David Spade Pony's up for Police Weaponry

[Task Force 16]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Contrary to what some may think, I'm not trying to be argumentative but informative, instead. My comments have some 30 years' worth of firsthand encounters with the "law enforcement" community.
Here are several of my fondest favorites.
After having refused the return of my revolver for several weeks, in direct violation of the rule of law, Gonzales police captain Sammy Pasqua bragged about being a lifetime member of the NRA. He seemed to be a likeable enough fellow, yet he had no qualms about violating me, personally.
His chief, Bill Landry, who's "policies" instigated this entire situation, failed to honor his oath of office after the fact. Instead of conforming his behavior to follow the state constitution, he reportedly met with the agents of Tanger Outlet Mall and asked them to ban the carry of weapons on their property. Since there are no signs to carry out his personal wishes, it appears they turned him down.
I could write a book on the criminal behavior/Gestapo mentality of the "law enforcement" community. Why anyone with half a functioning brain, ESPECIALLY gun owners, would want to further empower them, literally, is beyond my capacity to understand.

Mark,

You seem to be lumping LE all accross the country into one pile, just because you have had bad dealings with a few A-holes in your neck of the woods. What you eed to do is campaign to get rid of the officials in Gonzales that hired the Chief, so he can be fired, along with his A-hole lackies. Otherwise, you might consider relocating.

 

[holeinhead]

imported post

IMO, Spade is a patriot for helping out the force back home. Sure he could of done other things, but you can't please everybody. Sounds as though the LEOs there could use the help. Either way, he's trying to help his community in a positive manner. I can't fault him for that.

As far as LEOs are concerned: Some abuse their power I'm sure, but most are just trying to do a tough and often thankless job. Those specific individuals who do abuse their powers deserve our scorn and we should demand they be brought to justice, but those whom there is no evidence of wrong doing and are out to protect and serve deserve our thanks and support.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

My encounters with "law enforcement" aren't limited to the POLICE STATE OF LOUISIANA. Whether you choose to admit it or not, Tennessee has it's share of little tin badge despots, too. Need any examples?
Spade a patriot? LOL, that's just too funny. I guess it depends on your definition of the word, sorta like the Patriot Act. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Blindly supporting the agenda of the administration of government does not make a patriot, but an enemy of a true patriot.

 

[madcapmag]

imported post

I actually like the cops here in AZ. The one's I've dealt withhave beenvery courteous and do all they can. They don't harass the OC'er's (at least me, even in N Scottsdale). I work in a not so good area of Phoenix (Marysvale), and all the times I have called on them, they have responded fairly quickly. Luckily, I haven't had to call on them for anything violent, more of the trespassers and a call to their task force to report prostitutes and all that. A few occasionally come in to have breakfast (Hampton Inn hot complimentary On the House breakfast) and they have all be very nice. Of course, this could be construed as Bribery, but whatever, we need as much help as we can get.

Watching Gangland, it seems as though these criminals target LEO's. I think they need all the help they can get. I'm glad Spade helped out.

AZ LEO's seem to be different from other states. I had a lukewarm feeling about the ones up in Washington State, but the ones down here are doing a good job, in my opinion.

 

[smash29]

imported post

 

[AZkopper]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

...there is no constitutional basis for the very existence of the "law enforcement" community...

The Constitution covers the scope of authority/organization of the United States Government, not state or local organization/authority. Of course the United States Constitution does not authorize local police. Neither is there a "Constitutional basis" for city mayor, city council, state legislator, dog catcher, or public road crew.

Given your view, I guess the country has been on the wrong track since 1776, since we had county sheriff's and constables back then, too.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

Mark, did you ever consider that since you have an unusually bad history with LEOs that it may have something to do with your attitude and behavior?:uhoh:

Oh wait, that's right, since all LEOs are Gestapo wannabe thugs, it can't be anything that you have done.:shock:

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

Let me try to give you rookies a condensed overview.
The founders went to great lengths to prevent what they suffered through.
Agents of the Crown were very much despised. If you read history, you'll find tons of accounts of what happens when you have a swarm of "law enforcement officers."
What we have today was very accurately predicted/warned against. Obviously, we have failed to pay the price of freedom: eternal vigilance. Sheriffs and constables merely served orders of the court. They didn't roam around, sticking their noses into everyone's business as we see today.
This country has been on the wrong track since the days of the Great Violator, Abe.
Yea, Gordie, you're correct. Not kissing their proverbial asses does tend to put you on their list. Since you do, you have no problems. Enjoy your life of servitude, devoid of exercising your God given rights.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

Given your view, I guess the country has been on the wrong track since 1776, since we had county sheriff's and constables back then, too.

Maybe someone with the desire can give you the history lesson you really need.

There is a huge difference between the historical Sheriff serving warrants etc and the modern concept of police and the "Law Enforcement Officer".

It's a difference which is both complex and simple to explain the existence of: as criminal law has increasingly focused on victimless crimes, it has become necessary to find ways to initiate enforcement in the absence of any victims to initiate legal charges being files. The function of a tradition "Sheriff" is insufficient to achieve this end, and so the "Law Enforcement Officer" was created.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Yea, Gordie, you're correct. Not kissing their proverbial asses does tend to put you on their list. Since you do, you have no problems. Enjoy your life of servitude, devoid of exercising your God given rights.

I kiss my wife, my kids, and have even been known to kiss a beloved pet on the top of its head, as for the other, you have me confused with somebody else. As typical with someone who has the attitude that anyone who doesn't kiss your a$$ must be kissing someone else's, you have shown your real colors.

As for my life of servitude, you have no idea who I serve, and if you had any idea who the God that gave you those rights was, you would not make statements like these.

When ever you start to say that every body else is wrong, chances are that it's you that has a problem. I have a feeling that it is your actions and attitude, not the lack of kissing that is the root of your problems with LEOs.

I would be willing to let our conduct here be the evidence for all to see just who each of us are.

 

[AZkopper]

imported post

Gee, thanks for the history lesson, but you're wrong.

While you can argue successfully proactive law enforcement vs. reactive law enforcement for colonia times and early America in general, it is fantasy to say that county sheriff's did not enforce laws or make arrests.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

While you can argue successfully proactive law enforcement vs. reactive law enforcement for colonia times and early America in general, it is fantasy to say that county sheriff's did not enforce laws or make arrests.

Well, seeing as I did not say that, maybe we can get back into the land of reality and away from fantasy.

Edit: "Pro-active" is a misnomer at best. There is nothing "pro-active" about arresting people who have yet to commit, or are entirely innocent of, any acts of aggression. "Criminal" is a better word for such arrests.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

The God who gave me my rights is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Please, for your own benefit, go read (for the first time) 1st Samuel, chapter 8, and learn how HE feels about your concept of government.
Nowhere did I say everybody is wrong, just the majority of folks.
Who each of us are? LOL, yea, that's rather obvious.
You are a staunch supporter of a police state, as long as it meets with your criteria, while I have nothing to do with any form of police state.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Well, hell, Mark, I don't need a god to be just as dead-set as yourself in maintaining the authority of my human rights.

What I'm saying is, I agree with you, except I don't need god to justify my natural rights.

You're not going to get very far with the non-superstitious that way, anyway.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AZkopper wrote:

Given your view, I guess the country has been on the wrong track since 1776, since we had county sheriff's and constables back then, too.

Maybe someone with the desire can give you the history lesson you really need.

There is a huge difference between the historical Sheriff serving warrants etc and the modern concept of police and the "Law Enforcement Officer".

It's a difference which is both complex and simple to explain the existence of: as criminal law has increasingly focused on victimless crimes, it has become necessary to find ways to initiate enforcement in the absence of any victims to initiate legal charges being files. The function of a tradition "Sheriff" is insufficient to achieve this end, and so the "Law Enforcement Officer" was created.

Toennies' Gemeinschaft-traditional roles versus Gesellschaft rule of law civil-community. Versus means against.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

Truth is I think I know exactly where Mark Edward is coming from. The founding Fathers had in mind that the ONLY law of the land is the Constitution. Any and all "Ordinances" "Laws" etc are unconstitutional. PERIOD. Even speed limita are unconstitutional. Having to apply for a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional. These rights are granted by a higher authority than man. Any and all "authority" to hamper ones pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are wrong. Our Founding Fathers wanted US to govern OURSELVES accordingly. Simple when you think of it.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

imported post

AGAIN: a quick read of 1st Samuel, chapter 8 says it all.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I think the discrepancy here arises from the fact that the Founders were most worried about Tyranny arising from a centralized "federal" government, perhaps to the point that they neglected to provide insurance against localized tyranny. Or maybe they figured that citizens apathetic enough to allow tyranny at the local level are simply to lazy too enjoy freedom (practically speaking).

While I agree that requiring a license to do something so fundamental to success in a modern society as driving is contrary to the spirit of freedom in which this country was founded, I regretfully concede that there is nothing in any state constitution which prevents such mandatory licensure.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

AGAIN: a quick read of 1st Samuel, chapter 8 says it all.

Fair enough. I reserve strong disfavor for superstition of all stripes, but, having read this passage, I find it insightful. +1

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

I was very pleased by the first 'hit' on my search for "thousand, tyrant, neighbors", http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1739881/posts, but that is not the citation I was seeking.