|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 2, 2007 21:49:28 GMT -5
They did nothing against the consititution, however we have a set of laws in addition to the constitution that have been found to not contradict the constitution, the tired "fire in a movie theater" and then the not so tired "IED are not considered 'arms." You know you talk about the forefathers, would Washington be ok with Bubba and Bubba Jr. having IEDs and grenade launchers? I doubt it. But that is just speculation, as we are all doing.
Please I reach out to all you fellow conservatives, get off this "they are gonna take out guns" kick. Stop it is not gonna to happen.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 21:57:24 GMT -5
They did nothing against the consititution, however we have a set of laws in addition to the constitution that have been found to not contradict the constitution, the tired "fire in a movie theater" and then the not so tired "IED are not considered 'arms." You know you talk about the forefathers, would Washington be ok with Bubba and Bubba Jr. having IEDs and grenade launchers? I doubt it. But that is just speculation, as we are all doing. Please I reach out to all you fellow conservatives, get off this "they are gonna take out guns" kick. Stop it is not gonna to happen. As you may know I'm a police officer. Over the yaers I have spoken with other officers and firearm trainers that know and believe that plans for gun confiscations are in the future. When I went through police acadamy I recieved no instructions on the 2nd amendment while spending numerous class hours on the 1st and 4th amendments. Dale you served in the military didn't you? You must be willing to fight for something. Would you be willing to fight if our government tried to disarm you? If not what is your line in the sand?
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 2, 2007 22:21:19 GMT -5
Hmmm, sounds like a government plot to take guns to me.
Legally obtained firearm, yes. IED, grenades, modified machine guns? No.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 2, 2007 22:26:05 GMT -5
They did nothing against the consititution, however we have a set of laws in addition to the constitution that have been found to not contradict the constitution, the tired "fire in a movie theater" and then the not so tired "IED are not considered 'arms." You know you talk about the forefathers, would Washington be ok with Bubba and Bubba Jr. having IEDs and grenade launchers? I doubt it. But that is just speculation, as we are all doing. Please I reach out to all you fellow conservatives, get off this "they are gonna take out guns" kick. Stop it is not gonna to happen. As you may know I'm a police officer. Over the yaers I have spoken with other officers and firearm trainers that know and believe that plans for gun confiscations are in the future. When I went through police acadamy I recieved no instructions on the 2nd amendment while spending numerous class hours on the 1st and 4th amendments. Dale you served in the military didn't you? You must be willing to fight for something. Would you be willing to fight if our government tried to disarm you? If not what is your line in the sand? Solomon, You...as a Christian, do you BELIEVE God wants/requires/expects for you/us other Christians....to 'literally' take up 'arms' and fight/shoot/kill.....to avoid having guns taken by Government force?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 22:29:08 GMT -5
Hmmm, sounds like a government plot to take guns to me. Legally obtained firearm, yes. IED, grenades, modified machine guns? No. Remember the door to door campaign in New Orleans? They were under the FEMA chain of command. A federal Judge ruled against the gun grab but many people tried to get their guns back but were unable because they were gone. I hope you are right about the government never going after the guns. I would not push the envelope myself on the 2nd Amendment because I think there are too many activist and constitutionally illiterate judges.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on May 2, 2007 22:34:00 GMT -5
Interesting speech how about addressing someone else's points.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 2, 2007 22:35:30 GMT -5
Intrestin speech how about addressing someone else's points. Would that be mine?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 22:55:05 GMT -5
As you may know I'm a police officer. Over the years I have spoken with other officers and firearm trainers that know and believe that plans for gun confiscations are in the future. When I went through police academy I received no instructions on the 2nd amendment while spending numerous class hours on the 1st and 4th amendments. Dale you served in the military didn't you? You must be willing to fight for something. Would you be willing to fight if our government tried to disarm you? If not what is your line in the sand? Solomon, You...as a Christian, do you BELIEVE God wants/requires/expects for you/us other Christians....to 'literally' take up 'arms' and fight/shoot/kill.....to avoid having guns taken by Government force? I don't believe God requires us to fight and defend the constitution. Israel was delivered over to their enemies numerous times throughout their history and was told not to resist. I hope that is not in our near future as a nation. That would be a very hard pill to swallow. Self defense is permissible in the Bible though: Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. A Christian is to provide for his family: 1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. If we are to provide financially for our widows how much more we should provide for protection of our family as much as it is in our power. Governments throughout history have killed numerous people for all kinds of reasons. This current government allows the killing of babies and is infected deeply with dangerous ideas of every sort. I for one am a conservative Christian, pro-gun, pro-life, anti-UN, pro-home school, ant-secular anything kind of person. I believe people like me will be on the top of any "people to get rid of" list when a government gets to a point where it deems it necessary to do that type of dirty work. Romans 14:23 ......... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I can not in good faith allow myself to be disarmed. If your personal faith allows you to be disarmed that is your personal decision. I'm not going to lie and make it sound like a New Testament doctrine that Christians "have" to own machine guns, because they don't have to own them ( I don't even own a machine gun.........although I would really like to have one "legally"). When I talk about the 2nd Amendment I'm only talking from a constitutional view point.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 2, 2007 23:06:43 GMT -5
Interesting.......Do you BELIEVE God will/does send Angels, etc. to fight for/protect you and your family?
Also.....Stop/Close....the ''mouths of the lions''
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 23:15:12 GMT -5
Interesting.......Do you BELIEVE God will/does send Angels, etc. to fight for/protect you and your family?
Also.....Stop/Close....the ''mouths of the lions'' I know he is able to send angels for our protection. I know the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. I know there have been numerous Christians murdered for their faith throughout the years. At times God did allow his people to fight when they needed to fight. I would not want to rob someone of weapons if they ever found themselves in a situation where they needed them. Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ later told Peter to put his sword into his sheath because Peter was going to fight for Christ. Jesus does not want us to defend him, the sword was for our protection if we wanted it. You do not have to defend yourself if you don't want, and I don't mean that in a negative way either. God's love and truth can be manifested in numerous ways.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 2, 2007 23:20:34 GMT -5
Interesting.......Do you BELIEVE God will/does send Angels, etc. to fight for/protect you and your family?
Also.....Stop/Close....the ''mouths of the lions'' I know he is able to send angels for our protection. I know the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. I know there have been numerous Christians murdered for their faith throughout the years. At times God did allow his people to fight when they needed to fight. I would not want to rob someone of weapons if they ever found themselves in a situation where they needed them. Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ later told Peter to put his sword into his sheath because Peter was going to fight for Christ. Jesus does not want us to defend him, the sword was for our protection if we wanted it. You do not have to defend yourself if you don't want, and I don't mean that in a negative way either. God's love and truth can be manifested in numerous ways. Don't misunderstand Soly....I love ya , Man, and I ain't 'gay' or a 'chick', LOL, and I respect your answers! There is MUCH to be discussed on this subject.,...by Christians..but a public forum is not the place! to the greater degree, at least!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 23:43:09 GMT -5
I agree that we should not carry every doubtful question or disagreement in front of non-Christians.............
1 Corinthians 6 1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
Some things we don't debate in front of "them".
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on May 2, 2007 23:56:56 GMT -5
How about we think about Alabama Title Code 13A-11-50 through 13A-11-84? 13A-11-85 simply deals with reciprocity pistol permit agreements with other states. alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/148207.htmsolomon, it must be nice to be above all other LEOs and be able to pick and choose which laws you feel like enforcing. As a sworn officer in good APOST standings, you are sworn to uphold the LAW. ALL of it, not just the ones you like or agree with.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 3, 2007 0:42:51 GMT -5
I agree that we should not carry every doubtful question or disagreement in front of non-Christians............. 1 Corinthians 6 1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? Some things we don't debate in front of "them". Thanks solomon...... and Well said! I agree! Your awareness of Scripture is a real Blessing to me....and hopefully others!
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 1:35:35 GMT -5
Solomon can I get a list of the laws we need to enforce and the ones we don't? Theft 1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees. Rape all degrees (real rape not a 18 year old and a 15 year old). Murder. Robery all degrees. DUI, Illegal Immigration laws, TREASON, and numerous others. Why should there be DUI laws? Why can't I drive as drunk as I damn well please as long as I don't hit anyone else? Afterall, if I haven't hurt anyone YET, then why should there be a law against it?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 1:42:13 GMT -5
YOU DRUNK YOU ARE NOT FOOL ME OR OTHERS!!! I KNOW IT IS YOU! Just because you see my name on the member list does not mean it's me. Just so you know. There are 5 guests here also. EDIT: Also, if you'd create a real account then no one could use your name.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 3, 2007 1:44:04 GMT -5
How about we think about Alabama Title Code 13A-11-50 through 13A-11-84? 13A-11-85 simply deals with reciprocity pistol permit agreements with other states. alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/148207.htmsolomon, it must be nice to be above all other LEOs and be able to pick and choose which laws you feel like enforcing. As a sworn officer in good APOST standings, you are sworn to uphold the LAW. ALL of it, not just the ones you like or agree with. We "have to enforce all laws"? Thanks for trying to act like you know something silly pants. The next time you get pulled over for speeding make sure you tell the officer that he has to enforce 32-5A-171. He "has" to write you a ticket. He can not and must not cut you a break. If you left your wallet at home and it had your license and proof of insurance that is 2 more. Did you forget to use a turn signal? That would be one more. If the speed limit is 30 MPH and you are doing 31 MPH you are in violation of the law. Does that officer "have" to write you a ticket for everyone? No he does not. There is a legal term called Officer's discretion. We do not have to take action every time a law or violation takes place. There are plenty of laws. I don't think you want all of them to be enforced all of the time regardless of the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 1:46:56 GMT -5
There is a legal term called Officer's discretion. We do not have to take action every time a law or violation takes place. I didn't see any felonies in your list. Do you also have officer discretion for felony violations? Do you think that ATF agents get to choose whether or not they ignore complaints of felony explosives manufacturing?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 3, 2007 1:55:47 GMT -5
There is a legal term called Officer's discretion. We do not have to take action every time a law or violation takes place. I didn't see any felonies in your list. Do you also have officer discretion for felony violations? Do you think that ATF agents get to choose whether or not they ignore complaints of felony explosives manufacturing? Yep felonies also. Many narcotic officers have not prosecuted crack abusers for possession of crack which is a felony. I'm sure the Feds do use discretion when their informants possess and use explosives and automatic weapons (sometime the person that is undercover is not an officer at all, he is some poor joe doing some dirty work to keep his sorry butt out of prison). I'm not a Fed so I don't worry about how to be a Fed. I hope they have discretionary measures though.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 1:57:18 GMT -5
I'm not a Fed so I don't worry about how to be a Fed. Funny, you seem to have a lot of unsolicited advice for them.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 3, 2007 1:59:01 GMT -5
I'm not a Fed so I don't worry about how to be a Fed. Funny, you seem to have a lot of unsolicited advice for them. It is really funny isn't it? I hope I answered your question. Did you learn anything?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 3, 2007 2:38:38 GMT -5
Soly is getting confused with all of these lawmen running around. Whoever is stinking up the thread with that crap needs to go back and delete their posts before Dale gets informed about it. Hopefully a few days off of the forum will slow you down. To prove who is who, solomon.....'tater'..does that 'ring a bell?' Yes. Do you ...........say go to a certain church I know of?
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 3, 2007 2:42:21 GMT -5
To prove who is who, solomon.....'tater'..does that 'ring a bell?' Yes. Do you ...........say go to a certain church I know of? No solomon......I don't !
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on May 3, 2007 5:40:37 GMT -5
How about we think about Alabama Title Code 13A-11-50 through 13A-11-84? 13A-11-85 simply deals with reciprocity pistol permit agreements with other states. alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/1975/148207.htmsolomon, it must be nice to be above all other LEOs and be able to pick and choose which laws you feel like enforcing. As a sworn officer in good APOST standings, you are sworn to uphold the LAW. ALL of it, not just the ones you like or agree with. We "have to enforce all laws"? Thanks for trying to act like you know something silly pants. The next time you get pulled over for speeding make sure you tell the officer that he has to enforce 32-5A-171. He "has" to write you a ticket. He can not and must not cut you a break. If you left your wallet at home and it had your license and proof of insurance that is 2 more. Did you forget to use a turn signal? That would be one more. If the speed limit is 30 MPH and you are doing 31 MPH you are in violation of the law. Does that officer "have" to write you a ticket for everyone? No he does not. There is a legal term called Officer's discretion. We do not have to take action every time a law or violation takes place. There are plenty of laws. I don't think you want all of them to be enforced all of the time regardless of the circumstances. I actually tried that once. Before the ink had dried on my copy, the departments LT called me and blessed me out and told me he had torn the ticket up. <shrug> I dunno... And I understand "Officer's discretion", silly pants, but in major issues (such as weapons or drug manufacturing) I do not think it should be a case of "discretion". Remember when you raised you hand and swore to uphold the laws of the state of Alabama and protect and serve the citizens?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 8:13:18 GMT -5
Let's call the FREE MILITIA!!!!! Hopefully they had a few undiscovered caches of bottle rockets that the feds didn't find. Or you could go stop some serious crime, like speeding. Go write up some revenue for the city, Taxman.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 3, 2007 8:17:30 GMT -5
solomon,
Why are you making light of the IEDs and grenades? Those dudes were reported to have made statements to the effect that if five-o showed up, they would start shooting and such.
Don't think you would be laughing if it was your squad car that pulled up on them. I think you would then appreciate the fact that, contrary to the constitution, there were restrictions placed on the weapons a citizen could have.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 3, 2007 8:31:03 GMT -5
I think you would then appreciate the fact that, contrary to the constitution, there were restrictions placed on the weapons a citizen could have. Indeed. And no matter how much you believe in your mind that there should be absolutely no restrictions on the Second Amendment, you're not going to convince the vast majority of Americans that felons, fugitives, drug traffickers, and addicts should be able to possess firearms, much less stockpile explosives.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 3, 2007 10:34:21 GMT -5
seems very strange....it is now claimed there were standing orders to shoot if the feds show up....the "problem" i see with that is really simple, the feds DID "show up" and NO shooting happened.......are we sure NOW they had such orders?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 3, 2007 10:38:26 GMT -5
also an elderly caller to matt yesterday said she lived real close to some of them for years, she was so happy they were in jail but made no mention of seeing any weapons, of any trouble any of them had caused her, or any problem at all she ever had with any of them......so real close neighbors hadnt had any problems with these fellas, and didnt feel under threat until NOW.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 10:42:56 GMT -5
Not strange at all, billt. Its just like my signature: "full of intentions". Being ordered to do something and actually carrying them out are often two different things. We're not talking about actual disciplined military personnel here -- more like some bubbas who had more ideas about what they were going to do than how they would actually carry it out.
In war, a soldier will shoot an enemy because they are the enemy who will kill them given the chance. In the case of the feds, there was no true enemy who would kill them upon discovery. So sitting around the campfire and yelling "hell yeah" when you boast about what you're going to do is often not what actually happens when the situation presents itself.
|
|