Posted on 11/23/2010 1:52:05 PM PST by neverdem
bookmark
The far left thought with Obama they were going to have every thing they had ever dreamed of since the Summer of Love. Now, it all seems to be slipping away.
You can bet the farm that bed-wetter Rall will not be on the frontlines of any leftist violence.
>>Sorry for my Alex Jones-ian rant but cops these days don’t impress me.
>
>My son is a cop, an Iraq war veteran, a member of this forum and an all around decent young man. Sorry you have such disdain for him.
Hm, I am similar in two out of three of those: a member of this forum and an Iraqi-war veteran.
Now, as a soldier I know something about the oath of enlistment, and the Officer’s oath as well; the Oath of Enlistment begins and ends with the Constitution (the former to “defend it from all enemies”, and the latter to “obey lawful* orders”). [*If the Constitution IS the supreme law, then ANY order contrary to it is unlawful AND any order IAW it is lawful.]
In one sense, I *HATE* the military [as-an-organization], not because of what they do, but because of what they won’t do: defend the Constitution against the DOMESTIC enemies of America. When was the last time that the Army marched on DC and plied their violent trade upon those there that disregard the Constitution? (i.e. ObamaCare is an excellent example, the Congress has NO AUTHORITY to mandate the purchase of ANY product or service; Roe v. Wade is another the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, to alter/amend the Constitution; the refusal of the executive to deal with the illegal-immigration** problem is another.)
**US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The ‘justification’ given for such inaction is that “it would be political.”
Police officers [as-a-group] are much, much worse their purpose is PRECISELY of a domestic nature; and, being charged with the enforcement of laws, they are among the worst for knowing what the law says AND APPLYING REASONING THEREUNTO.
Consider this single law; US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Now when was the last time you ever heard of the police arresting the judge and prosecutor in a case wherein someone was denied the use of firearms because of a “Domestic Violence” restraining order? (Violating Amd 2, Amd 4, Amd 5, and Amd 6 ALL AT ONCE!!)
Or to put it in even more concrete terms, consider this, my State has a State Statute which says the following:
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
—(1) a peace officer;
—(2) university security personnel;
—(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
—(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
—(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
—(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
—(2) “university premises” means:
——(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
——(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
And yet there is the State Constitution which says this:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but
nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep
and bear arms.
So then, if I were to open-carry my spiffy Glock .45 on campus would I be committing a crime?
If so, then are not the arresting officers committing a crime [the above cited US Code entry] by arresting me for exercising 2nd-Amendment* Rights? (*I _AM_ a member of the State’s militia, as defined by my State’s Constitution, if it is applicable to only the militia; I am a member of “people” if it refers to Citizens, as I am a Citizen; I am a member of “people” if by people you mean “the human race.” — There is no way to wriggle out of that without radically redefining the words involved.)
And if not, then the officers are arresting me over a non-crime, which is false-arrest and/or kidnapping-under-color-of-law which should cause rapid retribution, no?
Since, with my one action I can, in theory, raise “Seven Shit-Storms” in the legal/judicial life of a police officer is it not in his best interest to know the answers here? Or if, as the officers I have talked to are correct and it is legal [to arrest], then the Constitution [any Constitution] means nothing, and having no authority over the Executive, Judicial, or Legislative CANNOT, logically, establish such branches — in that case, then by what authority does the government operate? The authority-of-having-more-guns?
>God bless you and your loved ones this Thanksgiving season.
On the note of love, in Matthew 24:12 Jesus said “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
An elitist, he is, in the “vanguard of the masses.” Doncha know?
Dylan Ratigan is certifiable.
.
> “Would regular 4 PM latte breaks be part of the training schedule for their para-military forces?”
.
Don’t forget the biscotti...
Excellent point.
Are things in our country so bad that it might be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes, the only question is how to do it.
Whatever. I strongly suspect we've got more guns.
The premise is flawed...we are not a democracy, we're a democratic republic.
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.