Public policy is enacted by essentially two methods: radical comprehensive or incrementally. The former is a draconian shift in policy, such as an outright confiscation of guns. In the latter, gun confiscation is accomplished one little law at a time.

Socialism in American has been and continues to be implemented incrementally. Socialism is the necessary precursor to communism. There are three essential obstacles that must be overcome in order to implement socialism: elimination of private property rights, dissolving the family unit, and ridding America of Marx�s opiate of the masses: religion.

Without religion, the other two are easy to implement. John Locke indentified the right of private property as a natural right. Natural rights flow to us from God. Government has no power to strip anyone of any natural right, for they were given to us by God. Therefore, before we can become a totally socialist state in which we�re completely controlled by government, God has got to go.

Revisionists� propagate the lie that our Founding Fathers created a secular nation. This is an outright lie. Anyone can access primary source documents facilitating knowledge that our Founding Fathers created a Christian nation. Some of our Founding Fathers had gone so far as to predict the demise of their patrimony were our nation to be governed by other than believers in God. And it is the benevolence of Christians that allows others to practice any legitimate religion.

Here�s my point: since at least the 1940�s �even earlier- a forceful subculture within our country has strove to dupe gullible Americans that the First Amendment justifies governmental regulation of religious practices, a fear Jefferson said could never happen in America. His intent of separation of church and state was that religion must be protected from governmental regulation, not vice versa as revisionists� want us to believe. Madison believed that our country was created by the divine hand of God.

Regardless of who�s in power, Republicans or Democrats, we have and are becoming more socialistic. Socialism implicates a lack of freedom. Communism -dictatorial control- follows socialism.

We own nothing that the government does not allow us to own. Therefore, what we own is approved and regulated by the government and that includes our homes.

Think very carefully before this election; however, it might not matter. We might be too far gone for a reversal of years of incremental public policy changes that have facilitated socialism to take root and spawn.

We know Obama is at least a socialist. I think he�s a communist. That leaves the putative Republican nominee. If you believe Romney will restore freedom, yank a lever for him. However, I do not see it. In fact, Republicans have done nothing to impede socialism.

Don�t fall into the trap of a false dichotomy: Obama or Romney. Keep restoration of freedom at the forefront. Who or what is the best path to lead us back to the intent of our Founding Fathers?

New York and California are lost causes. In California, Republicans are greatly outnumbered, and many of the Republicans who reside here are neocons. Neocons will steal our freedoms just as surely as will Obama. In fact, Leo Strauss was as dangerous to freedom as was Marx. Obama will win New York and California�s electoral votes without having to campaign in either state.

If Obama does win, do not blame his victory on the �Paulbots� or other derisive and pejorative names Romney supporters choose to call those of us who want to eliminate socialism and restore freedom. For if Obama wins, it�ll be the result of intransient Romney supporters who are falling prey to the mainstream media created false dichotomy.

We are living in an unprecedented era. None of the medicine given to our ailing and possibly fatally diseased economy is working. Baby boomers and their consumerism led to a tremendous post-WWII economic boom. We do not have such demand. In fact, consumers aren�t consuming for fear of their jobs and because they were burned by consumer credit, not to mention tremendous hits they have taken to their home equity. So it could be that regardless of who�s elected, it won�t much matter. Our economy, which determines governmental action, might not survive.

Finally, don�t forget that under Bush 43, our country lost at least 6 million manufacturing jobs, which paid good salaries that accorded workers ability to live the American dream, and we closed at least 40,000 American factories, most of which reopened in China. And his Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, threatened us with martial law if congress didn�t pass TARP, which was really a bailout of Bush�s homeboys using taxpayers� money. Don�t think for a New York second that Bush didn�t put Paulson up to threaten us with martial law.

As I see it, if it remains between Obama and Romney, I couldn�t care less who wins. You see, I know that either way we�re going to become more enslaved.

No government is viable unless it can control its people. In our country, politicians use laws to control us. When was the last time anyone has heard of a neocon proposing eliminating any law???


R

It's interesting that you can post that after, essentially, stating that you would have arrested the citizen in ME for open carry.

George

Yeah, it's a real shame none of your mystical neocons have ever suggested rolling back a law like ObamaCare.

Oh.. wait..

Raisuli: Don't agree with much of your posting ESPECIALLY the part where you don't think there would be much difference in a second hussein oblamer term and a first term with Mitt Romney as POTUS!
That contention of yours is bizarre beyond description and in fact causes me concern for your sanity.
The "real issue" of 2,012 is removing and replacing hussein oblamer and earache holder with ANYBODY!
Mitt Romney would be a quantum leap forward in brightening the future of Americas courts, Americas economy and Americas future outlook!
I can't even believe you said regarding the two!
And by the way I am NOT "enslaved" to any extent - more bizarre opinion from yourself, I believe.
Vote Romney/Rubio come November and things will brighten up for you and your outlook, I am sure.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

NH K9,

I would not have arrested him for lawfully carrying a weapon. If I would have arrested him it would have been for delaying an officer in the performance of her/his official duties.

The unknown variable in that scenario was whether the cop has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If reasonable suspicion did attach, then the detainee cannot resist, obstruct, or delay.

What do you suppose would have happened to the cop if he had responded to a man with a gun call and did nothing?

Cops cannot legislate law. They are empowered to enforce law enacted by legislatures.


Take care,

R

Did you miss the part where the kid asked the cop if he suspected him of a crime, and the cop said no?

How do you get Rubio? He's not Constitutionally able to be VP or POTUS as neither of his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. Oh, that's right; it's OK to violate the Constitution as long as it's "our guy" doing it.

Calhoun,

Do you believe that many Republicans do not believe that socialized medicine is necessary?

Don't forget that many Republicans were initially for Obamacare. I heard Republicans say that our health care system was broken, precursor to socialized medicine. It ain't our health care system that's broken. It's stealing from taxpayers to fund it that is.

Unless and until something is done to eliminate the unfunded mandates of Medicare and prescription drug benefits totaling nearly 100 trillion dollars, which is completely unsustainable, politicians on both sides of the aisle will do everything possible to keep a sinking ship afloat.


Take care,

R

Though I agree that the two choices this go round are dismal and catastrophic...

Ron Paul is not the leader of freedom in this country... he's a voicebox that sometimes hits the right key... which is to say he is a politician and nothing more.

Kent

Point conceded due to poor wording on my part. Who delayed the officer, though, is up for debate.



Based on the link you provided to CA code, I will again concede that point. In this AO, it wouldn't fly.



I've done it several times, actually. A "man with a gun" call is generally a scared, flaming liberal that has no idea that open carry is legal. Would you have us check every hunter that gets called in by Mass. imports?

Curious, when you encountered a CCW on a MV stop did you remove the firearm?

My point, though it got lost, is that you sound vehemently opposed to the government continuously adding law upon law to control the citizenry, but have issues with the citizenry standing up for itself when righteous. On its face, those two positions contradict themselves.

George

Yep, I did. In fact, I didn't watch the whole clip. To me it looked like a guy willing to do anything to make youtube.

R

NH K9,

If an officer spots a weapon, s/he is to remove it and unload it or assure it's unloaded thereby rendering it safe. Cops are never to ask anyone to hand them a weapon. Once the call is cleared, the violator is good to go.

Officer safety is paramount. Where firearms are found, it's essential to assure they're not a threat to officers. Not only is this reasonable, I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately recognize this concept.

Cops will take weapons from off-duty cops until they assure the motorist is in fact a cop. Once identity is confirmed the gun is returned.


Take care,

R

Raisuli, don't change the subject. You didn't ask about whether many Republicans want socialized medicine.

You wrote "When was the last time anyone has heard of a neocon proposing eliminating any law???"

Here you go.





Yes, many big government and establishment Republicans think socialized medicine is a fix. But there's a much larger portion of the Republican base who understand that over-regulation of the health industry is what got us into this mess.

Support your tea party, kick the big government incumbents out.

The kid asked the cop if he suspected him of a crime and the cop said no, you should go back and watch the entire clip. It may change your mind about the situation. Not that the kid wasn't trying to get his 15min of fame but, the officer had no reason to stop him in the first place.

I often wonder in those situations, why, does the person receiving the call about someone carrying a gun explain to the caller that it is a legal activity. Then ask the specific question of the caller, "is the person engaging in any illegal activity" if the answer is no, then there is no reason to send the cops to harass someone for doing nothing wrong. Technically this is no different than calling the cops on someone for eating an ice cream cone, neither is illegal in any way.

SCORE!

One that I agree with ya on, Mike!

Not to mention all the gun laws, abortion laws, and taxation laws that Republicans are constantly trying to reverse.

This guys soap box gets more and more entertaining every day.

What's next Raisuli?

VarmintGuy,

If you are as free as you think you are, try not paying Social Security taxes so you can invest your retirement money yourself and see if you aren't introduced to a federal prosecutor. Or you might try buying bullets for your varmint gun that are not approved by ATF and see where that lands you. I would not recommend your doing either. It's always a wiser idea to obey the law and try to change it legislatively.

Every single thing you do of every single day you live is controlled in some fashion by some governmental authority. Even the city/county in which you live will control what you're allowed to do with the property you own. If you don't believe me, find out the procedure to modify your home should you decide you'd like a new look for it.


R

Politicians use laws to control us?

Laws are a part of every free society. Laws exist to protect us.

Abuse of laws and power leads to Government control, not the rule of law.

I'm glad I was raised in NH, though I suppose I would have been just fine in the bulk of the Southern states as well.

George

Officer safety is paramount. Where firearms are found, it's essential to assure they're not a threat to officers. Not only is this reasonable, I have yet to meet anyone who didn't immediately recognize this concept.


Do police take an othe to officer saftey or to uphold the law?
I think we need to discuss what is paramount.

I know very little about Rubio but would like to have several questions answered. I suppose I could dig through the Constitution and find out for myself whether the same requirements for native born, natural born, or whatever it says are the same for VP as they are for POTUS. What about the Speaker of the House who is second in line to be POTUS? Where was Rubio born? Is an anchor baby whose parents are not citizens able to be POTUS since that baby was born in the USA and has USA citizenship because of that. (I still have questions about whether that is really what the Constitution means in all situations, especially in the case in which the parents are in the USA illegally.)

I would be heavily opposed to having any candidate from either side put on a ballot for an office for which he/she is not qualified according to the Constitution.

Calhoun,

There are two crucial questions to be answered: will he do it and, if he does will he replace it with a version of his own?

If the Court doesn't overturn it, we're stuck with it unless the senate can muster 60 members to prevent a filibuster. Were that the case, while Romney might be telling you that he'll overturn Obamacare, and I serious doubt he will, his out being that he's powerless to do it on his own without congress. Hence, do you really believe he will overturn it? Or do you believe it'll be overturned without another version of socialized medicine?

Romney is courting conservatives using campaign rhetoric. Were I a journalist, I ask him to sign a pledge that he'll do everything within his power to overturn Obamacare and not replace it with any other version. However, I am sure he'll find a weasel clause that'll get him out of his "promise".

Keep in mind the fiscal calamity that is Medicare and prescription drug benefits. The impetus of Obamacare was the fact that government cannot make good on these unfunded liabilities. They will sink our economy.


R

HugAJackass,

Talk is cheap. It's known as campaign rhetoric. Bush and both houses of congress. He could have overturned every gun control law and made abortion illegal. Why didn't he do either?

R

RichardAustin,

They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Cops cannot uphold the law without first assuring they're alive to do so.


R

NH K9,

Would you ever ask a motorist to hand you a weapon? Were you to spot a weapon in a car without first determining what you had allow it to remain within reach of the motorist?


R

EXACTLY..

Correct.

This reminds me of the clip from KQRS a few years ago about the guy in a Taco Bell who ordered a taco and only had two bills with him - a fifty-dollar bill and a two-dollar bill.. Since the total came to under $2, he handed over the two-spot.. The clerk wouldn't take it.. Long story short, the cops were called and the clerk wanted the customer arrested for attempting to pass a bogus bill. The moron had NO CLUE that a two-dollar bill existed - let alone being legal tender..

The customer held his ground, the manager gave him a free taco AND a soft drink, and apologized profusely..

This cop in the video should be doin' the same..

No, I wouldn't ask anyone to hand me a gun. Hands kill, we all know that. As to the second, it depends.

For instance, we routinely run into guys (and girls) with rifles in pickups during hunting season. The vast majority of LEOs I know leave them alone. The individual that states "just so you know, I have a CCW and I'm armed" gets similar treatment, just as I learned from experienced cops when I was a "baby".

It would likely shock you (being from CA) how many folks I deal with that are carrying open. It's not something to get worked up about.

My mantra "treat everyone like a million bucks and have a plan to kill them all" works.

Geoge

A President doesn't have that power. Have you read the Constitution?

He DID appoint Judges that gave us the Heller ruling. Many States now have the right to alter their own Abortion laws...

Besides, we both know that Bush was no conservative.

That never stopped the a-hole we have now.. No, the Emperor opened the door.. Now, everybody can just walk right in...

And for the record, I don't agree with it..

In order to stop the motorist to begin with, an officer would need reasonable suspicion that a law violation was in effect.

If a motorist is willing to break one law, an officer can then reasonably assume that the motorist is willing to break others. Officer safety then comes into play.

If a perfectly legal car is sitting by a curb, and an officer walking by sipping a coffee, and sees a gun in a car, in a State were both open and concealed carry laws are in effect, then the officer has no ground upon which to remove the gun.

That's kind of the point here....


Rule of Law, cops need it too.

Pretty simple really. The Constitution requires that the POTUS be a Natural born citizen, which defined means that both parents have to be citizens of the US at the time of birth of the candidate. That's one of the reasons that there are questions about Obama's legitimacy.

Rubio's parents, and also Jindal's parents, weren't citizens at the time of their births, so neither are qualified to be POTUS under the Constitution, or VP, as the VP is next in line and having a non natural born in line for a job he is ineligible to hold would cause major problems.

If you want to make non natural born citizens eligible for POTUS, then change the Constitution through an amendment the way it is supposed to be done, but which has fallen by the wayside in the last 40 years of so.

Yep!

no it doesn't. the constitution unfortunately does not state what a 'natural born citizen' is and the law has deferred to 'citizen by birth' this has a variety of clauses but main are

As of 2011[update], United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. � 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship at birth:
"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
noting that only one parent need be a US citizen.

The reasons that there are questions about Obama's legitimacy is that
(1) He is a democratic/liberal and people don't want him to be president for that reason and therefore they come up with issues like this to try and disqualify him
(2) He is black and people don't want him to be president for that reason and therefore they come up with issues like this to try and disqualify him

Vote him out. Encourage others to vote him out. This kind of reasoning is actually counterproductive, since none of the independent voters that we are interesting in attracting find it (1) important and (2) marginally feasable. When they hear it they immediately pigeonhole the speaker as conspiracy nutcase, instead of a conservative that has some interesting arguments about important rights to protect and fiscal responsibility.

Everyone that agrees with you, already doesn't like Obama. Of course, many of them won't vote, which is really more important then all the talk. This may make good gossip, but it is irrelavant and almost certainly not true, under the law, not you opinion of what the law should be.

Rational people have accepted that Ron Paul will never be president. Obama thanks you.

The question is, does Rubio qualify to be VP under the Federal Law. It's a valid question, especially if people were asking it of the current holder of the office.

The difference between the Dems and the Repubs, is that the Republicans actually ask these questions about their candidates.

Asking if somebody is legally qualified is what you're supposed to do.

Given the laws you stated, Rubio still doesn't qualify.

I like the guy, and think he'd do awesome at the job, but he's just not legally qualified to do so, unless of course there is some other court ruling that gives some sort of legal loophole, that I don't know about. That's entirely possible.

The Rule of Law is never counter-productive. It's essential.

Sorry but you are WRONG. Rubio IS eligible.

Jorge, you are up to date on immigration laws as well as anyone I know. Can you help me understand how he is eligible?

I haven't researched this, but wasn't Rubio born in Florada?

+1

Raisuli,

I agree with practically everything you wrote in your OP in this thread. However, it is appalling to me how you seemed to be so careless with our rights in your post in the ME open carry thread. "Office safety is paramount," you wrote. By that logic, an officer is justified to stop anyone lawfully walking down the sidewalk and shake him down, if the officer somehow fears for his own safety. Sounds like "Papers, please." Can you not see that it is impossible to both live in a police state, and to not live in a police state.

Yes, but neither of his parents were. Nor were they citizens at the time of his birth.

The question of Obama's legitimacy comes into question as to whether his mother was indeed in one of the US possession for the "continuous period of time" required when he was born, and also whether he sued to regain his citizenship after his adoption by his mother's second husband, Soetero, and the renunciation of his US citizenship at the time of his adoption. The renunciation is required by Indonesia as they do not allow dual citizenship, and there are no records that Obama ever regained US citizenship after his adoption. Nor have any of the records been allowed to see the light of day, such as his college transcripts and what type, meaning foreign, student he was or was not.

Yeah, none of us like him, but only because he's red, not because he's black, and also because some of us really believe in the Constitution, and not only when it is favorable to us.

Jorge, please tell me where I'm wrong, instead of just claiming it to be so. Were Rubio's parents US citizens at the time of his birth, or not? If they weren't he doesn't qualify. If they were, then he is. It is my understanding that they were not, but you may have more insight into this than I do.

Here, this should add gas to the fire:

www.hotair.com/archives/2012/02/23/report-marco-rubio-has-mormon-roots/

And this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/birthers-now-claim-sen-marco-rubio-isnt-a-natural-born-citizen/

It's an interesting question.

I did a quick Google and about half the articles say he's not eligible and the other half say he is.

I suspect Steve_NO thinks Rubio is NOT eligible, or he would not otherwise risk having to put a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his SUV. lol

the issue is not clear to me, at all. the constitution doesn't define natural born citizen....which is kind of a shocking oversight, but they probably weren't focused on the issue. after all, the founders got their citizenship simply by living in the former colonies at the time the Constitution was adopted....and none of their parents could have been US citizens.

Well I guess we need to impeach Thomas Jefferson:

Jane Randolph Jefferson, n�e Jane Randolph (1721�1776,) was the wife of Peter Jefferson and the mother of president Thomas Jefferson. Born February 9, 1721 in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London, she was the daughter of Isham Randolph and Jane Rogers, and a cousin of Peyton Randolph.[1

Compelling argument.

Game, set and match as far as I'm concerned.

That rule is about as absurd as the 18th Amendment anyway. Let me ask some of you "purists" this question; A man who came here at the age of six, went to school here, served thirty years in the Armed Forces, decorated, held the highest security clearances, life member of the NRA likes baseball, drives Chevys, has a gorgeous babe for a wife, you know "one of the guys", etc. Would you prefer him over the current Marxist in office...?

To me it looked like you.

I went through a state trooper road block here in upstate NY a couple years ago with a rifle stuck muzzle down in the split bench seat of my truck. All the trooper asked me in regards to the rifle was "had any luck hunting" ? I've also been checked twice in the past three years by game wardens. In both instances, I was walking down the side of the road with a rifle in my hand. Neither warden tried to disarm me nor even made any inquiry as to whether my rifle was loaded or not. Just checked my hunting license and said "good luck with your hunt".

If this is true (I do not know whether it is or is not), then Rubio would seem to be eligible if he was born in Florida to parents in this country legally.


The questions about Obama's eligibility are not due to his color (I don't like his white half either) or his liberalism (communism) but rather due to some rather serious questions that he refuses to answer about whether the Constitution has been violated.

Voting him out in November would, indeed, be the best way to rid ourselves of this scourge.

Interesting! Point well made sir!

Your previous point held more water than this line of reasoning.

It's all about the rule of law. One of the large reasons the Marxist in office is so detested is that all he is and all he has done flies in the face of the rule of law.

Your point about Thomas Jefferson is a sound one though. He was one of the founders and nobody made his natural born status an issue then, which sets a precedent that the founders considered him "natural born".

Yip, this rubio token is a Jefferson in the makin'... lol

Yeah, because THAT is the argument people are making here....

Only some and by weak linkage...

Puff puff pass man! It must be some good stuff!

Raisuli, how long you been on crack? Have you given any thought to residential treatment?

Lucidity not a strong point there Einstein?

The mj reference... hmm, bible college perspective &/or engagement kicking in ?

And the greatest defender of natural right and natural law in the last century, was in fact Leo Strauss. Try reading "Natural Right and History" Raz. And among the greatest threats to natural law in the past two centuries are paleocons John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, along with those on the far left to which they are allied. Raz, you're clueless.

Voting for moderates is not voting for real conservatives. But say their electable. LOL you get the [bleep] you vote for.

Nobody here even remotely likened Rubio to Thomas Jefferson in the way that they would Govern, as you suggest they did. The only similarity that anybody proposed was in the manner the two men were born.

My lucidity is not the one in question here.

Just trying to make an excuse for that irrational leap ya made back there. Figured that you just had to be on something!

I can't see how a sober man could make such a silly leap.

Run with it...

Were you born with this kind of intellectual blindness or is this mental disease the result of your inability to see facts and form a coherent view?

You need to learn to improve your comprehension skills there ace. There was NO comparison to Jefferson's policies or talents etc. The ONLY comparison is that both individuals had parents that were not born here or US citizens. PERIOD>

HJA: As to my second post, I did not suggest ignoring the present law. My point was the law should be changed.

Ah! Ok, I see where you are coming from.

Maybe it doesn't need to be changed. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution. Maybe all that has to happen is to have them clarify "natural born". I think that with the precedent that Jefferson sets, it should be easy to do.

achadwick,

Somehow or another you seemed to have become disconnected from the facts of this case. Guns kill. Cops are trained to respond to man with gun calls with utmost caution. There is no reasonable nexus to resolving a man with a gun call and someone walking down a sidewalk absent information linking that person (sidewalk person) to criminality.

It seems you're resorting to any basis of justification in order to support your conclusion that cops routinely violate citizens' rights. This is not the case. Remember that the cop, who was under good control and had actually deescalated the situation in the onslaught of an antagonizing kid, was asked to respond to a high-risk call. And as far as I know the info given to the officer was sketchy at best, which would have caused him to be more alert. Throw into the mix the unreasonable behavior of the guy the with gun, and I'm on the cop's side all day long.

As one of the posters here explicated about his dealings with hunters, he knows what is normal and abnormal behavior. To the untrained eye, a guy with a gun might appear to be a hunter. To the trained law enforcement professional, that same guy's activity might justify a stop.

Here's an irony for you. When I was a cop those who attracted my attention were those who had gone out of their ways to avoid being stopped. You see, most motorists do many things while driving. During morning hours motorists are often eating breakfast and drinking coffee. Some women will put on makeup and put bottles in babies' mouths while they're en route to day care. Kids are usually blaring music and yacking with one another. The suspicious drivers are the ones, usually males, who ought to be at work, who wear long-sleeve jackets during summer months in order to hide track marks and keep warm after using, and who attempt to avoid my attention. Nine times out of ten these are the guys to stop, not the mom who swerves while trying to place a bottle in her baby's mouth.

Most of this knowledge is acquired from experience.

In the case of the call of a man with a gun, the budding actor was the one who was the agitator. He had an agenda. In California, it's illegal to carry a gun in public in any manner unless one has a CCW, is a cop and covered by CPC 830, a retired cop in good standing with retirement credentials, or in the US military. Keeping in mind that guns kill, keeping in mind that courts will bend over backwards to side with cops when demonstrable evidence of their safety required reasonable actions, even if this kid was right, he could have very easily been dead right. And had that been the case, the kid would have been at fault. It would have been ruled an accidental homicide. The kid would have put in motion the chain of events that led to his death.

The cop should have been commended for being intentionally set up in a no win situation and resolving it peaceably. I could easily see how this stupid kid could have put in motion a set of circumstances that could have led to a very tragic ending.

To bootstrap the professional manner in which the cop resolved his call to cops asking for papers of people walking down the street is unreasonable, illogical, and lacking any semblance of reality. The key variable that distinguishes the cop's professional resolution of his call to people walking down the street is the gun. And guns kill.


R

Rubio is eligible under jus soli, right of the soil.

http://www.americanlaw.com/citborn.html

Raisuli, your entire world view seems to turn upside-down when it comes to police conduct. Odd in the extreme.

The_Real_Hawkeye,

Please explain your assertion.

We assuredly have different basis of knowledge when it comes to law enforcement. What you might view as normal behavior, cops might not. Since 99% of people would have responded in a normal manner and this kid did not -the kid was the agitator- any cop would have taken the kid's gun, unloaded it, and investigate. Had he not and the kid was a whack job and had gone on to murder innocent people, you would have blamed the cop.

As far as I know this guy committed the largest mass murder in the history of Orange County: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/salon-321796-beach-police.html

He did it with a handgun. Supposing he had been able to legally carry in CA, supposing a cop saw him and determined his behavior to be suspicious, wouldn't you have wanted the cop to act on his suspicions, which are products of his education, training, expertise, and experience that he can articulate?

What you might consider benign, a professional law enforcement officer might consider potentially life threatening.


Take care,

R

Interesting! Thanks for that!

It's interesting though, because I can see a loophole there that people could use to question Rubio's legitimacy.

Jus soli and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, seem to indicate what a 'citizen' is, but it does not clarify what the phrase "natural born" means.

The argument could be made that you need to meet both criteria for eligibility. You need to be both a citizen, and naturally born within the United States.

Like I said, I think Jorge is on to something with Jefferson. I like Rubio a LOT, though I'd admit that he wouldn't be my first choice for VP. That is, until this discussion. I think a Rubio VP would allow for a case to arise where the SCOTUS could then clarify what "natural born" is.

Maybe this election is not the time for that. Right now, we just need to focus on sending the Obama Administration to the retirement home. I'm afraid that this issue could take away from the bigger picture.

Except the cop himself said that he had no suspicions...

Regardless of VP, it is far more important to reverse socialism. Socialism has many serious flaws not the least of which is elimination of freedom.

Since politicians lie, since it's obvious Romney will say anything to become president, it's risky to assume that he will act on any of his promises. I have learned the hard way to look for a candidate's weasel clauses that will allow him a way out of his promises.

If you understand the catastrophe that is Medicare and prescription drug benefits, you'll know why I believe that even Republicans would have proposed some type of socialized medicine as opposed to curing the disease. And the only way to cure the disease is to get rid of Medicare and prescription drug benefits. It's a classic example of why socialism is so horrendous. Turn the whole shebang over to private carriers. Those on it now or so close to retirement that it would be unconscionable to deny them, will be funded. The rest will have their contributions refunded and told to become a rugged individualists and buy their own health insurance because the USA is no longer a nanny state.

I can understand HugAJackass & Steve_No feigning appearance of blind loyalty to Romney. They have an agenda to fulfill. But nearly all the rest of us here know most candidates lie. In fact, there's no lie they won't tell. What the hell does it mean to support overturning Obamacare? Tell me how you propose to overturn Obamacare, what will be required to overturn it, and that you won't replace Obabacare with your own version of Obamacare.

I have an inherent distrust of nearly every political candidate and politician. Regardless of who's running things, we seem to become more enslaved. And sadly posters here deceive themselves by denying that government controls them 24/7. Hell, I can't even take a leak without the government controlling the sewer system.

We need to cut every bureaucracy except police fire, and the military. Then start anew. All that can be local will be local. Citizens have more control over local politicians. That that can be privatized will be privatized, and that includes prosecuting attorneys and public defenders. Private property rights will mean just that: right to private property. Judicial and prosecutor immunity will be gone. Hell, they have luxury of deliberating before deciding. If they can't get it right, they must be held liable just like everyone else.

Does anyone know how many federal law enforcement agencies operate in our country? I sure as hell haven't a clue. I do know I'd get rid of every single one. County sheriffs should be responsible for all crime within their jurisdictions. With advanced technology, all county sheriffs will be instantly linked with one another to assist with solving crimes across jurisdictions. The CIA will become part of the US Army and handle international crime where the USA is victimized. We'll keep the Coast Guard as the primary law enforcement agency charged with interdicting drugs and other illegal crap coming into our country.

HugAJAckass,

If what you posted was true, when did he say it? Before of after he was able to control his call? There was no way he could have said it before he controlled his call unless he was able to read the student's mind. Before he controlled his call, he would have had no idea what he had.

If you think the student's behavior was reasonable, I can see how you believe Romney will cure all that ails our country. With black magic!!!

Even if the cop had no suspicions, under the circumstances of his call, that being a suspicious person with a gun, do you think it's reasonable for a cop to allow such a person to retain possession of a loaded gun while he investigated his call? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Well, you actually believe Romney will overturn Obamacare, so I can see how you think it would be reasonable for a cop to unconscionably compromise his safety in order to placate you.


R

I didn't hear the call. Neither did you.

The student flat out asked the officer if he was suspicious of him, and the officer answered, "No."

This happened several times in the video.


There is no question that the student was a douche. I think this was a good learning opportunity for the young officer.

Next time, he can make it consensual, by greeting the civilian politely, and striking up a conversation. Note the gun, compliment the civilian on it, and ask if he can see it.

Tact goes both ways.


Does the rule of law mean so little to you?

Apparently so. Officer safety is paramount.

achadwick,

Your logical fallacy is assuming officer safety and rule of law are mutually exclusive. Laws such as "Terry" are designed to assure officer safety.

Now I haven't a clue how it's rolled where you hang, but law in CA is designed to protect cops' lives to every reasonable extent. That's how CA rolls.


R

HugAJackass,

You are so clueless that you're wholly unable to compete unless you resort to the logical fallacy of extremism.

You have no concept of the rule of law. If you had you would refrain from touching your keyboard.

We all know that neocons live by their own laws.

R

HugAJackass,

Your: "I didn't hear the call. Neither did you." is so indicative of your arguments. You post assumptions under the guise of fact.

If you don't have a clue of what happened, how in God's name are you able to pronounce impropriety?

But for you and voters like you, Romney would get no votes!


R

Hit a nerve this morning there Raisuli?

Romney getting no votes means Obama gets them all. You're ok with that, and then try to lecture me about my respect for the rule of law!?

Adorable!

+1 Pretty weird contrast with the remainder of the views he claims to have.

Yup! A Consensual approach which can preserve Officer Safety by defusing the stress, is now somehow "the fallacy of extremism"

Adorable! Bless his heart...

The_Real_Hawkeye,

I have always thought you to be a straight shooter.

Tell me how you deduced I have no respect for the rule of law. Did you divine this assumption.

The fact is, TRH, officer safety and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. Just a little reason would support this. If the concepts were at odds, there would be no officer safety, right?

Maybe you got to this without first taking your morning coffee.


Take care,

R

Raisuli,

It is your position that is logically fallacious, not mine.

But I have seen your attitude in several California LEOs, which is yet another reason I'm glad I moved out of that state.