Again, probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. Do you even understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable, articulable suspicion"(RAS)? Further more, some random person making unsubstantiated claims to a law enforcement officer doesn't come close to RAS, nor probable cause. That is call hearsay, gossip, and a waste of time. If a law enforcement officer uses that to initiate a detention, it's called a "violation of right under color of law", among other serious offenses.
Probable cause is still required to initiate a traffic stop. No matter what is claimed today, "reasonable-articulable suspicion"(RAS) requires an officer personally observe acts or other behavior to initiate a "Terry Stop". RAS doesn't allow for general traffic stops; probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. At best, if a call is received an law enforcement find the vehicle which was alleged to have committed some claimed "wrong", the law enforcement would need to follow and observe the driver, witness a violation, and initiate a traffic stop.
In many states, traffic violations aren't enforceable by non-law enforcement. That is the case in the State of Georgia. That means that a citizen's arrest can't be effected in such instances. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation in order to issue a ticket, or effect an arrest. Though, instances like vehicular manslaughter, such restrictions aren't as heavy, as there is a mixing of traffic law and laws governing crimes against others(malum in se).
If the US Supreme Court actually expects everyone to believe the claim that precedent matter(stare decisis; though the US Supreme Court's exist precedent on quite a few issues ranges from suspect to an outright violation of individual rights.), then how does the Court reason this recent decision against decisions like J.L. v Florida? In fact, how does it rationalize tolerance of law enforcement insert itself in an individual's(or multiple individual's) private affairs, based on the claims of an anonymous source?
I myself am an ex-law enforcement officer, which I have discussed lightly in prior topics. One of the major discussions during more than a few training sessions and private discussions was the taboo of allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop(or any similar "detention") based off of an anonymous call to 911. One of many points of contention discussed was a law enforcement officer which was potentially looking for a reason to initiate a detention using a "burner" cellular phone, or one that isn't attached to a service provider, getting a "be on the lookout"(BOLO; a general notification, either over a general radio frequency or posted on a computer-aided dispatch system, concerning a potential issue or possible "criminal activity") notice issued(very easy and far too often a good portion of a given day's radio chatter), and using that as the basis for initiating a stop/detention.
I abhor this decision. Unless there is a verified witness, whom will swear to events he or she claims occurred, then a "BOLO" should, at best, continue to be a tool to alert officers to be vigilant of a potential problem or criminal activity. Though, the onus should continue to be on law enforcement to find probable cause(with more restrictions than exists today, given the far too lax and unconstitutional reasoning created by court fiat), based off of personal or verified third-party(sworn witness('s)) observations and statements, or other legitimate clues.
Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.
The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.
Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.
Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous argument, not stating a fact. Perhaps you would do well with learning to argue, prior to attempting to argue. While that might sound condescending, I can assure you it isn't.
Give the liberals some credit. The reason the 2nd Amendment is difficult to interpret literally is because the literal reading is absurd. The plain text clearly gives every convicted death row inmate the right to take hydrogen bombs into their high-security prison cells -- because what else does "shall not be infringed" mean?. So, since we can't possibly look to the text to figure out its limits, we pretty much have to find the limits by applying reason -- and reasonable people sometimes disagree.
If your claim were true, then imprisonment would be unconstitutional, across the board. Though, we know that isn't true. People need to stop attempting to apply small portions of an issue to support their argument and start applying the whole issue during a discussion. At the very least, your argument might hold more legitimacy.
Firstly, no one has the right to question me on my "need" for a select-firearm/full automatic firearm. We don't question people on their need for an automatic transmission in their motor vehicle. A fully automatic firearm doesn't mean that said firearm operates in "god mode"(unlimited ammunition), so the positives gains from a full automatic firearm are not that great. Though, it isn't within society's scope of authority to question my "need", or even question why I want anything.
Secondly, a semi-automatic firearm can provide close to or the same rate of fire as a full automatic firearm(through "bump-firing", or other, "non-permanent" alterations). Still, though, one is required to reload the firearm in question. So, how exactly are "full automatic" firearms "more deadly" than semi-automatic firearms? I guess it is the same logic that is used to claim that silencers/suppressors make firearms "more deadly", when it's just as untrue. Though, I have learned(sadly) that in this instance, the anti-firearm crowd rarely, if not never, uses facts and truth to argue their points(I would rather have an honorable, and honest debate, rather than petty politically arguments which are totally unrelated).
Lastly, "full automatic" firearms are one of many types of arms that the Second Amendment covers. After all, the militia needs to be capable of fighting a war, if the need arises, and most, if not all, militaries utilize full automatic firearm, through select-fire mechanisms(safe, semi, and full auto fire options; though, not always).
What about nitrogen asphyxiation? You don't get most of the normal cues that would tell your intended targets to flee(the explosion, damage to property, and other signs), thereby potentially netting a larger kill amount, and making the job of identifying cause of death extremely difficult.
Militias have historically been focused on the male population, for obvious reasons. If human females were the naturally stronger(physically-speaking) sex, then it would have been females that were historically a part of a region's militia. There wasn't some grand conspiracy to "disenfranchise" females, or any other group.
It is high time that people drop the sexism claims, just like so many other discrimination claims. Most people don't want equal treatment, they want their version of "equal treatment", in which there exists legislative inequalities, and not just some societal inequalities.
So, you are arguing against a legal, and wholly legitimate act(self-defense), by bringing up a wholly illegal act(stealing; theft is, after all, malum in se and not malum prohibitum, like the numerous firearm and drug laws) and twisting it make your argument seem to make sense. To be clear, you have only shown yourself to be a fool. The commission of a theft isn't lessened if the perpetrator receives a benefit that far outweighs the loss to the victim. While it might make a "heartwarming story" to a number of idiots in the world today, it is still a criminal act.
If self-defense if never acceptable, then taking a life in the course of "official duties" is also never acceptable, or right. Therefore, all those within the various law enforcement and military institutions all over the world should be severely punished. Oh, wait, "taking a life is never acceptable"(so, no punishment for the aforementioned groups), correct? Yeah, your argument makes sense.
I am willing to assume that you couldn't tell me what the term "well regulated" means, within the context of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To be nice, here is a hugely important hint: It doesn't mean "well controlled(in the legal sense, through legislative decisions), or heavily restricted".
Remember EVERYTHING the British did to the colonialists was 'legal'. The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!
What nonsense. The Constitution does not legitimize sedition.
The US Constitution, and a number of the amendments provides the means(by protecting certain rights, such as those that seem to always end up being attack by tyrannical elements) for the people of the United States to engage in sedition, if necessary. The people don't need anything "legitimized", as we give our consent for those in authority to hold positions of authority. If those people abuse the authority given, then we("the people") will turn to the available political mechanisms to remove such abusers from office. If said abusers attempt to hold onto power, then we move onto more aggressive options.
Current printing technology provides one the ability to print a lot of documents "easily and are far easier to use". So, yeah, it is a fair comparison. In fact, "the press" can spread false information far faster than any group could kill, though none of that matters. "Want" and "need" is of no business, and isn't applicable, when discussing any individual rights. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of a "right", in the context discussed here.
How language was used at the time any amendment(or law, for that matter) is ratified is the only "use of language" that matters. One will see such discussions occur during legal challenges(if the judge or judges actually care to do their job as required by their oath, and not applying personal political interest in their work) over how a word was used during the time a law or amendment was written/ratified. The wording could be clearer, sure; though, the wording is clear enough to discover the intent when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The only people that claim the meaning of the Second Amendment isn't clear are either ignorant of how to utilize research, or are attempting to argue against the protections of the already existing Right(the Second Amendment, like all other such amendments, provides no new right, or rights; it only protects a right, or rights, that have always existed.).
I am not going to delve into the meaning of the Second Amendment, or any other legal discussions. I am not here to educate people that won't bother to do a slightest bit of research. There is a lot of information available, almost all of it is available online. It would do everyone well to read the available information, as it affects us all.
Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.
I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.
Does the word "bossy" upset you? Do you need to share your struggles, to empower others to better complain? Worry not, as many people are here, including myself, to read your comments and lovingly mock. Now, please, continue...
Believe whatever you want. If you're idiotic enough to believe you can reason your way out of being hooked up(arrested), then good luck. Though, you were being overly simplistic in your commentary, and nothing you posted makes any sense.
In order to initiate a stop for DUI/DWI/[insert whatever title impaired driving is labeled as in one's state/nation], an officer needs to, or should observe a driving pattern to allow to said stop. If a stop is initiated for reasons other than suspicion of DUI(Driving Under the Influence), and the smell of an alcoholic beverage is observed, then a test(s) will be administered, none of which requires speech. A roadside, inadmissible test of one's breathe will show whether or not alcohol has been consumed, and the BAC(blood alcohol content), though the level reading itself is the inadmissible portion.
One can utilize speech to refuse that, or any other "roadside" test, but an arrest may be effected, a warrant sought to test the blood, breathe, and/or urine. This is called, at least in Georgia, "Implied Consent". Though, no amount of speech will reason one out of an arrest, if intoxification is observed.
Breaking the window of your own vehicle doesn't require speech to avoid an arrest either. If the event is observed by law enforcement, and said law enforcement chooses to get involved(discretion, or if one simply is intelligent and doesn't assume criminality in every event), identification can be provided in silence, and the vehicle tag will verify ownership. If authorization was given by a third-party, and the vehicle in question belongs to that third-party, then no speech would be required of you, the person suspected of a criminal act.
So, in closing, I wouldn't attempt to provide my own legal advice, if I were you.
You're incorrect in your belief that unintentionally providing incorrect information to police, in a criminal matter(one can legally lie to the police all day, if it isn't in the course of their "official duties" and one isn't being questioned in the course of an investigation or other "official matter". Outside of "official duties", law enforcement officials are just regular members of society. The caveat to that is if your lie causes law enforcement to bring charges against a person that didn't commit the alleged criminal act, that lie is also a crime.), is a crime. Providing false information to law enforcement requires "intent", yet you falsely claim that "making a mistake"(whereas a "mistake" implies one did wrong unintentionally) is sufficient is endure the punishment of a felonious act. You couldn't be more wrong.
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I can tell you that Bennett Haselton is an idiot(and completely wrong, too), and you, MisterSquid, while most likely well intentioned(I hope so, at least), are also wrong. I should also point out that intentionally providing false information to law enforcement, in all circumstances, isn't a felony, in all jurisdictions. Case in point, in Georgia, according to O.C.G.A. 16-10-25, providing false identifying information to law enforcement is a misdemeanor, and it also requires "intent".
I will hold one caveat to my view of your information, in that the "super cool" all caps "DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF YOUR ATTORNEY" comment is correct, though, with a slight alteration, or two. It is: Do not talk to the police.
Most, if not all, defense attorneys will forcefully suggest that course of action. The only time that might not be true is when there is strong evidence that the targeted suspect is innocent, or at least not guilty of the criminal act(s) in question, and that another person is. One can never "talk" his or her way out of suspicion, but substantial evidence can help move the focused suspicion onto someone else.
I do believe that one area of lying is left out(which I commented on earlier in this post), and it is equally important. If one lie to law enforcement, and that lie causes the arrest and conviction(thought conviction is necessary to bring charges for the lie(s)) of a person that isn't guilty of the crimes at issue, the liar(or liars) has committed a criminal act. If it is to the police, usually the crime is the filing of a false report to the police. If one lies on the stand, in court, it would be perjury, both of which also require "intent".
All of this hinges upon "intent", which a "mistake" doesn't hold.
The United States is not the "democracy" that you imagine; it never was. The United States is a "republic", in which representatives are elected to administer the governing authority. While elections are one of the few "democratic" actions engaged in within the United States, that doesn't make the form of government a "democracy".
Though, one major point that is consistently ignored is that people(not "the people", that imaginary, arbitrary entity that doesn't exist, I'm talking about we individuals within the United States) that many rights, some of which were reenforced by the "Bill of Rights" within the US Constitution. Those rights are not open to interpretation, based on the whims of whatever group is in power, whatever "the masses" want, or whatever judge is asked to make a decision. It is those same rights that are continually violated, and it has gotten extremely fucking old.
People have gone to war over far less than what the US Government, much the less some of the states(another point: The United States is a dual sovereignty, with both the US Government and the various states hold those dual slots. People seem to think the US Government is always supreme, in everything; it isn't.) have engaged in, and continue to engage in. While I don't ever want war to come, people need to stop believing that everything is fine, and that the illegal actions of a few should be tolerated, whatever the cost. The pussyfooting has only worsen the situation.
I want to see the political process, the peaceful-ish side of it, work this situation out. If it doesn't, the other political process will take over, no matter what any of us want.
Yeah, because wigwags, strobes, and other vehicle lighting is controlled in any discernible way. Case in point, not long after becoming a law enforcement officer, I noticed blue lights behind me. I was being stopped. The situation didn't feel right, as there were no externally mounted lights(especially on top of the vehicle). So, I pulled my firearm, aimed it towards the general area the person would approach me from(out of sight, with the barrel pointed at the inside panel of the driver's side door), and waited. If it ended up being an actual officer that was incapable of following Georgia law, I didn't want to end up in a needless shooting.
To make a long story short(er), I hooked and booked an oddball that was looking to play police officer for the day...on my day off, with my girlfriend in the vehicle with me. Had the man been intent on doing harm, even with me being prepared to send a few rounds down range(to give him something to think about), it could have easily ended up badly for everyone. It was just dumb luck the idiot picked the wrong car to stop.
It doesn't take a person with any semblance of actual intelligence to setup a epileptic seizure-inducing light show on a motor vehicle. It does take a little planning to not short out the electrical system and/or drain what energy is stored in a vehicle's battery faster than Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation(the scene where the Christmas decorations and lights, by way of "movie science" drained the electricity from the surrounding region: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ar-__ub0rc; starting at 1:36). I have seen vehicles lose enough battery power to cease being able to engage the starter, or power anything, after a vehicle has been sitting with a top-mounted light bar running with the vehicle's ignition off.
Unmarked vehicles create an unneeded problem, which just adds to the many others we have to contend with in the course of daily life. Requiring marked vehicles for traffic enforcement and to initiate a traffic stop doesn't impede the ability of a officer to effectively discharge their duties, and it assists in avoid problems that can easily be avoided. Requiring marked vehicles won't stop everyone from impersonating law enforcement and/or initiating traffic stops(as an aside, only law enforcement, in Georgia, can arrest or enforce traffic laws; citizens have no authority to make arrests, save for violations that cause harm to other humans. Why I thought of that, I don't really know; ADHD is a bitch), but it lessens the problem and causes no ill effects.
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
Virginia was the worst, from what I witnessed on my trips between Georgia and Washington, D.C. There were many areas where multiple "unmarked"(no agency markings, or any markings, and no lights mounted outside of the vehicle) vehicles were lined up, waiting to initiate stops for what seemed like every 10 miles, or so. That is inviting major risk where it can be easily avoided.
I do have a serious problem with some of the actions of the officer discussed in the aforementioned article. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 doesn't broadly cover "operating a motor vehicle", unlike other O.C.G.A. Title 40 laws do. If a driver is at a point of rest, even with a motor vehicle that has its motor in active operation and the vehicle's transmission is set in a gear that allows for forward or rearward locomotion, there is no legitimate reason to cite said driver for operating a mobile phone, or other device not exempted by 40-6-241.2("...citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices."). Once the vehicle is in motion, the driver would be in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2(unless the driver is one of the "special people" exempted by that law.
I am an ex-law enforcement officer in the State of Georgia. I arrested more than a few people for DUI without the vehicle being in motion during any of the time I, or any other law enforcement officer observed the violation(most traffic violations have to be observed by a law enforcement officer in order to stop and/or cite for the offense). So, I understand the distinction between driving, in the practical sense, and the legal view of being in control of a motor vehicle. This law isn't as broad as the officer believes it to be.
Yes, because non-human animal life is more valuable, or equally as valuable as human life. If the idea is to scare the person that has been poaching, or is attempting to engage in animal poaching, and not actually put a reward on the carcase of said human, I could potentially let such an idea be considered(given that poachers have killed other humans in the search for the next animal). In actuality, the idea, no matter the intention, creates more problems without "solving"(read: We will never "solve" all risk out of life; it's time to deal in reality).
If anyone believes that poachers deserve death, just on the actions said poachers take against animals alone(not all, or most poachers are murderers), then those that think that way are just as wrong as the poachers. No, wait, said people are actually more wrong in their views and beliefs, compared to poachers.
You couldn't be, or shouldn't be, this ignorant. Even your "source"(while Wikipedia may present accurate data on average, Wikipedia is a failure of a source given that alterations are open to anyone(registration isn't controlled, and that is all which is required to alter, add, or delete) and accuracy of data isn't verified in all cases) contradicts your statement. There is no difference between what the DEA and NSA are doing.
Unless a warrant is based on probable cause, and issued by judge(magistrate, circuit, etc, depending on whether, in the US, we are talking state or US courts), then the warrant holds no constitutional authority and is invalid. There is no argument to the contrary. Unless and until there is an actual constitutional convention held, where the Fourth Amendment(among others) is struck from the US Constitution, then all "administrative warrants" and any other warrants not issued a judge, will continue to be unconstitutional(read: illegal; if a law contradicts the US Constitution, then said law is no law).
Proteus claims: "The living breathing document doctrine is not saying that the text of the Constitution is mutable, but that rather as society changes, our interpretation of what it means changes too. This has caused some problems, but it's also the root of a lot of good things, like the decision that the guarantee of "Freedom of speech" extends to all forms of expression."
Wrong. You're so wrong that I doubt you could ever begin to understand what fucking insane your belief is. It is thinking like yours that has led the various courts to issue findings in opposition to the US Constitution.
The only acceptable, legal, and proper interpretation of the US Constitution is what was actually intended by those that wrote it. While the use of the English language has changed some, we have to research the use of words and terms during the time that the Constitution was written. The only way to change the immutable Document is to pass a new amendment, according to the terms set out by the US Constitution. If you don't like that option, fuck off; there are other countries to live in.
"Society" doesn't get to pass new interpretations of the US Constitution to fit the interest of those that are in power. The US Constitution was created to maintain an acceptable continuity of an intended living standard, which is one major reason the United States was created. Perhaps you should honor those wishes, instead of trying to change the gift the People of the United States were given.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. Do you even understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable, articulable suspicion"(RAS)? Further more, some random person making unsubstantiated claims to a law enforcement officer doesn't come close to RAS, nor probable cause. That is call hearsay, gossip, and a waste of time. If a law enforcement officer uses that to initiate a detention, it's called a "violation of right under color of law", among other serious offenses.
Probable cause is still required to initiate a traffic stop. No matter what is claimed today, "reasonable-articulable suspicion"(RAS) requires an officer personally observe acts or other behavior to initiate a "Terry Stop". RAS doesn't allow for general traffic stops; probable cause is required to initiate a traffic stop. At best, if a call is received an law enforcement find the vehicle which was alleged to have committed some claimed "wrong", the law enforcement would need to follow and observe the driver, witness a violation, and initiate a traffic stop.
In many states, traffic violations aren't enforceable by non-law enforcement. That is the case in the State of Georgia. That means that a citizen's arrest can't be effected in such instances. A law enforcement officer must observe a violation in order to issue a ticket, or effect an arrest. Though, instances like vehicular manslaughter, such restrictions aren't as heavy, as there is a mixing of traffic law and laws governing crimes against others(malum in se).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F....
If the US Supreme Court actually expects everyone to believe the claim that precedent matter(stare decisis; though the US Supreme Court's exist precedent on quite a few issues ranges from suspect to an outright violation of individual rights.), then how does the Court reason this recent decision against decisions like J.L. v Florida? In fact, how does it rationalize tolerance of law enforcement insert itself in an individual's(or multiple individual's) private affairs, based on the claims of an anonymous source?
I myself am an ex-law enforcement officer, which I have discussed lightly in prior topics. One of the major discussions during more than a few training sessions and private discussions was the taboo of allow law enforcement to initiate a traffic stop(or any similar "detention") based off of an anonymous call to 911. One of many points of contention discussed was a law enforcement officer which was potentially looking for a reason to initiate a detention using a "burner" cellular phone, or one that isn't attached to a service provider, getting a "be on the lookout"(BOLO; a general notification, either over a general radio frequency or posted on a computer-aided dispatch system, concerning a potential issue or possible "criminal activity") notice issued(very easy and far too often a good portion of a given day's radio chatter), and using that as the basis for initiating a stop/detention.
I abhor this decision. Unless there is a verified witness, whom will swear to events he or she claims occurred, then a "BOLO" should, at best, continue to be a tool to alert officers to be vigilant of a potential problem or criminal activity. Though, the onus should continue to be on law enforcement to find probable cause(with more restrictions than exists today, given the far too lax and unconstitutional reasoning created by court fiat), based off of personal or verified third-party(sworn witness('s)) observations and statements, or other legitimate clues.
Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.
The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.
Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.
Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous argument, not stating a fact. Perhaps you would do well with learning to argue, prior to attempting to argue. While that might sound condescending, I can assure you it isn't.
Give the liberals some credit. The reason the 2nd Amendment is difficult to interpret literally is because the literal reading is absurd. The plain text clearly gives every convicted death row inmate the right to take hydrogen bombs into their high-security prison cells -- because what else does "shall not be infringed" mean?. So, since we can't possibly look to the text to figure out its limits, we pretty much have to find the limits by applying reason -- and reasonable people sometimes disagree.
If your claim were true, then imprisonment would be unconstitutional, across the board. Though, we know that isn't true. People need to stop attempting to apply small portions of an issue to support their argument and start applying the whole issue during a discussion. At the very least, your argument might hold more legitimacy.
Firstly, no one has the right to question me on my "need" for a select-firearm/full automatic firearm. We don't question people on their need for an automatic transmission in their motor vehicle. A fully automatic firearm doesn't mean that said firearm operates in "god mode"(unlimited ammunition), so the positives gains from a full automatic firearm are not that great. Though, it isn't within society's scope of authority to question my "need", or even question why I want anything.
Secondly, a semi-automatic firearm can provide close to or the same rate of fire as a full automatic firearm(through "bump-firing", or other, "non-permanent" alterations). Still, though, one is required to reload the firearm in question. So, how exactly are "full automatic" firearms "more deadly" than semi-automatic firearms? I guess it is the same logic that is used to claim that silencers/suppressors make firearms "more deadly", when it's just as untrue. Though, I have learned(sadly) that in this instance, the anti-firearm crowd rarely, if not never, uses facts and truth to argue their points(I would rather have an honorable, and honest debate, rather than petty politically arguments which are totally unrelated).
Lastly, "full automatic" firearms are one of many types of arms that the Second Amendment covers. After all, the militia needs to be capable of fighting a war, if the need arises, and most, if not all, militaries utilize full automatic firearm, through select-fire mechanisms(safe, semi, and full auto fire options; though, not always).
What about nitrogen asphyxiation? You don't get most of the normal cues that would tell your intended targets to flee(the explosion, damage to property, and other signs), thereby potentially netting a larger kill amount, and making the job of identifying cause of death extremely difficult.
You're wrong. See the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, McDonald v Chicago, and a number of other case law for why you're wrong.
Militias have historically been focused on the male population, for obvious reasons. If human females were the naturally stronger(physically-speaking) sex, then it would have been females that were historically a part of a region's militia. There wasn't some grand conspiracy to "disenfranchise" females, or any other group.
It is high time that people drop the sexism claims, just like so many other discrimination claims. Most people don't want equal treatment, they want their version of "equal treatment", in which there exists legislative inequalities, and not just some societal inequalities.
So, you are arguing against a legal, and wholly legitimate act(self-defense), by bringing up a wholly illegal act(stealing; theft is, after all, malum in se and not malum prohibitum, like the numerous firearm and drug laws) and twisting it make your argument seem to make sense. To be clear, you have only shown yourself to be a fool. The commission of a theft isn't lessened if the perpetrator receives a benefit that far outweighs the loss to the victim. While it might make a "heartwarming story" to a number of idiots in the world today, it is still a criminal act.
If self-defense if never acceptable, then taking a life in the course of "official duties" is also never acceptable, or right. Therefore, all those within the various law enforcement and military institutions all over the world should be severely punished. Oh, wait, "taking a life is never acceptable"(so, no punishment for the aforementioned groups), correct? Yeah, your argument makes sense.
I am willing to assume that you couldn't tell me what the term "well regulated" means, within the context of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To be nice, here is a hugely important hint: It doesn't mean "well controlled(in the legal sense, through legislative decisions), or heavily restricted".
Remember EVERYTHING the British did to the colonialists was 'legal'. The point of the Second Amendment is for those times when what is legal (or what is illegal) is WRONG!!!!!
What nonsense. The Constitution does not legitimize sedition.
The US Constitution, and a number of the amendments provides the means(by protecting certain rights, such as those that seem to always end up being attack by tyrannical elements) for the people of the United States to engage in sedition, if necessary. The people don't need anything "legitimized", as we give our consent for those in authority to hold positions of authority. If those people abuse the authority given, then we("the people") will turn to the available political mechanisms to remove such abusers from office. If said abusers attempt to hold onto power, then we move onto more aggressive options.
Current printing technology provides one the ability to print a lot of documents "easily and are far easier to use". So, yeah, it is a fair comparison. In fact, "the press" can spread false information far faster than any group could kill, though none of that matters. "Want" and "need" is of no business, and isn't applicable, when discussing any individual rights. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of a "right", in the context discussed here.
How language was used at the time any amendment(or law, for that matter) is ratified is the only "use of language" that matters. One will see such discussions occur during legal challenges(if the judge or judges actually care to do their job as required by their oath, and not applying personal political interest in their work) over how a word was used during the time a law or amendment was written/ratified. The wording could be clearer, sure; though, the wording is clear enough to discover the intent when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The only people that claim the meaning of the Second Amendment isn't clear are either ignorant of how to utilize research, or are attempting to argue against the protections of the already existing Right(the Second Amendment, like all other such amendments, provides no new right, or rights; it only protects a right, or rights, that have always existed.).
I am not going to delve into the meaning of the Second Amendment, or any other legal discussions. I am not here to educate people that won't bother to do a slightest bit of research. There is a lot of information available, almost all of it is available online. It would do everyone well to read the available information, as it affects us all.
Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.
I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.
Does the word "bossy" upset you? Do you need to share your struggles, to empower others to better complain? Worry not, as many people are here, including myself, to read your comments and lovingly mock. Now, please, continue...
Believe whatever you want. If you're idiotic enough to believe you can reason your way out of being hooked up(arrested), then good luck. Though, you were being overly simplistic in your commentary, and nothing you posted makes any sense.
In order to initiate a stop for DUI/DWI/[insert whatever title impaired driving is labeled as in one's state/nation], an officer needs to, or should observe a driving pattern to allow to said stop. If a stop is initiated for reasons other than suspicion of DUI(Driving Under the Influence), and the smell of an alcoholic beverage is observed, then a test(s) will be administered, none of which requires speech. A roadside, inadmissible test of one's breathe will show whether or not alcohol has been consumed, and the BAC(blood alcohol content), though the level reading itself is the inadmissible portion.
One can utilize speech to refuse that, or any other "roadside" test, but an arrest may be effected, a warrant sought to test the blood, breathe, and/or urine. This is called, at least in Georgia, "Implied Consent". Though, no amount of speech will reason one out of an arrest, if intoxification is observed.
Breaking the window of your own vehicle doesn't require speech to avoid an arrest either. If the event is observed by law enforcement, and said law enforcement chooses to get involved(discretion, or if one simply is intelligent and doesn't assume criminality in every event), identification can be provided in silence, and the vehicle tag will verify ownership. If authorization was given by a third-party, and the vehicle in question belongs to that third-party, then no speech would be required of you, the person suspected of a criminal act.
So, in closing, I wouldn't attempt to provide my own legal advice, if I were you.
You're incorrect in your belief that unintentionally providing incorrect information to police, in a criminal matter(one can legally lie to the police all day, if it isn't in the course of their "official duties" and one isn't being questioned in the course of an investigation or other "official matter". Outside of "official duties", law enforcement officials are just regular members of society. The caveat to that is if your lie causes law enforcement to bring charges against a person that didn't commit the alleged criminal act, that lie is also a crime.), is a crime. Providing false information to law enforcement requires "intent", yet you falsely claim that "making a mistake"(whereas a "mistake" implies one did wrong unintentionally) is sufficient is endure the punishment of a felonious act. You couldn't be more wrong.
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I can tell you that Bennett Haselton is an idiot(and completely wrong, too), and you, MisterSquid, while most likely well intentioned(I hope so, at least), are also wrong. I should also point out that intentionally providing false information to law enforcement, in all circumstances, isn't a felony, in all jurisdictions. Case in point, in Georgia, according to O.C.G.A. 16-10-25, providing false identifying information to law enforcement is a misdemeanor, and it also requires "intent".
I will hold one caveat to my view of your information, in that the "super cool" all caps "DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF YOUR ATTORNEY" comment is correct, though, with a slight alteration, or two. It is: Do not talk to the police.
Most, if not all, defense attorneys will forcefully suggest that course of action. The only time that might not be true is when there is strong evidence that the targeted suspect is innocent, or at least not guilty of the criminal act(s) in question, and that another person is. One can never "talk" his or her way out of suspicion, but substantial evidence can help move the focused suspicion onto someone else.
I do believe that one area of lying is left out(which I commented on earlier in this post), and it is equally important. If one lie to law enforcement, and that lie causes the arrest and conviction(thought conviction is necessary to bring charges for the lie(s)) of a person that isn't guilty of the crimes at issue, the liar(or liars) has committed a criminal act. If it is to the police, usually the crime is the filing of a false report to the police. If one lies on the stand, in court, it would be perjury, both of which also require "intent".
All of this hinges upon "intent", which a "mistake" doesn't hold.
The United States is not the "democracy" that you imagine; it never was. The United States is a "republic", in which representatives are elected to administer the governing authority. While elections are one of the few "democratic" actions engaged in within the United States, that doesn't make the form of government a "democracy".
Though, one major point that is consistently ignored is that people(not "the people", that imaginary, arbitrary entity that doesn't exist, I'm talking about we individuals within the United States) that many rights, some of which were reenforced by the "Bill of Rights" within the US Constitution. Those rights are not open to interpretation, based on the whims of whatever group is in power, whatever "the masses" want, or whatever judge is asked to make a decision. It is those same rights that are continually violated, and it has gotten extremely fucking old.
People have gone to war over far less than what the US Government, much the less some of the states(another point: The United States is a dual sovereignty, with both the US Government and the various states hold those dual slots. People seem to think the US Government is always supreme, in everything; it isn't.) have engaged in, and continue to engage in. While I don't ever want war to come, people need to stop believing that everything is fine, and that the illegal actions of a few should be tolerated, whatever the cost. The pussyfooting has only worsen the situation.
I want to see the political process, the peaceful-ish side of it, work this situation out. If it doesn't, the other political process will take over, no matter what any of us want.
Yeah, because wigwags, strobes, and other vehicle lighting is controlled in any discernible way. Case in point, not long after becoming a law enforcement officer, I noticed blue lights behind me. I was being stopped. The situation didn't feel right, as there were no externally mounted lights(especially on top of the vehicle). So, I pulled my firearm, aimed it towards the general area the person would approach me from(out of sight, with the barrel pointed at the inside panel of the driver's side door), and waited. If it ended up being an actual officer that was incapable of following Georgia law, I didn't want to end up in a needless shooting.
To make a long story short(er), I hooked and booked an oddball that was looking to play police officer for the day...on my day off, with my girlfriend in the vehicle with me. Had the man been intent on doing harm, even with me being prepared to send a few rounds down range(to give him something to think about), it could have easily ended up badly for everyone. It was just dumb luck the idiot picked the wrong car to stop.
It doesn't take a person with any semblance of actual intelligence to setup a epileptic seizure-inducing light show on a motor vehicle. It does take a little planning to not short out the electrical system and/or drain what energy is stored in a vehicle's battery faster than Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation(the scene where the Christmas decorations and lights, by way of "movie science" drained the electricity from the surrounding region: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ar-__ub0rc; starting at 1:36). I have seen vehicles lose enough battery power to cease being able to engage the starter, or power anything, after a vehicle has been sitting with a top-mounted light bar running with the vehicle's ignition off.
Unmarked vehicles create an unneeded problem, which just adds to the many others we have to contend with in the course of daily life. Requiring marked vehicles for traffic enforcement and to initiate a traffic stop doesn't impede the ability of a officer to effectively discharge their duties, and it assists in avoid problems that can easily be avoided. Requiring marked vehicles won't stop everyone from impersonating law enforcement and/or initiating traffic stops(as an aside, only law enforcement, in Georgia, can arrest or enforce traffic laws; citizens have no authority to make arrests, save for violations that cause harm to other humans. Why I thought of that, I don't really know; ADHD is a bitch), but it lessens the problem and causes no ill effects.
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
Virginia was the worst, from what I witnessed on my trips between Georgia and Washington, D.C. There were many areas where multiple "unmarked"(no agency markings, or any markings, and no lights mounted outside of the vehicle) vehicles were lined up, waiting to initiate stops for what seemed like every 10 miles, or so. That is inviting major risk where it can be easily avoided.
I do have a serious problem with some of the actions of the officer discussed in the aforementioned article. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 doesn't broadly cover "operating a motor vehicle", unlike other O.C.G.A. Title 40 laws do. If a driver is at a point of rest, even with a motor vehicle that has its motor in active operation and the vehicle's transmission is set in a gear that allows for forward or rearward locomotion, there is no legitimate reason to cite said driver for operating a mobile phone, or other device not exempted by 40-6-241.2("...citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices."). Once the vehicle is in motion, the driver would be in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2(unless the driver is one of the "special people" exempted by that law.
I am an ex-law enforcement officer in the State of Georgia. I arrested more than a few people for DUI without the vehicle being in motion during any of the time I, or any other law enforcement officer observed the violation(most traffic violations have to be observed by a law enforcement officer in order to stop and/or cite for the offense). So, I understand the distinction between driving, in the practical sense, and the legal view of being in control of a motor vehicle. This law isn't as broad as the officer believes it to be.
Yes, because non-human animal life is more valuable, or equally as valuable as human life. If the idea is to scare the person that has been poaching, or is attempting to engage in animal poaching, and not actually put a reward on the carcase of said human, I could potentially let such an idea be considered(given that poachers have killed other humans in the search for the next animal). In actuality, the idea, no matter the intention, creates more problems without "solving"(read: We will never "solve" all risk out of life; it's time to deal in reality).
If anyone believes that poachers deserve death, just on the actions said poachers take against animals alone(not all, or most poachers are murderers), then those that think that way are just as wrong as the poachers. No, wait, said people are actually more wrong in their views and beliefs, compared to poachers.
You couldn't be, or shouldn't be, this ignorant. Even your "source"(while Wikipedia may present accurate data on average, Wikipedia is a failure of a source given that alterations are open to anyone(registration isn't controlled, and that is all which is required to alter, add, or delete) and accuracy of data isn't verified in all cases) contradicts your statement. There is no difference between what the DEA and NSA are doing.
Unless a warrant is based on probable cause, and issued by judge(magistrate, circuit, etc, depending on whether, in the US, we are talking state or US courts), then the warrant holds no constitutional authority and is invalid. There is no argument to the contrary. Unless and until there is an actual constitutional convention held, where the Fourth Amendment(among others) is struck from the US Constitution, then all "administrative warrants" and any other warrants not issued a judge, will continue to be unconstitutional(read: illegal; if a law contradicts the US Constitution, then said law is no law).
The gift I referred to was the chance to bring about the United States.
Proteus claims: "The living breathing document doctrine is not saying that the text of the Constitution is mutable, but that rather as society changes, our interpretation of what it means changes too. This has caused some problems, but it's also the root of a lot of good things, like the decision that the guarantee of "Freedom of speech" extends to all forms of expression."
Wrong. You're so wrong that I doubt you could ever begin to understand what fucking insane your belief is. It is thinking like yours that has led the various courts to issue findings in opposition to the US Constitution.
The only acceptable, legal, and proper interpretation of the US Constitution is what was actually intended by those that wrote it. While the use of the English language has changed some, we have to research the use of words and terms during the time that the Constitution was written. The only way to change the immutable Document is to pass a new amendment, according to the terms set out by the US Constitution. If you don't like that option, fuck off; there are other countries to live in.
"Society" doesn't get to pass new interpretations of the US Constitution to fit the interest of those that are in power. The US Constitution was created to maintain an acceptable continuity of an intended living standard, which is one major reason the United States was created. Perhaps you should honor those wishes, instead of trying to change the gift the People of the United States were given.
Again, if you don't like it, fuck off.