Couldn't agree more with that!
Goshen, NY DWI And Weapon Arrest !
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
Couldn't agree more with that!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Incorrect.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You can't say what you just said and then agree that the courts are corrupt. It's one or the other.
How is this incorrect? Seriously. You as a private citizen cannot do what you like because you do not a law. We have a system in place, albeit, a broken one, but you do NOT have the power to decide what is and what is not Constitutional!
We do not have to like it, but that is how it is played out in America.
So again, what was not correct?
No, it is not. Both are true.
It is the system that we have. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
If you think that because you or I do not agree with a law,that will negate that law, you have much to study and learn
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's incorrect because you can't let's say force a soldier to be quartered in your home and it be constitutional until a court agrees to take your case. The act in itself is already unconstitutional. And then if the court is compromised of the Clintons if it refuses to take the case or skews it in a way to allow it, it still is unconstitutional no matter what they say. At that point the court is compromised, no longer valid, and the people need to take it back rather than just knowing it's corrupt and saying, " Duh...I guess it is constitutional."
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Last I checked, the highest authority is “the people” in the constitution. “The people” are the ultimate checkmate against government, and therefore the highest authority.
The reality is that enforcement, of a law which we disagree with generally as a people nationally, is why we have no choice but to comply with something against our wishes. It doesn’t invalidate the fact that the 2A infringements are a violation of our rights — just that they have force behind them to make us obey them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And @GOPerfect , you may not like what I'm going to say. But if we the people decided to take back that court, who is going to stop us and make sure it doesn't happen or put out the fire quickly?
You guessed it. Law enforcement. They aren't going to just stand there, move aside and let the people do what needs to be done. They will engage the people and protect the corrupt because they don't want to lose their paycheck and pensions.
I'm sure you can see the truth in this and not resort to calling me a cop hater for speaking that truth because as I've said before, the train stops dead in its tracks if law enforcement was on the side of the people, refused to enforce those laws, and let the people do what needs to be done.
You guessed it. Law enforcement. They aren't going to just stand there, move aside and let the people do what needs to be done. They will engage the people and protect the corrupt because they don't want to lose their paycheck and pensions.
I'm sure you can see the truth in this and not resort to calling me a cop hater for speaking that truth because as I've said before, the train stops dead in its tracks if law enforcement was on the side of the people, refused to enforce those laws, and let the people do what needs to be done.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's what needs to happen but instead we have people here saying that we need to follow the law even if we don't like it and law enforcement saying the same.
Do you guys see how broken the system is and who allows it to remain broken?
Do you guys see how broken the system is and who allows it to remain broken?
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I will say much:
The line to be drawn by law enforcement as to which laws are legitimate and which are a violation of constitutional rights — by even the highest courts — is walking a line a civil disobedience for LEO. Because for them to do so DOES go against the highest of courts. However, the question becomes, do they have a duty to do so if they honestly believe a law to be a violation?
The line to be drawn by law enforcement as to which laws are legitimate and which are a violation of constitutional rights — by even the highest courts — is walking a line a civil disobedience for LEO. Because for them to do so DOES go against the highest of courts. However, the question becomes, do they have a duty to do so if they honestly believe a law to be a violation?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. That is what the oath of for. To support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I’m not in disagreement about peaceful, civil disobedience.
While I can appreciate the idea behind Jury Nullification, it does not change the FACT that the Court or Congress are the only ways to fully get rid of laws deemed un-Constitutional.
Every time a perp gets popped for a gun law, even while committing another crime, you are willing to definitively state that the cop is an “oathbreaker” without knowing anything beyond what the media tells you or from a short press release.
So yes sir, you are a cop hater.
So yes sir, you are a cop hater.
And again, there’s no such thing as jury nullification. If a judge finds out jurors are intentionally disregarding the applicable laws as written, he’ll declare a mistrial and schedule a retrial with a new jury charged to follow the law.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So your are saying that the people have no right to?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Nope. Sorry. You can't admit that what I'm saying is incorrect so that's your go to. Nevermind if he's a perp or not. That isn't the issue. You know what the issue is.
Um. I can absolutely admit that what you say is incorrect.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I believe he’s arguing LEO violate the oath when they uphold a law they firmly believe is wrong to enforce.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Which part? Oh. Let me guess. You don't have the time to or won't go down to my level. I'm guessing that'll be your no pun intended "cop out" to not have to answer the question.
In a direct manner, no! The people have the ability to elect those people that see things in a like way. Kind of like the last Presidential election. We had a choice of two and many of us chose Mr. Trump for his Judge picks. In that way, yes we have a say. A shit ton of people can petition the Courts to see things change the way we want them to be, but ultimately, the Judges have the final say.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Correct. He knows what's wrong to enforce but he thinks it's okay if the person committed another crime.
No one is breaking an oath when they are taking legitimately bad dudes off of the street. Can’t be any clearer.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So you are saying that the people have no right to take back their country by force? It's that what you are saying? If so, what the fuck is the 2A for? To form a militia and protect those that have corrupted our country? Holy shit man!
Sure they can, is it going to happen? Nope. Dude, I am a realist and I have a good understanding of how the courts work.
One mans anti is another mans For.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So as long as you take a bad dude off the street and let's say give him cruel and unusual punishment and no trial that's okay? It like I said before, is it only okay if it's a 2A violation?
Let me guess. You will now say that the bird flies in Mars or some other nonsense and say that it's a ridiculous analogy.
It isn't.
@Willjr75 serious question, not meaning to insult at all. Do you understand how the courts work in regards to Constitutional questions?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And why isn't it going to happen?
If it does happen, who will stop them?
These are simple questions.