-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Banned from Wal-Mart
- Thread starter danbus
- Start date
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
taurusfan wrote:
Guns are "displayed" in Wal-Mart because they are for sale there.
If, however, you're referring to carry by average citizens...
From http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=24&t=269703&page=5:
"...here in radford about a year ago, a man came into walmart, walked up to his ex g/f and shot her in the head. in the middle of friggin walmart. she later died. "
taurusfan wrote:
Guns are "displayed" in Wal-Mart because they are for sale there.
If, however, you're referring to carry by average citizens...
From http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=24&t=269703&page=5:
"...here in radford about a year ago, a man came into walmart, walked up to his ex g/f and shot her in the head. in the middle of friggin walmart. she later died. "
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
You don't know!?! Jeez, I hope you carry ID with a DOB so you can check!
Less humorously, not seriously, just less humorously, the rules of the game are the rules of the game.
My boss expects me todo my job well according tocompany policies,industry standards, and applicable law. This is a standard known asprofessionalism.
I'm thinking that if he really only needs identity for a summons or arrest, then professionalism dictates that he respect the civil rights of the interview-ee when refused. The rules of the game, you see.
LEO 229 wrote:
You don't know!?! Jeez, I hope you carry ID with a DOB so you can check!
Less humorously, not seriously, just less humorously, the rules of the game are the rules of the game.
My boss expects me todo my job well according tocompany policies,industry standards, and applicable law. This is a standard known asprofessionalism.
I'm thinking that if he really only needs identity for a summons or arrest, then professionalism dictates that he respect the civil rights of the interview-ee when refused. The rules of the game, you see.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, I'll try to lower my future posts to your level of understanding. In a later post you also indicated confusion as to what my "question" was. I know you're just trying to keep from answering the points I made (which is why you decided you didn't want to "play anymore"), but I expected a semi-intelligent conversation; not question and answer time.
And I don't think Big Brother is out to get justME. I think people like you simply want to control EVERYONE. Interesting that you reached for your stereotypes about "those people," when you couldn't logically anser a point: very typical.
If you want reports on police officers abusing their power, simply look up court records. Almost 70% of the cases I come in contact with involve people arrested for harming NO ONE. As I already said (I'll repeat it for you), cops enforce the stealing of property with eminent domain and the abuse of innocents by arresting victimless criminals. In addition, people like you like to whine and imply things when citizens exercise their rights.We've been through it. Review it if you must.
Ok, I'll try to lower my future posts to your level of understanding. In a later post you also indicated confusion as to what my "question" was. I know you're just trying to keep from answering the points I made (which is why you decided you didn't want to "play anymore"), but I expected a semi-intelligent conversation; not question and answer time.
And I don't think Big Brother is out to get justME. I think people like you simply want to control EVERYONE. Interesting that you reached for your stereotypes about "those people," when you couldn't logically anser a point: very typical.
If you want reports on police officers abusing their power, simply look up court records. Almost 70% of the cases I come in contact with involve people arrested for harming NO ONE. As I already said (I'll repeat it for you), cops enforce the stealing of property with eminent domain and the abuse of innocents by arresting victimless criminals. In addition, people like you like to whine and imply things when citizens exercise their rights.We've been through it. Review it if you must.
sjhipple
Regular Member
imported post
nm
nm
imported post
sjhipple wrote:
Why don't you repost the question? Instead of actually doing that... you decide to report that I am avoiding the question. I submit there must not actually be an identifiable question to begin with. I would love to answer it... if I knew what it was.
Just because I think your nuts does not mean I want to control you. This proves my point that... your nuts. I cannot possibly control anyone. In my job I must take control of situations to protect the public. What do I gain from trying to control the world? I don't get anything extra in my paycheck.
What do you do that you come in contact with cops arresting people that have not harmed anyone? Are you a lawyer??
I can speed down the empty road and it does not harm anyone. This does not mean it is OK. I would have broken a law. Now if I wreck... I would have harmed myself or the property of another.
"cops enforce the stealing of property with eminent domain" What??? I do not like the idea of eminent domain either and this does not happen that often. Unfortunately... it is legal for a government to do. What has this got to do with the police?
"the abuse of innocents by arresting victimless criminals." What?? This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your a criminal.. you have broken a law. Depending on the violation... the victim could be the criminal, another person, a business, the government, the tax payer, or the public.
So arresting someone for trespassing at Wal-Mart after they had been told not to return would be a victimless criminal. Nobody is hurt by the criminal returning after being told not to come back. Is this right?
Here is my one question I would like you to answer...
:question: Tell us about some of these victimless criminals.
sjhipple wrote:
Why don't you repost the question? Instead of actually doing that... you decide to report that I am avoiding the question. I submit there must not actually be an identifiable question to begin with. I would love to answer it... if I knew what it was.
Just because I think your nuts does not mean I want to control you. This proves my point that... your nuts.
I cannot possibly control anyone. In my job I must take control of situations to protect the public. What do I gain from trying to control the world? I don't get anything extra in my paycheck.What do you do that you come in contact with cops arresting people that have not harmed anyone? Are you a lawyer??
I can speed down the empty road and it does not harm anyone. This does not mean it is OK. I would have broken a law. Now if I wreck... I would have harmed myself or the property of another.
"cops enforce the stealing of property with eminent domain" What??? I do not like the idea of eminent domain either and this does not happen that often. Unfortunately... it is legal for a government to do. What has this got to do with the police?
"the abuse of innocents by arresting victimless criminals." What?? This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your a criminal.. you have broken a law. Depending on the violation... the victim could be the criminal, another person, a business, the government, the tax payer, or the public.
So arresting someone for trespassing at Wal-Mart after they had been told not to return would be a victimless criminal. Nobody is hurt by the criminal returning after being told not to come back. Is this right?
Here is my one question I would like you to answer...
:question: Tell us about some of these victimless criminals.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Any "law" that controls any activity that would otherwise not be illegal under natural law makes "victimless criminals".
The Feds and the States have enacted laws which "WE THE PEOPLE" never gave them power to enact.
Read the Constitution.....as an LEO that has sworn an oath to it, like most others in LE, you seem to know little of what it actually is/means.
Guess it's kinda' like the Military, in that they make you swear an oath to the Constitution then their laws won't allow you to keep that oath.....That's what our gov becoming a foreign corporation has led us to.
LEO 229 wrote:
Every traffic citation that does not involve an accident......citations for j-walking.....drinking in public....not mowing grass in "a timely fashion"......business w/out license.....no hunting/fishing license, and on, and on, and on.
Any "law" that controls any activity that would otherwise not be illegal under natural law makes "victimless criminals".
The Feds and the States have enacted laws which "WE THE PEOPLE" never gave them power to enact.
Read the Constitution.....as an LEO that has sworn an oath to it, like most others in LE, you seem to know little of what it actually is/means.
Guess it's kinda' like the Military, in that they make you swear an oath to the Constitution then their laws won't allow you to keep that oath.....That's what our gov becoming a foreign corporation has led us to.
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
So it is OK to drive past other people doing 120 MPH since there is no victim?
:arrow:Victims are you, a pedestrian,the public, or another motorist when you hit and kill them.
So it is OK to allow people to cross the street even at the middle even when so many are hit and killed each year while doing it?
:arrow:Victims are the pedestrian and the motorist who gets damage to their car after the accident.
Not moving your grass? Never wrote that one.It is called quality of life.
:arrow:Victims are the community and especially your neighbors.
Business without a license. Never wrote that one either. All businesses are required to be licensed so the state is aware your doing business and can collect taxes and audit you. Price of doing business.
:arrow:Victims are the citizens of the state when you do not pay in your fair share of taxes.
Hunting and fishing w/o a license. Never wrote that either. This isto maintain a certain population of animals and fish so there will be some to go after when in season.
:arrow:Victims are the public that go hunting and there are no animals or fish available.
Comp-tech wrote:
You have provided some excellent examples. But there is almost always a victim.
So it is OK to drive past other people doing 120 MPH since there is no victim?
:arrow:Victims are you, a pedestrian,the public, or another motorist when you hit and kill them.
So it is OK to allow people to cross the street even at the middle even when so many are hit and killed each year while doing it?
:arrow:Victims are the pedestrian and the motorist who gets damage to their car after the accident.
Not moving your grass? Never wrote that one.It is called quality of life.
:arrow:Victims are the community and especially your neighbors.
Business without a license. Never wrote that one either. All businesses are required to be licensed so the state is aware your doing business and can collect taxes and audit you. Price of doing business.
:arrow:Victims are the citizens of the state when you do not pay in your fair share of taxes.
Hunting and fishing w/o a license. Never wrote that either. This isto maintain a certain population of animals and fish so there will be some to go after when in season.
:arrow:Victims are the public that go hunting and there are no animals or fish available.
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
You may not like some or all the laws that are created...Feel free to contact that Government official and tell him you do not like what he is doing on your behalf. Don't come here crying about it to us or me.
The LEO is enforcing the laws that were enacted and that is his job. Like it or not...
Comp-tech wrote:
You, individually, have nothing to do with giving any one personin government the "power" to do anything. Butthe majorityof the peopledid vote the personinto office and now that elected official has the powerto do what they think the people want.
You may not like some or all the laws that are created...Feel free to contact that Government official and tell him you do not like what he is doing on your behalf. Don't come here crying about it to us or me.
The LEO is enforcing the laws that were enacted and that is his job. Like it or not...
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Our elected officials have one duty, to the corporation the work for....they could care less about our rights....isn't this obvious to you?
The courts have ruled that private travel, in a private automobile, requires NO LICENSE...but we still have to "follow the rules" or be fined, imprisoned, harrased etc.....the system doesn't even follow it's own damn rules.
You claim to be all about freedom....I say, horse sh*t......attitudes like yours are part of the problem......as long as people keep thinking as you do, our rights will continue to to be taken.
LEO 229 wrote:
Typical smarta$$ answer from a typical LEO.....again I say to you, READ THE F'ING CONSTITUTION!....do some research (read sefl-education).....don't "fall for" what you were taught in gov regulated school....get a REAL education...read the REAL history of our gov...how it is now a foreign corporation "ruled" by credit and debt.Comp-tech wrote:You, individually, have nothing to do with giving any one personin government the "power" to do anything.
Never said that "I, individually", did....I said WE THE PEOPLE...the creators of the government!
Butthe majorityof the peopledid vote the personinto office and now that elected official has the powerto do what they think the people want.
That is just plain WRONG.....elected officials MUST FOLLOW the Constitution if the laws they enact are to be lawful....again, read the Constitution!
You may not like some or all the laws that are created...Feel free to contact that Government official and tell him you do not like what he is doing on your behalf. Don't come here crying about it to us or me.
So now I've lost my freedom of speech and am not allowed an opinion?...what's the fine for that infraction?
The LEO is enforcing the laws that were enacted and that is his job. Like it or not...
Our elected officials have one duty, to the corporation the work for....they could care less about our rights....isn't this obvious to you?
The courts have ruled that private travel, in a private automobile, requires NO LICENSE...but we still have to "follow the rules" or be fined, imprisoned, harrased etc.....the system doesn't even follow it's own damn rules.
You claim to be all about freedom....I say, horse sh*t......attitudes like yours are part of the problem......as long as people keep thinking as you do, our rights will continue to to be taken.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
I could spend the next couple of hours responding to each thing you said but I am not going to waste my time.
You want to complain about the law and I am your only outlet. If you have a problem with the laws... contact the local, state, and federal government and make your points.
Preaching to me about why I should not enforce them will do you no good. I am employed to enforce the laws. I may not agree with some of them but I am being paid totake action. Until those laws are repealed.... I will do my job as a "Government Agent" and I will get paid!!
I can only hope that some day I catch you speedingand can write your victimless butt a ticket. :lol: Wait... maybe I meant to say that to Citizen...
Comp-tech wrote:
This thread has been hi-jacked!!!
I could spend the next couple of hours responding to each thing you said but I am not going to waste my time.
You want to complain about the law and I am your only outlet. If you have a problem with the laws... contact the local, state, and federal government and make your points.
Preaching to me about why I should not enforce them will do you no good. I am employed to enforce the laws. I may not agree with some of them but I am being paid totake action. Until those laws are repealed.... I will do my job as a "Government Agent" and I will get paid!!
I can only hope that some day I catch you speedingand can write your victimless butt a ticket. :lol: Wait... maybe I meant to say that to Citizen...
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO I have seen all these arguments before. Take a look at this brief history of Gordon Kahl.
This is all township movement type argument.
Regards
LEO 229 wrote:
Comp-tech wrote:This thread had been hi-jacked!!!
I could spend the next couple of hours responding to each thing you said but I am not going to waste my time.
You want to complain about the law and I am your only outlet. If you have a problem with the laws... contact the local, state, and federal government and make your points.
Preaching to me about why I should not enforce them will do you no good. I am employed to enforce the laws. I may not agree with some of them but I am being paid to take action. Until those laws are repealed.... I will do my job as a "Government Agent" and I will get paid!!
I can only hope that some day I catch you speeding and can write your victimless butt a ticket. :lol: Wait... maybe I meant to say that to Citizen...
LEO I have seen all these arguments before. Take a look at this brief history of Gordon Kahl.
This is all township movement type argument.
Regards
Mr. Y
Regular Member
imported post
But for God's sake don't do that with a sportbike. We don't them going "non consentual" on you :shock:
Maybe you already did :dude:
But for God's sake don't do that with a sportbike. We don't them going "non consentual" on you :shock:
danbus
Regular Member
imported post
DrMark wrote:
DrMark wrote:
Nope, I went to Patrick Henry Mall and got a hat made. I didn't carry inside as I just wanted to hurry up, get the hat and get out without a fuss. I hate leaving my gun in the car. I'm always thinking, "this might be the time someone wants to shoot up the mall". But after I get back in the car, it's all good, but I just hate the feeling.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Basically, you cannot prove me wrong so you "don't wan't play anymore"......that's fine, just wish you were man enough to admit it.....you can't win the debate so you quit.
I don't think you'll be able to write that ticket LEO, I try my best to obey the laws as they are now....dosen't mean that I have to agree with them.
Never heard of Mr. Kahl before today and my opinions have nothing to do with "the township movement" as I had never heard of it before either....my opinions are based on historical FACT, court decisions, and the CONSTITUTION.
Now I'm being compared to some nut that ran around killing people?.....I take this to be an insult...even more of an insult, however, is that people like you seem to have such low esteem for our Constitution and the Rights that it affords all of us......remember this site's header........
"A right unexercised is a right lost"
Hawkflyer wrote:
I've been responding to arguments about RIGHTS....how is that hijacking the thread?
Basically, you cannot prove me wrong so you "don't wan't play anymore"......that's fine, just wish you were man enough to admit it.....you can't win the debate so you quit.
I don't think you'll be able to write that ticket LEO, I try my best to obey the laws as they are now....dosen't mean that I have to agree with them.
Never heard of Mr. Kahl before today and my opinions have nothing to do with "the township movement" as I had never heard of it before either....my opinions are based on historical FACT, court decisions, and the CONSTITUTION.
Now I'm being compared to some nut that ran around killing people?.....I take this to be an insult...even more of an insult, however, is that people like you seem to have such low esteem for our Constitution and the Rights that it affords all of us......remember this site's header........
"A right unexercised is a right lost"
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
I was afraid this might happen.
The comparison was not intended to denigrate you or your view, but to clarify for LEO229 the nature of the strict constructionist view of the constitution you were trying to describe. While it may be unpleasant to recognize, the township movement is as much a part of the history of the constructionist view as any history you might wish to cite.
The basic view of the of the township movement is that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land along with common law that proceeded it. In its purest form most of the laws on the books today, including tax laws, would be unconstitutional, as would the authority of most lawmakers. The police that attempt to enforce these laws are viewed as being outlaws because they enforce laws that should not be enforced. To some degree this would also extend to the courts and what they have jurisdiction over.
I am sorry if I offended you that was not my intent. My only intent was to direct LEO229 to a source for understanding the fundamentalist view you were trying to get him to see. The fact that you may have come to your views through some means other than the historic path I have pointed out is fine, but that in no way changes the similarities.
You may want to read a little further about Kahl, as he was in fact a decorated WWII hero, and was actually killed for shooting a deputy sheriff while resting precisely the oppressive element of government you have been posting about. The Wikipedia link is only one side of the story.
Again I am sorry if you took offense I was hoping that would not happen.
Regards
Comp-tech wrote:
I was afraid this might happen.
The comparison was not intended to denigrate you or your view, but to clarify for LEO229 the nature of the strict constructionist view of the constitution you were trying to describe. While it may be unpleasant to recognize, the township movement is as much a part of the history of the constructionist view as any history you might wish to cite.
The basic view of the of the township movement is that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land along with common law that proceeded it. In its purest form most of the laws on the books today, including tax laws, would be unconstitutional, as would the authority of most lawmakers. The police that attempt to enforce these laws are viewed as being outlaws because they enforce laws that should not be enforced. To some degree this would also extend to the courts and what they have jurisdiction over.
I am sorry if I offended you that was not my intent. My only intent was to direct LEO229 to a source for understanding the fundamentalist view you were trying to get him to see. The fact that you may have come to your views through some means other than the historic path I have pointed out is fine, but that in no way changes the similarities.
You may want to read a little further about Kahl, as he was in fact a decorated WWII hero, and was actually killed for shooting a deputy sheriff while resting precisely the oppressive element of government you have been posting about. The Wikipedia link is only one side of the story.
Again I am sorry if you took offense I was hoping that would not happen.
Regards
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
I promise not to resist in the same manner as Mr. Kahl
Hawkflyer wrote:
I appreciate the civility of your response and glady accept your apology.
I promise not to resist in the same manner as Mr. Kahl