Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • frank
    replied
    I am going to say this once...There is no law abiding person out there!
    If you say yes to any of these things, then you are not law abiding!

    1.Have you ever went faster then the speed limit?
    2.Did you ever throw anything like cigarette or candy wrappers(gum) out of your car window while driving?
    3.Did you ever take a leak while driving and or hunting and did not do it at a gas station or in your own home bathroom?
    3.Did you ever spit on the ground and it was not your own yard?
    4.Did you ever say I wish he/she was dead?
    5.Ever slap a family member or punch someone?
    6.Did you ever cheat on a school test?
    7.Did you ever skip a class during anytime when you went to school?
    8.Did you ever threaten or harass anyone?
    9.Did you ever steal or even take someones lunch?
    10.Did you ever trespass on private property anywhere at anytime?
    11.Did you ever cross the road and not use the crosswalk area?
    12.Did you ever pass in a no-zone passing area?
    13. Did you ever stick your nose in something that was not your business,especially when your not the authorities? (Yes! I know what they are going to say! )
    Don't worry I got the message guy's>>>>>!10-4?

    This picture goes on and on and on.......You get the picture right?

    Sighing with a DEEP BREATH! once or twice!
    Now that I am done with this in good information...I think the evidence says what a person needs to hear. No-one is perfect!
    You can only be as close to perfect, the reality is that you hope your not in the area of these guys ....(I am talking about the the police!)when you do the wrong thing,
    Because then you will deserve what you get and it's no-one else's fault but your own!
    This is dedicated to my friends in the P.D.

    Pss...I still am backing our police 100% and still thank out troops all around the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mitchell_in_CT
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    And here is my response: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    And by the way, that applies only to government censorship, not other people telling you they don't want to hear you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mitchell_in_CT
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkertoys
    A Brown bess musket could fire a .68 caliber lead ball twice a minute and was only accurate to 80-100 yards, when firing at a LARGE formation. An M-16, or a civilian copy of it, can fire 100 plus rounds per minute, accurate to 300 plus yards, with much more force. The constitution is dangerously outdated in this regard, as modern weapons are much more effective than those 220 years ago.

    -tink
    And the framers never anticipated the modern printing press, radio, TV, electronic print media or the internet.

    By your logic, the first ammendment only applies to technology in existance at the time of the constitution's writing.

    By extention, all the bill of rights is outdated and should be eliminated because the society it was crafted in has changed so much that it no longer fits.

    Wouldn't that be nice. No more 4th ammendment, as we have technology to see through walls, no more freedom of the press unless its a hand cranked press, and a host of other rights eliminated.

    Eliminated, in your argument, merely by the passage of time.

    Yeah, that's a great reason to curtail people's rights.

    You are a Law Enforcement Officer in IL, right? That means you took the oath of office as per ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 3.

    OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE
    Each prospective holder of a State office or other State
    position created by this Constitution, before taking office,
    shall take and subscribe to the following oath or
    affirmation:
    "I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the
    Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of
    the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge
    the duties of the office of .... to the best of my ability."
    (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

    The Constitution of the United States includes the bill of rights...so you feel that you can disgard your oath of office?

    Oh, wait...thats merely a State Constitutional provision...so feel free.

    You know, the founders did create a mechanisim to change the federal constitution. Go read Article V of the US Constitution and for IL, read ARTICLE XIV, CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION.

    You don't have to like the rights the framers wrote into the Federal Constitution or the ones written in your state constitution, but if you took an oath of office, I would have expected you to understand what you were swearing you would support.

    But hey...what do I know...I'm merely a good citizen with the gumption to question my betters.

    Guess the freedom of speach and freedom of the press should be the next thing to go, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    Originally posted by Mitchell_in_CT
    CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (as amended to 1970)

    Article I

    Sec. 22. Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Your state's legislature seems to like to disregard that section.

    I'm really curious if a Supreme Court will hear any arguments on the 2nd ammendment as the 5th circuit and, I think, the 9th and 10th are in conflict as to the nature of that provision in the bill of rights and its application via the 14th ammendment to the Federal Constitution of the United States.

    Subject only to police power is usualy a catch phrase for saying that the government has discretion in the excercise of its power, not that the government can blanket ban, i.e., refuse to excercise its discretion.

    I do not remember the case, but the LAPD was sued for refusing to issue carry permits and the court did not order them to issue any permits (remove discretion from the police) however they were required to take applications and excercise individual judgement in the granting or refusal of permits to carry weapons.

    And here is my response: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bodie
    replied
    Tink please just up your dose tonight !!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    replied
    A Brown bess musket could fire a .68 caliber lead ball twice a minute and was only accurate to 80-100 yards, when firing at a LARGE formation. An M-16, or a civilian copy of it, can fire 100 plus rounds per minute, accurate to 300 plus yards, with much more force. The constitution is dangerously outdated in this regard, as modern weapons are much more effective than those 220 years ago.

    -tink

    Leave a comment:


  • Mitchell_in_CT
    replied
    CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (as amended to 1970)

    Article I

    Sec. 22. Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Your state's legislature seems to like to disregard that section.

    I'm really curious if a Supreme Court will hear any arguments on the 2nd ammendment as the 5th circuit and, I think, the 9th and 10th are in conflict as to the nature of that provision in the bill of rights and its application via the 14th ammendment to the Federal Constitution of the United States.

    Subject only to police power is usualy a catch phrase for saying that the government has discretion in the excercise of its power, not that the government can blanket ban, i.e., refuse to excercise its discretion.

    I do not remember the case, but the LAPD was sued for refusing to issue carry permits and the court did not order them to issue any permits (remove discretion from the police) however they were required to take applications and excercise individual judgement in the granting or refusal of permits to carry weapons.
    Last edited by Mitchell_in_CT; 10-09-2005, 02:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tony.o
    replied
    Tink, did you stop taking your meds again. Please don't start up again with those anti-gun sounding statements. By the way, I did think the temp suspension from this site, a while back, for you're politically uncorrect post not fair. I did laugh though, I thought it was funny that the most nonconfrontational poster got booted for making an honest statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkertoys
    started a topic Law abiding citizen.....

    Law abiding citizen.....

    Is anyone else sick of hearing the term? I hear it far too much, and am growing very, very tired of the whole damn I'm a law abiding citizen argument. Well, lots of people aren't if a "law abiding citizen" gets a gun, whats to stop a criminal from getting one (legally, at least). Responses?

    -Tink

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 2420 users online. 184 members and 2236 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X