Posted on 06/14/2015 4:18:39 PM PDT by House Atreides
At one time they were worthy of your trust.
They were and I did trust them. I can remember when I trusted the police also. But those days are gone forever.
This FR poster certainly has no concern for any individuals associated with any criminal motorcycle gang, whether directly or indirectly involved.
My “finger to the Constitution” was in response to another gang supporting poster’s posts 274 and 275. Sorry for any confusion as to my intent.
“Sorry for any confusion as to my intent.”
No confusion. I just jumped in with another angle. Operation Hog Trap netted 258 biker gang members over a 60 day period. Many were taken in their homes. It focused on the Bandidos.
Here is why those nice family men were at a Breataurant on a Sunday afternoon instead of home with family ...
Said Dillman, “The club comes before work. The club comes before your family. The club and your motorcycle come before everything else.”
Hey man where you been lately?
They aren’t criminals until they are convicted. Pejorative much?
Which might mean they couldn't make the right number of mandatory meetings because of work schedules or other conflicts. Some clubs have funny rules that way. In other words, it means nothing if you are trying to use it to indicate they are any less focused on a Christian mission.
That would reserve the first amendment to the criminal element, and jerks would still assume that because the riders were wearing leathers they were criminals.
Realize that your prejudice involves members of the Patriot Guard Riders, a host of veterans clubs, numerous Christian motorcycle clubs (whose very patch is testifying for The Lord), and even the Blue Knights and Fire and Iron MC, and you would have them all strip their vests to accommodate your ignorance and prejudices so they don't appear to YOU to be criminals.
You have problems. By your logic, maybe all the honest people should have a leg amputated because the majority of criminals have two.
Of course, none of that would stop the real nefarious criminals from doing what honest folks do to blend in, so the standard for proving innocence to the prejudiced would be an ever moving target of stripping one's self of individuality, possessions, and rights. Maybe that's the world you want.
Or would you deny the Right enshrined in the Second Amendment as well as the freedom to dress as they choose and assemble with whom they will (First Amendment) as well?
Luke 22:36 36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
The flat top receivers that came out as a result of the AWB during the Clinton administration don't sport the integral carry handle of the past. They're flat. A can could interfere with line of sight across the top of that receiver.
There are pop-up sights made to fit the rail mounts that are common, but why would a designated shooter use less than 4X optics in daylight when it would assist with identifying the target as well? Aim small, miss small. And that knowledge and equipment isn't reserved to law enforcement--nor should it be.
According to the Constitution, they are all innocent until proven guilty. Your statement implies guilt because a person was arrested while that guilt has yet to be adjudicated.
Ri-ight. Send the snipers up to the roof, we have everything under control and we're dons shooting? I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.