Is Nov 8th our last chance to bring our country back? - Page 3
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 107

Thread: Is Nov 8th our last chance to bring our country back?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Since your on a pro gun web site, I will assume that you are also pro gun, so the question that needs to be asked is, do you trust her after she makes a statement "if the 2A is a right" to not go against your gun rights if she get's elected and that is just one of many items she want's to do that will change our country for the next 30 years, -IE- appointing liberal non constitutional people to the Supreme Court.
    What's your point, beyond posting the obvious? You still seem to think that Trump wants to and can actually win. As I said before, on November 9, you have to come to terms with the fact that we are screwed. I have come to terms with that fact the moment Donald Trump became the Republican nominee. A number of other people of the gun just realized that now after Trump tanked in the debate:


  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Since I can't have two videos in one post, here is another YouTube gun personality that has just figured out that we are screwed:


  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,897
    Ignorance is the hallmark of this last generation. People can ramble on and try their best to sound intelligent about America making a come back but it won't work. I'll say it again, "due to just the national debt alone America can never be brought back, it's impossible". Think I'm kidding? Go figure...If you spend $10 MILLION a day towards paying off the debt for 1 year (365 days) that equals $3,650,000,000 a year, or 274 years at $10 MILLION per day to pay down $1 TRILLION. Considering the debt is $20 TRILLION it would take 5,480 years at $10 MILLION per day to pay it off. America can't even afford to pay the interest on this debt. Is XD the only one here who gets it? Regardless of who occupies the Oval Office the bubble is ready to burst, America cannot survive this debt.


    ~ RAPTURE...Separation Of Church & State ~
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    So, you are justifying the suspension of Constitutional rights for the illusion of increased personal safety. Good luck with that approach.

    ďThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor SafetyĒ
    You say S&F is un-constitutional
    .
    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]
    .
    For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the personís outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  6. #25
    How did the Clinton's fund themselves over the years? Because there's not another person's money they don't like.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    You say S&F is un-constitutional
    .
    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."[1]
    .
    For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
    That part in bold is the problem. A Terry stop does not mean that any person can be stopped and searched. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous". The reason why we are discussing stop and frisk in the first place is because the NYPD abused it. Reasonable suspicion was simply not being a white guy with a tie and a suit. I personally know people that were visiting NYC and got stopped and frisked for no apparent reason. They were also not given any reason.

    Trump wants to institute NYC-style stop and frisk nationwide. Apart from the fact that he has no authority to do that, it would also allow gun control states to abuse stop and frisk and use it against people carrying firearms legally. After all, people carrying guns are up to no good, right. If you want to live in such a police state, then it is certainly your choice, just don't ask me to support it. As I said before, the only time I personally experienced NYPD-style stop and frisk was in communist countries.

  8. #27
    The bottom line is, S&F in NYC saved a whole lot of lives when it was being done and the majority of those lives were in the black community.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    The bottom line is, S&F in NYC saved a whole lot of lives when it was being done and the majority of those lives were in the black community.
    If you chose to believe in this fallacy.

  10. #29
    If you would watch the news lately, you just might become better informed. It's been on the news for the past three months, so it's not a fallacy.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    If you would watch the news lately, you just might become better informed. It's been on the news for the past three months, so it's not a fallacy.
    Stop and frisk was surprisingly brought up by Donald Trump in the debate last Monday. That's why we are talking about it. Trump wants to use it to take away guns from bad guys, which I pointed out has the problem of not knowing who the bad guys are until they have committed a crime. Unless, he meant NYC-style stop and frisk of people that "look" suspicious, which is unconstitutional and is exactly the type of biased policing those communities already complain about.

    The fallacy is that by giving up your Constitutional right, you gain safety. The murder numbers went down in NYC for a number of reasons, but I still can not legally carry a firearm in that city and it is still dangerous in that city. So, let's not use NYC as a national model for policing. Otherwise, we may get stopped, searched and disarmed for our own safety.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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