2nd Amendment, No reasonable restrictions apply

[TexasRedneck]

Go back and read my posts on various subjects - I think you'll find that I am a firm believer in laws - but I also distrust certain branches of the US Government - among which is the BATF. The new rule they want to put in place will put a tremendous paperwork burden on FFL's - and they have no legal basis on which to put forth such a rule.
I still remember Randy Weaver.....and Waco. That Koresh was nuttier'n a pecan-dipped fruitcake is without a doubt - but the basis upon which the ATF initiated their raid was violations of STATE laws - not federal. And even if it were federal violations - to have staged the kind of raid they did was one of the most ill-conceived tactical plans in recent history IMO.
You knowingly sell guns to straw buyers, I want to be on the jury, because I'll put your butt under the jail. But look at all the paranoia (show me your DL, want to keep a record of the transaction, etc.) on the part of those partaking casual sales - much of it caused by a fear of a federal agency that should be respected and appreciated, but they've squandered that trust over the years.

 

[APatriot]

Maximizing individual liberty and freedom within the confines of a civil social order is the balance which a democratic society must strive to achieve. A swing of the pendulum to far to the right leads to anarchy, and conversely to the left, a soft tyranny, or in other words, a "statist" society.

Do I need to outline the steps toward a soft tyranny this country has embarked upon since the days of Woodrow Wilson?

LE is needed to maintain a civil social order. However, LE is predominantly "blue collar" and uneducated as to our founding principles and individual freedoms as defined by the "original intent" of our founding fathers. But then, so is most of American society, so LE is not the exception, but simply the rule. Such a condition is pathetic, but then progressive statist thought has been taught in our public schools for years, and such progressive BS is rampant at the university level.

Therefore, I would predict most American understanding of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is severely limited, and what is put forth as knowledge by "most" so called experts is simply opinion and "wishful" thinking.

 

[Texan2]

Go back and read my posts on various subjects - I think you'll find that I am a firm believer in laws - but I also distrust certain branches of the US Government - among which is the BATF. The new rule they want to put in place will put a tremendous paperwork burden on FFL's - and they have no legal basis on which to put forth such a rule.
I still remember Randy Weaver.....and Waco. That Koresh was nuttier'n a pecan-dipped fruitcake is without a doubt - but the basis upon which the ATF initiated their raid was violations of STATE laws - not federal. And even if it were federal violations - to have staged the kind of raid they did was one of the most ill-conceived tactical plans in recent history IMO.
You knowingly sell guns to straw buyers, I want to be on the jury, because I'll put your butt under the jail. But look at all the paranoia (show me your DL, want to keep a record of the transaction, etc.) on the part of those partaking casual sales - much of it caused by a fear of a federal agency that should be respected and appreciated, but they've squandered that trust over the years.

I agree

 

[Texan2]

LE is needed to maintain a civil social order. However, LE is predominantly "blue collar" and uneducated as to our founding principles and individual freedoms as defined by the "original intent" of our founding fathers.

That is an interesting opinion....is it based on anything factual?

 

[MR Redneck]

So you are OK with it being legal to sell a firearm to a multiple felon, child molester, stalker, or habitual wife beater?

The way I see it ... when you commit heinous crimes against society you forfeit certain rights. Don't want to forfeit them? Don't do stupid things.

Of all people you should know he aint ok with guns being sold to felons or " PEOPLE THAT NEED TO FUCKIN DIE like child molesters, or " Punks"..
What you just described my friend is what " With a view to prevent crime" should be. Regulate and restrict the scum, not the honest people.
Most of Texas has not commited crimes against society, but the state has forfrited your rights anyhow.

Back to the BATF subject. Has anyone realized their doing this shit without a congressional vote?

 

[MR Redneck]

That is an interesting opinion....is it based on anything factual?

I agree with him and many can provide factual information to back it up. I honestly havent had any of these issues with LE's that are native to the area, just the imports and newbies.

 

[APatriot]

LE is needed to maintain a civil social order. However, LE is predominantly "blue collar" and uneducated as to our founding principles and individual freedoms as defined by the "original intent" of our founding fathers. But then, so is most of American society, so LE is not the exception, but simply the rule.

Texascop2 - thought I would provide all of the quote, rather than your "shortened" version.

 

[txinvestigator]

Free speech has some LIMITED restrictions. Disorderly conduct charges come from your impeding the rights of others. Slandering someone harms them.

How does using profane language that tends to incite an immediate breach of peace, "impede the rights of others"? Specifically?

You are obviously a great believer in a police state - one in which we are granted priveleges from our ruling class. I choose not to believe that way, sorry.

Ignoring the personal jab, on one hand you state that no restrictions on the 2nd are reasonable, then you come back and say you DO support restrictions on it, then acknowledge restrictions on other "rights".

You can't have it both ways. The bottom line is you DO support reasonable restrictions.

 

[Texan2]

Texascop2 - thought I would provide all of the quote, rather than your "shortened" version.

my question only pertained to the LE portion. Thus I only quoted that part.

 

[TexasRedneck]

How does using profane language that tends to incite an immediate breach of peace, "impede the rights of others"? Specifically?

I don't know - ask the Supreme Court. Or any cop that has to stand by idly while a perp calls him every name in the book.

Ignoring the personal jab, on one hand you state that no restrictions on the 2nd are reasonable, then you come back and say you DO support restrictions on it, then acknowledge restrictions on other "rights".

You can't have it both ways. The bottom line is you DO support reasonable restrictions.

No sir - I support those restrictions that are provided by the Constitution, or eludicated by a ruling of the Supreme Court. Not those created by a government bureaucrat.

 

[Texan2]

23% of police officers have a bachelors degree. 15.5% of the american public have a bachelors degree. Just wondering how that makes police officers "blue collar and uneducated about the constitution...and its intent.
And doesnt the Supreme Court get to decide the "intent"?

 

[TexasRedneck]

23% of police officers have a bachelors degree. 15.5% of the american public have a bachelors degree. Just wondering how that makes police officers "blue collar and uneducated about the constitution...and its intent.
And doesnt the Supreme Court get to decide the "intent"?

ummmm....ease up a bit there. In the mid-90's, the USDOT had approved the use of "headlight modulators" on motorcycles. A friend and I were among the first to install 'em in SA. We spent the next 6-8 months being pulled over several times a week by cops that didn't know about the law. Final straw was a particularly unfriendly cop that accused me of having made up the copy of the DOT section I carried that dealt with the specifics (including chapter/section number, etc.), and that didn't want to call a superior to get it checked up on. I told him he was welcome to write out the ticket, but there was no way in hell that I'd sign it, because I was NOT going to take time out of my day to show up in court on something that wasn't a good cite. I was pretty much figuring to take the ride, but he finally had second thoughts and called a supervisor, who DID know the regs.
That following Monday, I contacted SAPD and told them that if I was stopped again, he'd be filing harrassment charges against the department because it was getting entirely out of hand. They never stopped me again - word was that copies of the pertinent rule were passed out to all officers. Funny thing was, 95% of the time, the stops had turned out positive - I was never in an "in your face" type of mood, and simply showed them the rule copy I carried (I carried extra copies so they could take one if they wanted). Most of the time, the cops thought it was a VERY good idea - but you'd always have the one or two that were against it "because".
So, no - sometimes a beat cop will decide "intent" based on misinformation or lack of training - which translates to a very REAL PITA experience for those innocently involved.

 

[TexasRedneck]

23% of police officers have a bachelors degree. 15.5% of the american public have a bachelors degree.

I'd like to see your source on that claim.

 

[Texan2]

I'd like to see your source on that claim.

Police Association for College Education: Information Paper
"The Police Chief" magazine; College Education and Policing; Louis Mayo; August 2006

The stats seem to vary depending on who's stats you look at the US DOE was where i got the 15% but others like this show the same group in the 20's%...either way police are no less educated than the general public statistically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

My original point was that it is not up to any one individual to decide what the intent of the constitution is.

I also think that while your experience with SAPD and their ignorance of a new traffic law is unfortunate it doesn't corelate to police or the general public and their understanding of the constitution.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Okay - I saw that earlier during my own search - but where does it give the national statistics you quoted? I'm missing it somehow...

 

[Texan2]

What percentage of police officers have college degrees? | Answerbag

 

[APatriot]

my question only pertained to the LE portion. Thus I only quoted that part.

Put down your defensive posture and try to understand "my meaning", which was LE is no different than the "general public" in understanding our founding principles in regard to personal freedom and liberty within the confines of civil order. In other words, LE, charged with "state enforcement" are as ignorant as the general public, unfortunately. The "uneducated" concept was more in line with understanding our "founding", not necessarily with a college education.

In regard to my "blue collar" comment, it had more to do with "job classification", as compared to a "professional" designation.

I suggest you more carefully read what I write, and then respond rather than to "assume" what I said.

 

[Texan2]

No defensive posture, just my commentary on the topic.

I believe that I understand your premise, but LEO at the state and local level have to go through training on the U.S. Constitution as well as real world application of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments to name a few.

I respect your opinion that LE is not educated on the founders and the constitution of the United States, (not surprisingly) I just dont agree with it.

 

[APatriot]

No defensive posture, just my commentary on the topic.

I believe that I understand your premise, but LEO at the state and local level have to go through training on the U.S. Constitution as well as real world application of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments to name a few.

I respect your opinion that LE is not educated on the founders and the constitution of the United States, (not surprisingly) I just dont agree with it.

Fair enough.

 

[APatriot]

No sir - I support those restrictions that are provided by the Constitution, or eludicated by a ruling of the Supreme Court. Not those created by a government bureaucrat.

Precisely!! Over the decades in order to bypass the US Constitution and the Courts, the executive branch (the freaking bureaucrat at the Fed, State, and Local level) has through "edict" reduced our freedoms and our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Why access to, and possession of, weapons are critical. Remember: When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty which = GUNS!!