Staff Member
- Messages
- 9,481
- Reactions
- 21,448
Any inference to these folks not knowing laws, wherever, goes out the window.
Because they ran, hid, evaded. Hard stop.
IMO.
Because they ran, hid, evaded. Hard stop.
IMO.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yea what were they running from?Because they ran, hid, evaded.
There is a right and wrong way to fight. Firstly like you state, in the ballot box. That is priority one. The sovereign citizen ideology is not a good one. I've done some research over the past few days and most of these individuals are delusional, and in many cases dangerous because of it. The thing is we can't control other people. There is no way I can think of to stop people like this, or criminals in general who use firearms illegally ,besides taking criminals off the street after they've committed a crime worthy of prison. People will be people, and the only way to completely stop it is to take away all the guns, and that wouldn't be an overnight thing, it could take a generation or two, but people are working on it. I really don't think its the criminals fault though, I think it's the people manipulating the people who don't pay attention to think a certain way, because its not about safety in the end, its about power, and with or without examples, guns threaten power.A LOT of the laws that end up on the books are stuff I do not like. Not just gun laws. There is a right way to fight and a wrong way to fight. We still have zero idea if these guys were doing things legally since they chose to turn what could have been a simple stop and question into an armed standoff. If the guns they were carrying were legal in the state, and they were legally allowed to have them? Should have been simple to deal with. Stand there armed like that, then turn it into an armed standoff? This does not help gun owners persuade others to help us win votes to keep the rights we have. The guy I knew who ended up in prison long ago did it this same way. He decided it was not legal for them to make him license him or his vehicle to drive. Was not legal for them to make him pay taxes. He could show you where he found it in writing. People who choose to make themselves an example like this are just making things worse and getting more voters to go against rights.
If I am walking outside my vehicle with a side arm and a long gun and Police pull up? Is it really my "right" to tell them no I will not listen to you? So then it's the Cops fault?
We have too many gun owners who pay zero attention to what is going on and will not bother to vote. Then we have a handful of clowns who do stuff like this that get a LOT of people to go along with more gun laws. Not sure which is doing us more harm.
A fundamental priority of a criminal justice system is disincentive.... The thing is we can't control other people. There is no way I can think of to stop people like this, or criminals in general who use firearms illegally ,besides taking criminals off the street after they've committed a crime worthy of prison.
There are 400 million guns in America. There are over 80 million gun owners.People will be people, and the only way to completely stop it is to take away all the guns, and that wouldn't be an overnight thing, it could take a generation or two, but people are working on it.
Some guy stabs your wife in the eye and rapes her. Not his fault?I really don't think its the criminals fault though,
Not sure I understand your point, but I think you are saying thatI think it's the people manipulating the people who don't pay attention to think a certain way, because its not about safety in the end, its about power, and with or without examples, guns threaten power.
There's always moor to the story.
Guys traveling with firearms to get some range time and training in. I don't see a problem with what they were doing. Not much different than what a lot of guys on this forum do.
No - because 'Constitutionality' does not render laws null and void.at the same time it is their responsibility to uphold the constitution as much as it is to protect and serve. I just wish we saw a little more upholding going on..
My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.No - because 'Constitutionality' does not render laws null and void.
There are laws that apply to every article and amendment - not just the 2A. Should an LEO just slap his knee, laugh and walk out of an airport as an example of his 'responsibility to uphold the constitution' when a person exercised his or her 1st amendment right to 'free speech' by saying they had a bomb?
Or if a person yells 'Fire' in a crowded theater?
LEOs job is to enforce the law - not uphold the constitution - and are NOT the ones to be blamed when they DO enforce the law.
I think you've both made good points and you probably agree far more than you disagree.My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
Also your use of the "fire in a crowded theater" says maybe you err on the side of censorship. The ruling associated with that metaphor was overturned and insisted that unless speech directly encouraged violence it was protected.
Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .I'm just wondering if you'd sing the same tune if during covid lockdowns you were arrested for practicing your first amendment right to assembly.
Once again you are failing to understand a simple fact - IF a law exists it does NOT hinge on 'constitutionality' - it is IN FACT a law and a LEO is required to enforce it as all LEOs take and oath to enforce the LAW - NOT uphold the constitution. There is a difference.Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
I understand its frustrating at times but, What exactly is "not with the Constitution"? Anyone who has not lived in a cave the last few decades has to be wondering at this point. Laws mean what a black robe tells you they mean. Cops are mostly not law School grads. Even if they were their job would not last long if they decided they were going to pick and choose which laws they "felt" they should enforce. Its easy to say "if I" this is what I would do. Not so easy when its your job on the line. This great hoax has brought out some really bad examples of what a few LEO's will do but, again its still in the lap of the voters who asked for this. Saw what they got, then asked for more. So again Cops are given orders. If the entire force decides each Officer will decide which orders they will follow and which ones they do not think are "right", things would just fall apart real fast.My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
Also your use of the "fire in a crowded theater" says maybe you err on the side of censorship. The ruling associated with that metaphor was overturned and insisted that unless speech directly encouraged violence it was protected.
Amazing you chose not to see all the people who owned business's who were told to close their doors or face jail. I guess its easy to see how they got away with this so easy.Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .
Once again you are failing to understand a simple fact - IF a law exists it does NOT hinge on 'constitutionality' - it is IN FACT a law and a LEO is required to enforce it as all LEOs take and oath to enforce the LAW - NOT uphold the constitution. There is a difference.
Go to your local PD or Sheriffs Office and demand an explanation of this. You will have a much better experience than arguing it on this forum.
And amazing how easy you 'shift gears' from a discussion about law enforcement with regard to constitutionality and segue BACK into Covid issues. Stay in context please!Amazing you chose not to see all the people who owned business's who were told to close their doors or face jail. I guess its easy to see how they got away with this so easy.
And amazing how easy you 'shift gears' from a discussion about law enforcement with regard to constitutionality and segue BACK into Covid issues. Stay in context please!
No, no one else was using my account - why would you even suggest that?I was quoting someone who claimed to be you saying this:
Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .
Guess someone else is using your account
As shown in a prior thread, this is not true.My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
Exactly!LEO's are sworn to uphold the law. They are not empowered to decide whether a law is constitutional.