problems. Liberty is fragile, but not frail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 10:51:21 AM EDT
[#47]
tcsd1236, do you listen to yourself? Its ok if you pick every 5th or 10th car full of citizens, march them out and search their vehicle,etc. You must have been an SS trooper in your past life. What they did was also "legal".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 10:59:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Yea guys the Nazi's had checkpoints. Why shouldn't we? I vant to see your papers.
I guess whatever the government decides is constitutional is ok with many here as long as the government says it is. We have so many laws that restrict the law abiding - this is unconstitutional and I don't give a damn what any NAZI minded person says. Use your head. You have the right to go about your business without being harassed unless you harm someone else, not before. This is not NAZI Germany, or it used not to be. Many take oaths to uphold the constitution - Why not say the governments interpretation of the constitution as that is what is being upheld - definitely not the intent of the constitution. At least the supreme court recently ruled that drug sniffing dogs can not be used without a warrant. I've been waiting for them to set up portable x-ray machines on the side of the road to x-ray your car and claim it is not actually being searched. Then if anything is seen they have probable cause. What a joke. The ruled drugs under the seat were not an immediate threat to the public but alcohol was so DUI checkpoints are ok. So to stop and search your person for no reason is ok. If that's not a conflict with the forth I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 11:07:01 AM EDT
[#49]
dr jarhead and patriot_dave, to quote the old Bartles & Jaymes commercial--"Thank you for your support!" I knew there had to be others out there who "get it." And you both said it better than I can. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2001 11:20:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Having the right to bear arms is the only way to protect yourself. I remember a ruling, by the state or federal, that stated that the local law enforcement had no resposiblity to come if you call them. It makes sense because law enforcement can't be everywhere at once.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
