Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm - Page 9
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 129

Thread: Cop wants law prohibiting known gang members from possessing a firearm

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, you just can't grasp the truth. You're so wrapped up in flagging this as unconstitutional that you can't see when you make a glaring and obvious error. I don't know what you're being blinded by, but you need to open your eyes. You only proved that you want other people YOU DONT LIKE to have their rights infringed on... THAT is the ONLY thing you have proven at all in this thread.

    Like you, I don't want to submit to unconstitutional laws and have no intention to do so. Fair enough. But that being said, you and I have a difference on what we think is Constitutional or not. I respect that. You think convicted felons should get their guns back when they get out of jail. I'm fine with them being prohibited from possessing forever. Just because I think the way I do, or you think the way you do, it doesn't mean either one of us is a bad American. I'd bet that that we'd both agree that if we wanted to look for a bad American, we'd have to look no further than our sitting President.
    Now THAT is a decent and well thought out paragraph that doesnt suggest some new infringment on anyones rights (that arent already being infringed upon)... good job.
    As far as who schooled who on Constitutional rights, you very obviously lost to EVERYONE in this thread, not just to me....

  2.   
  3. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    As far as who schooled who on Constitutional rights, you very obviously lost to EVERYONE in this thread, not just to me....
    Lost how? By agreeing that due process must be respected? By agreeing that guilt by association isn't enough? By agreeing an appeals process and a way to contest one's name being placed on the 'list' should be included? Those, and others were all objections raised on Constitutional grounds, and I agreed they all had merit. So I guess you're trying to say I lost because I agreed?

    I can't put a lot of relevance in your declarations of what's Constitutional or not given that you're screaming that the 2nd Amendment basically gives everyone, including convicted felons released from prison, the right to have a gun, when the truth is, it doesn't. It is well established, including in the Bill Of Rights, that States have the right to regulate some aspects of gun ownership and possession. All you're spouting is what you want to be Constitutional.

    Oh, and......You took our jobs!!!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    *snip* It is well established, including in the Bill Of Rights, that States have the right to regulate some aspects of gun ownership and possession. *snip*
    Oh my...... "Shall Not be Infringed" to you means they (the individual states) CAN infringe... I get it, wow, look at the egg on my face for being soooooo stupid to think otherwise......

    DO you even read what you have written before you hit the submit button? I swear, You HAVE Won the award, there is no longer any reason to keep the constest going any longer, there is no way ANYONE on God's green earth anyone can claim to be so smart about the Constitution but be any more wrong about it than you... nosereme or whatever his name/nick is has lost to you hands down.....

    Everyone!!! Attention please!!!!! Budadude here is now OFFICIALLY the most Constitutionally ignorant person in well, uhmmmm, the universe I guess... Ask any first grader in China anything about the US Constitution and they have a 99% better chance at being correct than budakitty....,

    Seriously Buddhakat.... Just because the individual States, just like the fed gov, has infringed on our rights does NOT make it legal...

    You think that the 10th amendment gives states the power to change the constitution any way they want? Heck, even the power to change it a tiny bit? You are 100% wrong!!!!!! They cant change it (or infringe on it) any more than you or I could change it ourselves individually. (other than a Constitutional Convention, which is the ONLY way it can be legally changed)

    You really, really should have taken my advice many posts ago and just stopped posting in this thread, do you even have any azz left to be handed back to you? Maybe you should go check in the mirror to make sure.. Dont want yer britches falling off and everyone laughing at you for being azzless now do ya?

  5. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,616
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    .
    You are not the only one who has made a study of our constitution. It was part of my professional duty to do so. The 4th amendment has the word “unreasonable” in it. Your definition of unreasonable is not necessarily the same as mine or someone else, and you are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not unreasonable, or exactly what constitutes probable cause, or what is or is not therefore constitutional.
    As I explained in great detail already, I don't consider myself an "arbiter" of constitutional precepts and concepts at all, sole or otherwise. I said when I want to know what a phrase or section means, I turn to what I consider to be the most credible authorities on the subject, the men who wrote it. I don't go by "my" definitions in other words, I repeat the definitions that our Founders relied on.

    There are many words and phrases, even amorphous ideas ("wall of separation between church and state" comes to mind) in the Constitution which have been "ruled" completely counter to what our Framers intended them to mean. "Shall not be infringed" for instance. Do you find the same ambiguity in those words as you do in the word "unreasonable?" Certainly the "sole" arbiter, the Supreme Court, has found copious amounts of ambiguity in them. To my way of thinking, that makes "most" of them criminals (since when the ambiguity becomes precedent, it took a majority of them to make it so).

    How about the Commerce Clause? Was it meant to convey any and all meanings and authorities of government that subsequent courts deemed it to convey? I don't *think* I know the answer to those questions, I *know* I know the answer, and if your studies are more than just cursory Constitutional Law 101 depth, then you do too.

    The High Court has been operating as a criminal enterprise ever since 1803 when it "ruled" itself authority that the Constitution did not confer upon it - "judicial review." Marbury vs. Madison was the first step towards tyranny that our country suffered, and that one step has evolved into a stampede of quasi-legal rulings that have both restricted in some cases, and vastly expanded in other cases, the power and authority of government over the individual. Where it has restricted that authority, it has been to The People's detriment, for example, in restricting states and municipalities from being able to set up education for their children the way they see fit. Where it has expanded it, it has likewise been to The People's detriment, for example, misuse of the Commerce Clause, the Patriot Act, NDAA, Good Lord, I could go on and on and on.

    Point being, when those who make the law, validate the law, and enforce the law can't be trusted to abide by the constraints put upon them by the Constitution, then they're all, from top to bottom, criminals.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    You will find in my posts throughout this forum a consistent position against the increase in the size and scope of government, particularly in respect to police powers, and I have never hesitated to speak out against abuses. Quite a few times I have explicitly agreed with you on questions of government authority, and constitutional issues. For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with dragnet DUI/Border Patrol stops. Court decisions, both state and federal, have come down on both sides of the issue, alternately reining in and allowing this activity under specific guidelines. I also unequivocally agree with the quote you offer by James Madison.
    I don't think I've been particularly argumentative with you JCliff, even though you started out with crackpot this and preposterous that, poser here and guru there, and I seem to recall you even saying I was guilty of libel. It is only because of your history here that I took the time to address what you said in spite of the knee-jerk insults. I take agreement where I find it, and healthy debate where it makes sense to engage in it, which, with you is happening right now. I find the debate that the OP continues to take an indefensible side of about as healthy as suckin' down a bottle of hot sauce to pour over my perforated ulcer, so when I said I was done with him, I'm done.

    That said, the above paragraph is somewhat confusing to me. It almost seems like you're saying that since you agree with me some (or a lot, or most, whatever) of the time, that I should "give" you a "freebie" on this one or something. I'll make you a deal: When a cop, prosecutor, judge or Supreme Court Justice steps up to arrest, or otherwise initiate a case against Eric Holder for the plain and irrefutable crime of lying to Congress while at the same time stomping James Rosen's and Fox News' 1st Amendment rights into the ground, I'll give you that freebie. I mean, how can it be that there are so many current active controversies at the highest levels of law enforcement in this country, with nobody doing a damned thing about them, and you judge me a crackpot for seeing that law enforcement is largely a criminal enterprise?

    I said this in reply to the OP earlier in the thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Blues
    They also know that they're breaking the law when they harass people for nothing more than their associations.
    Just answer whether or not that's a true statement. The OP said a cop suggested at a meeting with at least one other cop and at least one private citizen present that the ability to impose such harassment would be his one and only wish for the legislature to grant him to make his job of clearing the streets of gangs easier. That was the context I spoke of them being criminals in. You know damn well that that cop knew when he said it that the only way to manage such a law would be to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the other cop in the room knew it too. To me, that makes him no less a criminal than Adam Kokesh is for stating in interviews that the reason for the armed march in DC that he's planning is to overthrow the government, because when people with the power over citizens talk in terms of trashing the supreme law of the land, they're advocating for the exact same thing.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    If, after your studies, it is your considered opinion that many/most LEOs, DAs, Judges, etc., are nothing more than “brownshirt Nazi thugs” and “career criminals,” fine.
    You put "brownshirt Nazi thugs" in quotes as though I said that about all cops. I didn't. I used that phrase solely regarding the cop who suggested the "GIP" law cited in the OP. And not to pick nits beyond that which is reasonable, I don't recall using the word "thugs" at all. Definitely not in conjunction with the "brownshirt Nazi" utterance.

    As far as "career criminals" goes, it is my view that it is impossible for modern LEOs to operate legally anymore. Part of it is by choice (code of silence and unnecessary violence etc.), but mostly because the Constitution has been so bastardized and marginalized and quasi-"law" has proliferated so far beyond the ability of anyone to understand or know what the law actually is, cop or citizen alike. Those who work within such a terminally corrupted and criminal system can never know whether they're abiding by the quasi-law or not, even if they gave a damn about it in the first place, which I see very few that consistently display evidence that they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    .
    Can't help myself. Blues, overall, this is very good.
    Not sure why you would want to "help yourself" from saying something if you believe it, but umm.....thanks?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Oh my...... "Shall Not be Infringed" to you means they (the individual states) CAN infringe... I get it, wow, look at the egg on my face for being soooooo stupid to think otherwise......

    DO you even read what you have written before you hit the submit button? I swear, You HAVE Won the award, there is no longer any reason to keep the constest going any longer, there is no way ANYONE on God's green earth anyone can claim to be so smart about the Constitution but be any more wrong about it than you... nosereme or whatever his name/nick is has lost to you hands down.....

    Everyone!!! Attention please!!!!! Budadude here is now OFFICIALLY the most Constitutionally ignorant person in well, uhmmmm, the universe I guess... Ask any first grader in China anything about the US Constitution and they have a 99% better chance at being correct than budakitty....,

    Seriously Buddhakat.... Just because the individual States, just like the fed gov, has infringed on our rights does NOT make it legal...

    You think that the 10th amendment gives states the power to change the constitution any way they want? Heck, even the power to change it a tiny bit? You are 100% wrong!!!!!! They cant change it (or infringe on it) any more than you or I could change it ourselves individually. (other than a Constitutional Convention, which is the ONLY way it can be legally changed)

    You really, really should have taken my advice many posts ago and just stopped posting in this thread, do you even have any azz left to be handed back to you? Maybe you should go check in the mirror to make sure.. Dont want yer britches falling off and everyone laughing at you for being azzless now do ya?
    Yep, well I guess that once you've declared me to be the most Constitutionally ignorant person in the universe, well that's it for me. I mean you were elected to the position of being the person responsible for making that determination weren't you? Were you voted in by everyone in the universe or was it just the United States? It was a vote wasn't it? Or was it an appointment, by the President perhaps? You're such an important person when it comes to Constitutional law, especially since you've got this wonderful ability to declare the Constitution means what you want it to mean as opposed to what the Supreme Court of The United States of America says it actually means and is therefore the actual law of the land today, no matter how much you don't like it.

    I'm certainly not going to try to portray the Supreme's as omnipotent, but their decisions are final. Like it or not, no matter how much you or I want to believe Shall not be infringed means shall NOT be f'n infringed, the undeniable, irrefutable truth is, States can place reasonable, (whatever the f that means), restrictions on gun ownership and possession. Now I know you're probably going to hold your breath until they take that back, but like any other child, you'll eventually take a breath.

    Shall not be infringed would technically mean that murderers and terrorists in prison, on death row, in solitary confinement because they're so dangerous, should be able to have a gun. Now if you don't believe that to the core of your soul, then you believe there are some circumstances when a person's right to have a gun can be infringed. Now if you truly believe murderers on death row should have a gun, then I have no respect for anything you say whatsoever because you're, well I don't need to say it.

    If you think murderers on death row should not be allowed to have a gun, then you DO believe there can be circumstances when gun possession should be regulated. If that's the case, then I would ask that you at least be intellectually honest enough with yourself to admit it and do something other than prove how silly you are by screaming so loudly about what an idiot I'm not.

    and..................You took our jobs!!!!!!!!!!!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #86
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    I'm sure that all the gang members will turn in their guns so they will not get in trouble.

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by buckey01 View Post
    I'm sure that all the gang members will turn in their guns so they will not get in trouble.
    I think it's safe to say that gang members wouldn't do anything different than they normally do, which is to be criminals. What would change is instead of a cop actually handing a gun to a gang member and walking away, the gang member would be going to jail. There isn't any part of the back or forefront of my mind that doesn't think the streets are safer when criminals are off them.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    I think it's safe to say that gang members wouldn't do anything different than they normally do, which is to be criminals. What would change is instead of a cop actually handing a gun to a gang member and walking away, the gang member would be going to jail. There isn't any part of the back or forefront of my mind that doesn't think the streets are safer when criminals are off them.
    That's your problem right there. Being associated with a known gang member doesn't mean you are a criminal; which brings us back to "WHO" decides what constitutes a dangerous gang member or criminal?

    It's been statistically proven that the only sure way to make streets safer is to have a population of citizens who are willing to exercise their "RIGHT to Bear Arms" and CC/OC a firearm.

    All one has to do to see what action & laws have the greatest "POSITIVE" effect on the streets "SAFER" is to compare crime statistics with places that have the strictest gun control laws with places that have more lenient gun laws and you will see the TRUTH:

    • "More armed law abiding citizens carrying guns equal SAFER streets and neighborhoods!"

    The "solution" to safer streets and neighborhoods is to make it easier (NOT harder), for people to legally carry a firearm anywhere they go.

    -
    “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” —JAMES TOUR, NANOSCIENTIST

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by tcox4freedom View Post
    That's your problem right there. Being associated with a known gang member doesn't mean you are a criminal; which brings us back to "WHO" decides what constitutes a dangerous gang member or criminal?

    It's been statistically proven that the only sure way to make streets safer is to have a population of citizens who are willing to exercise their "RIGHT to Bear Arms" and CC/OC a firearm.

    All one has to do to see what action & laws have the greatest "POSITIVE" effect on the streets "SAFER" is to compare crime statistics with places that have the strictest gun control laws with places that have more lenient gun laws and you will see the TRUTH:

    • "More armed law abiding citizens carrying guns equal SAFER streets and neighborhoods!"

    The "solution" to safer streets and neighborhoods is to make it easier (NOT harder), for people to legally carry a firearm anywhere they go.

    -
    I'd say we're pretty much on the same page here. Association with a criminal gang shouldn't be grounds for pulling your right to possess. When that was pointed out I suggested that rather than spank people for their associations we make it something along the lines of "People convicted of crimes that have a gang activity associated with that crime. It turns out that Nevada already has a bunch of statutes that increase penalties for crimes when it can be proven the crime was committed in furtherance of a criminal gang enterprise. So no, I wouldn't support flagging someone merely for knowing someone in a gang or being their friend.

    Criminal enterprises have many elements. There certainly could be some people in a gang that further the criminal gang enterprise without being the person that commits the actual felony itself. The person that transports the suitcase full of cash from gang sales of drugs may not be a drug dealer themselves, but their lesser crime, misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, etc. still enables those that do commit the serious felonies on behalf of the gang to function.

    A criminal gang is more than just one criminal. It's an organization who's purpose is to conduct criminal activity. It's bigger and inherently more dangerous.

    I have to assume that Al Qaeda has lots of members that have no criminal records at all, but as a whole they're extremely dangerous.

    I certainly agree that society in general would be far safer if more law abiding citizens carried a gun. Most crime would disappear overnight. I do my part, though I'm not out there with my gun to fight crime, just for my own self defense.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed​ lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,616
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddhaKat View Post
    A criminal gang is more than just one criminal. It's an organization who's purpose is to conduct criminal activity. It's bigger and inherently more dangerous.
    USAM > Title 9 > USAM Chapter 9-110.000 - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Read it, and print out a copy for your lazy-ass cop friend who, even with a whole US Code section devoted to fighting organized crime, still wants to trash the Constitution to make his job easier. This law was good enough to bring down the Gotti gang, as well as many other highly organized criminal enterprises since its enactment in 1970. It ought to be a plenty big "tool box" to take down a bunch of crack-addled kids and ex-cons without trampling any further on the Constitution.

    I am sure I will regret replying again, but the consistent mistakes and erroneous statements of "fact" that are 180° out of phase with real facts is more than I can sit quietly by for. One of them being, "I'm certainly not going to try to portray the Supreme's as omnipotent, but their decisions are final."

    I thought you said you "love" the Constitution. If that were true, surely you would oppose one of the three "co-equal" branches of government having the authority to make final decisions. Don't you even see that the two premises are mutually-exclusive?

    Whether you see it or not, the writer(s) of the Constitution foresaw that which you have managed to remain woefully ignorant of.

    Article III, Section II, Clause II of The Constitution of the United States of America says:

    "2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


    The above is precisely why Marbury was such a flawed ruling. It was nothing more than a power-grab by SCOTUS. It allowed SCOTUS to insert itself in Congress' purview without a single American citizen having been harmed or otherwise affected by the laws Congress generates. The Framers made it so that Congress could overrule SCOTUS in all but the specific issues covered in Clause II above*, and only 12 years after ratification that granted SCOTUS any authority, they usurped that authority and changed the balance of power forever. Now people actually believe what SCOTUS wanted them to believe; that their word is final.

    You need to wake the heck up BuddhaKat. Put down the keyboard and pick up your Constitution. Read through it a couple of times and then start on the Federalist Papers to answer any residual questions that the King's English and old fashioned syntax left lingering in your mind. You are getting nowhere pulling "factual" statements out of your nether-regions, and then basing your arguments on those baseless musings. Garbage in, garbage out, and while I have no idea where you were when you allowed all that garbage in, I've got a 90-post long thread to see where you're dumpin' a lot of it.

    Blues

    *Edit: Changed this, "...in all but specific issues covered in Clause I of the above Article" above to what appears there now, which is this: "...in all but the specific issues covered in Clause II above*..."

    Wouldn't it be great if everyone proof-read their posts and fixed their own mistakes, and admitted to the mistake without having to be "caught"?
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast