Checkpoints on U.S. soil

[Citizen]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

[ long post replying to mine]

Wait a minute. If you agree rights, (what is left of them),don't require justification or explanation, why are you advocating that I or anyone else waive what is left of our rights during aBP stop?

The simple fact of the matter is, you are advocating people waive rights that are even still recognized at law. This directly contradicts your agreement that rights do not need explanation.

There isn't much point in me addressing the rest of your post until the above point is cleared up. However, just for separate discussion, I would like to pass along something I learneda while back about yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Whoever told you about yelling fire in a crowded theatercheated you a little bit. They obscured for you a certain essential, namely that fire-yellinghas nothing to do with rights.Fire-yelling is not a right. The prohibition on fire-yelling is not a limitation on a right. There is no connection between fire-yelling and rights except that made by a fire-yeller trying to excuse his actions, or say a teacher trying to make an example. In that fire-yelling can cause panic, property damage, and so forth, it cannot possibly be connected to a right, except when there really is a fire, of course.

Its use as a limitation on a right mainly serves to convey the preposterous idea that there can be limitations on rights. Once you can get that accepted, you can then start whittling away at rights, each infringement being a "justified" "limitation" on a right. Rights are rights precisely because they cannot be limited.

Which, in a way, does bringmefull-circle back your reply afterall. By saying that people should waive a right, you are essentially saying they don't have that right. You seem to be saying that rights aren't really rights, that yes, you have the right to not answer questions, but you don't really have the right to not answer questions.

You are advocating people waive certain rights. On what seems to be incomplete consideration. You are willing to waive yours, and ours, entirely tooeasilygiven what it cost to obtain them. Which is another way of saying you are willing todeclare a hard-won right doesn't exist anymore.

 

[carracer]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Bustelo5% wrote:

If your not a full blooded native american then we all should be deported and rightfully so.If that is ideolgy that this country is beliving in since its not our country.

B.S. My ancestors stole their land fair and square.

Hmmm... how far back would you like to go? Most scholars and others agree that the "Native American" came across a land bridge in the Bearing Straight into North America.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I have a right to yell "fire" in a theatre, as long as I own the theatre.

Otherwise I am a guest there and must abide by the owner's rules against panicking customers.

And all this BS about how rights having limitations is the same BS the antis use to infringe on the 2nd Amm.

In fact, it's why you can't OC in Texas.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SNIP I have a right to yell "fire" in a theatre, as long as I own the theatre.

You fire-yeller, you.

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

cbackous wrote:

For example, freedom of speech does not include the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater or to slander another person. The same is true for all laws and amendments. It is ridiculous to think that our forefathers in drafting these laws and rights meant them to be inflexible for changing conditions. As long as the generalintent remainswhen determining application then theright is intact.



You wrong sir about freedom of speech. I am free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater all I want. When I get arrested, it has nothing to do with my "excessive freedom of speech" but everything to do with violating the "agreement" between said theater and the crowd.

When you say "inflexible for changing conditions" it worries me. Does this mean that because the forefathers couldnt predict the type of firearms we have now that the second amendment doesnt apply to them? What about TV and radio and the Internet, these new forms of media allow the spreading of slander at lightning speed, surely this wasnt the intent of the forefathers..

Our rights do not have exceptions, they are a package deal; clearly written and specifically worded.

No sir, it is you that are wrong about freedom of speech. This example was taken directly from a supreme court ruling on freedom of speechand bases it's point on the fact that "If your shouting fire in a crowded theater causes a panic which in turn causes injury or death to others then you are liable and have gone beyond your rights of freedom of speech".

Any other speech that does not cause alarm is rightly between you and the management (and patrons that might want to kick you butt) but certain speech is not your right under free speech.

Just because the Internet allow one to get away with slander does not make it legal. If the person affected can identify the person issuing the slanderous remarks they can still win it in court. The Internet does not make it legal it merely makes it harder to identify the person responsible for it.

And yes, do you think that the forefathers would say you should be allowed to own a Davie Crockett recoil-less rifle and accompanied nuclear warhead? It is a gun by definition. Far-fetched yes, but the point is that the right to keep and possess firearms does not arbitrarily mean every type ever made that qualifies as a firearm. While I find few that I agree should be regulated at all, I do agree that some specific types should have reasonable restrictions for ownership.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Bustelo5% wrote:

If your not a full blooded native american then we all should be deported and rightfully so.If that is ideolgy that this country is beliving in since its not our country.

B.S. My ancestors stole their land fair and square.

Theissue is not about who was here first, because even the American Indian and Eskimomigrated here from Europe originally, theissue is whatgovernment that is currently in power here and who is allowed to be here by that government. While the people who established this government were themselves immigrants or at least ancestors of immigrants, and while they did do the Indians wrong in many in the process, they did established the government and the laws that this countryis ultimately governed by. They established the means for changing these laws and for establishing future laws and until this government is unseated or the laws change, that is what goes in the United States. So, like it or not, only those of us born here or those who followed the required process to become citizens of this country have the legal right to be here; all others are either here as guest or illegally.

I am not proud of or condone many of thethings the people of thiscountry have done over the course ofher 233+ years but I do see her improving over time. I do not agree with all her laws and I work daily to change those I disagree with. My opinion, while supported by many, is my own and that is all anyone has. I support your right to disagree with me are stand with me but I do not support your right to harm this country or her people. Other than that you have my respect no matter what views you hold.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Wait a minute. If you agree rights, (what is left of them),don't require justification or explanation, why are you advocating that I or anyone else waive what is left of our rights during aBP stop?

I don't. I agree that you should never give up your rights, but the big question is what constitutes a violation of your rights.Basically, you see any questions posed to you at a BP checkpoint (or the mere existence of BP checkpoints for that matter) as a violation of yourrightswhere I do not. So the debate here is really about what constitutes a violation of your rights.

We disagree on the right of the BP to establish checkpoints and on the whether answering a few simple questions or showing proof of citizenship is a violation. Personally, I feel that BP checkpoints are an acceptable means under the current standards and that showing ID and answering reasonable questions to establish ones citizenship is a reasonable expectation at a checkpoint. I do not mind the dogs sniffing around either.

I do not agree that they should be allowed to ask questions outside the realm of establishing your citizenship or perform a warrant-less search and I too will not submit to either.

Citizen wrote:

Whoever told you about yelling fire in a crowded theatercheated you a little bit. They obscured for you a certain essential, namely that fire-yellinghas nothing to do with rights.Fire-yelling is not a right. The prohibition on fire-yelling is not a limitation on a right. There is no connection between fire-yelling and rights except that made by a fire-yeller trying to excuse his actions, or say a teacher trying to make an example. In that fire-yelling can cause panic, property damage, and so forth, it cannot possibly be connected to a right, except when there really is a fire, of course.

I believe I clearly addressedthis issue in anotherpost above, but to add one thing, I am not sure how you could surmise that I meant that a specific term was in question. As I pointed out above, the freedom of speech is not without limitation. While one has the right to speech they do not have the right to interfere with others in the process. You can not disrupt other events, you can not cause harm to others and you can not pass along untruths about others that cause harm, even if you honestly believe them to be true.

The same is true about all rights. They do have limitations. The government has the right to take reasonable measures to enforce the laws of this nation, including imposing certain requirements of its citizens. I feel this includes BP checkpoints and reasonable questions to determine citizenship.

Citizen wrote:

Its use as a limitation on a right mainly serves to convey the preposterous idea that there can be limitations on rights. Once you can get that accepted, you can then start whittling away at rights, each infringement being a "justified" "limitation" on a right. Rights are rights precisely because they cannot be limited.

First off I would like to make this point. While we like to think of the constitution as the impervious doctrine that is unyielding to change, the truth is it is merely a set of laws like all other and the fact is, they can be changed by congress. While it take more to change them than most laws they are just laws and subject to change.I do not advocate changing any of them but the fact is they are merely laws that give us certain rights as citizens. The only thing that keeps them in place is the people of the country. If the majority of the people ever decide they need changing, they will change.

Now, the real issue you are chewing on is whether the government has overstepped their bounds by allowing the BP to take the actions they are taking. As you are aware, laws have a hierarchy and the constitution is the highest of all, taking president over all others. All laws must conform to the constitution. With that, it must be determined whether the BP is 1.)acting within the authority granted them, and if so; 2.) whether that authority is within the provisions of the constitution. Now, under our legal system, all laws are evaluated on intent and whether they were intended to address the given situation. If one can show that a different situation exists that could not have been foreseen at the time the law was written then they can cause the new situation to be evaluated independently. This is how our legal system was established and how it works. This is also how new situations gain exemption from standing laws.

In the case of the BP, I feel the changing threats to our country dictate new circumstances for dealing with them and reasonable actions of the BP to identify the criminal element is acceptable under the constitution. I see the actions discussed here as reasonable. You on the other hand do not and I respect that, but so far the courts agree that it is and until the issue is reversed by a higher court it will continue.

Citizen wrote:

You are advocating people waive certain rights. On what seems to be incomplete consideration. You are willing to waive yours, and ours, entirely tooeasilygiven what it cost to obtain them. Which is another way of saying you are willing todeclare a hard-won right doesn't exist anymore.

Again, I am not willing to waive ANY rights, we merely disagree on what is an is not a violation of your (our) rights. If the courts ever rule that the action of the BP is unconstitutional then I too will support your right to NOT stop or speak or whatever. In the meantime, I will continue to stop, open the window and answer reasonable questions about my citizenship. I will also continue to refusing to allow searches or unrelated questions.

While I agree that you do not necessarily have to speak to them if you don't want to, it makes their job easier and it gets you on the way quicker, so why not. If you choose not to talk then expect to be there a while.

How this country operates is up to the people, the majority of the people and if enough people decide things are bad enough and they cant get it changes, then the next option is civil war and the winner is in charge. This is the hard facts.

I only express my opinion and views here based on my assessments. I support your right to disagree with me, with the government and with the laws of this land and your right to try and change that which you see as a wrong. I only ask that you do the same.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I have a right to yell "fire" in a theatre, as long as I own the theatre.

Otherwise I am a guest there and must abide by the owner's rules against panicking customers.

And all this BS about how rights having limitations is the same BS the antis use to infringe on the 2nd Amm.

In fact, it's why you can't OC in Texas.

Nope Tomahawk, you don't. Even if you own the theater you do n ot have the right to say or do anything that might cause undue alarm and thereby endanger the people inside.

As for the anti's and OC in Texas, we cant OC here because there are laws against it. The laws are in place because the majority has nat made the change. It has nothing to do with rights and all to do with numbers. While the anti's spew false fears and false facts that sway many people, it is still a numbers issue. In the U.S. majority rules and until we get enough people pushing for it the law will not change.

Doc

 

[usaf0906]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

cbackous wrote:

For example, freedom of speech does not include the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater or to slander another person. The same is true for all laws and amendments. It is ridiculous to think that our forefathers in drafting these laws and rights meant them to be inflexible for changing conditions. As long as the generalintent remainswhen determining application then theright is intact.



You wrong sir about freedom of speech. I am free to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater all I want. When I get arrested, it has nothing to do with my "excessive freedom of speech" but everything to do with violating the "agreement" between said theater and the crowd.

When you say "inflexible for changing conditions" it worries me. Does this mean that because the forefathers couldnt predict the type of firearms we have now that the second amendment doesnt apply to them? What about TV and radio and the Internet, these new forms of media allow the spreading of slander at lightning speed, surely this wasnt the intent of the forefathers..

Our rights do not have exceptions, they are a package deal; clearly written and specifically worded.

No sir, it is you that are wrong about freedom of speech. This example was taken directly from a supreme court ruling on freedom of speechand bases it's point on the fact that "If your shouting fire in a crowded theater causes a panic which in turn causes injury or death to others then you are liable and have gone beyond your rights of freedom of speech".

Any other speech that does not cause alarm is rightly between you and the management (and patrons that might want to kick you butt) but certain speech is not your right under free speech.

Just because the Internet allow one to get away with slander does not make it legal. If the person affected can identify the person issuing the slanderous remarks they can still win it in court. The Internet does not make it legal it merely makes it harder to identify the person responsible for it.

And yes, do you think that the forefathers would say you should be allowed to own a Davie Crockett recoil-less rifle and accompanied nuclear warhead? It is a gun by definition. Far-fetched yes, but the point is that the right to keep and possess firearms does not arbitrarily mean every type ever made that qualifies as a firearm. While I find few that I agree should be regulated at all, I do agree that some specific types should have reasonable restrictions for ownership.

Doc

You have the right to say whatever you want, but you also have to be responsible for what you say. If what you say infringes on someone elses rights, you will be held responsible for it.

If I yell fire, I would be arrested for causing a panic/riot, and be held responsible for any damages caused by what I said.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

As for the anti's and OC in Texas, we cant OC here because there are laws against it. The laws are in place because the majority has nat made the change. It has nothing to do with rights and all to do with numbers. While the anti's spew false fears and false facts that sway many people, it is still a numbers issue. In the U.S. majority rules and until we get enough people pushing for it the law will not change.

Doc

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for the anti's and OC in Texas, we cant OC here because there are laws against it. The laws are in place because the majority has nat made the change. It has nothing to do with rights and all to do with numbers. While the anti's spew false fears and false facts that sway many people, it is still a numbers issue. In the U.S. majority rules and until we get enough people pushing for it the law will not change.

Doc

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

+1

DocNTexas left out the part about one of the reasons for codifying rights is so that the majority cannottake them away fromthe minority. Alas, in Texas, there were not enough people thought thisway about rights.

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Gentlemen,

The system is not perfect, but it is what it is. The fact that it continues in spite of the many people that think as you do says that the majority approve of it, or at least do not find it a big enough issue to openly challenge it. I agree with you in part but only in part, but I will continue to support where I agree and to support your rights to seek change where I disagree. But just because many of us disagree with you in part does not mean that we are necessarily "wrong" merely that we have a difference of opinion. We all must interpret the law and make judgement on what it means and as humans we will vary in opinion. So we must work for common ground.

As one of the initial figures in Austin fighting for concealed carry in the late 80'sthrough it's final passage I caught continual grief for workingto secure concealed carry rather than for open carry. I too would have preferred open carry but it was not in the cards at the time, so I chose the second best over nothing. I began working for something that I thought we actually had a chance of winning and as a result we won second best. Since that time, I havecontinuedto work for, and win,small improvements to second best. With continued effort I hope we can eventually win the rest, but at the moment we at least have something functional in place while working toward the ultimate goal.

I see this issue the same way. While the current system is not the best, we can only work with it to improve it. Standing in opposition to it only serves to impede improvement. I encourage you to work with the system toward improving it rather than standing in protestmucking up all progress.

In the meantime, we will simply have to agree to disagree on certain issues.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for the anti's and OC in Texas, we cant OC here because there are laws against it. The laws are in place because the majority has nat made the change. It has nothing to do with rights and all to do with numbers. While the anti's spew false fears and false facts that sway many people, it is still a numbers issue. In the U.S. majority rules and until we get enough people pushing for it the law will not change.

Doc

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

Tomahawk,

Your claim has no merit.If the people who make the laws were going against the wishes of the people, as you suggest,then they would not be in office past the next election. Again, it is merely numbers and the majority currently either supports the way it is or have no interest in challenging it, so the law remains.

And yes, the majority do disagree with your way of thinking (currently anyway). While you say they are stupid, many of them say the same about you and I say you are both wrong. I say you merely have different opinions on interpretation and that you both have equal right to your opinions. Now, that is what the United States of America is about.


Oh, one other thing Tomahawk, you really need to read things closer. In one of your previous diatribes you made several references to comments that I never made, some of which were made by other posters and some were merely misreading. One claim in particular was that Imentioned driving a truck, from which you surmised that I was a truck driver and not a cop. Well, I never said I was a truck driver or anything of the sort, far from it in fact. Now, while it is not really pertainent to this board or discussion, nor, as you would say, is it any of your business , I do not mind telling you (even though I do not have to ). I am actually a retired firefighter that went back to medical school. In addition to medicine, I also hold numerous other degrees at this point in life in a wide variety of fields (firefighting allows one a lot ofstudy time). One ofmy fields of studyis political science (government), so I do have an above average knowledge of how our government and legal process works. I do not purport to be a lawyer but I do have a background to support my analysis. I also worked many years as an arbitrator, whichafforded me further insight intothe legal process. Now, does this make me a better judge of what is right and wrong or as to what the constitution or other lawssay? Not necessarily. While it affords me a better understanding oflegalprocess and how the courts will likely view the material, in the end it is just my opinion. While I disagree with your views in some areas I support you right to have them and I respect your passion for supporting them. With that, I wish you luck in your quest.


Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

cbackous wrote:

You have the right to say whatever you want, but you also have to be responsible for what you say. If what you say infringes on someone elses rights, you will be held responsible for it.

If I yell fire, I would be arrested for causing a panic/riot, and be held responsible for any damages caused by what I said.

cbackous,

With all respect, this statement is in itself contradictory. Saying that;

"your have the right to say anything but are responsible for any damages caused"

is like saying;

" I have the right to shoot peoplebut are responsible for their death"

If the result of an action is illegal then the right to do the action is not there in the first place.

DUI is not merely illegal if you get caught or cause damage, it is illegal no matter what. Shooting a gun into a crowd is not illegal only if you harm someone, it is illegal to do in the first place. A right is merely a law that allows you to do something within guidelines and outside those guidelines the right is not present. If you have the right to do something then you are not liable for the consequences.Liability is onlyattachedwhen you exceeded the extent of the right.

You are correct that if you yelledfire,you would be arrested for causing a panic/riot, and be held responsible for any damages caused by whatyou said because you did not have the right to say that in that setting (i.e. you are not protected by the freedom of speech).

Doc

 

[usaf0906]

imported post

I understand your reasoning, and it does seem my arguement is flawed. I see it as you can exercise your rights, as long as they dont infringe on other peoples rights. So its not so much excessively exercising your freedom of speech, but that you are infringing on someone elses rights that makes it illegal.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As for the anti's and OC in Texas, we cant OC here because there are laws against it. The laws are in place because the majority has nat made the change. It has nothing to do with rights and all to do with numbers. While the anti's spew false fears and false facts that sway many people, it is still a numbers issue. In the U.S. majority rules and until we get enough people pushing for it the law will not change.

Doc

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

Tomahawk,

Your claim has no merit.If the people who make the laws were going against the wishes of the people, as you suggest,then they would not be in office past the next election.

The will of the people has no authority to check the inalienable rights of the individual.

All your arguing is that the people of Texas also think that rights are limited and negotiable and subordinate to the State. And thus you get rights-vioilators for politicians.

I'm not knocking Texas (well, maybe a little), this happens everywhere. That's why I can't sell whiskey in Virginia or carry concealed without a permit.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

Tomahawk,

Your claim has no merit.

I think Suzanna Gratia Hupp would disagree with you. She was unable to defend her parents in the Luby's massacre in Killeen, having left her gun in the car, because Texas lawforbade her to have it inside the restaurant, despite her CCW permit.

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

The will of the people has no authority to check the inalienable rights of the individual.

All your arguing is that the people of Texas also think that rights are limited and negotiable and subordinate to the State. And thus you get rights-vioilators for politicians.

I'm not knocking Texas (well, maybe a little), this happens everywhere. That's why I can't sell whiskey in Virginia or carry concealed without a permit.

I disagree with to an extent with your first statement. All laws that govern this country are at the mercy of the people. If the people so choose the entire constitution can be thrown out. Not that it would be easy to do or that enough people would ever agree to pull it off, but the point is, all these inalienable rights that you seem to believe are set in stone and can never be altered are actually not. While I do not see them being discarded by the masses any time soon, interpretation is still a matter of the people and if the majority agree that they be read and followed in a manner that you disagree with, well, that is just the way it is under our system of government. All you can do is try to foster enough support to change it back.

Our politicians are extensions of the people and if they do not vote in office at their constituents desire then they wont last long. While they can survive to some degree due to public apathy and padding their voting record with other issues, they still must follow the will of the people onmajor issues.


Now, I totally agree with the rest of your post. The greatest problem we have in this country is apathy. You can stop 1000 people on the street and ask if they support open carry and unlicensed gun rights in generalthe vast majority in Texas will tell you they do, but if you ask those thatsay they favor gun rights if they are active in pursuing them mostwill tell you no.The reason most give for not being active is thatit does not directly effect them one way or another so they are not willing to go out of their way to help get it done.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

No, you can't OC in Texas because the people who make your laws think the way you do about rights.

Tomahawk,

Your claim has no merit.

I think Suzanna Gratia Hupp would disagree with you. She was unable to defend her parents in the Luby's massacre in Killeen, having left her gun in the car, because Texas lawforbade her to have it inside the restaurant, despite her CCW permit.

First off, I know Mrs. Hupp and have worked with her on numerous gun related issues over the years and I can tell you exactly what she thinks about gun rights and the Texas legislative system.

Actually, the Luby's shooting occurred in 1991, four years before Texas passed it's concealed carry law, therefore, Mrs. Hupp did not have a Texas CHL at the time, but did carry a handgun in her car and on occasions in her purse while living and working in Houston. Since it was clearly illegal to carry a gun in her purse,and there wassome defense (not much at the time) if carried in a vehicle, she did not carry it in public places other than into her office and home, otherwise, she kept it was in her car. This was one of the main points she stressed duringher testimony on the subject.

As a Texas legislator Mrs. Hupp has been instrumental at promoting gun laws. She will be the first to tell you that no matter what a legislator thinks or feels, the people have the final say regarding their actions. I can name numerous Texas legislators that are against guns and carry laws in general but consistently vote for them because of their constituent base and the repercussions it would have on their political careers if they were to vote against them.

Doc