Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
I see you are back.
Have a nice respite?
No.
Does the United States have the right to secure the borders?
Yes.
Do you think anyone who wants to come into this country should be allowed to?
No.
Do you think we have the right to check people out before they come into this country?
Yes.
Do you think anyone who wants US Citizenship should be granted it without any requirements?
No.
Should anyone who wants to work here be allowed to, even if we have enough employees here already?
No (but we don't have enough employees here already - that's kinda the point).
Should citizens of this country have to compete with citizens of another country for jobs here?
Sure.
Is it all right with you if terrorists can just walk right into this country?
No - see answers to #1 - #5 above.
Should a citizen of another country be allowed to get free medical care at our facilities?
If citizens who are indigent are, then yes.
Do you believe the Southwest belongs to the United States or do you think it belongs to Mexico or La Raza or some other group?
The United States.
Do you believe in following the law, or only those you happen to agree with?
I believe in following the law, and I believe in following the process to change said law.
Of course - same goes as to all U.S. citizens.
I have read no where that the protesters were armed themselves.
No one here was brandishing anything. They also complied with police orders. It was taking them down to the station that was the first initiation of a violation of Rights. They were within the law, the law decided they needed to be removed from the scene anyway.
This system of government is also known as a POLICE State. Where cops give the orders and civvies had best hasten to obay as they have no Rights that cannot be readily infringed.
I'm not a lawyer, I am not qualified to give legal advice. To get legal advice, consult a lawyer.
in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
Your argument is similar to the argument that people could be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for carrying openly if it scares someone else. If I remember correctly there were a couple cases where people were detained here in Ohio after our Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting open carry (with some exceptions) was unconstitutional.
However, I don't believe anyone was ever even charged with disturbing the peace for doing so. A legal and constitutionally protected act in itself cannot be construed as a cause for alarm. They would have to do something that could be reasonably construe as threatening others, or doing something that negligently placed others at risk.
Washington State Constitution Article I, Section 24
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Saying that merely possessing firearms for self defense while performing other legal and constitutionally protected acts is illegal would be blatantly unconstitutional based on their State constitution.
Legal possession of a firearm in a legal manner does not legally "warrant alarm".
I read this as to mean, if you are carrying in a community or location that it is not a surprise to see someone with a gun on their hip then you are fine. If you carry in an area that people don't normally see a person with a gun on their hip you are in deep doo doo.
Simple fear and misunderstanding of otherwise legal acts is not warranted or justified alarm.
Now, if someone had a gun in their waistband and it becomes exposed, then the officers have a right to do an investigation. It's hard to argue that, considering the circumstances, that a counter protester who "exhibited" a firearm like this.
Someone reported that one of these people had a firearm. I agree that it was reasonable for the Police to investigate the situation. However, since there appears to have been no evidence that the weapons were brandished or that any threats were made, the police had no authority to detain them.
Not on purpose, but in the totality of the circumstances, might end up in some disturbance and if he/she gets into it at a rally with thousands of persons walking the street, that they could end up using their firearm.
So you're saying that though their legal actions they might find themselves in a situation where they might need to defend themselves? Remember the beginning of Article 1 section 24, The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.
Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable."
There doesn't appear to have been any evidence that they had done anything illegal. It was reasonable to question them, but there was no legal justification for detaining them. The police removed them and prevented them from exercising their first amendment rights without evidence of breaking any laws. Their only justification for doing so was directly in conflict with their state constitution.
This situation isn't ambiguous.
Funny how selective your hero government can be. Arrest gun owners carrying legally while allowing border criminals to run free.
If someone feels "frightened" by the thought of a fellow citizen exercizing a Right? Maybe you are in the wrong damn country.
"I have read no where that the protesters were armed themselves."
Precisely. You're more than a bit credulous if you disbelieve that quite a few were, though.
Because even the 2nd Amendment has limits - you cannot bear tactical nuclear weapons as a "firearm" for instance.
Yes.
Yes - funny how my POLICE State so closely resembles Nazi Germany, for instance.
The only ones we KNOW who had firearms were the counter-protesters and the police.
The Weimar Republic didn't fall over night either.
"The only ones we KNOW who had firearms were the counter-protesters and the police."
You're being obtuse. We KNOW this due to selective enforcement and selective media outrage. It's foolish to think that the various radical groups, advocating separatist sentiments, went unarmed. Just admit it and move on.
I cannot admit to knowing something that I do not know.
Very true.
We don't need no vigilantes either.
"I cannot admit to knowing something that I do not know."
You can admit that it's foolish to believe that the Brown Berets of Aztlan were unarmed. Try it, it's liberating.
Another FREEPER was actually the one who came up with this, and I haven't been able to get a shot of just the Americo Currency. I will keep you posted.
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.