Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused -- and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer." In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities.

[tpaine]

At #285 cinFLA wrote:

"The 1833 decision is easily proven incorrect and thus constitutionally invalid."

______________________________________


Yet here you are in this post, again defending Barron..
-- Which way will you have it? -- Or does your own complete posting confusion on this issue make no difference to you?

You're really getting bizzaro..

[cinFLA]

American States have NEVER been granted the power to violate our right to keep and bear arms. Simply put, you are a gun grabbing kook.

I am still waiting for your apology. Now that you know that the 1833 decision took the states out from under the BOR umbrella.

[cinFLA]

You are getting bizzaro. Making statements about me that I never said. Here are my statements that you laughed at:

Apparently you would like it to be as in the olden times; back when the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments.

Laugh! But remember, at one time the Bill of Rights only controlled the US government; it had no affect on states.

All my posts support these statements. Just because you have been found lacking in your knowledge of the BOR's is no reason to mischaracterize my position and libel me.

[tpaine]

cinFLA wrote:

You admit I was correct concerning the 1833 decision removing the states from the umbrella of the Bill of Rights.


______________________________________


Again, -- the fact that the Barron opinion made that erroneous claim is not at issue..

USSC decisions repugnant to the principles of our constitution are null & void. Always have been..
Barron is one of many such 'decisions'.

[tacticalogic]

You can't argue with sophistry. The only viable response is "tag and bag".

[tpaine]

cinFLA wrote:
I am still waiting for your apology. Now that you know that the 1833 decision took the states out from under the BOR umbrella.

______________________________________

Are you now denying that at #285 cinFLA posted:

"The 1833 decision is easily proven incorrect and thus constitutionally invalid."

?????????

[tpaine]

Its amusing to watch him 'bag' himself..

[Chances Are]

...But I know that is foreign to some that think all government is evil.

"Government is at best a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable one." - Thomas Jefferson

[KeepAndBearArms]

"Government is at best a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable one." - Thomas Jefferson"

Close on the quote, missed on the author:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." 

— Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (1776), Chap. 1.

[Sandy]

The Ninth already ruled in favor of Mr. H. The USSC is considering this case since they feel the Ninth is out to lunch and will probably overturn them as they usually have to do with the Ninth; the most overturned court in the nation.

What the heck are you talking about? This case is being appealed from the Nevada Supreme Court. And Hiibel lost in that court; that's why he's appealing (duh).

[Sandy]

Now that you know that the 1833 decision took the states out from under the BOR umbrella.

Bwahahaha. That's pretty funny. FYI cinFLA, tpaine has been talking about Barron for years on this forum. So exactly what point do you think you're "teaching" him here?

[zeugma]

I would ask that you understand that not everyone sees the very concept of giving police and other government actors free reign to detain and question any citizen to their hearts content. There have to be boundries drawn as to the limits of the power of armed agents of the state. Given the dangers inherrant whenever power is granted to the state, many of us believe that is is far better to err on the side of personal liberty than to err on the side of the police state.

Some would give expansive powers to the state that they may be offered an illusion of temporary safety. Look around the world cinFLA. There are plenty of hell-holes that offer unlimited police power to the state. I don't see the billions of the world clamoring to enter those countries. Perhaps you would be happy in such a place. I would not. Many, of not most would rather have more personal freedom, because with it comes prosperity.

[cinFLA]

Bwahahaha. That's pretty funny. FYI cinFLA, tpaine has been talking about Barron for years on this forum. So exactly what point do you think you're "teaching" him here?

Then how do you account for him laughing at me when I mentioned it. Go Back to sleep.

[cinFLA]

I would ask that you understand that not everyone sees the very concept of giving police and other government actors free reign to detain and question any citizen to their hearts content.

Nobody is talking such nonsense. Go back to sleep.

[cinFLA]

Go back and read the filings.

[cinFLA]

Again, -- the fact that the Barron opinion made that erroneous claim is not at issue..

That was exactly the issue. Before you started twisting it around to get out of the hole you had dug.

[cinFLA]

Perhaps you would be happy in such a place. I would not.

Perhaps some of us seek the truth. Why do you try to libel one who seeks the truth! You are sick.

[cinFLA]

Why do you idolize a drunken child beater?

[cinFLA]

Bwahahaha. That's pretty funny. FYI cinFLA, tpaine has been talking about Barron for years on this forum. So exactly what point do you think you're "teaching" him here?

Prove it. I can show you his post on this thread where he denied knowledge of the decision till I informed him of it. Then he turned it into a personal insult slugfest twisting my position and trying to demonize me as some gun grabbing slut.

[tpaine]

Thanks for the mornings laugh..

-- You introduced the Barron opinion at #284, to defend your weird idea that States are not bound to honor our constitution as the "supreme law of the Land".

I had posted at 277:
The 'facts' on our RKBA's are self evident.. Your claim that somehow States have the power to violate them is unsupported bull.
277 tpaine


You replied at 284:

Laugh at this!
"Other examples abound! First, the supreme Court has continuously refused to hear cases involving the Second Amendment, leaving in place the 1833 decision that the states were free to violate the rights expressed in the 2nd amendment. State and local gun control has blossomed into 20,000 laws. Those who make much ado about the state laws have no grasp of reality."
284 -cin-






Then just for futher laughs, you posted this:

 Posted by cinFLA to tpaine
On News/Activism ^ 02/23/2004 7:17:37 PM PST #285 of 316 ^

The 1833 decision is easily proven incorrect and thus constitutionally invalid.
The second amendment absolutely restricts all government infringement on Arms, at federal, state, and local levels. This is not say that laws concerning the proper use of Arms cannot be made but that no restrictions about ownership, i.e. taxes, license, etc., are valid. The Court has not accepted 2nd amendment cases for only one reason, they are reticent to force the rescinding of those 20,000 state laws and force the return of a great deal of power to its lawful owners, the people. The Court fears an armed citizenry, especially a citizenry which educates itself about the truth of the Constitution rather than passively accepting the judges as the only purveyors of the truth.
-cin-


_____________________________________


Obviously, you can't even avoid contradicting yourself on an issue your raised.

Get some help..