• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Boston....was there exigent circumstance?

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
That is the reality of it.

Dumbfounds me that people think it's ok because SCOTUS says it's ok, without thinking about the documents that gives all of them any authority, which is a huge contributing factor to the acceptance of the ever increasing tyranny.

Any Court that says growing wheat for consumption on your farm is interstate commerce should be looked at a heck of a lot more skeptically, but then again I think all levels of govt should be treated with a lot more skepticism than they are by most people.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
That is the reality of it.

Dumbfounds me that people think it's ok because SCOTUS says it's ok, without thinking about the documents that gives all of them any authority, which is a huge contributing factor to the acceptance of the ever increasing tyranny.

That's been going on for years though. Reality is that most people accept what is done. In that case they are freely giving up what rights they have. While you and I might think its tyranny most people do not seem to agree.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
That is the reality of it.

Dumbfounds me that people think it's ok because SCOTUS says it's ok, without thinking about the documents that gives all of them any authority, which is a huge contributing factor to the acceptance of the ever increasing tyranny.

To me this is the crux of the problem. How do we work within the system to regain our republic if the all of the tools we would use are broken? One example of a broken tool, how do we get the SCOTUS to begin ruling strictly on the constitutionality of a matter rather than relying on already flawed jurisprudence? There are so many unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions and I don't see a single change in direction of any of them.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I been thinking more about this and have been asking why so many there are just willin to accept it. I think it might be based on low firearm ownership and there fore they had little choice but to rely on the police to "save" them.

I base this on pure speculation and only thought about it when I read that some people in that area went to buy guns the next day.

I still want to see a law suit from one of them. I suspect based on current trends the courts will back the actions of the police.
You are starting to understand it now. For any entity to stay in business it must be needed and better yet is to be a monopoly; the only provider of a service.
People need telephones, and at one time there was a veritable monopoly on telephone services. You had Ma Bell or you had no one. Today there are a dozen phone companies from which to choose and the power of Ma Bell has been greatly curtailed.

A free and armed populace has less need of an armed police response than helpless denizens that must beg to be protected. Being "Needed" is the best thing that can happen for an entity wishing to have a monopoly.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
You are starting to understand it now. For any entity to stay in business it must be needed and better yet is to be a monopoly; the only provider of a service.
People need telephones, and at one time there was a veritable monopoly on telephone services. You had Ma Bell or you had no one. Today there are a dozen phone companies from which to choose and the power of Ma Bell has been greatly curtailed.

A free and armed populace has less need of an armed police response than helpless denizens that must beg to be protected. Being "Needed" is the best thing that can happen for an entity wishing to have a monopoly.

There is still a choice for them to be armed (although its limited as I understand it). I see this as a cultural problem more than a government acting out of control. Those people tolerated it. I don't see a group of people in Montana lets say being as tolerant. The fact we haven't seen any law suits proves it (in my mind at least)

I saw on the news today Islamic websites claiming victory because of Boston being shutdown. I am concerned they will use that for further motivation now.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have no doubt that the goal of Islamic terrorism is to get us to act in a fascist way, such as in Boston. Once the people accept fascism, it is a much smaller step to islamo-fascism.

I am disgusted by the way the people in the Boston area just accepted this bit of fascism.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That's been going on for years though. Reality is that most people accept what is done. In that case they are freely giving up what rights they have. While you and I might think its tyranny most people do not seem to agree.

To me this is the crux of the problem. How do we work within the system to regain our republic if the all of the tools we would use are broken? One example of a broken tool, how do we get the SCOTUS to begin ruling strictly on the constitutionality of a matter rather than relying on already flawed jurisprudence? There are so many unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions and I don't see a single change in direction of any of them.


We don't have to accept it though. That's why I asked for a cite. We need to start rejecting them and their faulty statist reasoning.

Educate , educate, educate. The more people learn to question their decisions instead of just quoting them for rationalization of a bad law, only then may we start turning the tide.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
I am disgusted by the way the people in the Boston area just accepted this bit of fascism.

I tried to make the point earlier about why they rolled over. Everything they were told. Heck everything we were being told was this guy was going to blow up a house with a small nuke. They used fear to control them. Plain and simple.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
One of the reasons that this stuff can happen is that the police and the media exaggerated. They shouldn't.

Neither should we.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
To those who understand the Constitution and the current state of the "interpretation" of that founding document by our courts, what happened in Boston is unacceptable. To those who would not "interpret" the Constitution but simply abide by its plain meaning, Boston was an even greater attrocity committed against the people.

Those who can not see the nature of the attrocities committed are either ignorant of the Constitution and the law or knowingly choose to ignore their requirements in favor of giving up individual liberty, freedom, and responsibility in favor of the government providing safety. Unfortunately, governemnt, no matter how large and powerful it ever becomes, is incapable of providing safety to the individual.

Had the bomber been holed up in one of those houses the police entered, the occupants could very well have ended up dead while the police would have stated "we captured him and now the city is safe".....the deaths of the occupants would be blamed on the suspect and the police would have accepted no responsibility even though their flawed tactics were the direct cause of those deaths.

They simply are incapable of providing for the safety of any ONE, only society.....as has been held by the Supremes.

As such, it is incumbent upon Americans to resist the continuing efforts to numb us to the insanity being perpetrated upon our once great nation. In this entire, massive hunt, for a suspect who was extremely violent, there was no NEED for the military equipment and tactics. Sure they made good theater, but in the end, NONE of it was needed. Yet departments of every size, all across the nation, are militarizing. Our own local PD just got a wuarter million dollar armored vehicle that can withstand 50 BMG rounds. Yet they can't point to a single instance in the history of the town that such a piece of equipment would have been NECESSARY. Officers routinely patrol with M16's, and routinely use them, against even knife wielding suspects.....though more often against plain old "might" be dangerous suspects. Even the county motorcycle officers now have M16's mounted on some of their patrol bikes. REALLY? I'm wondering just how often they need an M16 on a motorbike and couldn't call in a sergeants unit with such equipment. From my thinking, a motorbike officer is more likely to be shot and his weapon taken than he is to ride into a situation where he needs an M16 on arrival and couldn't get one from an equipment vehicle.

We need to scream and scream loudly in protest of these actions. Whether they had "consent" or not, Boston was a gross violation of the Constitution and the natural rights of Bostonians. If left unchecked, it's only a matter of time until it comes to a town near you!
 
Top