cop talks revolution

[p2a1x7]

imported post

The uniform would be associated with the corrupt government that controls it. The uniform wouldn't be a symbol of what it once was. So taking it off and fighting would be what they would need to do to protect the Constitution. Unless they wanted to bring it down from the inside.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

sirpuma wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

sirpuma wrote:

Well, then these police will have a choice to make. Either strap on and put on their uniform and follow the commands handed to them by the feds, or strap on and put on their civvies and become a patriot.

How about strap on and put on their uniform andsupport the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Washington as they swore to do in their Oath of office?

Why do they need to leave off the uniform to protect the Constitution? They swore to uphold it while wearing that uniform.

I chose those particular words because when the poo hits the oscillating wind generator local LEO will be used in conjunction with ATF and DHS people to enforce their rule over us. Those people in uniform will become targets. I would hate to have a true patriot among the LE crowd be targeted because of his uniform. And I would rather see them on our side of the street providing their skill/training and leadership where it's needed the most.

Many of our LEOs will be backed up by their communities. I agree that they could become a target, but if the SHTF... we're going to need people to have a sense of safety... and if the only police are the ones gathering up people for internment camps... well.... we'll have a serious problem on our hands that will spiral out of control quickly.

 

[OC-Aviator]

imported post

I have scanned the last 3 pages of post. I am a member of OATHKEEPERS. For those of you who do not want violence but will act or resist aggregeuos violations of the Constitution. This group is for you. NON-partisan, for current, retired, prior sevice Military, Police, Emergency personnel, and those civilians who have never taken an oath but would like to take part in defending the Constitution, if need be.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Join a state forum, I am in Wa. and Texas.

 

[DKSuddeth]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote

Grishnav: You seem to be missing the point here. Let me spell it out for you:

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-CITIZENS!!!

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

 

[sirpuma]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote

Grishnav: You seem to be missing the point here. Let me spell it out for you:

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-CITIZENS!!!

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

Can you point out in the Constitution of the United States of America where is says it's applicable to other countries and the people of other countries? I believe the attitude that it applies to the whole world is what has gotten our nation in trouble with it's empire building wars around the world.

It is only applicable to the US and the people OF the US. Illegal immigrants are not people OF the US but people of foreign nations who have entered this nation illegally. Just because they are on this soil doesn't make them people of this nation. If they enter this nation legally, abiding by our immigration laws then the constitution applies to them, to a certain extent. Once they become citizens then it applies to them fully.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenshipwhere it states;"We the people of the United States of America..." So in that sense, non-citizens should not and cannot enjoy all the same protection of rights otherwise, what impetus would there be to become a citizen or to assimilate?

However, the mostimportant point to remember and one that most people don't even understand is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to thegovernment. The body of the Constitution tells the federal and state governments what they are allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and a guarantee to all states of a republican form of government). The Bill of Rights tells the government what it is not allowed to do and says anything else not thought of in the Bill of rights is up to the States or the People.

So, does the Bill of Rights protect non-Citizens? Yes, in the way that it restricts the government. Do non-citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms? No, because they are not a part of the unorganized militia and would likely never be a part of the unorganized militia. However, if a person chooses to live here and wants to be a part of the community, then, they must work to become naturalized so they too can prove they are a part of the unorganized militia and therefore be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

 

[OC-Aviator]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenshipwhere it states;"We the people of the United States of America..." So in that sense, non-citizens should not and cannot enjoy all the same protection of rights otherwise, what impetus would there be to become a citizen or to assimilate?

However, the mostimportant point to remember and one that most people don't even understand is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to thegovernment. The body of the Constitution tells the federal and state governments what they are allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and a guarantee to all states of a republican form of government). The Bill of Rights tells the government what it is not allowed to do and says anything else not thought of in the Bill of rights is up to the States or the People.

So, does the Bill of Rights protect non-Citizens? Yes, in the way that it restricts the government. Do non-citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms? No, because they are not a part of the unorganized militia and would likely never be a part of the unorganized militia. However, if a person chooses to live here and wants to be a part of the community, then, they must work to become naturalized so they too can prove they are a part of the unorganized militia and therefore be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

HEAR, HEAR!!! Washingtonian

 

[cynicist]

imported post

Can you point out in the Constitution of the United States of America where is says it's applicable to other countries and the people of other countries? I believe the attitude that it applies to the whole world is what has gotten our nation in trouble with it's empire building wars around the world. It is only applicable to the US and the people OF the US.

Where it says persons, it means "persons." Where it says "citizens," it means "citizens."
Keep in mind that women were not considered citizens when this was written, but a "person," and as such, their houses could not be searched but upon warrant, nor could they be compelled to bear witness against themselves. They could not vote, as they were not "citizens," merely "people" or "persons."
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it specify that only "citizens" have rights. It's a common myth. No court ruling has held otherwise.

Any of you who keep claiming that the Constitution does not have jurisdiction over the entire geography of the United States, please state your grounds or shut up.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Note that the Founders said "ALL MEN" are endowed by their Creator with "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS."
Those rights were ENUMERATED, not GRANTED by the US Constitution. The Founders did not grant us any rights that were not already ours, despite the King violating them. The rights are rights of mankind, unalienable.



One thing that breaches this topic is that when you argue for denial of rights to one group, it spreads.
Example: After the civil war, scared white people thought freed blacks would marry off all their women, so marriage licenses were instituted for interracial marriages. Now everyone needs to buy a permission slip from the government to get married.
Example 2: In the same time period, the first gun licensing laws came out, preventing blacks from owning guns. It worked so good, now we all need licenses to carry, and in some states just to own, Bliar-Holt etc.
Example 3: Violent felons can't own guns - felons can't own guns (possession of 1 valium is a felony) - marijuana users can't own guns - DV convicts can't own guns - greencard-holders can't own guns - who's next?
Example 4: You now have to pull over and show proof of citizens when Immigration stops you. "Innocent until proven guilty" turned on its head. Thanks a lot.
Example 5: You now have to let the police search your vehicle for no reason on certain roads to prove that you're not a drug trafficker. Again, "innocent until proven guilty" inverted. "War on Drugs" at its best.

The more you advocate for taking the unalienable rights of any man, the closer you are to losing your own.

 

[dang]

imported post


. Please read the U.S. Constitution, article one, section two . It reads "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" . If this nations population is three hundred million that means we should have a U.S. Hous of Rep. of ten thousand. If we only have four hundred thirty five members then, we only have 4.35 % of what the constitution calls for.

Now the kicker is when you read Article one, Section five, "and a Majority of each(house and senate) shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide." Now this leaves us with an unlawful congress because they are operating without a quorum.

This wizardry has been in effect since a Democratic house, a Republican senate and a Democtatic president passed public law 62-5 ( the constitution can only be changed with an amendment or convention to the constitution)making the size of the house a permanet 435.This law passed in 1911 to be effective in 1913. Population of USA 94 million. So you can see we do not have a republic but an Oligarchy .

This means congress has passed no law or amendment since 1913. By studing the history of congress and the supreme court you find how they have tricked the American public with word games,blue smoke and mirrors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

Dang

 

[marshaul]

imported post

cynicist wrote:

Grishnav: You seem to be missing the point here. Let me spell it out for you: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-CITIZENS!!!

You seem to not have studied any constitutional law.

YES IT DOES!

There is a distinction between "citizens" and "persons."  Citizens can vote, persons don't get unlawfully searched, etc.

I'd really like to know where this myth that the Constitution only applies to citizens comes from.  Go get your copy and read it.  You should understand by then.  If not, you've already made up your mind, and no amount of fact could confuse you otherwise.

+1

So obvious, but most of these people have never actually bothered to sit down and read the constitution in one sitting, I suspect. Thus, the distinctions are lost (as between "citizen" and "person"), and they instead repeat ignorance they must have heard on talk radio or the like.

BTW. grishnav's posts are some of the most refreshing I've read on here in a while. This forum has become increasing full of partisan hackery and utterly statist ideology, and I'm growing sick of it. I @#$% all over the state.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

grishnav wrote:

sirpuma wrote:

My take on this grishnav character.

Meh. I said I was done, but I can't resist just this one.

I'm not racist, about as white as they come, was born in Portland, OR, and have never left the country.

I am a capitalist, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to marxism. In fact, immigration control is more marxist than immigration freedom is. After all, labor is labor, and an immigration restriction is also a labor restriction (they are "stealing" our jobs -- ohs noes!), which, ultimately, is an economic intervention by the government. And economic interventions by the government are decided un-capatalist and, oh yeah, socialist!

And pretending that the immigration issue isn't about racism is just disingenuous, because it so clearly is. And since the article did mention the immigration issue as one of the major fears, it's a valid point of conversation. The fact that it makes some uncomfortable notwithstanding.

I don't believe I own the streets, but I do believe my money is being stolen to pay for them, and that makes at least a portion of them rightfully mine (though it's impossible to assess how much is mine and how much is yours, and I'm willing to simply cede whatever claim or interest I may have to a road management company, voluntarily, in the interest of peaceful progress).

Saying I wish for violent people to roam the streets is, well, a such a blatant misrepresentation that it must be intentional. I've neither said nor implied that anywhere; in fact, the entirety of my discussion has been only as it relates to peaceful people acting freely. Non-peaceful people is a much longer and more complicated discussion and, given the level of discourse displayed in this thread thus far, not one I'm ready to have. My fingers would fall off from all the typing.

I don't celebrate criminal behavior, but I do celebrate civil disobedience (which is what we do every time we violate an illegal park ordinance, for example). A person smoking pot is not a criminal, because criminals are the people who hurt others. Rather, he is a civil disobedient, for he has broken the law without hurting anyone.

I love this country, and I like a lot of the people here; I just don't like the government and, you're right, I don't respect the government's laws one bit. I forgive the people who work for the government, and hope they find a peaceful path for their life some day.

Oh yeah, and I'm not a member of any gang. lol! But all you military folks are.

Riddle me this: Why is it that you are wishing violence upon me when I've done nothing whatsoever to harm you?

Also, my intent is not to offend, and I apologize if I have. These days I tend to speak frankly about the actions of the government, and some people aren't ready to hear it. Especially those that are involved with it in some way.

My intent is to have discussion that moves more people toward the realization that a coercive entity is as unnecessary to "manage" the people as it is to "manage" the economy; and that it's management is as destructive to the pepole as it is to the economy. And though many of you seem to be harboring hate and wishing violence upon me, for you I have nothing but forgiveness and love. I forgive the cops that arrested me for open carrying in Oregon, and the ones who broke into my hotel room and tossed it looking for a laser pointer, and the ones who will probably arrest me in the future for "illegally" being in possession of one thing or another, the ones that are separating me from my family, friends, and money by forcing me to fight them over an illegal revocation. I harbor no ill-will and wish no harm towards the IRS agents that continue to sap me of my hard-earned wealth, nor the federal reserve that is working to destroy whatever the IRS doesn't manage to get their hands on in order to enrich themselves and their friends, nor the census bureau employee that will undoubtedly visit me sometime in the next year with a host of wholly inappropriate probing questions they have no business asking, nor the senators and representatives and presidents and governors and mayors that made all this suffering and tyranny possible. Nor to any of you here, even as some of you apparently wish it upon me. I'm interesting only in attaining more freedom, peace, and prosperity for myself and those around me.

Oh snap!

 

[sirpuma]

imported post

Ah, yes. Our law is null and void, our rights belong to all in the world. Lets invite the whole of the world into our arms and boost our social services to include them all, after all it's a one world people.

:cuss:

Socialists are @$%&ing this country up. Your views are why we have rampant over population of illegal immigrants and gang violence.

I'm done here. Too many stupid ideas.:banghead:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenship where it states; "We the people of the United States of America..."
I could swear it says "the people of the United States", not "the citizens of the United States". Remember, the Constitution is a legal document, and in legals documents, words do mean things, and differentiations are important; i.e. why "citizen" is used here and "people" is used elsewhere. Presumably "the people" are not, in fact, people in other countries, but it would seem to include people from other countries once they are on American soil.
So in that sense, non-citizens should not and cannot enjoy all the same protection of rights otherwise, what impetus would there be to become a citizen or to assimilate?
So, how do you figure? Remember, rights are a recognition of human nature, not citizenship status. It's right there in the Declaration. "Privileges" are one thing. "Privileges" created by the existence of a Republican government, like voting, may be denied to noncitizens. But rights, innate to all humans, are to be protected by the state, which exists for no other purpose.
However, the most important point to remember and one that most people don't even understand is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal and state governments what they are allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and a guarantee to all states of a republican form of government). The Bill of Rights tells the government what it is not allowed to do and says anything else not thought of in the Bill of rights is up to the States or the People.

So, does the Bill of Rights protect non-Citizens? Yes, in the way that it restricts the government. Do non-citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms? No, because they are not a part of the unorganized militia and would likely never be a part of the unorganized militia. However, if a person chooses to live here and wants to be a part of the community, then, they must work to become naturalized so they too can prove they are a part of the unorganized militia and therefore be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

You completely ignored the innate human right to self-defense and to bear the means most effective for such purpose.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

sirpuma wrote:

Ah, yes. Our law is null and void, our rights belong to all in the world. Lets invite the whole of the world into our arms and boost our social services to include them all, after all it's a one world people.

:cuss:

Socialists are @$%&ing this country up. Your views are why we have rampant over population of illegal immigrants and gang violence.

I'm done here. Too many stupid ideas.:banghead:

Which poster in this thread advocated the theft of money to provide social services for anybody, including or excepting illegals? Nobody arguing from the position shared by myself did so.

Since when (in the real world, mind you) do illegals get "social services" anyway? I mean, hell, even here in "sanctuary city" San Francisco, supposedly the first city to offer "guaranteed healthcare", do you really think they get it? This city is too cheap to deport the genuinely criminal illegal aliens, much less give free stuff to the rest. Besides, the city already spends to much giving drug money to the citizen homeless.

Edit: By the way, I'm going to repeat myself like a broken record, because it's so important (literally the single most important issue in America right now, from which most our other problems can be traced): prohibition provides the impetus for gangsterism. Remember Al Capone? Now, let me ask you, how many liquor store owners shoot each other in the street over territory or product every year, in the days since the ratification of the 21st Amendment? The state is ultimately to blame, and it does not possess the cure.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

So, does the Bill of Rights protect non-Citizens? Yes, in the way that it restricts the government. Do non-citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms? No, because they are not a part of the unorganized militia and would likely never be a part of the unorganized militia. However, if a person chooses to live here and wants to be a part of the community, then, they must work to become naturalized so they too can prove they are a part of the unorganized militia and therefore be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

In many states, legal residents do have the right to bear arms, just as how they have immigrants gaining citizenship to the US while in Iraq. Even illegals are in some cases allowed to join the military.
The "unorganized militia" is something extra-constitutional, it never has and never will have any bearing on the right to bear. The "well-organized militia" was something state-sponsored, something like the National Guard, and until the early 1900s could only be deployed for national defense (a bill was passed in congress sending organized militiamen to the Phillipines.)
But you're right on the Constitution not granting rights, but restricting government.

Ah, yes. Our law is null and void, our rights belong to all in the world.

All we (or at least me) have said is that the Constitution applies to the US government, restricts the government, prevents the government from infringing upon rights, and does not specify anywhere that it only applies to citizens.
It's a myth that it only applies to citizens. If you can prove me wrong, please do so.

Go read it. It's a good one.

 

[drkarrow]

imported post

Howdy folks. I'm a late intruder to your thread here.

As for grishnav, he doesn't sound like an anarchist to me. Just a libertarian or objectivist. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

can you point out the exact portion of the US Constitution that says this document only applies to those with the title of US Citizen?
I've read it, several times, and could not find it.

The Preamble to the Constitution established an implication of American citizenshipwhere it states;"We the people of the United States of America..." So in that sense, non-citizens should not and cannot enjoy all the same protection of rights otherwise, what impetus would there be to become a citizen or to assimilate?

However, the mostimportant point to remember and one that most people don't even understand is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to thegovernment. The body of the Constitution tells the federal and state governments what they are allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and a guarantee to all states of a republican form of government). The Bill of Rights tells the government what it is not allowed to do and says anything else not thought of in the Bill of rights is up to the States or the People.

So, does the Bill of Rights protect non-Citizens? Yes, in the way that it restricts the government. Do non-citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms? No, because they are not a part of the unorganized militia and would likely never be a part of the unorganized militia. However, if a person chooses to live here and wants to be a part of the community, then, they must work to become naturalized so they too can prove they are a part of the unorganized militia and therefore be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

That has to be the best dead nut on post in this thread.

There's a little document that has some importance to our country called the Declaration of Independence. It states that

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

Just this small part it shows some powerful depth and meaning.

It's a nice little document, I'd suggest more people read it.

All Men. Not just Americans, not just US citizens. This document recognized the rights of all men before there even was a USA.

 

[cynicist]

imported post

1

 

[Citizen Saenz]

imported post

It would seem that Girshnav is what i call a Pseudo-intellectual

Spewing what he has heard from the coffee shop or some fuzzy faced professor and taking it for doctrine

It seem that his only intent is in being a agitator on a pro RKBA site and it has worked.

The rebuttals are true to their aim and he is in what i would say is a losing fight because he will not get us to see it through his anarchist, WROL glasses.

So like a child ignore him because thats what his demeanor warrants

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Citizen Saenz wrote:

It would seem that Girshnav is what i call a Pseudo-intellectual

Spewing what he has heard from the coffee shop or some fuzzy faced professor and taking it for doctrine

It seem that his only intent is in being a agitator on a pro RKBA site and it has worked.

The rebuttals are true to their aim and he is in what i would say is a losing fight because he will not get us to see it through his anarchist, WROL glasses.

So like a child ignore him because thats what his demeanor warrants

-1