I've had a lot of sex with "teens", one while I was in high school(she "rocked" my "world", and by "world", I mean "cock"), and a few more after I graduated high school and went off to college. After graduating college, there were even a few more "teens" I had sex with. It was nice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Of course, you being an idiot, I don't expect that you understand that 18 and 19 year old individuals are also "teens", nor that in many states, the age of consent isn't 18, it is either 14, 15, and 16 years old(depending on each state's law, though there are more that have the age of consent at 16). I bet you also believe that, because so many people have called others under the age of 18 "children", that you also believe they are children; the real issue is, they aren't. Children start becoming adults around 14, 15, and 16 years old, hence the reason 16 year old individuals are given driver's licenses. Before the creation of the idea of "adolescence", men as young as 14 were allowed into military and militia service(the group of "states"/territories that became the United States used men 14 years old and up to staff military positions, and all other men, 14 to 45, were a part of the area's perspective militias). Now, the "goal posts" have been shifted, so whatever.
Now, before anyone goes calling me a "pedophile", "child molester", etc., understand that: Firstly, fuck you, I don't care. You are some faceless, nobody on "the Internet". Even if you were, I couldn't possibly care less what your opinion of me is, and I never have. Secondly and, really, lastly, I am married to a women six and one half years my senior(in other words, she is six and one half years older than me, for the less intelligent), and we have no children. I say that so others, who don't devolve to "childish" acts, such as "name calling", or other, related acts, know that I'm not some mouth-breathing pederast or pedophile(well, my statements don't actually "prove" anything, but I added them regardless).
What you said would be funny, if you weren't apparently so serious, about calling out someone's alleged "ignorance", when you are exuding it in such great quantities. I believe we have nice instance of irony here. Just because government(US, State, and/or local) has been violating our(US Citizens) US Constitutionally-protected rights for "long periods"(over years, decades, and in some cases, centuries; in fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest violators in history) doesn't magically make it legal or right. Of course, from your comments, I don't expect you to grasp this.
If a "right" can be restricted, controlled, or taken away, then it isn't a "right"; it's a "privilege". I should also state that "requiring" a "permit" to assemble in a group is also a violation of our(again, US Citizens, and those within the jurisdiction of the United States) First Amendment protections, among other violations you mention as, apparently, "proper use of government authority(and I say authority, because no government has "rights").
I also must point out that, given the heavy restrictions on firearms in the United States, among all of the states, that "the militia"(which is still all "able-bodied males, and even females, from 14 to 45, and older; because it was, for a long time, 14, not 18 years old. Also, "the militia" isn't the National Guard; it never has been, and it never will be) cannot execute its job effectively. Select-fire firearms("machine guns, "full-autos", etc) are effectively banned, or artificially priced too high due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act of 1986, and then there is the NFA'34/GCA'68, Title II(National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title II(specifically), which also create artificial and wholly unnecessary roadblocks to arms ownership and, at the same time, violations of the protections of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution.
Those people should have armed themselves, as it is the individual's responsibility to provide for one's own protection/security. It isn't, and has never been the job of law enforcement to protect others, or provide personal security to the citizenry. Hence the name: "law enforcement".
Does that many that everyone carrying a firearm will be able to protect themselves successfully in every encounter? No. If that were true, there would never be an instance of death among law enforcement, except when the death is self-inflicted intended by said law enforcement( i.e. suicide). One needs to prepare as best as possible, and hope for the best. Regardless, I will take my chances and carry a firearm(I carry more than one every day, everywhere I go), than not carry and hope that someone else around me has a firearm and will protect me.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, like all other amendments under the "Bill of Rights" heading, never conferred any US citizens any rights; the "Bill of Rights" only protects certain preexisting rights. Therefore, changing or "invalidating" the Second Amendment won't take away our(US citizens, and, yes, citizens of our respective states) right to own and carry/possess firearms(or any "arms", for that matter). If changing a US Constitutional amendment could rob us of any of our rights, then it was never a "right"; it was a "privilege".
To be clear, "rights" don't come from government acts or will, and "rights", therefore, cannot be taken away by government. At least, that is the way it works in the United States.
The truth is, the US Supreme Court justices that voted to uphold the ACA were wrong. If you want me to explain how they were wrong(and provide "citations"), I suggest you go and discover the answers for yourself; I don't provide free education.
It is important to point out that the US Constitution(more to the point, the "Bill of Rights") didn't create or give any of us(US Citizens, or other non-citizens on US Soil) any rights; it simply protects certain rights, such as those the "framers" of the US Constitution and "Bill of Rights" knew might be abused at a later date. Rights exist inherently, and as such, amending the US Constitution won't invalidate any rights, just as law can't. If a simply amendment, or law can invalidate a right, then it is no right; it's a "privilege".
The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)(as well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County), and Gozales v Castle Rock(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales))
*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)
Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?
This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).
In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"
The executive arm, in any state government or the US government, has the sole power of enforcement(hence the name). Legislatures(again, in the US) have the sole power to craft, pass, and repeal laws(courts have some power that is law repealing, but judges must have a case brought before the respective courts to initiate the use of such power; judges don't get to simply muse whatever law, whenever is convenient for them, and start repeal whatever law they wish) among other duties, and courts try alleged criminal acts discovered during the enforcement of the various, existing laws, and have the authority to decide if a law is constitutional/legal, decide the meaning of a law that might be challenged during the court of a trial(criminal or civil, depending on the issue in dispute), among other duties.
The term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with "regulation"(i.e. laws or other controlling commands), "gun control"(again, in terms of legal reasoning). I suggest that you(I don't do other people's work, or handle other people's responsibilities) go look up how word were used(in regards to the English language, that is) at the time of the passing(and writing, as this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights were passed not very long after its creation; approximately two years, if my memory serves me correctly) of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. That is one of many issues that come up when deciding the actual meaning of laws, constitutional issues, etc.
Attempting to "reinterpret" meaning from relatively [a] old legal writing(s), based on how language is used today, is, at best, a lie, and at worst, an attempted deception.
Come live in the Atlanta area(or anywhere around the Southeastern United States), which is where I live(technically, it's the "Metro Atlanta Area", but I really live in the shithole that is Haralson County, but my wife and I built a brand new house, on over 10 acres of land, all for cash), and enjoy our summertime temperatures of slightly over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with a humidity level that is, at least, 90 percent and above. I would gladly take 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the Phoenix area, or in that general region of the United States over where I live. Though, I would like some cooler temperatures the rest of the year, so...
Very mature post...asshole. At the very least, post a link to the comment, so that other don't have to find the information you claim exists. Of course, this is not even considering that you don't have any first-hand, factual information on the situation which, allegedly, drove you to post such an asinine comment in the first place. Oh, yes, please, continue commenting on how I "[am]"(or, according to you, "[was]") a part of "the problem".
Look up 18 USC Section 242, and 18 USC Section 243. USC is the acronym for United States Code. Of course, there is also "Violation of Oath of Office"(O.C.G.A., though, I know many, and probably all states have similar statues, though probably under different headings/titles. The issue is that people have to be willing to do their part to hold law enforcement responsible, because no one is going to do it for "you", or anyone but themselves. I wish that wasn't generally true for citizens treated in such a way, but that isn't the world we live in, nor have ever lived in, and one we will never live in.
I would like to add that, I would like to see the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" judicial blathering(s) die and quick and painful death, save for those that are acting in an official capacity(law enforcement, government attorneys, and all other government-employed individuals). There are far too many damned law, just on the state or federal level(in the United States, and "international law" doesn't exist, unless there is a treaty, where the treaty is treated as a criminal offense, and said treaty doesn't violate the US Constitution, which treaties are subservient to, like all other laws), and so many of these said laws(the aforementioned laws actual legality a whole other conversation) are malum prohibitum laws(laws which are tailored to "social norms", which is opposite of malum in se laws/violations, in which are wrong on its face, such as murder, rape, theft, etc), which are almost never morally or ethically wrong on its face, and which are, at best, ambiguous in nature, as to why they even exist.
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:
First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".
I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.
Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the Unit
The above are only three examples, among many, that help show just how flawed you logic(or lack thereof) is. I am an ex-law enforcement officer(which I wish to point out that, just as I thought myself to accurately and effectively use all types of firearms, which my father began when I was very young, I also took it upon myself to learn the portions of US laws, Georgia law(O.C.G.A.), and local ordinances that applied to my career, how it could and would affect me, etc. 10 to 12 weeks, and up six months, at the most, leave little time for much real training), and I can also state with direct knowledge that "law enforcement" and "training" is almost as big of a joke, and a fallacy, as anyone thinking law enforcement exists to provide personal security, or any services, to any one citizen, or any group of citizens. That applies equally to all areas and functions of government, at the federal, local, and/or state level(s).
A few months back, while visiting my parents(and spending three week with them), my mother and I started "binge watching" Hulu. About an hour after we started, my sister, her husband, and my niece came over and joined in watching various shows. After approximately four hours, I had to different commercials "seared" into my brain. One was Hulu's "You Know You Wanna" commercial(s)(I guess there is more than one, but the same exact version played on each show, and at each break, I know I wanna beat the shit out of the person that created that commercial, then thought it should be played on every fucking break, during every fucking video), set to a song titled "Electric Love"(the course makes the title obvious). The other commercial "starred" some ugly "fatty", talking about a "serious condition, called, and I shit you not, B.E.D.(Binge Eating Disorder, because, fuck, we need to refer to real and/or imagined medical conditions by acronyms, not words). After those four irritating, mind fucking hours, I start bashing death metal music during Hulu's own commercial, and started to berate the ugly fatty, telling her to put down the cream puffs, HoHo, and hotdogs, get her ass out of bed(goddamn, that acronym is just fully of hilarious ironies). I starting to think someone at Hulu was fucking with us.
Point is, that shit alone is why my Hulu Plus(or Hulu+, or whatever it's "official title is) account has been canceled, and why, if Netflix starts putting ads anywhere before, within, or at the end of any served streaming videos, I will also cancel my Netflix account(or, rather, stop paying for it). I am not going to pay because Netflix failed to negotiate an acceptable deal, which let Netflix avoid serving commercials to end users, or increasing recurring fees(I realize that last point is of no concern to the discussion at hand, but that is the second reason that will lead me to cancel my Netflix account).
Why do more and more companies believe they have the right to make us sit through forced commercials, after we have paid an agreed to fee to access whatever content or service that was purchased? The point of commercials and other advertisements is to offset the loss of a payment( or payments, if the service is recurring over a specified time, and set as an "all you can consume"-style service) directly from the content consumer(s), but having advertiser(s) pay for the consumers' content, and reach whatever intent audience the advertiser(s) want(i.e free content for watching ads, or viewing static ad banners, screens, headers, etc).
One of those listed crimes isn't in the same "class" as the other crimes you listed. Murder, assault, theft, and similar crimes(essentially, crimes committed by humans, against other humans) are known as malum in se violation or crimes, which means the criminal act, or acts, are inherently wrong(or wrong in and of itself, regardless of social beliefs). "Drug peddling" is an act of malum prohibitum, which means that the alleged "criminal act" is wrong because society(as well as established and existing law) states it is wrong. There are, by far, exceedingly more "malum prohibitum"-based laws that exists and are enforced, than "malum in se"-based laws. That is just one of the many disgusting ways that the metaphorical "screws" are put to more and more people, and how more and more "criminals" are created each day.
I am vehemently against the vast majority of existing "malum prohibitum" laws in existence, both in the US and all the states, as well as across our planet's political subdivisions, or nations. Far to many people are now criminals, felons in fact, where, not a few years are decades said "criminals" were and would have continued to be "law abiding citizens". The "law" never was, or never should be used to define each portion and moment of a person's life; it exists to segregate and severely punish those that would seek to, or are currently engaging in an act, or acts harm another person, or group of people.
The ugly truth that those that wish to continue the current march away from why the United States was created, and towards oppression though legislation, refuse to admit to and see is that we all, at many points in our lives, and likely every day, commit an act, or acts, which legislation deems a crime. As such, there are no "law-abiding citizens, and the law has become a farce. Given that the courts claim that "ignorance is no excuse", and that people are ignorant of vast majority of criminal laws which don't govern acts against another person, it's not surprising the "state" we are in.
People need to accept that the current situation(actually, the problem) that exists(creating new crimes and criminals) will only become worse, if it isn't stopped, and the problem addressed and fixed.
That's "funny", seeing as I, and many others in the county I live in, still don't have any internet access. Save for either a supreme ripoff from Verizon Wireless(when there is coverage, which not everyone has), AT&T has even less wireless coverage, with neither AT&T and whatever company supposedly offer cable services(TV and some internet, though most aren't sure if our provider is Comcast or Charter) offering wireline internet access to the vast majority of the county residents within which I reside. Satellite is equally as useless, expensive, even less useful, and there are still waiting list for a super "late 1990-style internet connection". Yeah, fun times.
Did I mention that I live in the rather meaningless "Metro Atlanta Area"? One irony being that there is probably many areas around some actual "middle of nowhere, far past "BFE"" places in Africa that not only have internet access, but rather fast internet access. Though, those same areas probably don't have much, if any of the far more important services and utilities.
At this point, the house my wife and I built, own(outright; we don't owe a cent to a bank, and never have. We built our house with our own money), and have lived in for 10 years(the house was finished at the end of July 2005) will probably never see internet access. There are probably some loading coils still on our POTS lines that will soon be protected as "important national artifacts".
You have no idea what "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion"(RAS from this point forward) is, and how it came about. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is the case you would want to research, and how "Terry Frisks" came to be an exception(to which I don't completely agree with, based on court reasoning, and the rather plain language within the US Constitution(not so much for US or state law). No matter, probable cause is still absolutely required to initiate a "stop" or "temporary detention"(i.e. traffic stops, "Tier 2" encounters). A situation being "fishy" doesn't provide "RAS".
You are also wrong on searches. Absent "exigent circumstances"(say, gunshots and someone screaming "don't kill me" from within a structure), a search requires a warrant, based on probable cause, which specifies the items, or items, and specific places to be searched. The "Terry Frisk" is an exception, which requires RAS that one, or multiple potential suspects have just committed, are currently committing, or will soon be committing a criminal act, based on training and/or experience, and such a "search" is limited to "patting down" the outer clothing of any subject that qualifies.
I should also add that a traffic stop requires probable cause to effect. In other words, I can't initiate a traffic stop because some "asshole" didn't present or return a friendly gesture(wave at me, or wave back at me), or because I see an attractive female in a "rough neighborhood". Traffic stops are initiated because I, as a law enforcement officer, or another certified and sworn law enforcement officer personally witnessed the target of said traffic stop violate the portion of state law that applied to violations of traffic law(in the State of Georgia, that would be Title 40 of the O.C.G.A., or "Official Code of Georgia Annotated"). I can't intelligently comment on states outside of the Southeastern United States, but in Georgia, specifically, a citizen cannot legally witness an alleged traffic law violation, report said violation, and have that report be sufficient to provide probable cause to initiate a stop, or effect an arrest(outside of an extreme few violations, which cover the intentional loss of life, loss of life during the commission on another offense, etc). A law enforcement officer must personally witness, or have a verified third-party certified and sworn law enforcement officer(Georgia law enforcement-only, and said law enforcement must have a certification in good standing with the Georgia POST Council, which oversees all law enforcement certification on both the State(Georgia) and local level).
This isn't a completely comprehensive commentary on the subject. I hold a certification from the State of Georgia's POST Council(Peace Officer's Standards and Training Council), among numerous other certifications and recorded training. I am an ex-law enforcement officer, and I keep myself up-to-date on current training, case law, and other important information, as it pertains to law enforcement.
I am also happy to see this ruling, as it was long overdue. I am grown tired of this, among other problems, within the law enforcement field.
The two ironies, the last being a rather massive one, is: 1.) US law enforcement isn't a part, in any fucking way, the US Military. 2.) US law enforcement has a legal and US Constitutional requirement to follow and respect US law and the US Constitution. As an important attachment to that requirement, law enforcement in the United States is required to disregard any illegal "orders", which is exactly what I was taught during education, and when I entered into the law enforcement field.
In short, Obama has "lost" his goddamned mind. US law enforcement should seek charges against his ass, of which, it seems, he really wants to happen. If not, then why is he acting like such an asshole?
Hey, outside of the US Military, which organizations have the most organized manpower and firepower/ordinance? Yeah, law enforcement. That isn't a good organization(in part, or as a whole) to threaten, especially when that asshole(Obama) doesn't have authority over the vast majority of the people inside the various law enforcement organizations(outside movies, TV shows, and other entertainment avenues, which all have it wrong, the US Government has no authority over state and local law enforcement. Local and state law enforcement is governed by the states alone, with the local governments sharing(at best) said authority with their respective state, along with major state oversight of local law enforcement. Hence the reason law enforcement certification and training is a state-level matter, or tightly governed by each state, and why each state, legally, is a "sovereign" entities, equal with the US.).
I live in a rural area myself( in Haralson County, Georgia). Our only real option for internet? Verizon Wireless. Ironically, we had to get a data device so that my wife could work from home, which AT&T Wireless required of those in her position(though, I know many others work from home, too). You might ask, "why didn't you get a AT&T Wireless data device?" Yeah, Hell no! Back then, just before Verizon Wireless switched the nearby towers to LTE, AT&T was still EDGE-only. That and the coverage gap was, and still is, ridiculous and horrid.
My wife and I built a house together, which sits on 10 acres of land, surrounded by hundreds of acres more of land her family still owns. Regardless, there are far more people that live just on our road that most people I have ever discussed this issue realize, which tends to confuse them as to why AT&T doesn't offer Uverse, or even a low-end, "good luck getting it to work" DSL plan. This summer will be 10 years since we built our home, and I couldn't be happier, save for being ripped off by one company (Verizon Wireless), and completely ignored by another(which employs my wife, AT&T Wireless).
What do I mean by "ripped off"? Well, at $80 a month, for 10 GB of data usage, plus $10(all in USD, to be clear) per 1 GB over the allotted 10 GB. Oh, and I never got to enjoy the fucking luxury of paying "only" $80 a month. On average, we were paying $1200 to Verizon Wireless, for far less fucking data usage, on average(usage per month, stats that are now, at the very least, to years old), for a home with 2(possibly 2 to 4 occupants; I can't recall, at the moment, how the number broke down on that part) occupants. Our monthly Verizon Bill was never below $1,000 a month, and very little(a few hit of Slashdot, and a couple of emals...maybe) was actually utilized towards our own enjoyment.
Our telephone number's NPA-NXX originates from one of the small towns in our county(Tallapoosa, GA), but, apparently, our physical line originates from a central office in another town(Buchanan, GA). Tallapoosa has had Uverse available for a couple of years, at least, and Buchanan only has, last I checked, DSL available. Though, even if we weren't just over four miles from two of the three central offices in Haralson County, the load coils that still exist on the telephone lines out here(this according to a line tech I talked to, while he was out here working around two years ago) makes the discussion rather academic, at best.
This whole damn mess has pushed me seriously consider taking matters into my own hands. I am going to get a second SDR board(I have one transceiver board already), and setup a point-to-point solution myself. If the FCC doesn't like it, the whole agency can fuck off. Those assholes avoided handling the situation, and has lead us(my wife and I) and a number of others to chip in a support a few Verizon executive's cocaine and hooker habit(while I say that in jest, it isn't funny that I have been paying what amounts to a rather nice motor vehicle loan payment...for fucking internet access).
I would add that the states are co-equal to the US government, and are both sovereign entities(in the legal since; no government entity in the United States, on any level, has any rights whatsoever. Said entities only have limited authority, given by the citizenry. Legal sovereignty assists in protecting each side, especially the states, from being dissolved by force or legislative fiat. Local(city, county, or a combination of both) governments have no such powers(that is authorities, not rights), and exist solely because the state allows them to exist(save a small number of exceptions).
I say all of that to say that the states need to tell all within the US Government to stop reaching into state matters, or attempting to obtain more unauthorized power. I mean, those guys keep screwing up as it is; more power will only make things worse.
Why would someone be "concerned" about a "tomado"(I take it that you mean "tornado"?), when "weather is not("NOT", for, I guess, "dramatic effect"?) climate"? I guess "weather" is only "climate" when the data is favorable to your views. If I am incorrect, then please correct my view of your statement.
...with a piece of paper? Unless there are secondary and tertiary sensors to verify the person in the vehicle belongs to the "authorized face", then this "security measure" is more "security theater". To add to this posted thought, I have to wonder if there are more nefarious plans for this technology(either desensitization to having cameras watching each individuals every moment of their lives), or if this is some uneducated idea from someone/multiple people in the Ford marketing department, who believe that cameras(or all electronic sensors) are infallible sensors.
This idea is almost as bad a biometric sensors on a firearm. This is just another point of failure on a critical tools used everyday, by millions of people. While I am well aware that movies are for entertainment, and are full of inaccurate depictions of technology(as well as many other aspect of the real world), I think back to a recent movie: Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Yes, the technology used by Nick Fury, during the vehicle chase from the faux police is mostly, if not completely possible, but even the made-up system wasn't without a few inserted flaws("Reboot, damn it", while Nick Fury's SUV was getting raped by a pneumatic battering ram, on a stabilized stand). Again, I know that was a fictional system, as a system failure would most likely be more catastrophic, and the system reboot would probably taken far longer(if successful at all).
This doesn't even begin to focus on the implications of privacy invasions with yet more network camera sensors. How long until some random corporation employee or government employee starts posting videos of sexual encounters engaged in front of entertainment equipment, or other electronics with camera sensors installed, which the couple, or group(yeah, whatever makes you happy, as long as you aren't harming anyone...or embarrassing yourself), when said people believed(rather naively, as one should never assume negative functionality of any device in his or her possession) the equipment in question was in a non-functioning state and not transmitting data. You know, because playing "electronic peeping tom" will stop "terrorist" activity.
Yeah, technology will make us all "Kim Kardashians", or the target of humor, based on the "sex lives" others consider the source of good and effective, but disparaging jokes. I know a lot of what I have posted is, for now, based on long odds. That doesn't mean those odds won't change in the near future, and for the worst.
Correct, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution applies the "Bill of Rights", among other legal protections, to all citizens and equally binds the US Government, and various state governments from infringing on the protected rights(though that has been violates a numbers of times). See Mcdonald v Chicago for the US Supreme Court finally clarifying what I, and many others already knew: The Second Amendment applies to the states, just like the other "Bill of Rights" already do.
There are a number of states that restrict local(city, county, etc) governments from enacting firearm restrictions through state constitutional restrictions. Georgia(the state I live in), does this, but specifically restricting firearm laws to the General Assembly. Though, the Georgia General Assembly(bicameral legislative body in Georgia) is restricted by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
"Well regulated" doesn't refer to restriction or control; it refers to being well trained, prepared, and equipped, more or less. When interpreting constitutional issues, or other legislative matters(through the courts, usually), how language was used at the time of the passing of any amendment, law, etc, is all that matters. How language is used in society currently means nothing. This is how we protect from the uneducated "busy bodies" from stripping away our rights.
I also feel it's necessary to add that the "Bill of Rights", nor any other legal document, gives us any rights. We have no First Amendment rights, no Second Amendment right, no Fourth Amendment rights, etc. The "Bill of Rights" only serve to protect per-existing rights from legislative(and/or executive/judicial) fiat. The "Bill of Rights" don't enumerate our only rights(individuals do have more rights than are listed); it only serves to protect the rights that the Founders believed government might attempt to modify or completely restrict. I am very thankful for that, as the United States would have been far worse, had it not been for the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights", and the succeeding amendments.
One large issue is getting individuals to stand up and protect their rights. That is something only we citizens can do, not some arbitrary governing body.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had a lot of sex with "teens", one while I was in high school(she "rocked" my "world", and by "world", I mean "cock"), and a few more after I graduated high school and went off to college. After graduating college, there were even a few more "teens" I had sex with. It was nice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Of course, you being an idiot, I don't expect that you understand that 18 and 19 year old individuals are also "teens", nor that in many states, the age of consent isn't 18, it is either 14, 15, and 16 years old(depending on each state's law, though there are more that have the age of consent at 16). I bet you also believe that, because so many people have called others under the age of 18 "children", that you also believe they are children; the real issue is, they aren't. Children start becoming adults around 14, 15, and 16 years old, hence the reason 16 year old individuals are given driver's licenses. Before the creation of the idea of "adolescence", men as young as 14 were allowed into military and militia service(the group of "states"/territories that became the United States used men 14 years old and up to staff military positions, and all other men, 14 to 45, were a part of the area's perspective militias). Now, the "goal posts" have been shifted, so whatever.
Now, before anyone goes calling me a "pedophile", "child molester", etc., understand that: Firstly, fuck you, I don't care. You are some faceless, nobody on "the Internet". Even if you were, I couldn't possibly care less what your opinion of me is, and I never have. Secondly and, really, lastly, I am married to a women six and one half years my senior(in other words, she is six and one half years older than me, for the less intelligent), and we have no children. I say that so others, who don't devolve to "childish" acts, such as "name calling", or other, related acts, know that I'm not some mouth-breathing pederast or pedophile(well, my statements don't actually "prove" anything, but I added them regardless).
What you said would be funny, if you weren't apparently so serious, about calling out someone's alleged "ignorance", when you are exuding it in such great quantities. I believe we have nice instance of irony here. Just because government(US, State, and/or local) has been violating our(US Citizens) US Constitutionally-protected rights for "long periods"(over years, decades, and in some cases, centuries; in fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest violators in history) doesn't magically make it legal or right. Of course, from your comments, I don't expect you to grasp this.
If a "right" can be restricted, controlled, or taken away, then it isn't a "right"; it's a "privilege". I should also state that "requiring" a "permit" to assemble in a group is also a violation of our(again, US Citizens, and those within the jurisdiction of the United States) First Amendment protections, among other violations you mention as, apparently, "proper use of government authority(and I say authority, because no government has "rights").
I also must point out that, given the heavy restrictions on firearms in the United States, among all of the states, that "the militia"(which is still all "able-bodied males, and even females, from 14 to 45, and older; because it was, for a long time, 14, not 18 years old. Also, "the militia" isn't the National Guard; it never has been, and it never will be) cannot execute its job effectively. Select-fire firearms("machine guns, "full-autos", etc) are effectively banned, or artificially priced too high due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act of 1986, and then there is the NFA'34/GCA'68, Title II(National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title II(specifically), which also create artificial and wholly unnecessary roadblocks to arms ownership and, at the same time, violations of the protections of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution.
Those people should have armed themselves, as it is the individual's responsibility to provide for one's own protection/security. It isn't, and has never been the job of law enforcement to protect others, or provide personal security to the citizenry. Hence the name: "law enforcement".
Does that many that everyone carrying a firearm will be able to protect themselves successfully in every encounter? No. If that were true, there would never be an instance of death among law enforcement, except when the death is self-inflicted intended by said law enforcement( i.e. suicide). One needs to prepare as best as possible, and hope for the best. Regardless, I will take my chances and carry a firearm(I carry more than one every day, everywhere I go), than not carry and hope that someone else around me has a firearm and will protect me.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, like all other amendments under the "Bill of Rights" heading, never conferred any US citizens any rights; the "Bill of Rights" only protects certain preexisting rights. Therefore, changing or "invalidating" the Second Amendment won't take away our(US citizens, and, yes, citizens of our respective states) right to own and carry/possess firearms(or any "arms", for that matter). If changing a US Constitutional amendment could rob us of any of our rights, then it was never a "right"; it was a "privilege".
To be clear, "rights" don't come from government acts or will, and "rights", therefore, cannot be taken away by government. At least, that is the way it works in the United States.
Yes, because the US Supreme Court is never wrong.
The truth is, the US Supreme Court justices that voted to uphold the ACA were wrong. If you want me to explain how they were wrong(and provide "citations"), I suggest you go and discover the answers for yourself; I don't provide free education.
It is important to point out that the US Constitution(more to the point, the "Bill of Rights") didn't create or give any of us(US Citizens, or other non-citizens on US Soil) any rights; it simply protects certain rights, such as those the "framers" of the US Constitution and "Bill of Rights" knew might be abused at a later date. Rights exist inherently, and as such, amending the US Constitution won't invalidate any rights, just as law can't. If a simply amendment, or law can invalidate a right, then it is no right; it's a "privilege".
The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)(as well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County), and Gozales v Castle Rock(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales))
*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)
Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?
This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).
In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"
Thus endth thy lesson.
The executive arm, in any state government or the US government, has the sole power of enforcement(hence the name). Legislatures(again, in the US) have the sole power to craft, pass, and repeal laws(courts have some power that is law repealing, but judges must have a case brought before the respective courts to initiate the use of such power; judges don't get to simply muse whatever law, whenever is convenient for them, and start repeal whatever law they wish) among other duties, and courts try alleged criminal acts discovered during the enforcement of the various, existing laws, and have the authority to decide if a law is constitutional/legal, decide the meaning of a law that might be challenged during the court of a trial(criminal or civil, depending on the issue in dispute), among other duties.
The term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with "regulation"(i.e. laws or other controlling commands), "gun control"(again, in terms of legal reasoning). I suggest that you(I don't do other people's work, or handle other people's responsibilities) go look up how word were used(in regards to the English language, that is) at the time of the passing(and writing, as this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights were passed not very long after its creation; approximately two years, if my memory serves me correctly) of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. That is one of many issues that come up when deciding the actual meaning of laws, constitutional issues, etc.
Attempting to "reinterpret" meaning from relatively [a] old legal writing(s), based on how language is used today, is, at best, a lie, and at worst, an attempted deception.
Come live in the Atlanta area(or anywhere around the Southeastern United States), which is where I live(technically, it's the "Metro Atlanta Area", but I really live in the shithole that is Haralson County, but my wife and I built a brand new house, on over 10 acres of land, all for cash), and enjoy our summertime temperatures of slightly over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with a humidity level that is, at least, 90 percent and above. I would gladly take 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the Phoenix area, or in that general region of the United States over where I live. Though, I would like some cooler temperatures the rest of the year, so...
Very mature post...asshole. At the very least, post a link to the comment, so that other don't have to find the information you claim exists. Of course, this is not even considering that you don't have any first-hand, factual information on the situation which, allegedly, drove you to post such an asinine comment in the first place. Oh, yes, please, continue commenting on how I "[am]"(or, according to you, "[was]") a part of "the problem".
Look up 18 USC Section 242, and 18 USC Section 243. USC is the acronym for United States Code. Of course, there is also "Violation of Oath of Office"(O.C.G.A., though, I know many, and probably all states have similar statues, though probably under different headings/titles. The issue is that people have to be willing to do their part to hold law enforcement responsible, because no one is going to do it for "you", or anyone but themselves. I wish that wasn't generally true for citizens treated in such a way, but that isn't the world we live in, nor have ever lived in, and one we will never live in.
I would like to add that, I would like to see the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" judicial blathering(s) die and quick and painful death, save for those that are acting in an official capacity(law enforcement, government attorneys, and all other government-employed individuals). There are far too many damned law, just on the state or federal level(in the United States, and "international law" doesn't exist, unless there is a treaty, where the treaty is treated as a criminal offense, and said treaty doesn't violate the US Constitution, which treaties are subservient to, like all other laws), and so many of these said laws(the aforementioned laws actual legality a whole other conversation) are malum prohibitum laws(laws which are tailored to "social norms", which is opposite of malum in se laws/violations, in which are wrong on its face, such as murder, rape, theft, etc), which are almost never morally or ethically wrong on its face, and which are, at best, ambiguous in nature, as to why they even exist.
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:
First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".
I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.
Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the Unit
Wrong. In fact, you couldn't be more wrong.
Here, try reading the following:
Warren v DC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gonzalez v City of Castle Rock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DeShaney v Winnebego County Department of Social Services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The above are only three examples, among many, that help show just how flawed you logic(or lack thereof) is. I am an ex-law enforcement officer(which I wish to point out that, just as I thought myself to accurately and effectively use all types of firearms, which my father began when I was very young, I also took it upon myself to learn the portions of US laws, Georgia law(O.C.G.A.), and local ordinances that applied to my career, how it could and would affect me, etc. 10 to 12 weeks, and up six months, at the most, leave little time for much real training), and I can also state with direct knowledge that "law enforcement" and "training" is almost as big of a joke, and a fallacy, as anyone thinking law enforcement exists to provide personal security, or any services, to any one citizen, or any group of citizens. That applies equally to all areas and functions of government, at the federal, local, and/or state level(s).
A few months back, while visiting my parents(and spending three week with them), my mother and I started "binge watching" Hulu. About an hour after we started, my sister, her husband, and my niece came over and joined in watching various shows. After approximately four hours, I had to different commercials "seared" into my brain. One was Hulu's "You Know You Wanna" commercial(s)(I guess there is more than one, but the same exact version played on each show, and at each break, I know I wanna beat the shit out of the person that created that commercial, then thought it should be played on every fucking break, during every fucking video), set to a song titled "Electric Love"(the course makes the title obvious). The other commercial "starred" some ugly "fatty", talking about a "serious condition, called, and I shit you not, B.E.D.(Binge Eating Disorder, because, fuck, we need to refer to real and/or imagined medical conditions by acronyms, not words). After those four irritating, mind fucking hours, I start bashing death metal music during Hulu's own commercial, and started to berate the ugly fatty, telling her to put down the cream puffs, HoHo, and hotdogs, get her ass out of bed(goddamn, that acronym is just fully of hilarious ironies). I starting to think someone at Hulu was fucking with us.
Point is, that shit alone is why my Hulu Plus(or Hulu+, or whatever it's "official title is) account has been canceled, and why, if Netflix starts putting ads anywhere before, within, or at the end of any served streaming videos, I will also cancel my Netflix account(or, rather, stop paying for it). I am not going to pay because Netflix failed to negotiate an acceptable deal, which let Netflix avoid serving commercials to end users, or increasing recurring fees(I realize that last point is of no concern to the discussion at hand, but that is the second reason that will lead me to cancel my Netflix account).
Why do more and more companies believe they have the right to make us sit through forced commercials, after we have paid an agreed to fee to access whatever content or service that was purchased? The point of commercials and other advertisements is to offset the loss of a payment( or payments, if the service is recurring over a specified time, and set as an "all you can consume"-style service) directly from the content consumer(s), but having advertiser(s) pay for the consumers' content, and reach whatever intent audience the advertiser(s) want(i.e free content for watching ads, or viewing static ad banners, screens, headers, etc).
One of those listed crimes isn't in the same "class" as the other crimes you listed. Murder, assault, theft, and similar crimes(essentially, crimes committed by humans, against other humans) are known as malum in se violation or crimes, which means the criminal act, or acts, are inherently wrong(or wrong in and of itself, regardless of social beliefs). "Drug peddling" is an act of malum prohibitum, which means that the alleged "criminal act" is wrong because society(as well as established and existing law) states it is wrong. There are, by far, exceedingly more "malum prohibitum"-based laws that exists and are enforced, than "malum in se"-based laws. That is just one of the many disgusting ways that the metaphorical "screws" are put to more and more people, and how more and more "criminals" are created each day.
I am vehemently against the vast majority of existing "malum prohibitum" laws in existence, both in the US and all the states, as well as across our planet's political subdivisions, or nations. Far to many people are now criminals, felons in fact, where, not a few years are decades said "criminals" were and would have continued to be "law abiding citizens". The "law" never was, or never should be used to define each portion and moment of a person's life; it exists to segregate and severely punish those that would seek to, or are currently engaging in an act, or acts harm another person, or group of people.
The ugly truth that those that wish to continue the current march away from why the United States was created, and towards oppression though legislation, refuse to admit to and see is that we all, at many points in our lives, and likely every day, commit an act, or acts, which legislation deems a crime. As such, there are no "law-abiding citizens, and the law has become a farce. Given that the courts claim that "ignorance is no excuse", and that people are ignorant of vast majority of criminal laws which don't govern acts against another person, it's not surprising the "state" we are in.
People need to accept that the current situation(actually, the problem) that exists(creating new crimes and criminals) will only become worse, if it isn't stopped, and the problem addressed and fixed.
That's "funny", seeing as I, and many others in the county I live in, still don't have any internet access. Save for either a supreme ripoff from Verizon Wireless(when there is coverage, which not everyone has), AT&T has even less wireless coverage, with neither AT&T and whatever company supposedly offer cable services(TV and some internet, though most aren't sure if our provider is Comcast or Charter) offering wireline internet access to the vast majority of the county residents within which I reside. Satellite is equally as useless, expensive, even less useful, and there are still waiting list for a super "late 1990-style internet connection". Yeah, fun times.
Did I mention that I live in the rather meaningless "Metro Atlanta Area"? One irony being that there is probably many areas around some actual "middle of nowhere, far past "BFE"" places in Africa that not only have internet access, but rather fast internet access. Though, those same areas probably don't have much, if any of the far more important services and utilities.
At this point, the house my wife and I built, own(outright; we don't owe a cent to a bank, and never have. We built our house with our own money), and have lived in for 10 years(the house was finished at the end of July 2005) will probably never see internet access. There are probably some loading coils still on our POTS lines that will soon be protected as "important national artifacts".
You have no idea what "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion"(RAS from this point forward) is, and how it came about. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is the case you would want to research, and how "Terry Frisks" came to be an exception(to which I don't completely agree with, based on court reasoning, and the rather plain language within the US Constitution(not so much for US or state law). No matter, probable cause is still absolutely required to initiate a "stop" or "temporary detention"(i.e. traffic stops, "Tier 2" encounters). A situation being "fishy" doesn't provide "RAS".
You are also wrong on searches. Absent "exigent circumstances"(say, gunshots and someone screaming "don't kill me" from within a structure), a search requires a warrant, based on probable cause, which specifies the items, or items, and specific places to be searched. The "Terry Frisk" is an exception, which requires RAS that one, or multiple potential suspects have just committed, are currently committing, or will soon be committing a criminal act, based on training and/or experience, and such a "search" is limited to "patting down" the outer clothing of any subject that qualifies.
I should also add that a traffic stop requires probable cause to effect. In other words, I can't initiate a traffic stop because some "asshole" didn't present or return a friendly gesture(wave at me, or wave back at me), or because I see an attractive female in a "rough neighborhood". Traffic stops are initiated because I, as a law enforcement officer, or another certified and sworn law enforcement officer personally witnessed the target of said traffic stop violate the portion of state law that applied to violations of traffic law(in the State of Georgia, that would be Title 40 of the O.C.G.A., or "Official Code of Georgia Annotated"). I can't intelligently comment on states outside of the Southeastern United States, but in Georgia, specifically, a citizen cannot legally witness an alleged traffic law violation, report said violation, and have that report be sufficient to provide probable cause to initiate a stop, or effect an arrest(outside of an extreme few violations, which cover the intentional loss of life, loss of life during the commission on another offense, etc). A law enforcement officer must personally witness, or have a verified third-party certified and sworn law enforcement officer(Georgia law enforcement-only, and said law enforcement must have a certification in good standing with the Georgia POST Council, which oversees all law enforcement certification on both the State(Georgia) and local level).
This isn't a completely comprehensive commentary on the subject. I hold a certification from the State of Georgia's POST Council(Peace Officer's Standards and Training Council), among numerous other certifications and recorded training. I am an ex-law enforcement officer, and I keep myself up-to-date on current training, case law, and other important information, as it pertains to law enforcement.
I am also happy to see this ruling, as it was long overdue. I am grown tired of this, among other problems, within the law enforcement field.
The two ironies, the last being a rather massive one, is: 1.) US law enforcement isn't a part, in any fucking way, the US Military. 2.) US law enforcement has a legal and US Constitutional requirement to follow and respect US law and the US Constitution. As an important attachment to that requirement, law enforcement in the United States is required to disregard any illegal "orders", which is exactly what I was taught during education, and when I entered into the law enforcement field.
In short, Obama has "lost" his goddamned mind. US law enforcement should seek charges against his ass, of which, it seems, he really wants to happen. If not, then why is he acting like such an asshole?
Hey, outside of the US Military, which organizations have the most organized manpower and firepower/ordinance? Yeah, law enforcement. That isn't a good organization(in part, or as a whole) to threaten, especially when that asshole(Obama) doesn't have authority over the vast majority of the people inside the various law enforcement organizations(outside movies, TV shows, and other entertainment avenues, which all have it wrong, the US Government has no authority over state and local law enforcement. Local and state law enforcement is governed by the states alone, with the local governments sharing(at best) said authority with their respective state, along with major state oversight of local law enforcement. Hence the reason law enforcement certification and training is a state-level matter, or tightly governed by each state, and why each state, legally, is a "sovereign" entities, equal with the US.).
I live in a rural area myself( in Haralson County, Georgia). Our only real option for internet? Verizon Wireless. Ironically, we had to get a data device so that my wife could work from home, which AT&T Wireless required of those in her position(though, I know many others work from home, too). You might ask, "why didn't you get a AT&T Wireless data device?" Yeah, Hell no! Back then, just before Verizon Wireless switched the nearby towers to LTE, AT&T was still EDGE-only. That and the coverage gap was, and still is, ridiculous and horrid.
My wife and I built a house together, which sits on 10 acres of land, surrounded by hundreds of acres more of land her family still owns. Regardless, there are far more people that live just on our road that most people I have ever discussed this issue realize, which tends to confuse them as to why AT&T doesn't offer Uverse, or even a low-end, "good luck getting it to work" DSL plan. This summer will be 10 years since we built our home, and I couldn't be happier, save for being ripped off by one company (Verizon Wireless), and completely ignored by another(which employs my wife, AT&T Wireless).
What do I mean by "ripped off"? Well, at $80 a month, for 10 GB of data usage, plus $10(all in USD, to be clear) per 1 GB over the allotted 10 GB. Oh, and I never got to enjoy the fucking luxury of paying "only" $80 a month. On average, we were paying $1200 to Verizon Wireless, for far less fucking data usage, on average(usage per month, stats that are now, at the very least, to years old), for a home with 2(possibly 2 to 4 occupants; I can't recall, at the moment, how the number broke down on that part) occupants. Our monthly Verizon Bill was never below $1,000 a month, and very little(a few hit of Slashdot, and a couple of emals...maybe) was actually utilized towards our own enjoyment.
Our telephone number's NPA-NXX originates from one of the small towns in our county(Tallapoosa, GA), but, apparently, our physical line originates from a central office in another town(Buchanan, GA). Tallapoosa has had Uverse available for a couple of years, at least, and Buchanan only has, last I checked, DSL available. Though, even if we weren't just over four miles from two of the three central offices in Haralson County, the load coils that still exist on the telephone lines out here(this according to a line tech I talked to, while he was out here working around two years ago) makes the discussion rather academic, at best.
This whole damn mess has pushed me seriously consider taking matters into my own hands. I am going to get a second SDR board(I have one transceiver board already), and setup a point-to-point solution myself. If the FCC doesn't like it, the whole agency can fuck off. Those assholes avoided handling the situation, and has lead us(my wife and I) and a number of others to chip in a support a few Verizon executive's cocaine and hooker habit(while I say that in jest, it isn't funny that I have been paying what amounts to a rather nice motor vehicle loan payment...for fucking internet access).
I would add that the states are co-equal to the US government, and are both sovereign entities(in the legal since; no government entity in the United States, on any level, has any rights whatsoever. Said entities only have limited authority, given by the citizenry. Legal sovereignty assists in protecting each side, especially the states, from being dissolved by force or legislative fiat. Local(city, county, or a combination of both) governments have no such powers(that is authorities, not rights), and exist solely because the state allows them to exist(save a small number of exceptions).
I say all of that to say that the states need to tell all within the US Government to stop reaching into state matters, or attempting to obtain more unauthorized power. I mean, those guys keep screwing up as it is; more power will only make things worse.
Why would someone be "concerned" about a "tomado"(I take it that you mean "tornado"?), when "weather is not("NOT", for, I guess, "dramatic effect"?) climate"? I guess "weather" is only "climate" when the data is favorable to your views. If I am incorrect, then please correct my view of your statement.
...with a piece of paper? Unless there are secondary and tertiary sensors to verify the person in the vehicle belongs to the "authorized face", then this "security measure" is more "security theater". To add to this posted thought, I have to wonder if there are more nefarious plans for this technology(either desensitization to having cameras watching each individuals every moment of their lives), or if this is some uneducated idea from someone/multiple people in the Ford marketing department, who believe that cameras(or all electronic sensors) are infallible sensors.
This idea is almost as bad a biometric sensors on a firearm. This is just another point of failure on a critical tools used everyday, by millions of people. While I am well aware that movies are for entertainment, and are full of inaccurate depictions of technology(as well as many other aspect of the real world), I think back to a recent movie: Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Yes, the technology used by Nick Fury, during the vehicle chase from the faux police is mostly, if not completely possible, but even the made-up system wasn't without a few inserted flaws("Reboot, damn it", while Nick Fury's SUV was getting raped by a pneumatic battering ram, on a stabilized stand). Again, I know that was a fictional system, as a system failure would most likely be more catastrophic, and the system reboot would probably taken far longer(if successful at all).
This doesn't even begin to focus on the implications of privacy invasions with yet more network camera sensors. How long until some random corporation employee or government employee starts posting videos of sexual encounters engaged in front of entertainment equipment, or other electronics with camera sensors installed, which the couple, or group(yeah, whatever makes you happy, as long as you aren't harming anyone...or embarrassing yourself), when said people believed(rather naively, as one should never assume negative functionality of any device in his or her possession) the equipment in question was in a non-functioning state and not transmitting data. You know, because playing "electronic peeping tom" will stop "terrorist" activity.
Yeah, technology will make us all "Kim Kardashians", or the target of humor, based on the "sex lives" others consider the source of good and effective, but disparaging jokes. I know a lot of what I have posted is, for now, based on long odds. That doesn't mean those odds won't change in the near future, and for the worst.
Correct, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution applies the "Bill of Rights", among other legal protections, to all citizens and equally binds the US Government, and various state governments from infringing on the protected rights(though that has been violates a numbers of times). See Mcdonald v Chicago for the US Supreme Court finally clarifying what I, and many others already knew: The Second Amendment applies to the states, just like the other "Bill of Rights" already do.
There are a number of states that restrict local(city, county, etc) governments from enacting firearm restrictions through state constitutional restrictions. Georgia(the state I live in), does this, but specifically restricting firearm laws to the General Assembly. Though, the Georgia General Assembly(bicameral legislative body in Georgia) is restricted by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
"Well regulated" doesn't refer to restriction or control; it refers to being well trained, prepared, and equipped, more or less. When interpreting constitutional issues, or other legislative matters(through the courts, usually), how language was used at the time of the passing of any amendment, law, etc, is all that matters. How language is used in society currently means nothing. This is how we protect from the uneducated "busy bodies" from stripping away our rights.
I also feel it's necessary to add that the "Bill of Rights", nor any other legal document, gives us any rights. We have no First Amendment rights, no Second Amendment right, no Fourth Amendment rights, etc. The "Bill of Rights" only serve to protect per-existing rights from legislative(and/or executive/judicial) fiat. The "Bill of Rights" don't enumerate our only rights(individuals do have more rights than are listed); it only serves to protect the rights that the Founders believed government might attempt to modify or completely restrict. I am very thankful for that, as the United States would have been far worse, had it not been for the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights", and the succeeding amendments.
One large issue is getting individuals to stand up and protect their rights. That is something only we citizens can do, not some arbitrary governing body.