Authority of LEO - Page 6

Authority of LEO

This is a discussion on Authority of LEO within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It is so quick and easy to label people or organizations as subversive, socialist, and call names. The problem of course is that this sort ...

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 92

Thread: Authority of LEO

  1. #76
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,727
    It is so quick and easy to label people or organizations as subversive, socialist, and call names. The problem of course is that this sort of talk is extreme hyperbole.

    There are folks who with equal conviction call The Chamber of Commerce subversive, and with some good reason, at times.

    We need to drop the name calling and figure out what promotes the future of our society. In my book, anything or anyone (Who) which tends to hold authority to the letter and intent of The Bill of Rights is good for America and the exact opposite of subversive.

    That goes for a guy like Heller, it goes for the ACLU, it goes for some of the actions of Judicial Watch, and many other organizations. When each operates freely, we all benefit.

    And when the ideas differ, the open competition and debate is good for all of us.


  2. #77
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is so quick and easy to label people or organizations as subversive, socialist, and call names. The problem of course is that this sort of talk is extreme hyperbole....And when the ideas differ, the open competition and debate is good for all of us.
    I must agree with your points and what others have said.

    However it is easy for the ACLU to be strong on the 1st for example. What bothers me, and what I consider Unamerican, concerning issues they try to pretend they support. Call it false advertising.

    I don't respect org. that are not honest about their views.

    But I do respect how jumping to names does not do justice to the conversation.

  3. #78
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,982
    And when the ideas differ, the open competition and debate is good for all of us.
    Of course. That is what makes the world go around
    and around
    and around
    and around
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #79
    Member Array Texian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    68
    I've pretty much said what I wanted to on this thread and appreciate hearing from other members but it seems like we have major thread drift here. Doesn't this belong more in off-topic.
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesterton

  5. #80
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Here's a great segue to back on topic.

    To the extent that any organization, group, or person (LE, ACLU, SCOTUS, private citizens) upholds or fights for liberty and personal property and personal responsibility, they are right. To the extent that they infringe upon or fight against these things, they are wrong and should be opposed.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  6. #81
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by agentmel View Post
    Here's a great segue to back on topic.

    To the extent that any organization, group, or person (LE, ACLU, SCOTUS, private citizens) upholds or fights for liberty and personal property and personal responsibility, they are right. To the extent that they infringe upon or fight against these things, they are wrong and should be opposed.

    Mel
    That's something I can get behind!
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  7. #82
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Do you think Libertarian Presidential candidate, former U.S. Congressman, former Federal Prosecutor, and pro 2A legislator, Bob Barr of Georgia would have worked for them if your characterization were correct?

    Of course not.

    Since libertarianism and socialism are opposite ends of the political spectrum, the validity of your assertion about the character of the ACLU seems quite unlikely. In fact, it is plain out misguided.
    HotGuns did a masterful job exposing the ACLU as an anti-American immoral socialist organization so I won't provide even more examples. Defense of NAMBLA should say it all...

    I will address the reason that people like Barr are associated with the liberal organizaion.

    Liberalism and libertarianism are not at opposite ends of the political spectrum at all. They are kissin' cousins.

    Both espouse the ideals of having no boundaries on personal behavior. And both want the government to mandate their ideal and enforce it. They share the common thread of wanting the courts to legislate from the bench.

    Liberals and libertarians both support unfetterred immigration. Perhaps for different reasons (votes/economy) but the end result is identical. A nation filled with illegal aliens. Neither idealogy has any respect for borders, language and culture.

    Both libertarians and liberals want to suppress public expression of religion. And both support the murder of unborn babies.

    All in all, these are fringe people and both groups are trying to remake or nation against the will of the people.

  8. #83
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by agentmel View Post
    To the extent that any organization, group, or person (LE, ACLU, SCOTUS, private citizens) upholds or fights for liberty and personal property and personal responsibility, they are right. To the extent that they infringe upon or fight against these things, they are wrong and should be opposed.
    The ACLU fights so that NAMBLA can publish instructions to molest children and hide it from the police. Another poster thought this was defending free speech. It sounds more like conspiracy to commit a crime.

    Oops, libertarians don't have a problem with it as long as both parties consent.

  9. #84
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,168
    If you argue with a law enforcement officer about due cause for any reason you have just given him due cause that will stand up in any court in the land. I won't argue with a cop!

    • Smile at the nice policeman.
    • Hand him your Legal Service Card or your lawyer's Business card.
    • Shut up
    • Let him do whatever he going to do .
    • Let his superiors fight it out in court as to whether he had due cause or not to do whatever he did. That argument is the only one that is going to count in court.

    If he was right, then it wasn't worth arguing about. If he was wrong and did screw up real bad, my lawyer's kid is going to get a nice new car!
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  10. #85
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    SelfDefense, I am a libertarian ("small L" type), and I fear you've been misinformed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Liberalism and libertarianism are not at opposite ends of the political spectrum at all. They are kissin' cousins.
    In terms of SOCIAL freedoms, yes. In terms of ECONOMIC freedoms, they're at opposite ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Both espouse the ideals of having no boundaries on personal behavior. And both want the government to mandate their ideal and enforce it. They share the common thread of wanting the courts to legislate from the bench.
    I don't know where you get you get your information, but libertarians desire SELF-government. They mainly want the government, and its courts, to leave them alone. (NOT to mandate or enforce ANYONE's ideals, or to legislate from the bench.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Liberals and libertarians both support unfetterred immigration. Perhaps for different reasons (votes/economy) but the end result is identical. A nation filled with illegal aliens. Neither idealogy has any respect for borders, language and culture.
    Libertarians respect the INDIVIDUAL, and the rights of that individual. Libertarians respect PRIVATE PROPERTY, as a logical extension of the right to one's own life.
    Libertarians respect the right of the INDIVIDUAL to choose whatever language or culture he/she desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Both libertarians and liberals want to suppress public expression of religion. And both support the murder of unborn babies.
    Libertarians have no desire to suppress public EXPRESSION of religion, just public FUNDING or government ENDORSEMENT of it.
    The abortion issue continues to be hotly debated amongst libertarians.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    All in all, these are fringe people and both groups are trying to remake or nation against the will of the people.
    The same could be said of the GOP before Lincoln, or, for that matter, of the Founding Fathers.

  11. #86
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I was wondering whether anyone was going to respond to my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    SelfDefense, I am a libertarian ("small L" type), and I fear you've been misinformed.
    Quite the contrary. I work with a libertarian (I am unfamiliar with a distinction between a calital L and a lower case L unless you are disavowing the party platform. I can certainly see why!) And he is unable to support his anarchist views when put to rational scrutiny.

    In terms of SOCIAL freedoms, yes. In terms of ECONOMIC freedoms, they're at opposite ends.
    So you agree that libertarians have no bounds on personal behavior. As if there was no right or wrong. It is not called social freedom, it is called immoral, selfish behavior. And it seems to be the libertarian who wants to decide what is correct behavior. For example, libertarians promote the use of illegal drugs and underage drinking because they think they are not harming anyone else.

    I don't know where you get you get your information, but libertarians desire SELF-government. They mainly want the government, and its courts, to leave them alone. (NOT to mandate or enforce ANYONE's ideals, or to legislate from the bench.)
    The key word is mainly. Once the libetarian decides his self perceived rights are violated he will run from our representative republic directly to the courts. To the libertarian, society has no role in...um...society.

    Libertarians respect the INDIVIDUAL, and the rights of that individual. Libertarians respect PRIVATE PROPERTY, as a logical extension of the right to one's own life.
    Not too much argument here except that the libertarian does far more than respect the indiviual. They disdain society in the name of individualism. Most of the time not realizing that they can only espouse their views and live life with respect for the individual BECAUSE of society.

    Libertarians respect the right of the INDIVIDUAL to choose whatever language or culture he/she desires.
    Not in my country. Ths is America where we respect the culture, the language, and the borders. Without that we are not a country at all and we become far more like John Lennon's communistic view in his troublesome ballad, 'Imagine'. If someone chooses a different culture than they are welcome to join those in the country that shares that culture. Forcing Americans to waste money on election ballots in foreign languages because some citizens refuse to assimmilate is despicable. This is America and we speak English here.

    Libertarians have no desire to suppress public EXPRESSION of religion, just public FUNDING or government ENDORSEMENT of it.
    Only as long as the libertarian gets to define that endorsement supposedly means establishment, which it does not. I suppose you are against public funding for churches that help the most needy in society. Yes, relgion is most definitely part of our society.

    The abortion issue continues to be hotly debated amongst libertarians.
    You mean some libertarians understand the moral implications of killing humans?

    I just want to add that in keeping with the kissin' cousins analogy, libertarians and liberals also share the anti-war mindset that has no place in this very dangerous world. Libertarians love to trot out that line of entangling alliances, not realizing that to keep our nation safe we must make alliances and preemptively prevent attacks on our nation. For that reasom alone, Americans will never accept libertarians for our leaders.

  12. #87
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    SelfDefense:

    I have no desire to exchange potshots with you, or your political beliefs. Should you ever be open to it, I can EXPLAIN the libertarian philosophy...rationally....and address the issues you raised.

    Clearly, now is not the time.

    I leave you with one observation:

    There is a DIFFERENCE between GOVERNMENT and SOCIETY. The two are NOT interchangeable. Society may be (and usually is) a voluntary cooperative endeavor. Government is not voluntary, but forcible.

    Consider that as you re-read your last post.

  13. #88
    Senior Member Array BruceGibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Northwest Florida
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    We are talking about apples and oranges...

    A warrant is not needed for all types searches, such as a search incident to arrest; like we are talking about here. If the vehicle is not part of the initial contact or arrest, then yes, probable cause would be needed to secure a search warrant for said vehicle.
    Bingo. Search incident's a whole different ballgame. I thought we were talking about a typical traffic stop.

    In short, the roadside's no place to set precedent. Refuse the search request. If a search ensues, the Motion to Suppress is your recourse. Those are filed with the Court.*

    *Assuming the search turns up something you shouldn't oughta have had in your vehicle to begin with.

  14. #89
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    SelfDefense:

    I have no desire to exchange potshots with you, or your political beliefs. Should you ever be open to it, I can EXPLAIN the libertarian philosophy...rationally....and address the issues you raised.

    Clearly, now is not the time.

    I leave you with one observation:

    There is a DIFFERENCE between GOVERNMENT and SOCIETY. The two are NOT interchangeable. Society may be (and usually is) a voluntary cooperative endeavor. Government is not voluntary, but forcible.

    Consider that as you re-read your last post.
    It was not my intention to take potshots. (Except for the abortion issue.) I agree this is not the thread to take on a discussion but I would cetainly welcome a debate where we can exchange ideas on the issues. I am always open to a good, even contentious, discussion.

    When the time is right, we can certainly begin with the defintion of society: a community, nation, or broad groupng of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. Our nation is bound by the Constitution and the government it creates. Indeed, our society is defined by our government.

  15. #90
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Indeed, our society is defined by our government.
    By our government in THEORY? I wholeheartedly agree.

    By our government in PRACTICE? I wholeheartedly hope not.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Sports Authority(Huntsville) has ammo!
    By bigo5552000 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 14th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  2. Mayor nickels admitted he lacks ban authority
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2008, 03:57 PM
  3. port authority question
    By flip_floppin in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 28th, 2008, 07:42 PM
  4. Questions for LEO on police/civil authority
    By bigiceman in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 09:55 PM
  5. The Perverse Need For Authority?
    By Euclidean in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 21st, 2005, 01:40 PM

Search tags for this page

do i need to bar my windows for ffl

,

leo with most authority in texas

Click on a term to search for related topics.