Grade A Apple: MRAP's for "Constitutionalists"

Primus said:

Philosophical debate not a person was getting into.

No one said anything about who shoulda coulda woulda had stuff or who's right etc.

A member stated a tool scared them. Mad mommies say tools scare them. Straight forward.

Another poster did well at putting it perspective by adding its then POSSIBLE actions or use of said tools that causes fear. So some fear cops may use said tool and abuse it.

Well mother's are afraid LAC may abuse their tools as well.

Click to expand...

Yep, anybody can be scared of anything. Your point? If you didn't make it about "who's right" then you have no point.

In the case of the mad mommies, their fear is irrelvant because it's no reason to restrict my right.

In the case of the poster scared of the "MRAP", fear is most definitley relevant when an over-reaching government is concerned. It certainly scares me that a public servant with that attitude thinks he needs an armoured vehicle. Time to take his toys away.

Grapeshot said:

You misstate the Commonwealth of Virginia motto.

Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus always to tyrants". It is sometimes mistranslated as "death to tyrants" or "down with the tyrant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_semper_tyrannis

The OCDO rule previously quoted is carved in stone here - we do not break the law.

We are witnessing the end of Joe Morrissey's political life through the actions of the court, legislative system and the will of the people. That works for me.

Click to expand...

Sorry Grape, but I do have a little issue here with regard to the now italicized and bolded comment within the quote of your statement of "we do not break the law"....

I do think the rule is we don't advocatethe breaking of the law. While it certainly is a laudable goal to never break the law, given the current environment and thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations having the force of law it is most likely that none of us have not broken the law!

Now returning you to your regularly scheduled programming!

JoeSparky said:

Sorry Grape, but I do have a little issue here with regard to the now italicized and bolded comment within the quote of your statement of "we do not break the law"....

I do think the rule is we don't advocatethe breaking of the law. While it certainly is a laudable goal to never break the law, given the current environment and thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations having the force of law it is most likely that none of us have not broken the law!

Now returning you to your regularly scheduled programming!

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and do not totally disagree. It is, I've heard, virtually impossible to go througha day w/o breaking some law(s).

To try to put things in proper context, let's look at it. I think you will see that there are two (2) distinctive, separate restrictions.

"WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

I think that obviously says we won't tolerate anyone who intentionally breaks a serious law.


At least that is what it says in Vol IV of my annotated Moderator's Manual, 2013 edition.

Grapeshot said:

I understand what you are saying and do not totally disagree. It is, I've heard, virtually impossible to go througha day w/o breaking some law(s).

To try to put things in proper context, let's look at it. I think you will see that there are two (2) distinctive, separate restrictions.

"WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

I think that obviously says we won't tolerate anyone who intentionally breaks a serious law.


At least that is what it says in Vol IV of my annotated Moderator's Manual, 2013 edition.

Click to expand...

And Yes, I did see that after posting my comment and rereading your post where the rule was quoted! Carry On my friend!

Grapeshot said:

I understand what you are saying and do not totally disagree. It is, I've heard, virtually impossible to go througha day w/o breaking some law(s).

To try to put things in proper context, let's look at it. I think you will see that there are two (2) distinctive, separate restrictions.

"WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

I think that obviously says we won't tolerate anyone who intentionally breaks a serious law.


At least that is what it says in Vol IV of my annotated Moderator's Manual, 2013 edition.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree, what it says is we do not talk about anyone breaking the law. Obviously we have no control what others do outside the realm of OCDO.

WalkingWolf said:

I have to disagree, what it says is we do not talk about anyone breaking the law. Obviously we have no control what others do outside the realm of OCDO.

Click to expand...

Clarifying: to Advocate would be to encourage or support--- and in the context of OCDO and this rule is this: to communicate this support or encouragement of illegal acts is prohibited. Now discussing the illegal acts done in the past is NOT prohibited--- We are free to discuss, post, communicate ect about many situations where the law was violated or even the actions being discussed where unwise or not---- All provided we do so without violating other forum rules.

Laws cannot be broken, even if one wanted to-ya can't, that's why they are laws.

From a scientific view.


Statues and codes? Man-made regulations.


What if the gov't says that they are actively going after constitutionalists just for being constitutionalists?

Its clear that gov't officials have indeed targeted people in the past just for their political views (not limited to right-wingers either lol). And targeted them with violence.

I did not say to attack this idiot WA gov't official. He's clearly an idiot. But he is inviting carnage. Not everyone is as sophisticated as me.

Primus said:

Now this I agree with.

That's why I said if they start issuing parking tickets from it then that's actions with the tool so worry should be applied

A properly holstered handgun is a tool. A parked mrap is a tool.

Mad mommies fear the gun will pulled from holster and waved around.
Some others are afraid the mrap will be used/abused against them.

The comparison doesn't get much clearer.

All the other arguments are fluff added to this very basic premise.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the comparison breaks down the second you break the surface of it. For starters one is a right, thus if you disagree with it (like the crying mommies) then you need to pass a constitutional amendment to change things. Next up is the actual use of such things. The claims of the mommies are repeatedly proven false, while the cops repeatedly show that once given something they seek to use and potentially abusing it. Just look at the rising use of SWAT teams and no-knock warrants. Or the use of MRAPs in various events.

So sure, if it sat parked until a true threat came about it wouldn't be an issue. But history tells us that isn't what will happen. Instead they will look to justify using it for other things. And THAT will work to chill and intimidate the community while increasing distrust. All for what? So that they can have a military toy that they don't need and are almost guaranteed to misuse.

Primus said:

Lol so you'd he concerned if they had 400000 tons of c4. The guy in the video was concerned about you having the same thing or maybe 4000000 rounds of ammo.

Thanks for making my point about the cycle. Each side sees the other as aggressive and fears them so amasses more things which makes the other side more fearful which makes them amass more....

Click to expand...

That's why I have 3 trillion tons of nitro ... you're move Gov't ...

Oh, and a hammer. Checkmate, Gov't man.

davidmcbeth said:

That's why I have 3 trillion tons of nitro ... you're move Gov't ...

Oh, and a hammer. Checkmate, Gov't man.

Click to expand...

No check mate.

More like King's Gambit Accepted trap. Those experienced and knowledgeable know how to neutralize it.


It is much like allowing people to do what they will (having read and understood the rules) until they cross the line too egregiously or repetitively.