Author Topic: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK  (Read 9113 times)

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2012, 04:28:31 PM »
No, Bernanke gets that.

I have a vision of Beranake running an old-school mimeograph machine, turning out worthless purple-ink dollars with one hand, while pointing a gun at himself with the other, "Stop the presses and nobody gets hurt!"

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,319
Re: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2012, 01:37:51 AM »
The extent to which the constitution is ignored today probably means we need a constutuional convention to fix it, and who knows how that would turn out.  The longer I sit in a parliamentary system, the more I appreciate how it works.  It might be something to consider adopting back home.

I disagree. It isn't the Constitution that's broken. The 4th Amendment still says that the People shall be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches. The problem is that the courts have allowed things to devolve to a state that busting down the door of the wrong home and pointing guns at everyone inside while screaming naughty words at children is considered normal and acceptable practice. In other words, that which is prima facie not reasonable to a sane individual has been determined by idiot courts to be legally reasonable.

Who said above that no-knock warrants should not be allowed? I agree. Further, the current time criteria for knock-and-enter warrants are also ridiculous. The courts have ruled that (IIRC) 20 to 30 seconds is sufficient time between knocking on the door and busting it in. Time for a reality check. I'm a heavy sleeper, and I sleep on the second floor. My route from the bedroom to the front door is through a dimly lit hallway with a sloped ceiling, which restricts rapid movement. Even IF I awakened at the very first knock, it would take a LOT more than 30 seconds for my awakening brain to figure out that there are people claiming to be police knocking on my door and to get myself out of bed and down the stairs to open said door.

And whatever happened to the quaint notion that the person on whom a warrant is "served" is supposed to be afforded an opportunity to READ the warrant? Think how much anguish and angst could be afforded if Jim Jones at 147 North Main Street were allowed to see the warrant so he could inform the friendly SWAT boys that the warrant they just showed him is for Alfred E. Newman, not Jim Jones, and the address on the warrant is 174 South Main Street?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

Levant

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 561
Re: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old's Head Is Not OK
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2012, 02:30:57 PM »
Hey DeSelby, I'll see your dismantling of the DEA enforcement, and go all in by throwing in the investigation and enforcement division of every federal agency, department, or bureau except the FBI, Secret Service, US Marshal's Service, Park Rangers, NCIS.

Then, restructure it like this:
1. Secret Service is tasked exclusively with executive protection, and investigation of threats on executives in the government.
2. Marshal's Service would be tasked to court work and figitive apprehension.
3. Park Rangers would work in the parks. I'll give them this one, as they do more than just investigate crimes and arrest people.  A lot of search and rescue, historical information, tour guides, etc.
4. NCIS is, in my opinion, a good idea.  You have investigators working outside the military chain of command, so their investigations hsould not be impeded by rank, etc.  Someone used their brains on that one, and the Army and Air Force should have paid attention.
5. FBI.  Here's where my idea gets interesting.  Expand the FBI, and put them in charge of all investigation and enforcement under the U.S.C.  You would actually save money by having a single agency, so things like automobile contracts, firearms and ammo contracts, etc., would be a single agency and a single provider.  No more would the feds have dozens of agencies buying different equipment from different providers, so expenses would be reduced.  Management would be easier.  You would reduce the number of supervisors, simplify the system, and save money in the overextended federal budget.

Just a thought...

What does the FBI have to do with firearms and ammo contracts?  How is purchasing an enforcement issue?  Considering the Constitution bans all infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, there's no need for a firearms role for the FBI.  And park rangers should be animal experts with no law enforcement role.  Otherwise, a great post.  Consolidation and mergers to optimize overhead is all the rage.  The feds need to get on board.

Also, remove counter-intel duties from FBI, create new CI agency to perform such duties.  The internal analog to the CIA.

Abuses of power by the CIA is why counter-intelligence is in the FBI.  We don't want the CIA released back on the American people.  In fact, using the NSA as a technical work around on the law needs to be banned as well.  There should be no intelligence gathering on Americans or residents of America except for counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, and counter-intelligence.  These are roles for the FBI.


For the record, I support individual rights and strict adherence to the constutuion. Always have, so I'd be on board with Chris's program too.

The extent to which the constitution is ignored today probably means we need a constutuional convention to fix it, and who knows how that would turn out.  The longer I sit in a parliamentary system, the more I appreciate how it works.  It might be something to consider adopting back home.

Constitutional convention are the two scariest words a libertarian ever heard.  Having any other constitutional convention would only mean a new, different, or changed constitution that would be ignored just like the current one is ignored.  The problem is, though, that the new constitution would almost certainly restrict the right to keep and bear arms, limit free speech to approved fenced off free speech zones, and require permits for protests - among whatever other reasonable restrictions leaders of such a convention could come up with.  A bunch of state legislators in a room creating changes to our Constitution scares the heck out of me.

What we need is to vote out those who will not follow the Constitution as it exists yet we continue to return the same Congress that over 85% of Americans profess to hate.

NEOKShooter on GRM
Republicans: The other Democratic Party