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 9 of 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?	05 Feb 2005 03:52:43 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:DA%Md.857$yr.797@okepread05...

10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution come
out on your side of this decision?

Does being paid suddenly make their ability to read better?
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 04:11:00 AM

Ravage wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| 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.

Where?

And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution come
out on your side of this decision?

Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution was
written to ban alcohol.
If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no Amendment to
the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
--
""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 04:43:42 AM

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | 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.
| >
| > Where?
| >
| > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution
come
| > out on your side of this decision?
| >
| >
|
|
| Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution was
| written to ban alcohol.
|
| If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no Amendment to
| the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is murder
legal?
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 05:06:23 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Fp1Nd.869$yr.263@okepread05...

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | 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.
| >
| > Where?
| >
| > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution
come
| > out on your side of this decision?
| >
| >
|
|
| Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution was
| written to ban alcohol.
|
| If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no Amendment to
| the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.

There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is murder
legal?

Well, except in DC, on federal property or against federal agents in the
performance of their duties. Yep, the federal government has no power to
make murder illegal. That's a power reserved to the states, or the people.
(9th Amendment).
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular
states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of
the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased
by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be,
for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 07:01:07 AM

There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is

murder
legal?
Are you the one always claiming he is a genius or am I getting my
police-prison-guard-type-morons mixed up again?
.

User: "Rump Ranger"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 05:38:14 AM

Ravage wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

message

<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.
| >
| > Where?
| >
| > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the

Constitution

was

| written to ban alcohol.
|
| If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no

Amendment to

| the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.

There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is

murder

legal?

But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I decide to
smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 11:52:29 AM

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > Where?
| > | >
| > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| Constitution
| > come
| > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution
| was
| > | written to ban alcohol.
| > |
| > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| Amendment to
| > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| >
| > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is
| murder
| > legal?
|
| But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I decide to
| smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about life,
liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
What it does say is (under the tenth amendment):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
That means that if the Constitution does not give a power specifically to
the Federal Government, nor prohibit the States from having a power, then
the power, by default, rests with the States or to the people. In simple
terms - if you and the people in your state want to make more recreational
drugs legal, then you just pass a law saying that they are - that law must
override the existing law in your state that made those drugs illegal.
Before the law making the drugs illegal came to being, those recreational
drugs were legal by default.
I don't want to seem insulting, but honestly - I don't see why you guys who
are into recreational drugs don't get this?
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 05:08:57 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EH7Nd.878$yr.270@okepread05...

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > Where?
| > | >
| > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| Constitution
| > come
| > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution
| was
| > | written to ban alcohol.
| > |
| > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| Amendment to
| > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| >
| > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is
| murder
| > legal?
|
| But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I decide to
| smoke weed, who else am I hurting?

The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about life,
liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?

What it does say is (under the tenth amendment):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or
to the people.

That means that if the Constitution does not give a power specifically to
the Federal Government, nor prohibit the States from having a power, then
the power, by default, rests with the States or to the people.

Yep, and as such ALL federal drug control laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Now, care to show me the state statutes making these drugs illegal and the
Constitutional provision within the state constitution that allows such
regulation?
.

User: "Rump Ranger"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 12:16:26 PM

Ravage wrote:

message

| > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > Where?
| > | >
| > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| Constitution
| > come
| > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the

Constitution

| was
| > | written to ban alcohol.
| > |
| > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be

| > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| Amendment to
| > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| >
| > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either.

decide to

| smoke weed, who else am I hurting?

The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about

life,

liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?

The Declaration of Independance says that and the Preamble talks about
Liberty, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility:
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[quote]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
[end quote]
If murder doesn't violate that, then nothing does.
How can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 12:41:44 PM

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107627386.753827.250890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > | message
| > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Where?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| > | Constitution
| > | > come
| > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
| Constitution
| > | was
| > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > |
| > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be
| a
| > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| > | Amendment to
| > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| > | >
| > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either.
| Is
| > | murder
| > | > legal?
| > |
| > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| > | right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I
| decide to
| > | smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
| >
| > The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about
| life,
| > liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
| >
|
| The Declaration of Independance says that and the Preamble talks about
| Liberty, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility:
---snip---
Great!
Now we're making progress!
So now you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the
United States guaranteeing anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Is that a fair statement?
|
| If murder doesn't violate that, then nothing does.
|
| How can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
Don't let your criminal past control you, Rump Ranger. You're free now - so
try to act and think like a free man. Let's stay on topic, and work through
this argument civilly.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 05:09:37 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Pp8Nd.895$yr.500@okepread05...

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107627386.753827.250890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > | message
| > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Where?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| > | Constitution
| > | > come
| > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
| Constitution
| > | was
| > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > |
| > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be
| a
| > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| > | Amendment to
| > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| > | >
| > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either.
| Is
| > | murder
| > | > legal?
| > |
| > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| > | right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I
| decide to
| > | smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
| >
| > The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about
| life,
| > liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
| >
|
| The Declaration of Independance says that and the Preamble talks about
| Liberty, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility:

---snip---
Great!
Now we're making progress!
So now you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the
United States guaranteeing anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Is that a fair statement?

No. 9th Amendment.
.

User: "Rump Ranger"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 06:40:15 PM

Ravage wrote:

| > | message
| > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Where?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| > | Constitution
| > | > come
| > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
| Constitution
| > | was
| > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > |
| > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would

| a
| > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| > | Amendment to
| > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically

legal.

| > | >
| > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder,

either.

| Is
| > | murder
| > | > legal?
| > |
| > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another

person's

about

| Liberty, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility:

---snip---

[unsnip]
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
[end quote]
You're not fooling anyone, kid.

Great!
Now we're making progress!
So now you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of

the

United States guaranteeing anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Is that a fair statement?

If you didn't understand what the Preamble of the US Constitution says
and what those words mean, just say so. The Preamble does talk about
Liberty. IOW, you're a lying sack of ***** without the sack.

|
| If murder doesn't violate that, then nothing does.
|
| How can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?

Don't let your criminal past control you, Rump Ranger. You're free

now - so

try to act and think like a free man. Let's stay on topic, and work

through

this argument civilly.

Ah. Irony, thy name is Usenet. Talking about "civility" while
accusing a total stranger on Usenet of having a "criminal past." Are
you projecting?
Seriously, how can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
I notice that everytime somebody asks you a question you never answer
and instead bring up an irrelevant issue. Why do you dodge so much?
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 07:51:14 PM

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107650414.967043.167510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107627386.753827.250890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > | message
| > | > | > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote
| in
| > | > | message
| > | > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Where?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| > | > | Constitution
| > | > | > come
| > | > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
| > | Constitution
| > | > | was
| > | > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would
| be
| > | a
| > | > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| > | > | Amendment to
| > | > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically
| legal.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder,
| either.
| > | Is
| > | > | murder
| > | > | > legal?
| > | > |
| > | > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another
| person's
| > | > | right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I
| > | decide to
| > | > | smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
| > | >
| > | > The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about
| > | life,
| > | > liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
| > | >
| > |
| > | The Declaration of Independance says that and the Preamble talks
| about
| > | Liberty, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility:
| >
| > ---snip---
|
| [unsnip]
|
|
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
|
| We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
| Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
| common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
| of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
| Constitution for the United States of America.
|
| [end quote]
|
| You're not fooling anyone, kid.
Don't need to. The reference you were making is to the Declaration of
Independance, not the Constitution of the United States.
Here's what The Declaration of Independance says:
"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."
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Now you may continue to pretend you know what you are talking about, or you
can simply concede that the Constitution does not give you the "Right" to
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
|
| > Great!
| > Now we're making progress!
| > So now you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of
| the
| > United States guaranteeing anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit of
| > happiness.
| > Is that a fair statement?
| >
|
| If you didn't understand what the Preamble of the US Constitution says
| and what those words mean, just say so. The Preamble does talk about
| Liberty. IOW, you're a lying sack of ***** without the sack.
OK. Provide me a definition of the word liberty that in any way says a man
is free to use recreational drugs.
|
| > |
| > | If murder doesn't violate that, then nothing does.
| > |
| > | How can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
| >
| > Don't let your criminal past control you, Rump Ranger. You're free
| now - so
| > try to act and think like a free man. Let's stay on topic, and work
| through
| > this argument civilly.
|
| Ah. Irony, thy name is Usenet. Talking about "civility" while
| accusing a total stranger on Usenet of having a "criminal past." Are
| you projecting?
No. Are you now saying you do not have a criminal history?
|
| Seriously, how can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
|
| I notice that everytime somebody asks you a question you never answer
| and instead bring up an irrelevant issue. Why do you dodge so much?
Keeping you on topic - while ignoring your childish taunts isn't dodging,
RR. I'm trying to get you to step through the logic of the argument - as
well as educate you a bit as to how our Government works.
|
.

User: "Rump Ranger"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	06 Feb 2005 11:54:24 AM

Ravage wrote:

| > | message
| > | > | > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net>

wrote

| in
| > | > | message
| > | > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Where?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret

the

| > | > | Constitution
| > | > | > come
| > | > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
| > | Constitution
| > | > | was
| > | > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it

would

| be
| > | a
| > | > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is

| > | > | Amendment to
| > | > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically
| legal.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder,
| either.
| > | Is
| > | > | murder
| > | > | > legal?
| > | > |
| > | > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another
| person's
| > | > | right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If

| > | decide to
| > | > | smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
| > | >
| > | > The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything

about

| > | life,
| > | > liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
| > | >
| > |
| > | The Declaration of Independance says that and the Preamble

talks

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

|
| We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
| Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for

the

| common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the

Blessings

| of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish

this

| Constitution for the United States of America.
|
| [end quote]
|
| You're not fooling anyone, kid.

Don't need to. The reference you were making is to the Declaration

Independance, not the Constitution of the United States.

Which is what the US constitution was *based* on. How can you be *so*
fucking stupid?

Here's what The Declaration of Independance says:
"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."

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Now you may continue to pretend you know what you are talking about,

or you

can simply concede that the Constitution does not give you the

"Right" to

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It does talk about Liberty, liar.

|
| > Great!
| > Now we're making progress!
| > So now you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution

| the
| > United States guaranteeing anyone life, liberty, and the pursuit

says

| and what those words mean, just say so. The Preamble does talk

about

| Liberty. IOW, you're a lying sack of ***** without the sack.

OK. Provide me a definition of the word liberty that in any way says

a man

is free to use recreational drugs.

Nice dodge. You're still a lying sack of ***** without the sack.

|
| > |
| > | If murder doesn't violate that, then nothing does.
| > |
| > | How can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
| >
| > Don't let your criminal past control you, Rump Ranger. You're

free

| now - so
| > try to act and think like a free man. Let's stay on topic, and

work

Are

| you projecting?

No. Are you now saying you do not have a criminal history?

Can you prove I do? Stating I do without you knowing me personally can
only be chalked up to *projection* on your part.

|
| Seriously, how can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
|
| I notice that everytime somebody asks you a question you never

answer

| and instead bring up an irrelevant issue. Why do you dodge so

much?

Keeping you on topic - while ignoring your childish taunts isn't

dodging,

RR. I'm trying to get you to step through the logic of the argument

- as

well as educate you a bit as to how our Government works.

I'll ask again:
Seriously, how can you be so fucking stupid and remember to breath?
I notice that everytime somebody asks you a question you never answer
and instead bring up an irrelevant issue. Why do you dodge so much?
P.S. Learn how to configure your newsreader, dipshit. Your quoting
system is messy and marks you as a clueless newb.
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 07:05:49 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| message
| > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > Where?
| > | >
| > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| Constitution
| > come
| > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution
| was
| > | written to ban alcohol.
| > |
| > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| Amendment to
| > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| >
| > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is
| murder
| > legal?
|
| But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I decide to
| smoke weed, who else am I hurting?

The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about life,
liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?

What it does say is (under the tenth amendment):
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.

Exactly, if it not prohibited by the Constitution, the people have the
ability to do it.

That means that if the Constitution does not give a power specifically to
the Federal Government, nor prohibit the States from having a power, then
the power, by default, rests with the States or to the people. In simple
terms - if you and the people in your state want to make more recreational
drugs legal, then you just pass a law saying that they are - that law must
override the existing law in your state that made those drugs illegal.
Before the law making the drugs illegal came to being, those recreational
drugs were legal by default.

I don't want to seem insulting, but honestly - I don't see why you guys who
are into recreational drugs don't get this?

This is not just about recreational drugs but also medical.
--
""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 07:59:58 PM

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42056D71.2080401@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
|
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107603494.145116.292050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > | message
| > | > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | > | 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.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Where?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the
| > | Constitution
| > | > come
| > | > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the
Constitution
| > | was
| > | > | written to ban alcohol.
| > | > |
| > | > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| > | > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no
| > | Amendment to
| > | > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| > | >
| > | > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is
| > | murder
| > | > legal?
| > |
| > | But it does violate the principle of infringing on another person's
| > | right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness." If I decide
to
| > | smoke weed, who else am I hurting?
| >
| > The Constitution of the United States doesn't say anything about life,
| > liberty, or the persuit (sic) of happiness, does it?
| >
| > What it does say is (under the tenth amendment):
| > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
| > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or
| > to the people.
|
| Exactly, if it not prohibited by the Constitution, the people have the
| ability to do it.
That is ABSOLUTELY the truth Cole! I feel like we're really making progess
now.
The people (let's use your state, wherever that may be) absolutely had the
RIGHT to use whatever recreational drugs they so desired until at some point
in the history of your state, the lawmakers chose to make the use of certain
drugs illegal.
If you love to do drugs, then this is the bad news.
But it isn't the end of the story.
Just like your lawmakers made those drugs illegal in the past, the lawmakers
of today can reverse that law and make drugs legal. All you have to do is
convince the lawmakers to do it - or sponsor an initiative to put your
referrendum on the ballot calling for the legalization of all recreational
drugs. If enough people agree with you and vote then *poof* - what once was
illegal is now perfectly legal.
|
|
| > That means that if the Constitution does not give a power specifically
to
| > the Federal Government, nor prohibit the States from having a power,
then
| > the power, by default, rests with the States or to the people. In
simple
| > terms - if you and the people in your state want to make more
recreational
| > drugs legal, then you just pass a law saying that they are - that law
must
| > override the existing law in your state that made those drugs illegal.
| > Before the law making the drugs illegal came to being, those
recreational
| > drugs were legal by default.
| >
| > I don't want to seem insulting, but honestly - I don't see why you guys
who
| > are into recreational drugs don't get this?
|
| This is not just about recreational drugs but also medical.
In many respects, this is true as well. But we should start another thread
to delve into this topic.
I'm absolutely serious about this, Cole. You're on the right track - and
now you're asking the right questions.
This issue has nothing to do with whether or not you and I personally agree
or disagree about the hazards of recreational drug use. This is a question
of Constitutionality, the powers of the three Branches of Government, as
well as the Power of the People to govern themselves.
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 05:42:09 AM

Ravage wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | 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.
| >
| > Where?
| >
| > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution
come
| > out on your side of this decision?
| >
| >
|
|
| Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution was
| written to ban alcohol.
|
| If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no Amendment to
| the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.

There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is murder
legal?

You seem to have not read the main document where it says, among other
things, that we have a Right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
--
""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 11:55:22 AM

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4204B114.5020409@sbcglobal.net...
| Ravage wrote:
|
| > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:42049BBE.9030807@sbcglobal.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > Where?
| > | >
| > | > And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution
| > come
| > | > out on your side of this decision?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | Perhaps you remember long ago when an Amendment to the Constitution
was
| > | written to ban alcohol.
| > |
| > | If the American government want's to ban any drug, it would be a
| > | requirement to say that in an Amendment. Since there is no Amendment
to
| > | the Constitution banning drugs, they are automatically legal.
| >
| > There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is
murder
| > legal?
| >
| >
|
|
| You seem to have not read the main document where it says, among other
| things, that we have a Right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Please show me in the Constitution where it says you have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Cole.
.

User: "You Know Who "
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 12:04:32 PM

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:55:22 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4204B114.5020409@sbcglobal.net...

| You seem to have not read the main document where it says, among other
| things, that we have a Right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Please show me in the Constitution where it says you have the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Cole.

Oooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
.

User: "Inspector Crosetti"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 05:19:49 PM

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...
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 06:03:36 PM

"Inspector Crosetti" <InspCrosetti@msn.com> wrote in message
news:420402ec.4774062@news-server.socal.rr.com...

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.

If that were true then the court couldn't say you could do this.
However, we know the courts can be wrong. Hell, even you have admitted as
much.
So explain why we should blindly accept such an assertion that is contrary
to the Constitution?
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 07:51:05 PM

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?

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.
--
""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: "Topaz"
Title: Re: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 06:54:28 PM

The police gets training lessons from the Jewish ADL.
"Welcome to American