Just like you aren't intelligent enough to discuss constitutional matters; moronic peas in a pod are we.
> your long record [on just this thread] defending lawless actions by the police,
>
Post them. Or admit that you are a liar.
Here you say that firing at the police invalidates due process... unqualified and unconcerned with the mere fact that citizens can fire back if the police unlawfully fire first.
Here you would prohibit a citizen, or group of them (ie militia) from fighting for the constitution. (I explicitly stated that unlawful actions are not protected "police action" you said that they would be "justified" returning fire -- justified means that they are within their rights.)
Here you explicitly state that trespass conjoined with unwarranted searches would make someone using force a lawbreaker, though the officer EXPLICITLY was acting without any legitimate authority.
(There's a few more pieces from you that are circumstantial, but I'll limit it to obvious cases.)
>> they have bought into the lie that the Supreme Court could prohibit them.
>
>Specific examples?
...seriously? Roe v. Wade? Have you even read it?
"Penumbras and emanations" are the equivalent of mental masturbation -- "we say it is, so it is"/"because... F--ck You!" on the part of the court -- it's so horrid a piece of "reasoning" it's never been used sense... though I thought Robert's justification of ObamaCare quite close.
I've been trying, but you keep running away.
Here you say that firing at the police invalidates due process
What does this post mean to you?
The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf
Really, are you drunk, stoned or just mentally confused?
What does this post mean to you?
The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf