The pandemic restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates imposed by state governments should be sufficient proof that Yaworski's statements are reality - not just someone's opinion.
A dangerous proposal in Congress
- Thread starter delcrossv
- Start date
- Status
The pandemic restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates imposed by state governments should be sufficient proof that Yaworski's statements are reality - not just someone's opinion.
As already posted, the courts slapped her down immediately. As they were specifically designed to do when keeping overreach in check.
What about yours?
I can't recall a discussion here of a gun control regulation, increase in federal power, or reduction of personal freedoms that you weren't OK with.
We have met the enemy, and He is US - or at least SOME of us...
Your position is duly noted. Again.
The very idea that armed citizens might rise in opposition to totalitarian government - no matter how corrupt or oppressive - is treason, according to totalitarians.
Got it.
If they represent the "government" we all need to bow to their authority. No matter how corrupt or oppressive.
Gotcha' man!
Anybody else remember who the "Tories" were?
Last edited:
Well, we've all got opinions.
To be clear, I've served my country against criminals of all kinds at city, county, and state levels, and helped develop more just police agencies in 7 countries. Nowhere is there a better, more just system than we Americans have; the rest of the world knows it, even if lots of folks domestically have a peculiar view about a system wherein every person, rich or poor, can successfully challenge real or even imaginary abuse of power. If a person is too lazy or paranoid to use the political or court systems in our country, they shouldn't wonder why they don't get everything the demand, which is far, far different than everything to which they are Constitutionally entitled.
If you don't train to use firearms in unlawful civil disorder, these laws are no threat to you nor to anyone else.
I'm reminded of paranoid ravings by some on the below law when being debated for passage nearly 30 years ago:
30-22-27. Disarming a peace officer.
A. Disarming a peace officer consists of knowingly:
(1) removing a firearm or weapon from the person of a
peace officer when the officer is acting within the scope
of his duties; or
(2) depriving a peace officer of the use of a firearm or
weapon when the officer is acting within the scope of his
duties.
B. The provisions of Subsection A of this act shall not apply when a peace officer is engaged in criminal conduct.
C. Whoever commits disarming a peace officer is guilty of a third degree felony.
To be clear, I've served my country against criminals of all kinds at city, county, and state levels, and helped develop more just police agencies in 7 countries. Nowhere is there a better, more just system than we Americans have; the rest of the world knows it, even if lots of folks domestically have a peculiar view about a system wherein every person, rich or poor, can successfully challenge real or even imaginary abuse of power. If a person is too lazy or paranoid to use the political or court systems in our country, they shouldn't wonder why they don't get everything the demand, which is far, far different than everything to which they are Constitutionally entitled.
If you don't train to use firearms in unlawful civil disorder, these laws are no threat to you nor to anyone else.
I'm reminded of paranoid ravings by some on the below law when being debated for passage nearly 30 years ago:
30-22-27. Disarming a peace officer.
A. Disarming a peace officer consists of knowingly:
(1) removing a firearm or weapon from the person of a
peace officer when the officer is acting within the scope
of his duties; or
(2) depriving a peace officer of the use of a firearm or
weapon when the officer is acting within the scope of his
duties.
B. The provisions of Subsection A of this act shall not apply when a peace officer is engaged in criminal conduct.
C. Whoever commits disarming a peace officer is guilty of a third degree felony.
Last edited:
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
I remember stories about a king who didn't like people practicing with guns. Now those very same people are considered heroes.
Childhood stories are surely the very best way to inform one's thought processes.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Yeah, great stories about traitors like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Stories about vandals who destroyed private property to protest government actions.
Oh, I know that you'll tell me that they were protesting a situation in which they had no representation. So? The Law, the law that you consider so precious, didn't allow for them to have representation.
Laws are decided by the elite whose primary desire is to maintain their position of power. Those elite then use their minions to enforce their will. As Penn Jillette said, they are willing to use deadly force to get you to pay for the new library.
The 'quote' function so you can accurately maintain a conversation in a thread. It's best used to quote folks.
Like I mentioned, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Like I mentioned, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
No opinions, just facts.
The rest of the story. We would be speaking German east of the Mississippi River and eating sauerkraut with bratwurst. The western side would be speaking Japanese and eating gas station sushi.
We saved England twice from becoming a German colony.
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
The Man in the High Castle?
If the American colonies had remained with the UK, it is equally likely that neither of the World Wars would have happened and that area west of the Mississippi would have been Spanish or French.
BTW, Japanese convenience store sushi is supposed to be quite good and fresh.
You will always find me on the side of law and order. Always.
Rick H.
Member
And what is a "criminals rights"? The answer is they have the same "rights" as anyone else. What they actually receive are several WARNINGS, not rights! Miranda is Not and has NEVER been a right! Why this ever became a commonly used term for Miranda I will never know because it is a warning to them, to keep their mouths shut and if they don't, anything they say can/will be used against them. Just another one of those terms that people continually misuse and no one ever corrects. You can spend years searching the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you will never see the term "Miranda" anywhere in them. And don't kid yourself for a second, the bad guys know Miranda better than most cops, prosecutors and lawyers and when to ask for a lawyer. In 30 years of doing cop work Miranda never bothered me at all. In most cases when an suspect invokes his Miranda Warnings I knew I had him by the short hairs and had the right person. It is all nothing more than a big game made more complex by.....(Surprise!) lawyers looking for a loophole for their client. Remember too that Miranda Warnings don't have to be given if a suspect isn't asked questions about his/her involvement in a specific event. It's all really quite simple.
As for obtaining a search warrant, this too is no big deal and in fact made my job easier. It was just another hurdle to get over and now search warrants in most jurisdictions can be obtained in minutes instead of hours or days. Once a warrant is in hand little can be done by a suspect to stave off the inevitable.
Rick H.
Last edited:
Right and right. If possible (circumstances dictate this) getting a warrant saves time in court later arguing about probable cause (after warrantless arrest or search/seizure).
Last edited:
Yaworski
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 1,209
I'd add on Miranda that it makes no sense to provide Miranda warnings to people that are drunk, high, or crazy. For them to waive 5th and 6th Amendment rights they have to do so knowingly and intelligently - that's not possible in those circumstances.
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
Exactly.
Unfortunately "law and order" isn't always the same as "right" or moral. Many folks have done terrible things throughout history in the name of 'law and order'.
When the difference is unclear, especially to those wearing badges, people suffer.
Sure, you can propose the most ridiculous anti-gun bills, knowing that it will get shot down now, but over time when it's proposed enough times the media will warm up to it and it will become a catch phrase with the masses. Then at some point in the near future it finally is accepted and becomes law. Remember the first time you heard the word "assault weapons' used by a politician.? Wake up.
- Status
Similar threads
