Should too!
Trucker refuses to cooperate at Border Patrol checkpoint
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Should too!
Blame your own US senators for the entire prescription med debacle/abuse.
Those actually come from Russia
And after 11 pages you still have not answered the question. Just dodged it with legal qoutes. So, are we to assume you agree with suspending the Bill Of Rights, in whole or in part, if at dome times it is not deemed enough intrusion or in the greater good?
As far as intrusions not leading to another intrusion. Just as an example, what's this crap I been hereing about the Second Amendment?
I have an education, more than most folks think because I sometimes talk like a simple country boy. I am. But one that knows the smell of BS when it gets tossed at him. And the government has been tossing a lot of it the last few decades.
SCOTUS has reversed it's own decisions before and probably will again.
Seem to remember some little insignificant thing about illegal gov. spying, not enforcing laws at whim.
When SCOTUS says it's it technically unconstitutional, but lets it stand because it is only a "little" intrusion "for the greater goog", then it's ok?
In simple country boy talk,,,, sumpin smells kinda ripe 'round hyar. Oh, don't worry about it, just another little piece of the Constitution died is all. Won't miss such a little piece. It'for your own good. Trust us, we know better.
Citizen.
from an idgit coffeeholic
As far as intrusions not leading to another intrusion. Just as an example, what's this crap I been hereing about the Second Amendment?
I have an education, more than most folks think because I sometimes talk like a simple country boy. I am. But one that knows the smell of BS when it gets tossed at him. And the government has been tossing a lot of it the last few decades.
SCOTUS has reversed it's own decisions before and probably will again.
Seem to remember some little insignificant thing about illegal gov. spying, not enforcing laws at whim.
When SCOTUS says it's it technically unconstitutional, but lets it stand because it is only a "little" intrusion "for the greater goog", then it's ok?
In simple country boy talk,,,, sumpin smells kinda ripe 'round hyar. Oh, don't worry about it, just another little piece of the Constitution died is all. Won't miss such a little piece. It'for your own good. Trust us, we know better.
Citizen.
from an idgit coffeeholic
If it comes with any 9x18 Makarov rounds, my buddy is running low.
Seems to come down to two basic positions; those that think it's worth condemning and those that think it best to capitulate. To be fair there are a couple who approve based on their perception of the greater good. It seems most consider it an infringement, the debate appears centered around the response. For my part I consider any infringement unacceptable and conditioned acceptance thereof the enemy of freedom. That said I'll leave it with this
Last edited:
Hey there have been all kinds of answers you just seem to dislike them. There is no suspension of the bill of rights here. The 4th protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. These checkpoints have been ruled as constitutional. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that it's technically unconstitutional but reasonable for the greater good. but that it's a reasonable intrusion. There is a difference. If you want to complain because SCOTUS made some other decision then do so but that doesn't make every decision made by SCOTUS wrong regardless. Look there has to be some final voice on the subject because there is no was to get everyone to agree on anything. The format out founding Fathers created has SCOTUS as the final word on interpreting the constitution. When they rule that is how it is. That doesn't keep us from changing things or making laws against things that are constitutionally acceptably. If a later court changes things, why then that is how it is at that point. It's not some higher moral ground it's just the law.
No I didn't ignore that, perhaps you overlooked it?
"Reasonable" is merely an opinion.
I get both sides of the argument. I really do.
But!
1. We live in a border state, in a country with an immigration problem.
2. Our neighbors to the South are not going to do anything to help stop it.
3. The property on the banks of the Rio Grande are, for the most part, privately held.
4. Travel should be considered a right. Driving on government funded infrastructure should not. We all help pay for these highways. To see them used for illegal purposes (too many to list) seems unreasonable.
wrap up. She said supper's about ready.
I've been throught these check points. The trucker wasn't singled out. Nor pulled over.
He came upon a permanent checkpoint. Answer one question and have a good day.
He must have that newfangled gps/bypass stateline inspection thing. Drive a truck from here to almost any out of state destination and see how many weigh stations and inspection stations you stop at. Laws and regulations, "sometimes", protect us all.
Checkpoints are ok within 100 miles of the border.
I'm off the fence, and my soapbox.
But!
1. We live in a border state, in a country with an immigration problem.
2. Our neighbors to the South are not going to do anything to help stop it.
3. The property on the banks of the Rio Grande are, for the most part, privately held.
4. Travel should be considered a right. Driving on government funded infrastructure should not. We all help pay for these highways. To see them used for illegal purposes (too many to list) seems unreasonable.
wrap up. She said supper's about ready.
I've been throught these check points. The trucker wasn't singled out. Nor pulled over.
He came upon a permanent checkpoint. Answer one question and have a good day.
He must have that newfangled gps/bypass stateline inspection thing. Drive a truck from here to almost any out of state destination and see how many weigh stations and inspection stations you stop at. Laws and regulations, "sometimes", protect us all.
Checkpoints are ok within 100 miles of the border.
I'm off the fence, and my soapbox.
What? There you go repeating the same lie again, even after I provided legal papers and historical examples demonstrating that this was never the case.
Now I know you're a troll.
I can't believe you just defeated your own argument. History has shown, time and time again, that countries do exist on a historical continuum from having large amounts of freedom to very little. Sometimes this happens slowly, like here, or very rapidly, say after communist revolutions, military coups and so on. The continuum only goes one direction, this is a historical fact, and something Orwell recognized in 1984.
I doubt you know anything about logic and argumentation, only how to use words like "fallacy".
You said there were two different opinions. The one I mentioned wasn't one of those two and you failed to address my point at all. That's fine don't respond if you don't wish to do so but please don't fake respond. People here respond to comments with just insults or what they believe is a snappy response while dodging any point that may have been made. If one doesn't feel like addressing a counter point then how about just not responding.
No I just disagree with your conclusion. On there is no court that can over rule SCOTUS. Scotus is not required to rule on the constitutionality of every case and other courts to rule on constitutionality based on both that courts interpretation and higher courts rulings. That still leaves SCOTUS as the highest court. If they make a ruling there is no court but themselves to over rule them. If there is something you posted that contradicts that then post it because I read your links and they don't In fact they support my position. Look there was quite a battle about how much of a govt our national govt was going to be. Right after the constitution was signed they were fighting over federal authority. That some of the fight lasted until 1914 doesn't invalidate a thing to my mind.
A better argument but not the one you originally made. That our country may be slowly heading to less freedom is one thing but your claim that any infringement will lead to greater infringement is different. You don't prove one by proclaiming the other.
Reasonable intrusion= it fits an agenda, so we will allow it, and not bother with that pesky document.
Yes, SCOTUS has the last word acording to the Constitution. They ain't doing what they are supposed and have not for some time.
TS is right, debsteing a LEO on the side of the road is not a go
od way to get it done. Unless you have lots of money and time.And no, in a legal arguement I would lose. But just because someone says it's the law and legal, don't make it right.
Because I did not quote case law, I am wrong and illogical. Need to quit looking at so many books and look at the real world. If people let them, the government will take what it can, little by little. They will justify it any way they can. Until there is nothing left.
from an idgit coffeeholic
Yes, SCOTUS has the last word acording to the Constitution. They ain't doing what they are supposed and have not for some time.
TS is right, debsteing a LEO on the side of the road is not a go
od way to get it done. Unless you have lots of money and time.And no, in a legal arguement I would lose. But just because someone says it's the law and legal, don't make it right.
Because I did not quote case law, I am wrong and illogical. Need to quit looking at so many books and look at the real world. If people let them, the government will take what it can, little by little. They will justify it any way they can. Until there is nothing left.
from an idgit coffeeholic
