Do police officers serve and protect the public?


 Religions > Atheism > Do police officers serve and protect the public?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 16 of 26

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 28 Jan 2005 04:31:24 AM
Object: Do police officers serve and protect the public?
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
.

User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 06 Feb 2005 05:28:25 PM
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:209d011v32vak943d4pk9n4fcjuirfurba@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:01:10 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:l23d01hvnqs6drrqdqn8msfiobhctqqdpu@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:i39c015j2tl5h36s77naakkkcdkobl9pg5@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:38:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:5i0b01hgilgotoc1jkavmu43hlsbbnm3l1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:29:40 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:g00b01dfvi8ni132ispbiv316i5cm1ovg1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:14:32 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:5pla01507fb9u7i601ljoi9khdp783guoj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:21:02 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.


Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works.
I'll
keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
through
a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now
your
gun
control law IS unconstitutional.


Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment
didn't
alter
that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
Amendment
to
mean whatever they want it to.


LOL Try reading for comprehension. If you change the
Constitution
it
would become Constitutional.


So if I say that the government has no powers other than those
specifically
granted, and no power is granted to regulate drugs.......then how
is
passing
an Amendment saying that anti-gun legislation is not authorized
change
the
Constitution?


Sorry, should have been "anti-drug"

Are you really that clueless?


Well, given the correction, why don't you explain it to me.

All I'm doing is restating what is already there.


You *do* know what an Amendment is, don't you, Scout ol' boy?


Yep, but just because you add an Amendment doesn't mean you changed
anything,



ROFL

Oh, of course not. Just the Constitution, that's all.


Ok, and care to explain exactly how the Constitution was changed?


You're more dense than I thought. Is this the real Scout, or have I
just not paid close enough attention to your posts lately?

Main Entry: amend
Pronunciation: &-'mend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French amender, modification of
Latin emendare, from e, ex out + menda fault; akin to Latin mendax
lying, mendicus beggar, and perhaps to Sanskrit mindA physical defect
transitive senses
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE <amend the
situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to
alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend the
constitution>
intransitive senses : to reform oneself
synonym see CORRECT
- amend·able /-'men-d&-b&l/ adjective
- amend·er noun


Now all you have to do is show me what was changed or improved by
restating
what already exists.


Huh? "Restating what already exists?" Where did that come from?


Well, you told me that when the USSC ignores the language of the
Constitution we should pass an Amendment repeating that language so that
the
USSC will suddenly accept what it denied before.


No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.
****Restore from above****

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
through
a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now
your
gun
control law IS unconstitutional.

***end
The gun control law is Unconstitutional NOW. See the 2nd, 9th, and 10th
Amendments. As such passing a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gun
control isn't going to change anything in the Constitution. At most all it
does is force SCOTUS to actually adhere to what is in the Constitution.
Except, now that it's part of the Constitution, you assert that SCOTUS can
"interpret" it to mean whatever they want. So passing that Amendment was
rather a wasted exercise as long as SCOTUS chooses to ignore the language of
the Constitution.
So tell me when exactly can SCOTUS issue a ruling in violation of the
Constitution?
.
User: "You Know Who "

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 06 Feb 2005 05:57:04 PM
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:28:25 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:209d011v32vak943d4pk9n4fcjuirfurba@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:01:10 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:l23d01hvnqs6drrqdqn8msfiobhctqqdpu@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:i39c015j2tl5h36s77naakkkcdkobl9pg5@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:38:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:5i0b01hgilgotoc1jkavmu43hlsbbnm3l1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:29:40 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:g00b01dfvi8ni132ispbiv316i5cm1ovg1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:14:32 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:5pla01507fb9u7i601ljoi9khdp783guoj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:21:02 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.


Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works.
I'll
keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
through
a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now
your
gun
control law IS unconstitutional.


Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment
didn't
alter
that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
Amendment
to
mean whatever they want it to.


LOL Try reading for comprehension. If you change the
Constitution
it
would become Constitutional.


So if I say that the government has no powers other than those
specifically
granted, and no power is granted to regulate drugs.......then how
is
passing
an Amendment saying that anti-gun legislation is not authorized
change
the
Constitution?


Sorry, should have been "anti-drug"

Are you really that clueless?


Well, given the correction, why don't you explain it to me.

All I'm doing is restating what is already there.


You *do* know what an Amendment is, don't you, Scout ol' boy?


Yep, but just because you add an Amendment doesn't mean you changed
anything,



ROFL

Oh, of course not. Just the Constitution, that's all.


Ok, and care to explain exactly how the Constitution was changed?


You're more dense than I thought. Is this the real Scout, or have I
just not paid close enough attention to your posts lately?

Main Entry: amend
Pronunciation: &-'mend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French amender, modification of
Latin emendare, from e, ex out + menda fault; akin to Latin mendax
lying, mendicus beggar, and perhaps to Sanskrit mindA physical defect
transitive senses
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE <amend the
situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to
alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend the
constitution>
intransitive senses : to reform oneself
synonym see CORRECT
- amend·able /-'men-d&-b&l/ adjective
- amend·er noun


Now all you have to do is show me what was changed or improved by
restating
what already exists.


Huh? "Restating what already exists?" Where did that come from?


Well, you told me that when the USSC ignores the language of the
Constitution we should pass an Amendment repeating that language so that
the
USSC will suddenly accept what it denied before.


No, I didn't.


Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. Read it again.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 06 Feb 2005 07:15:59 PM
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:vlbd0152aeieqb21f3shp515dfqb3jvgnh@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:28:25 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:209d011v32vak943d4pk9n4fcjuirfurba@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:01:10 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:l23d01hvnqs6drrqdqn8msfiobhctqqdpu@4ax.com...

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:i39c015j2tl5h36s77naakkkcdkobl9pg5@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:38:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:5i0b01hgilgotoc1jkavmu43hlsbbnm3l1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:29:40 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:g00b01dfvi8ni132ispbiv316i5cm1ovg1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:14:32 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:5pla01507fb9u7i601ljoi9khdp783guoj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:21:02 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
message
news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.


Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works.
I'll
keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope,
it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
through
a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now
your
gun
control law IS unconstitutional.


Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment
didn't
alter
that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
Amendment
to
mean whatever they want it to.


LOL Try reading for comprehension. If you change the
Constitution
it
would become Constitutional.


So if I say that the government has no powers other than those
specifically
granted, and no power is granted to regulate drugs.......then
how
is
passing
an Amendment saying that anti-gun legislation is not authorized
change
the
Constitution?


Sorry, should have been "anti-drug"

Are you really that clueless?


Well, given the correction, why don't you explain it to me.

All I'm doing is restating what is already there.


You *do* know what an Amendment is, don't you, Scout ol' boy?


Yep, but just because you add an Amendment doesn't mean you
changed
anything,



ROFL

Oh, of course not. Just the Constitution, that's all.


Ok, and care to explain exactly how the Constitution was changed?


You're more dense than I thought. Is this the real Scout, or have I
just not paid close enough attention to your posts lately?

Main Entry: amend
Pronunciation: &-'mend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French amender, modification of
Latin emendare, from e, ex out + menda fault; akin to Latin mendax
lying, mendicus beggar, and perhaps to Sanskrit mindA physical
defect
transitive senses
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE <amend the
situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to
alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend the
constitution>
intransitive senses : to reform oneself
synonym see CORRECT
- amend·able /-'men-d&-b&l/ adjective
- amend·er noun


Now all you have to do is show me what was changed or improved by
restating
what already exists.


Huh? "Restating what already exists?" Where did that come from?


Well, you told me that when the USSC ignores the language of the
Constitution we should pass an Amendment repeating that language so that
the
USSC will suddenly accept what it denied before.


No, I didn't.


Yes, you did.


No, I didn't. Read it again.

" Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's unconstitutional.
But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
using the legislative branch. Now your gun control law IS unconstitutional."
Gun control is already Unconstitutional, refer to the 2nd, 9th and 10th
Amendments. As you point out the SC seems willing to ignore that. Passing
another Amendment isn't going to change that. All passing another Amendment
will do is restate what already exists.
.
User: "You Know Who "

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 07 Feb 2005 07:07:07 AM
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:15:59 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

Gun control is already Unconstitutional, refer to the 2nd, 9th and 10th
Amendments.

LOL. You're having a LOT of trouble with this concept.
.




User: "Rump Ranger"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 06:48:31 PM
Scout wrote:

"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.


Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll

keep

it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through

a

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
control law IS unconstitutional.


Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment didn't

alter

that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new Amendment

to

mean whatever they want it to.

Your blind faith that the SC is always right on Constitutional

matters is

the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is contrary

to the

clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how much they

say

"white" it's not going to turn black into white.

These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian world.
Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube. Without a
federal government program, they'd probably never get potty trained.
If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who disagreed
in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend the
State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 07:39:58 PM
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Scout wrote:
| > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
| > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > >>> Who is going to rule
| > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > >>
| > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > >
| > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll
| keep
| > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > >
| > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
| > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
| > > Constitutional."
| > >
| > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through
| a
| > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
| > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| >
| > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment didn't
| alter
| > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new Amendment
| to
| > mean whatever they want it to.
| >
| > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on Constitutional
| matters is
| > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is contrary
| to the
| > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how much they
| say
| > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
|
| These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian world.
| Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube. Without a
| federal government program, they'd probably never get potty trained.
| If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who disagreed
| in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend the
| State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
Or do what as an alternative?
Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
A - Don't understand how government works
B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law
C- Can't vote so it doesn't matter what we want
Which? Or all?
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 08:18:53 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VxeNd.919$yr.343@okepread05...

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Scout wrote:
| > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
| > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > >>> Who is going to rule
| > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > >>
| > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > >
| > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll
| keep
| > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > >
| > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
| > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
| > > Constitutional."
| > >
| > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through
| a
| > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
| > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| >
| > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment didn't
| alter
| > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new Amendment
| to
| > mean whatever they want it to.
| >
| > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on Constitutional
| matters is
| > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is contrary
| to the
| > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how much they
| say
| > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
|
| These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian world.
| Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube. Without a
| federal government program, they'd probably never get potty trained.
| If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who disagreed
| in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend the
| State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.

Or do what as an alternative?

Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
A - Don't understand how government works

Well first you have to know how government is suppose to work. Then see how
it is working. Then you can figure out what it is doing wrong.
Only problem, you'd never get past the first step since it requires and
ability to read and interpret the language of the Constitution for yourself,
which is something you have asserted can't be done.

B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law

You seem to be doing a pretty good job as it is. Most of it simply involves
ignoring the restraints in the Constitution.

C- Can't vote so it doesn't matter what we want

That day may yet come if Constitutional constraints continue to be ignored.
.

User: "Rump Ranger"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 06 Feb 2005 11:49:49 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Scout wrote:
| > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in

message

| > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > >
| > >
| > >>> Who is going to rule
| > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > >>
| > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > >
| > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll
| keep
| > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > >
| > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think

it's

| > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
| > > Constitutional."
| > >
| > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push

through

| a
| > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your

gun

| > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| >
| > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment

didn't

| alter
| > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new

Amendment

| to
| > mean whatever they want it to.
| >
| > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on Constitutional
| matters is
| > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is

contrary

| to the
| > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how much

they

| say
| > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
|
| These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian

world.

| Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube.

Without a

| federal government program, they'd probably never get potty

trained.

| If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who

disagreed

| in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend the
| State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.

Or do what as an alternative?

Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
A - Don't understand how government works

It's not my problem you don't understand how the American government
works.

B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law

Why can't you figure this out?
Poor widdle "Ravage", having a hissy fit on Usenet because he's been
shown as the moron he is.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 06 Feb 2005 06:23:56 PM
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107712189.198897.55450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Scout wrote:
| > | > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
| message
| > | > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > | > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > | > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > | > >>> Who is going to rule
| > | > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > | > >>
| > | > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > | > >
| > | > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll
| > | keep
| > | > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > | > >
| > | > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
| it's
| > | > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
| > | > > Constitutional."
| > | > >
| > | > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > | > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
| through
| > | a
| > | > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your
| gun
| > | > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| > | >
| > | > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another Amendment
| didn't
| > | alter
| > | > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
| Amendment
| > | to
| > | > mean whatever they want it to.
| > | >
| > | > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on Constitutional
| > | matters is
| > | > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is
| contrary
| > | to the
| > | > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how much
| they
| > | say
| > | > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
| > |
| > | These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian
| world.
| > | Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| > | breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube.
| Without a
| > | federal government program, they'd probably never get potty
| trained.
| > | If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who
| disagreed
| > | in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend the
| > | State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
| >
| > Or do what as an alternative?
| >
| > Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
| > A - Don't understand how government works
|
| It's not my problem you don't understand how the American government
| works.
|
| > B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law
|
| Why can't you figure this out?
|
| Poor widdle "Ravage", having a hissy fit on Usenet because he's been
| shown as the moron he is.
OK, Rump - you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong.
The Constitution of the United States of America grants you, as one of its
Citizens, the Right to use and sell "illegal" recreational drugs however you
see fit.
I suggest you immediately start setting up a recreational drug shop -
preferrably in front of your local police station - so the word can spread
as quickly as possible to all the Citizenry.
Best of Luck.
.
User: "Rump Ranger"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 07 Feb 2005 01:09:42 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107712189.198897.55450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Scout wrote:
| > | > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
| message
| > | > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > | > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > | > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > | > >>> Who is going to rule
| > | > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > | > >>
| > | > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > | > >
| > | > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works.

I'll

| > | keep
| > | > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > | > >
| > | > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
| it's
| > | > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope,

it's

| > | > > Constitutional."
| > | > >
| > | > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > | > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
| through
| > | a
| > | > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now

your

| gun
| > | > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| > | >
| > | > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another

Amendment

| didn't
| > | alter
| > | > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
| Amendment
| > | to
| > | > mean whatever they want it to.
| > | >
| > | > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on

Constitutional

| > | matters is
| > | > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is
| contrary
| > | to the
| > | > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how

much

| they
| > | say
| > | > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
| > |
| > | These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian
| world.
| > | Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| > | breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube.
| Without a
| > | federal government program, they'd probably never get potty
| trained.
| > | If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who
| disagreed
| > | in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend

the

| > | State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
| >
| > Or do what as an alternative?
| >
| > Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
| > A - Don't understand how government works
|
| It's not my problem you don't understand how the American

government

| works.
|
| > B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law
|
| Why can't you figure this out?
|
| Poor widdle "Ravage", having a hissy fit on Usenet because he's

been

| shown as the moron he is.

OK, Rump - you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong.

Glad we agree. So what the ***** were you arguing about?
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 07 Feb 2005 03:15:54 AM
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107760182.132910.285350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107712189.198897.55450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Scout wrote:
| > | > | > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in
| > | message
| > | > | > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > | > | > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > | > | > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > >>> Who is going to rule
| > | > | > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > | > | > >>
| > | > | > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works.
| I'll
| > | > | keep
| > | > | > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think
| > | it's
| > | > | > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope,
| it's
| > | > | > > Constitutional."
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > | > | > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push
| > | through
| > | > | a
| > | > | > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now
| your
| > | gun
| > | > | > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another
| Amendment
| > | didn't
| > | > | alter
| > | > | > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the new
| > | Amendment
| > | > | to
| > | > | > mean whatever they want it to.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on
| Constitutional
| > | > | matters is
| > | > | > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that is
| > | contrary
| > | > | to the
| > | > | > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how
| much
| > | they
| > | > | say
| > | > | > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
| > | > |
| > | > | These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an Orwellian
| > | world.
| > | > | Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside of
| > | > | breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube.
| > | Without a
| > | > | federal government program, they'd probably never get potty
| > | trained.
| > | > | If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who
| > | disagreed
| > | > | in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and defend
| the
| > | > | State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
| > | >
| > | > Or do what as an alternative?
| > | >
| > | > Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
| > | > A - Don't understand how government works
| > |
| > | It's not my problem you don't understand how the American
| government
| > | works.
| > |
| > | > B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law
| > |
| > | Why can't you figure this out?
| > |
| > | Poor widdle "Ravage", having a hissy fit on Usenet because he's
| been
| > | shown as the moron he is.
| >
| > OK, Rump - you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong.
| >
|
| Glad we agree. So what the ***** were you arguing about?
Let me know when you're done following up on the snipped part.
Can't wait.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 07 Feb 2005 12:07:35 PM
Ravage wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107760182.132910.285350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107712189.198897.55450@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1107650911.193198.111360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Scout wrote:
| > | > | > "You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote

in

| > | message
| > | > | > news:oko901dvne9nmg1npqeadmcqo035kic9a1@4ax.com...
| > | > | > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
| > | > | > > <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > >>> Who is going to rule
| > | > | > >>> that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?
| > | > | > >>
| > | > | > >>The people. The rest of the federal government.
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this

works.

| I'll
| > | > | keep
| > | > | > > it simple, in case Cole is reading too.
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You

think

| > | it's
| > | > | > > unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says,

"Nope,

| it's
| > | > | > > Constitutional."
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
| > | > | > > unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you

push

| > | through
| > | > | a
| > | > | > > CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch.

Now

| your
| > | gun
| > | > | > > control law IS unconstitutional.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Wrong it was always Unconstitutional. Adding another
| Amendment
| > | didn't
| > | > | alter
| > | > | > that, particularly if the SC decides to "interpret" the

new

| > | Amendment
| > | > | to
| > | > | > mean whatever they want it to.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Your blind faith that the SC is always right on
| Constitutional
| > | > | matters is
| > | > | > the problem. When they produce an "interpretation" that

is

| > | contrary
| > | > | to the
| > | > | > clear language of the Constitution, then I don't care how
| much
| > | they
| > | > | say
| > | > | > "white" it's not going to turn black into white.
| > | > |
| > | > | These knuckle draggers are the perfect citizens in an

Orwellian

| > | world.
| > | > | Easily tamed and never using their brains for much outside

of

| > | > | breathing, eating, and watching Bushitler on the boob tube.
| > | Without a
| > | > | federal government program, they'd probably never get potty
| > | trained.
| > | > | If the government tomorrow declared 67+33=4 and put all who
| > | disagreed
| > | > | in prison for it, they'll parrot that just as well and

defend

| the
| > | > | State's right to destroy people's lives for no good reason.
| > | >
| > | > Or do what as an alternative?
| > | >
| > | > Cry and stomp our feet on Usenet because we:
| > | > A - Don't understand how government works
| > |
| > | It's not my problem you don't understand how the American
| government
| > | works.
| > |
| > | > B- Can't figure out how to get what we want passed into law
| > |
| > | Why can't you figure this out?
| > |
| > | Poor widdle "Ravage", having a hissy fit on Usenet because he's
| been
| > | shown as the moron he is.
| >
| > OK, Rump - you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong.
| >
|
| Glad we agree. So what the ***** were you arguing about?

Let me know when you're done following up on the snipped part.

Why bother? Everything else you said was *pointless* after that
statement.
.







User: "Bama Brian"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 11:05:05 AM
You Know Who wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:



Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.



Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
control law IS unconstitutional.

See how that works now?

An alternative method is to pack the SC with judges you like. Either
one will work, but Method #1 is preferred.

Here's another way: "John Marshall continued in office long enough to
serve as Chief Justice during President Andrew Jackson's term of office.
His court found the policy of Indian Removal to be unconstitutional, but
Jackson purportedly replied: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now
let him enforce it." It is worth noting that the Supreme Court, unlike
the Legislative or the Executive branches, has no budgetary or military
power at its disposal. It relies solely upon respect of the constitution
for adherence to its judgments."
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
User: "Cole Firearms Inc."

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 06:58:20 PM
Bama Brian wrote:

You Know Who wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:



Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?



The people. The rest of the federal government.




Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
control law IS unconstitutional.

See how that works now?

All Gun control laws are unConstitutional, what part of "Shall Not Be
Infringed", do you not understand.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
User: "You Know Who "

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 07:01:55 PM
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:58:20 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Bama Brian wrote:

You Know Who wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:



Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?



The people. The rest of the federal government.




Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
control law IS unconstitutional.

See how that works now?


All Gun control laws are unConstitutional, what part of "Shall Not Be
Infringed", do you not understand.

Of course, that's *****. There are many good gun control laws out
there, like insane ex-con motherfuckers like Cole can't own a gun. I'm
liking that law.
.


User: "You Know Who "

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 11:23:03 AM
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:05:05 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote:

You Know Who wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:32:00 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:



Who is going to rule
that a USSC decision is unconstitutional?


The people. The rest of the federal government.



Scout, let me give you a brief synopsis of how this works. I'll keep
it simple, in case Cole is reading too.

Let's say you have a, oh, say, a gun control law. You think it's
unconstitutional. So the Court hears it and says, "Nope, it's
Constitutional."

Of course this enrages you because YOU just KNOW it's
unconstitutional. But the SC says you're wrong. So you push through a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT using the legislative branch. Now your gun
control law IS unconstitutional.

See how that works now?

An alternative method is to pack the SC with judges you like. Either
one will work, but Method #1 is preferred.


Here's another way: "John Marshall continued in office long enough to
serve as Chief Justice during President Andrew Jackson's term of office.
His court found the policy of Indian Removal to be unconstitutional, but
Jackson purportedly replied: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now
let him enforce it." It is worth noting that the Supreme Court, unlike
the Legislative or the Executive branches, has no budgetary or military
power at its disposal. It relies solely upon respect of the constitution
for adherence to its judgments."

For all Krulick's whining and lying about the Second Amendment, he's
up ***** creek when the Justice Department says, "***** Steve and his
interpretation. WE have decided individuals have RKBA and since WE'RE
the ones who enforce the law... all his leftist twisting and turning
don't mean a damn thing."
Of course, when this goes our way, it's good. When it doesn't, it's
bad. :>
.


User: "Cole Firearms Inc."

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 04 Feb 2005 08:21:46 PM
Inspector Crosetti wrote:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


Inspector Crosetti wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



Inspector Crosetti wrote:


On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
wrote:




On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:




Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your escapist
behaior?


Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through your heads?
You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or plants
are legal for human use.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV



The highest court in the USA says we do.


Constitution says you don't.


The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
You're SOL...


Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It just
takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.




The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
you're a bit mixed up.

The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision, every
judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the Constitution.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 02:41:25 AM
"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42042DC6.4040705@sbcglobal.net...
| Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>
| >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| >>><colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| >>>>>wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| >>>>>>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads?
You have
| >>>>>>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
| >>>>>>>behaior?
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through your
heads?
| >>>>>>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or
plants
| >>>>>>are legal for human use.
| >>>>>>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>The highest court in the USA says we do.
| >>>>
| >>>>Constitution says you don't.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>>The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
| >>>You're SOL...
| >>
| >>Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in opposition
| >>to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It just
| >>takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
| > The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
| > you're a bit mixed up.
|
| The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision, every
| judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
|
| There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
| decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the
Constitution.
Really?
Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 03:51:13 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0D%Md.858$yr.554@okepread05...

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42042DC6.4040705@sbcglobal.net...
| Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>
| >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| >>><colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| >>>>>wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| >>>>>>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your
heads?
You have
| >>>>>>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for
your
escapist
| >>>>>>>behaior?
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through
your
heads?
| >>>>>>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or
plants
| >>>>>>are legal for human use.
| >>>>>>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>The highest court in the USA says we do.
| >>>>
| >>>>Constitution says you don't.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>>The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
| >>>You're SOL...
| >>
| >>Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
| >>to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It just
| >>takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
| > The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
| > you're a bit mixed up.
|
| The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision, every
| judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
|
| There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
| decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the
Constitution.

Really?

Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.

Simple, it's written language and the ability of people to read that
language.
Of course that does sort of leave you out since you feel the need for
someone to read it to you.
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 04:12:29 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42042DC6.4040705@sbcglobal.net...
| Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>
| >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| >>><colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| >>>>>wrote:
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| >>>>>>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads?
You have
| >>>>>>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
| >>>>>>>behaior?
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through your
heads?
| >>>>>>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or
plants
| >>>>>>are legal for human use.
| >>>>>>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
| >>>>>
| >>>>>
| >>>>>The highest court in the USA says we do.
| >>>>
| >>>>Constitution says you don't.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>>The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
| >>>You're SOL...
| >>
| >>Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in opposition
| >>to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It just
| >>takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
| > The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
| > you're a bit mixed up.
|
| The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision, every
| judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
|
| There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
| decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the
Constitution.

Really?

Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.


It is clearly written. I can see when someone who can't read would have
problems understanding the most important document in American history
and law.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 04:41:36 AM
"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049C17.70809@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
|
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42042DC6.4040705@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > | > <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > | >>><colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| > | >>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| > | >>>>>wrote:
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control
laser
| > caused
| > | >>>>>>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your
heads?
| > You have
| > | >>>>>>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for
your
| > escapist
| > | >>>>>>>behaior?
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through
your
| > heads?
| > | >>>>>>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals
or
| > plants
| > | >>>>>>are legal for human use.
| > | >>>>>>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>The highest court in the USA says we do.
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>Constitution says you don't.
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
| > | >>>You're SOL...
| > | >>
| > | >>Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
| > | >>to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It just
| > | >>takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
| > | > you're a bit mixed up.
| > |
| > | The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision,
every
| > | judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
| > |
| > | There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
| > | decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the
| > Constitution.
| >
| > Really?
| >
| > Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.
| >
| >
|
|
| It is clearly written. I can see when someone who can't read would have
| problems understanding the most important document in American history
| and law.
If its so clear, why do we need Courts to interpret it?
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 04:58:40 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Hn1Nd.868$yr.762@okepread05...

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049C17.70809@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
|
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42042DC6.4040705@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > | > <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
| > | >>><colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| > | >>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>>Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney
<n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| > | >>>>>wrote:
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control
laser
| > caused
| > | >>>>>>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your
heads?
| > You have
| > | >>>>>>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people
for
your
| > escapist
| > | >>>>>>>behaior?
| > | >>>>>>
| > | >>>>>>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this
through
your
| > heads?
| > | >>>>>>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals
or
| > plants
| > | >>>>>>are legal for human use.
| > | >>>>>>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA
LPWV
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>
| > | >>>>>The highest court in the USA says we do.
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>>Constitution says you don't.
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>
| > | >>>The court bases their decisions on their view of the
constitution.
| > | >>>You're SOL...
| > | >>
| > | >>Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
| > | >>to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win. It
just
| > | >>takes time to get judges who are willing to obey the Constitution.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > The Constitution is going to over rule the Supreme Court? I thnk
| > | > you're a bit mixed up.
| > |
| > | The Constitution overrules everything, every law, every decision,
every
| > | judge in the land who makes up the law as they go.
| > |
| > | There are many judges who openly disobey the Constitution. Their
| > | decisions will eventually be reversed, in accordance with the
| > Constitution.
| >
| > Really?
| >
| > Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.
| >
| >
|
|
| It is clearly written. I can see when someone who can't read would have
| problems understanding the most important document in American history
| and law.

If its so clear, why do we need Courts to interpret it?

We don't, or rather anyone able to read and understand simple English
doesn't. You may need someone to read it to you and explain the big words,
but you are the exception.
.

User: "You Know Who "

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 05 Feb 2005 09:12:52 AM
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 03:41:36 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049C17.70809@sbcglobal.net...
| > Tell us how the Constitution lets everyone know what "it" wants.
| >
| >
|
|
| It is clearly written. I can see when someone who can't read would have
| problems understanding the most important document in American history
| and law.

If its so c