|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 10, 2011, 10:05 PM | #26 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"Why is his path of travel to a speaking engagement more important than their right to protest it?"
Hum... I never for a moment stopped to consider, by standing away from the door to conduct their protest, that the protestors were muzzled, stripped of their First Amendment rights, and somehow delivered into the hands of a repressive government. I wanted to see Meese's speech. What gave those protestors the right to deny me MY First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly by blocking my access to the auditorium? Why is their First Amendment right suddenly more important my First Amendment right? Answer, it's not. No right is absolute, and when your exercise of your rights begin to interfere with the free exercise of my rights, your rights can be legitimately restricted or narrowed. A perfect example of this balancing act is the blocking of abortion clinics. Courts have consistently ruled that anti-abortion protestors do NOT have the right to block the entrance to a clinic, and that they can be restricted in how close they can come to the clinic entrance. Please note that this will NOT become a debate about abortion, which is a topic that is not permitted at TFL. Any attempt to do so will result in the thread being shut down.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
December 11, 2011, 05:12 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,436
|
Quote:
__________________
Just remember, when you pull the trigger, the bullets come out going very, very fast. So make sure to keep the weapon pointing away from you. |
|
December 11, 2011, 06:51 AM | #28 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
What in the holy hell is someone going to hunt with a Maxim Machine Gun?
Herds of deer?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
December 11, 2011, 07:44 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
True enough, I was really tired last night and not thinking straight for various reasons.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
December 11, 2011, 11:03 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
In reply to Strangelove and the other comenter on the Machine Gun.
It is Arkansas. I personnaly know the guy with the Machine gun. He was sober when he told the story. I confirmed the story with two ADPS troopers. One of the troopers was on the security detail at the time. I admit that they were unaware of the Machine Gun. Under Bill Clinton a woman in Chicago was arrested and held for two days for displaying a sign "Clinton Sucks". No action was ever taken against the SS for their actions. |
December 12, 2011, 08:42 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
correct me if I'm wrong... but as far as I can tell, the president can not be arrested by anyone or any law enforcement organization while in office... the only folks who can do anything to him is the congress after he or she is impeached. Seems like that is in the constitution somewhere.
|
December 12, 2011, 08:48 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
The President can be arrested by your local town cop or any other law enforcement officer in his jurisdiction. The issue is prosecution.
Of course Barney would have a heck of a time getting past the praetorian guard to arrest him.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
December 13, 2011, 07:54 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
|
Maybe Barney could... but I don't think he or she can be charged or prosecuted at least until they are out of office.
|
December 13, 2011, 08:15 AM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"the president can not be arrested by anyone or any law enforcement organization while in office"
That is, as I understand it, incorrect. The nature of the crime would have to come into consideration but, during the Clinton mess, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled that the president, by virtue of his office, is not exempt from the law. I think that ruling applied specifically to whether or not he could be forced to testify in front of a Grand Jury in a civil proceeding (he had to testify), but I think the ruling would have broader application. There are claims of presidential immunity that have been made over the years on different matters, but the Constitution says nothing about a president being immune from prosecution in a blanket fashion. It has long been held, though, that the President enjoys a great deal of immunity for actions taken in the discharge of his duties. But, there's not a lot of consensus among legal professionals and legal scholars. I know that in the late 1860s or early 1870s US Grant was stopped and ticketed by a DC Police officer for speeding in his carriage. Supposedly, upon finding out that the speeder was the president the officer balked at issuing the ticket, but Grant said (supposedly) "Do your duty, my good man."
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
December 13, 2011, 11:14 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I have heard a rumor that at certain so-called town meetings, people from the other party were not allowed in the room. But after all, they tend to ask difficult questions, so I suppose it was understandable.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
December 13, 2011, 11:20 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
BT, you mean questions about how to pay for desired services, or whether individual responsibility exists? Those can get difficult... But I suspect we should avoid veering off into the political... And that we shouldn't wax poetic about the slaughter of our adversaries.
|
December 13, 2011, 11:29 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Close to a closing and infractions given already.
Stay on topic. GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
December 13, 2011, 12:40 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Well, then, how about this? Do you get searched (for weapons) when you go into one of those town meetings? And any question can be difficult if the person asking the question is "unfriendly." Doesn't matter what the question is. But we could ask about how to pay for wars, which is not necessarily a desired service, for instance.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
December 13, 2011, 12:52 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Seems to me that would depend on where the town meeting is held. IIRC, NH has no ban on firearms at political gatherings. OTOH, courthouses in VA seem to have metal detectors. GA has detectors in some, but not all...
The question it raises is why should government employees be kept (theoretically) safer than / protected from the unwashed masses? And if there are not detectors and armed security, why should we be required to give up our ability to defend ourselves? It is not as though bad things never happen on government property. |
December 13, 2011, 02:11 PM | #40 |
Member
Join Date: December 10, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 32
|
Absolutley not.
No one, not the secerate service, FBI, State police, military, bla bla bla, and so on and so forth and take you weapon for any reason without probable cause that you have commited a crime with them, are going to commit a crime, or are illigally in posession of those weapons. Not only would that be an illigal seizure, but it would also be a violation of the 9th amendment too.
I am law enforcement, and I'd rather be told that I'm fired then take a weapon from a person that believe is within their rights and is posing no threat to others. At least then I could join the "come and get them" Club. |
December 13, 2011, 04:25 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
In the light of recent events, it would seem that democratically elected public officials have good reason to fear the legions of the great unwashed. But in courthouses, at least around here, even the police have to check their guns.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|