Cop-killer dead; NOW start asking questions

imported post

A cop killer is dead, and now is the time to start asking questions



http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d1-A-copkiller-is-dead-and-now-comes-time-for-questions

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/yhr9vgn

imported post

The main problem is the criminal code and laws making all kinds of garbage illegal…. Even to the point of ignoring the Constitution to do so. For example, preventative laws are (IMHO) all unconstitutional and should all be immediately stricken from the books. What do I mean by preventative laws? Laws like those making ownership of automatic weapons illegal, laws that make concealing a weapon illegal, laws that make owning a knife longer than 4’’ illegal, laws that criminalize doing or making or growing drugs (totally unconstitutional) and laws like DWI laws. All are useless and totally unconstitutional no matter how well intentioned.

What we need is to enforce the Constitution and put thieves and murderers ONLY in jail. For DWI, if you crash and kill someone… that’s murder… no more first or second degree murder… just murder. Same sentence for every murderer… life in prison without any hope for parole. If you just drink and drive and no one ever gets hurt… then why are you put in jail? Why are you crowding our court system? The problem with people in this country is that their good intentions (i.e. preventing bad things from happening) by making those bad things illegal, is turning this country into a police state in which things will go from bad to HELL ON EARTH if we’re not careful.

This criminal Clemmons got released because jails and prisons are overcrowded. Because we have so many people in prison for non-violent crimes, we are now seeing violent criminals slipping through the cracks and getting out of prison.

Unless we all stand up and begin challenging the unconstitutional laws, we will continue to have overcrowding. Think about all the violent crimes that are committed because of drugs… if all drugs were legal, that would cut down on many of those crimes (not all of course). We need to take control of this country out of the hands and minds of lawyers or its only going to get worse… remember, very bad for you and I means good for the lawyer… the more laws, the more business for them. To me, it is the lawyers who are clogging the system with unconstitutional laws who is the real criminal and they are also the ones who are responsible for the deaths of our 4 police officers. If it were not for the sliminess of the wheeling and dealing that goes on with these clemency deals… Clemmons would still be behind bars in Arkansas.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

The main problem is the criminal code and laws making all kinds of garbage illegal…. Even to the point of ignoring the Constitution to do so. For example, preventative laws are (IMHO) all unconstitutional and should all be immediately stricken from the books. What do I mean by preventative laws? Laws like those making ownership of automatic weapons illegal, laws that make concealing a weapon illegal, laws that make owning a knife longer than 4’’ illegal, laws that criminalize doing or making or growing drugs (totally unconstitutional) and laws like DWI laws. All are useless and totally unconstitutional no matter how well intentioned.

What we need is to enforce the Constitution and put thieves and murderers ONLY in jail. For DWI, if you crash and kill someone… that’s murder… no more first or second degree murder… just murder. Same sentence for every murderer… life in prison without any hope for parole. If you just drink and drive and no one ever gets hurt… then why are you put in jail? Why are you crowding our court system? The problem with people in this country is that their good intentions (i.e. preventing bad things from happening) by making those bad things illegal, is turning this country into a police state in which things will go from bad to HELL ON EARTH if we’re not careful.

This criminal Clemmons got released because jails and prisons are overcrowded. Because we have so many people in prison for non-violent crimes, we are now seeing violent criminals slipping through the cracks and getting out of prison.

Unless we all stand up and begin challenging the unconstitutional laws, we will continue to have overcrowding. Think about all the violent crimes that are committed because of drugs… if all drugs were legal, that would cut down on many of those crimes (not all of course). We need to take control of this country out of the hands and minds of lawyers or its only going to get worse… remember, very bad for you and I means good for the lawyer… the more laws, the more business for them. To me, it is the lawyers who are clogging the system with unconstitutional laws who is the real criminal and they are also the ones who are responsible for the deaths of our 4 police officers. If it were not for the sliminess of the wheeling and dealing that goes on with these clemency deals… Clemmons would still be behind bars in Arkansas.

Click to expand...

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I support the constitution and uphold it. If you don't like our laws regarding DUI's here, go live in Louisianna. There are laws for a reason.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between having a couple drinks and driving versus DWI. I agree that the limits may be a bit low due to MADD insanity (maddness?). Here's a question: I live in Bellevue, should I be allowed to randomly shoot my guns in the air? What if I do it repeatedly and nobody gets hurt?

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between having a couple drinks and driving versus DWI. I agree that the limits may be a bit low due to MADD insanity (maddness?). Here's a question: I live in Bellevue, should I be allowed to randomly shoot my guns in the air? What if I do it repeatedly and nobody gets hurt?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself the same question about fireworks. Should we rely on the government to celebrate for us. I firmly believe that until there is injury there is no foul. Now days people are being prosecuted for what might happen. Something just seems a little Orwellian about that don't you think?

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Can you show me where DWI laws, different degrees of murder laws etc.. violate the constitution?

imported post

Kildars wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Can you show me where DWI laws, different degrees of murder laws etc.. violate the constitution?

Click to expand...

Yep these things are up to states to decide.

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

A cop killer is dead, and now is the time to start asking questions

Click to expand...

+100 Dave.

Great article, and spot on.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, so, what was the upside for the drunk driver or the other people on or even near the road in a DUI situation?

I mean, I get firearms, they can be used for good, fireworks are entertaining when they are used responsibly, knifes have useful purposes, all these things CAN harm someone when used irresponsibly, but they can also be used for good in the majority of law abiding citizens hands.... but...what was the upside of a someone driving drunk again?

O that's right, there isn't one. Maybe THAT'S why its illegal.... ya think?

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.

Click to expand...

Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, so, what was the upside for the drunk driver or the other people on or even near the road in a DUI situation?

I mean, I get firearms, they can be used for good, fireworks are entertaining when they are used responsibly, knifes have useful purposes, all these things CAN harm someone when used irresponsibly, but they can also be used for good in the majority of law abiding citizens hands.... but...what was the upside of a someone driving drunk again?

O that's right, there isn't one. Maybe THAT'S why its illegal.... ya think?

Click to expand...

Maybe unless I actually hurt someone, it is none ofyour damn business... how about that??? Its called liberty... I know that most people, if pushed, actually hate liberty that isn't their own.... the way they think is "Give me myliberty, but your liberty can go to hell!" People only like it when they have freedom, but recoil at the though of giving that same latitude to other people because.... name your excuse for being a liberty thief.... they "might" hurt someone? Complete BS.... we have over crowding, and lenient sentences for scumbags like the bastard they just shot, and you still think its a good idea to CROWD the jails with people who do stuff you don't like... even if their actions NEVER hurt anyone... better to be safe than sorry??? That's the same G-DAMN excuse the anti gunners use to take our guns away... they just apply it to our guns, not our right to drive.... I drove no less than 50 times drunk... not one person was hurt... sure, I was an idiot between the age of 21 and 26.... but since I never hurt anyone else... the truth is... I NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG!!!!

You people are only interested in yourselves and in the Liberty you care about... and are willing to strip others of their liberty as long as it is a liberty you disagree with... well, the Constitution does not make that distinction... it does not say "secure the blessings of only liberty we agree withto ourselves..." it says very clearly "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves..."

You cannot control people... and the more you try, the more you fail and the more laws that will have to be made to make up for the failure and then the more failure that will happen and more and more of your fellow citizens will become criminals. We already live in a GD police state... and there is nowhere else to run to get away from police states... so it is time to make a stand... you're either a statist (a person who wants total government control) or you are a person who wants to stand for liberty... because there is no middle ground.... only one side ever gives in... and for the past 145 years... that side has been the side of Liberty.

Open Carry is about Liberty. It has never been about the 2A really. A Freeman has the inalienable right to defend himself... and once that right is gone... so is his Liberty. We're at a precipice... and if you keep pushing people over because you disagree with how they use their liberty... soon, someone will push you over because they disagree with how you use your liberty... and there will be no one to stop them because the only ones who would have sided with you... you pushed over the edge already.

imported post

I have to agree here. Hell, I was shocked to hear that Dori Monson (talk radio 97.3 fm) who is pretty conservative say we need to stop arresting people for pot possession or even prostitution. We waste a sh!t ton of money for no good reason. Other than to perpetuate the lie that is our marijuana law.

Your liberty ends where mine begins and so on. It's the same idea I give to anti-gun folks. You don't have to like my gun, approve of it, own one yourself, or protest against gun ownership. But you damn sure better not ever try to tell me that I can't own one.

imported post

I don't think the point of pointing out the DWI was intended as we should be allowed to drive around drunk... I think it was intended for we should have to decide when we can and can't drive by our self's and not by a stupid number.

Is it so bad to go 70 in a 60 in the middle of the night when nobody is around? No, but if a LEO who's going 100 behind me see's me the odd's are he will pull me over and give me a ticket. Who did he save? Nobody. He would have just enslaved me to go work my a$$ off to make the money to pay for it..

When I drink I know when I can and cannot drive. I can very clearly tell when I am too drunk to drive.

I also understand that there are people out there who decide to drive when way to drunk and are a serious danger to the people around them... But I would imagine that having a death sentence or life in prison for killing somebody from being drunk would make people think twice before getting drunk when needing to drive..

I do all my heavy drinking at home, I have not really been to a bar to get drunk so I have no problem with driving as I don't need too. I also know I am a very serious/responsibleish person when I am really drunk. If there is nobody else around me drinking I do not even bother to unload my Glock because I know that I will not touch it.
And for the people who say I shouldn't do that I know I wont touch it as my body is very affected by alcohol and not so much my judgment. I would have to get to a point where I pass out or very very close to passing out before I would make a stupid decision.. But I am not afraid of that because I would have a very hard time walking to anything lol..

imported post

When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.

Edit:
We must also remember that driving is a privilege granted by the state and you must act in accordance with any laws regarding driving to retain that privilege. The carrying of guns however is a right protected by both the state and national constitutions. So DWI laws, I think, are legal and NOT unconstitutional, but they can still be used as ammo by the anti-gun crowd. It may sound like I am arguing against my previous statement, and I leave it there for comparative reasons. As a sidenote, I am NOT anti-alcohol. I drink responsibly.....with a preference for Trappist Ales.

imported post

TRAKATAK wrote:

When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.

Click to expand...

Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.

imported post

All of this has been mildly amusing, but WTF does it have to do with the Lakewood shooting and the death of suspected cop killer Clemmons?



Answer: NOTHING!



But thread drift here seems to take on an art form.



:quirky:banghead::what:

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

All of this has been mildly amusing, but WTF does it have to do with the Lakewood shooting and the death of suspected cop killer Clemmons?



Answer: NOTHING!



But thread drift here seems to take on an art form.



:quirky:banghead::what:

Click to expand...

It said to ask questions. so somebody asked a question. and here we are.

imported post

Glocked and Loaded wrote:

TRAKATAK wrote:

When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.

Click to expand...

Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.

Click to expand...

one argument im not seeing here is that dwi laws prevent harm by giving police the authority to remove impaired drivers from the road BEFORE they do harm. i dont see the logical connection of applying the same dwi arguments to banning guns as others have said. driving while impaired represents a clear & present danger to others on the road, and is something quantifyable by observation & testing (observed bad driving, bac tests, sobriety tests, etc). the mere possession of a firearm is not. comparing the two is the old "apples & oranges" bit. removing impaired drivers from the road may not prevent every tragedy, but it has doubtless prevented many. but the nature of prevention is that we cannot know exactly how many, since they were prevented from happening.

WFL: i need to point out a smidge of hypocrisy in your argument man. i agree with you about 90%, right up until the whole dwi bit. but you seem to be implying that anyone who does not agree with you 100% or think exactly like you is a Bad Name. that, in and of its self, is a fascist/statist tactic. you say we cant control people, so why bother having laws at all? why bother criminalizing rape, theft, & murder? the laws obviously dont prevent these acts, and they certainly cannot undo them. so why even bother at all?

(man typing long replies on a phone sux)

imported post

Glocked and Loaded wrote:

TRAKATAK wrote:

When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.

Click to expand...

Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with alcohol in and of itself, or people who choose to drink in a responsible manner, but I, and the majority of society I would venture, take exception to people who drive under the influence of alcohol.

Its a needless action that only endangers people. I'm not saying that is requires people to be put in prison for getting caught, (at-least the first time)but allowing it serves no purpose.

Following WFLs logic, shooting a gun down a crowded streetwhenever you feel like itshouldn't be illegal either, just as long as you get lucky and don't hit anyone.

Not a very intelligent argument if thats the thread of logic used.