Lieutenant gets DWI, wife comes to pick him up......drunk.

[Truebeliever]

Would the cops who will look the other way for a fellow cop do the same for a CDL driver ?

His life would be just as ruined by the conviction.

As would many other professionals.

Who should only other cops get that pass ?


Also, looking the other way for a DWI by a fellow cop really shoots holes in the whole "we can't overlook AW possession bullshit".

You have no idea how many breaks are given by cops when it comes to DWI to non-cops to only have it come back to bite the cop .
For example, a cop I know pulled over a DWI. Rather than arrest him, he allowed him to call for a ride but to make sure the guy just didn’t drive home ( the cop couldn’t remain at the scene for guy’s ride to come), he locked the guy’a car keys in his car. The next morning the guy came in and made a complaint. Now, the cop is in trouble for giving the break. A fellow cop won’t do that.
I have seen it more than once where the person complained just for being made to take a taxi after getting stopped.
You get in more trouble for giving breaks than making those arrests and non LEOs burn the cops who do give them.
As far as the SAFE act violations or CCIA violations, I haven’t seen a whole bunch of pure CCIA or SAFE act violation arrests that weren’t illegal before the SAFE act was created. This is years into the SAFE act. If I was still active, how hard would be for me to find a pure SAFE act violation ? Or when I was active, do you think I could have put myself in a position to find them? Hint: how do the PA coos that patrol the public ranges know you have more than six rounds in your pistol?

 

[spat]

You have no idea how many breaks are given by cops when it comes to DWI to non-cops to only have it come back to bite the cop .
For example, a cop I know pulled over a DWI. Rather than arrest him, he allowed him to call for a ride but to make sure the guy just didn’t drive home ( the cop couldn’t remain at the scene for guy’s ride to come), he locked the guy’a car keys in his car. The next morning the guy came in and made a complaint. Now, the cop is in trouble for giving the break. A fellow cop won’t do that.
I have seen it more than once where the person complained just for being made to take a taxi after getting stopped.
You get in more trouble for giving breaks than making those arrests and non LEOs burn the cops who do give them.
As far as the SAFE act violations or CCIA violations, I haven’t seen a whole bunch of pure CCIA or SAFE act violation arrests that weren’t illegal before the SAFE act was created. This is years into the SAFE act. If I was still active, how hard would be for me to find a pure SAFE act violation ? Or when I was active, do you think I could have put myself in a position to find them? Hint: how do the PA coos that patrol the public ranges know you have more than six rounds in your pistol?

Any "possession of a weapon" charge is patently unconstitutional, whether it was pre-safe or not.

If my job told me to violate people's rights or get fired, I'd find a new job. I have no sympathy for people who claim they don't have a choice.

"Just following orders" is not an excuse. "Just doing my job" is the same thing.

So, the question is how egregious would the orders have to get before you would just tell your superiors to fuck off ?

You'd better figure that out, because those orders are coming, wherever you choose to draw that line.

 

[Truebeliever]

Any "possession of a weapon" charge is patently unconstitutional, whether it was pre-safe or not.

If my job told me to violate people's rights or get fired, I'd find a new job. I have no sympathy for people who claim they don't have a choice.

"Just following orders" is not an excuse. "Just doing my job" is the same thing.

So, the question is how egregious would the orders have to get before you would just tell your superiors to fuck off ?

You'd better figure that out, because those orders are coming, wherever you choose to draw that line.

Not all weapon laws are unconstitutional despite your belief as per SCOTUS and the founding fathers — they had some weapons laws back then too. Felons losing their rights was okay with the founding fathers .
“David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. "I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America," he said. "There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms."

Fact-check: Could individuals own cannons during the Revolutionary War?

This piece was originally published on PolitiFact.com on June 29, 2020 Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic...

www.statesman.com

The question is which ones would be okay with them- go based on what Thomas’s opinion as to what is constitutional— history and tradition of that time.

And weapon possession arrests I have made would have been fine with the founding fathers. And I don’t have to make that choice anymore.
Do you think a Catholic police officer shouldn’t have to prevent protesters from storming an abortion center? Or be duty bound to prevent a woman from having an abortion? Their religion says it’s murder, correct? But they have to follow the orders by the court, correct?
Or let’s give you this question? Two men can to have been assaulted and injured . Each claim they were attacked without provocation by the other and acted in self defense. No other witnesses or evidence available to you as to what happened? What do you do? Let them both go and let the guilty go? Or do you arrest them both knowing one is innocent but identifies both men and allows time for the court to determine who is the guilty party? It’s known as cross complainants . Could you do it? Should you do it? The very detention to gather more facts at the station house is an arrest .
An innocent man would be handcuffed and arrested.
Police officers have make those choices just as a solider might be sent to fight a war that they don’t agree with.

 

[spat]

Not all weapon laws are unconstitutional despite your belief as per SCOTUS and the founding fathers — they had some weapons laws back then too. Felons losing their rights was okay with the founding fathers .
“David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. "I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America," he said. "There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms."

Fact-check: Could individuals own cannons during the Revolutionary War?

This piece was originally published on PolitiFact.com on June 29, 2020 Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic...

www.statesman.com

The question is which ones would be okay with them- go based on what Thomas’s opinion as to what is constitutional— history and tradition of that time.

And weapon possession arrests I have made would have been fine with the founding fathers. And I don’t have to make that choice anymore.
Do you think a Catholic police officer shouldn’t have to prevent protesters from storming an abortion center? Or be duty bound to prevent a woman from having an abortion? Their religion says it’s murder, correct? But they have to follow the orders by the court, correct?
Or let’s give you this question? Two men can to have been assaulted and injured . Each claim they were attacked without provocation by the other and acted in self defense. No other witnesses or evidence available to you as to what happened? What do you do? Let them both go and let the guilty go? Or do you arrest them both knowing one is innocent but identifies both men and allows time for the court to determine who is the guilty party? It’s known as cross complainants . Could you do it? Should you do it? The very detention to gather more facts at the station house is an arrest .
An innocent man would be handcuffed and arrested.
Police officers have make those choices just as a solider might be sent to fight a war that they don’t agree with.

IDGAF what someone else says, no matter who they are or what their credentials are. I would remind you that slavery was legal, Japanese American internment in WWII wasn't struck down by any court. Jim crow was considered perfectly legal until it wasn't. None of the people sentenced to hang at Nuremburg broke any law.


"Shall not be infringed" is absolute.

The 1A says "congress shall pass no law". On it's face it's only a restriction on the federal government.

The 2A has no such limit. The natural right it guarantees has *no* restrictions.

 

[Acer-m14]

are chop sticks against the law .. i hear they can be deadly

 

[Acer-m14]

Not all weapon laws are unconstitutional despite your belief as per SCOTUS and the founding fathers — they had some weapons laws back then too. Felons losing their rights was okay with the founding fathers .

got proof ??

 

[Truebeliever]

got proof ??

I gave the quote in my previous post. More evidence of the loss of rights for criminal conviction are the punishments of branding which were common. Like Hawthorne’s Scarlet letter, it was a punishment that endured long after the wound healed.
Here is a paper on felon “ disenfranchisement “

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2140&context=ulj#page5

And from :https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp
. “Gun Carry Restrictions
Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historical period under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.”43 Massachusetts followed in 1750.44 In the late 1700s, North Carolina45 and Virginia46 passed similar laws.47 In the 1800s, as interpersonal violence and gun carrying spread, thirty-eight states joined the list;48 five more did so in the early

Nunn vs State of GA( 1846)
“The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons.”

DO NOT THINK I am advocating banning of weapons etc. I do believe that there are some historical and traditional restrictions as illustrated by Thomas’s opinion in the SCOTUS decision. Felons losing rights even after they are released from incarceration is one. Do I believe it’s ex-post facto to lose rights before it was in the law? Absolutely. Those convicted of a domestic or a felony before it was codified ( in law) should not lose that right . I do believe in the process of the restoration of rights as well. At one time, a felon could get his full firearm rights restored in NY but not now with a certificate of relief.
But the legal history of the loss of rights upon a criminal conviction was common in colonial America.

 

[Truebeliever]

IDGAF what someone else says, no matter who they are or what their credentials are. I would remind you that slavery was legal, Japanese American internment in WWII wasn't struck down by any court. Jim crow was considered perfectly legal until it wasn't. None of the people sentenced to hang at Nuremburg broke any law.


"Shall not be infringed" is absolute.

The 1A says "congress shall pass no law". On it's face it's only a restriction on the federal government.

The 2A has no such limit. The natural right it guarantees has *no* restrictions.

Some of what you say is factually incorrect but morally correct .
A court did rule against the internment of the Japanese just many decades too late under the argument that the FBI didn’t turn over all the information in the 1980’s.
But by your reasoning, homosexuals should sue for not being allowed to marry until this decade and denied inheritance. Transgender ( biological men) should go to women’s prisons without segregation and they could sue for any imprisonment in the past where they were sent according to biology.

And the woman who complained and harassed the transgender with male parts ( convicted pedophile) from getting baked in front of kids in the woman’s locker should be arrested for federal civil rights violations?

If 20 years from now the pedophile movement to call them people attracted to minors gets their way, are you going to accuse the police of today of violating their civil rights ?

 

[spat]

Some of what you say is factually incorrect but morally correct .
A court did rule against the internment of the Japanese just many decades too late under the argument that the FBI didn’t turn over all the information in the 1980’s.
But by your reasoning, homosexuals should sue for not being allowed to marry until this decade and denied inheritance. Transgender ( biological men) should go to women’s prisons without segregation and they could sue for any imprisonment in the past where they were sent according to biology.

No, I am saying that right and wrong are not determined by a government.

Governments can declare legal and illegal, but they have no more say in right and wrong than they do the laws of physics.

RKBA exists in the same way gravity exists. You cannot legislate it out of existence no matter what you do. You can infringe it, but you can't eliminate it.

The 1A says government has no business regulating marriage at all. It's a religious institution.

And people *should* be able to sue both the government, and the individuals responsible for violating their rights. The notion that the government is sovereign and immune is an anathema to a free society.

The sovereign citizens are nut jobs, not because they believe they are sovereign, but only because they think the government cares.

Their arguments are like reminding the mugger that he is breaking the law and thinking he's going to stop because you point out his gun is illegal.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, I am saying that right and wrong are not determined by a government.

Governments can declare legal and illegal, but they have no more say in right and wrong than they do the laws of physics.

RKBA exists in the same way gravity exists. You cannot legislate it out of existence no matter what you do. You can infringe it, but you can't eliminate it.

The 1A says government has no business regulating marriage at all. It's a religious institution.

And people *should* be able to sue both the government, and the individuals responsible for violating their rights. The notion that the government is sovereign and immune is an anathema to a free society.

The sovereign citizens are nut jobs, not because they believe they are sovereign, but only because they think the government cares.

Their arguments are like reminding the mugger that he is breaking the law and thinking he's going to stop because you point out his gun is illegal.

Marriage is both a religious and civil commitment. Only two people can be legally married now. Do you think that should change ? Or just say married people have no “ special “ legal, property or tax protections with each other?

Snd since you responded before my edit was completed.
Here is the question again
But by your reasoning, homosexuals should sue for not being allowed to marry until this decade and denied inheritance. Transgender ( biological men) should go to women’s prisons without segregation and they could sue for any imprisonment in the past where they were sent according to biology.

And the woman who complained and harassed the transgender with male parts ( convicted pedophile) from getting baked in front of kids in the woman’s locker should be arrested for federal civil rights violations?

If 20 years from now the pedophile movement to call them people attracted to minors gets their way, are you going to accuse the police of today of violating their civil rights ?

 

[spat]

Marriage is both a religious and civil commitment. Only two people can be legally married now. Do you think that should change ? Or just say married people have no “ special “ legal, property or tax protections with each other?

Snd since you responded before my edit was completed.
Here is the question again
But by your reasoning, homosexuals should sue for not being allowed to marry until this decade and denied inheritance. Transgender ( biological men) should go to women’s prisons without segregation and they could sue for any imprisonment in the past where they were sent according to biology.

And the woman who complained and harassed the transgender with male parts ( convicted pedophile) from getting baked in front of kids in the woman’s locker should be arrested for federal civil rights violations?

If 20 years from now the pedophile movement to call them people attracted to minors gets their way, are you going to accuse the police of today of violating their civil rights ?

I think the religious institution of marriage, and the business partnership that accompanies it should be completely separate things.

The terms of the first are solely between you and your clergy.

The terms of the second should follow the same sort of contract law as every other business.


As for all the trans bullshit, it stems from us mistakenly using man/woman as a proxy for various underlying biological differences.

When the left blew up the definitions of man/woman they threw that all into confusion.

If we had made the original differences based on the proper underlying characteristics we would not have this problem. Split prisons and locker rooms up but penis and vagina instead of man and woman and the problem is solved.

As for the pesos being accepted in 20 years, no, pedophilia is wrong, it was always wrong and it always will be. Even if they manage to gain legal acceptance in 20 years that still doesn't mean you were violating their rights, because those rights *don't* exist regardless of what the law says.

What you don't seem to get is that the legal status is independent of right and wrong. Making something that's wrong legal doesn't make it right.

 

[Truebeliever]

I think the religious institution of marriage, and the business partnership that accompanies it should be completely separate things.

The terms of the first are solely between you and your clergy.

The terms of the second should follow the same sort of contract law as every other business.


As for all the trans bullshit, it stems from us mistakenly using man/woman as a proxy for various underlying biological differences.

When the left blew up the definitions of man/woman they threw that all into confusion.

If we had made the original differences based on the proper underlying characteristics we would not have this problem. Split prisons and locker rooms up but penis and vagina instead of man and woman and the problem is solved.

As for the pesos being accepted in 20 years, no, pedophilia is wrong, it was always wrong and it always will be. Even if they manage to gain legal acceptance in 20 years that still doesn't mean you were violating their rights, because those rights *don't* exist regardless of what the law says.

What you don't seem to get is that the legal status is independent of right and wrong. Making something that's wrong legal doesn't make it right.

Ah, so the standard of what are rights are based on your feelings. The Catholic might “ feel” that the Roe v Wade type rulings violate the right of life . Homosexual acts and acts associated with it ( sodomy) were illegal until very recently in most places. Are those prior arrests a violation of civil rights ? Yet the police officer keeping protesters from forcible closing the clinics are just following orders. What if 20 years the country decides it was life. Are cops to be tried for crimes against humanity like Nazis by your standard?
Just 20 years ago, most of America was against gay marriage. 50 yeses ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states, believed to be wrong by most America.
Transgender operations are seen by many to be genital mutilation by many especially if done on minors. Should police arrest doctors for doing it in minors? Is that individual police officer’s choice or is that above is pay grade?

 

[spat]

Ah, so the standard of what are rights are based on your feelings. The Catholic might “ feel” that the Roe v Wade type rulings violate the right of life . Homosexual acts and acts associated with it ( sodomy) were illegal until very recently in most places. Are those prior arrests a violation of civil rights ? Yet the police officer keeping protesters from forcible closing the clinics are just following orders. What if 20 years the country decides it was life. Are cops to be tried for crimes against humanity like Nazis by your standard?
Just 20 years ago, most of America was against gay marriage. 50 yeses ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states, believed to be wrong by most America.
Transgender operations are seen by many to be genital mutilation by many especially if done on minors. Should police arrest doctors for doing it in minors? Is that individual police officer’s choice or is that above is pay grade?

Nope, not based on anyone's feelings.

There *are* objective answers to the question of "right and wrong". Just like math and science do not depend on consensus, neither does morality.

Your notion that we get to vote on right and wrong is the foundation of evil. All of the worse examples in history were all legal and popular at the time.

Or, do you think Aztechs sacrificing children by the thousands for a better harvest was acceptable because everyone in that society thought it was ?

It is *your* moral relativism that would lead to pedophiles being accepted in 20 years, and the cops who arrest them today being called monsters for doing it.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nope, not based on anyone's feelings.

There *are* objective answers to the question of "right and wrong". Just like math and science do not depend on consensus, neither does morality.

Your notion that we get to vote on right and wrong is the foundation of evil. All of the worse examples in history were all legal and popular at the time.

Or, do you think Aztechs sacrificing children by the thousands for a better harvest was acceptable because everyone in that society thought it was ?

It is *your* moral relativism that would lead to pedophiles being accepted in 20 years, and the cops who arrest them today being called monsters for doing it.

That’s what you are doing and asking cops to be in a Time Machine to know what will be recognized as right or wrong in the future.
This would be considered a felony now:
And not for the reason you think

And the two men would be arrested for rape in this one


It wasn’t seen as wrong in 1983

 

[spat]

That’s what you are doing and asking cops to be in a Time Machine to know what will be recognized as right or wrong in the future.
This would be considered a felony now:
And not for the reason you think

And the two men would be arrested for rape in this one


It wasn’t seen as wrong in 1983

No, I'm not asking them to predict what fashion will look like in 20 years.

I'm asking them to apply objective and unchanging standards that would apply the same way 100 years from now as they did 100 years ago.

Now, to be fair, it is not entirely the cops responsibility to do that. The legislature bears the majority of the blame for "right and wrong as fashion", but, the cops are the actual tip of the spear. They are the ones that do the actual damage when the legislature gets things wrong.


Right and Wrong *are not complicated*. People who try to claim otherwise are intentionally muddying the waters because they want to make things that are objectively wrong right, or the other way around.

Right and Wrong are very simple. You do not have the right to force your will on someone else who doesn't agree. It's that simple.

Yep, that means that your arrest of some miscreant is morally wrong. It can only be redeemed if it is to correct an even greater wrong. Since most of todays arrests are for victimless crimes that means most of them are morally objectionably. That also means that the government and it's agents do not have any superior claim to such action. Everyone enforcing laws is morally equivalent to a vigilante, badge or not.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, I'm not asking them to predict what fashion will look like in 20 years.

I'm asking them to apply objective and unchanging standards that would apply the same way 100 years from now as they did 100 years ago.

Now, to be fair, it is not entirely the cops responsibility to do that. The legislature bears the majority of the blame for "right and wrong as fashion", but, the cops are the actual tip of the spear. They are the ones that do the actual damage when the legislature gets things wrong.


Right and Wrong *are not complicated*. People who try to claim otherwise are intentionally muddying the waters because they want to make things that are objectively wrong right, or the other way around.

Right and Wrong are very simple. You do not have the right to force your will on someone else who doesn't agree. It's that simple.

Yep, that means that your arrest of some miscreant is morally wrong. It can only be redeemed if it is to correct an even greater wrong. Since most of todays arrests are for victimless crimes that means most of them are morally objectionably. That also means that the government and it's agents do not have any superior claim to such action. Everyone enforcing laws is morally equivalent to a vigilante, badge or not.

You are asking that retroactively. If a cop in the 1950s made an arrest for lewd behavior because two men made out to n public , is that cop to be condemned now? Or made a liquor raid in the 1920s. Or marih

The “ “constitutional carry “ has not be recognized or interpreted as a right. “ shall not be infringed “ is there but so is “ well regulated “. Scholars have debated the meaning of this for years. 4 SCOTUS justices get what our rights are wrong all the time . Even current justices who voted pro-2A are defending a “ shall issue” permit system . So if a cop makes a possession without a permit arrest, it’s not unconstitutional as it stands now or the foreseeable future.
You are basing your judgment on your “ feelings” of right and wrong that many others do not agree. Police officers like soldiers must often do things they personally disagree with. For example, protect a Nazi rally if they got the parade permit to March down the street . Or the BLM protests against police officers .

 

[SomeSoldier]

No, I am saying that right and wrong are not determined by a government.

Governments can declare legal and illegal, but they have no more say in right and wrong than they do the laws of physics.

RKBA exists in the same way gravity exists. You cannot legislate it out of existence no matter what you do. You can infringe it, but you can't eliminate it.

The 1A says government has no business regulating marriage at all. It's a religious institution.

And people *should* be able to sue both the government, and the individuals responsible for violating their rights. The notion that the government is sovereign and immune is an anathema to a free society.

The sovereign citizens are nut jobs, not because they believe they are sovereign, but only because they think the government cares.

Their arguments are like reminding the mugger that he is breaking the law and thinking he's going to stop because you point out his gun is illegal.

Steve Deace says it best, we are not a nation of laws but of political will.

 

[spat]

You are asking that retroactively. If a cop in the 1950s made an arrest for lewd behavior because two men made out to n public , is that cop to be condemned now? Or made a liquor raid in the 1920s. Or marih

The “ “constitutional carry “ has not be recognized or interpreted as a right. “ shall not be infringed “ is there but so is “ well regulated “. Scholars have debated the meaning of this for years. 4 SCOTUS justices get what our rights are wrong all the time . Even current justices who voted pro-2A are defending a “ shall issue” permit system . So if a cop makes a possession without a permit arrest, it’s not unconstitutional as it stands now or the foreseeable future.
You are basing your judgment on your “ feelings” of right and wrong that many others do not agree. Police officers like soldiers must often do things they personally disagree with. For example, protect a Nazi rally if they got the parade permit to March down the street . Or the BLM protests against police officers .

Yes, those were always violations of people's rights.

Just like drug and firearms arrests always have been and always will be.

I'm not asking anyone to predict anything. Just to apply the same basic rules everywhere and for all time.

Your notion would excuse the perpetrators of all of the greatest atrocities in history because "just following orders".

All the people who tracked escaped slaves, perpetrated the Armenian genocide, committed the massacres for the Khymer Rouge, the NAZIs, Stalin, Mao, all the way back to Attilla the hun and before were *all* just "enforcing the law".

You *cannot* allow "everyone was doing it" to become an excuse. You *must* demand that *every* officer or soldier be able to *personally* justify the morality of their actions or you will get more atrocities.

I understand why modern police officers and soldiers might want to tell themselves they aren't responsible as long as they are following procedures someone else wrote, but that doesn't make it so.

Every gangland enforcer is just following procedure and doing his job too. Just because you work for the biggest gang on the block doesn't change your responsibilities to act morally and ethically.

 

[Acer-m14]

I gave the quote in my previous post. More evidence of the loss of rights for criminal conviction are the punishments of branding which were common. Like Hawthorne’s Scarlet letter, it was a punishment that endured long after the wound healed.
Here is a paper on felon “ disenfranchisement “

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2140&context=ulj#page5

And from :https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp
. “Gun Carry Restrictions
Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historical period under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.”43 Massachusetts followed in 1750.44 In the late 1700s, North Carolina45 and Virginia46 passed similar laws.47 In the 1800s, as interpersonal violence and gun carrying spread, thirty-eight states joined the list;48 five more did so in the early

Nunn vs State of GA( 1846)
“The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons.”

DO NOT THINK I am advocating banning of weapons etc. I do believe that there are some historical and traditional restrictions as illustrated by Thomas’s opinion in the SCOTUS decision. Felons losing rights even after they are released from incarceration is one. Do I believe it’s ex-post facto to lose rights before it was in the law? Absolutely. Those convicted of a domestic or a felony before it was codified ( in law) should not lose that right . I do believe in the process of the restoration of rights as well. At one time, a felon could get his full firearm rights restored in NY but not now with a certificate of relief.
But the legal history of the loss of rights upon a criminal conviction was common in colonial America.

wrong time period

with the latest ruling from Thomas .. all that is null n void ..

back is the old old days if you had a gun and someone complained .. you would post a surety bond that you would be nice with your gun

you kept your gun and if you were nice for a time period .. you got your money back ..

also back in the old old days .. you were asked to bring your gun to church too ..




If you let them out of Jail / prison .. then you trust them with a gun or car or truck ..

 

[Truebeliever]

Yes, those were always violations of people's rights.

Just like drug and firearms arrests always have been and always will be.

I'm not asking anyone to predict anything. Just to apply the same basic rules everywhere and for all time.

Your notion would excuse the perpetrators of all of the greatest atrocities in history because "just following orders".

All the people who tracked escaped slaves, perpetrated the Armenian genocide, committed the massacres for the Khymer Rouge, the NAZIs, Stalin, Mao, all the way back to Attilla the hun and before were *all* just "enforcing the law".

You *cannot* allow "everyone was doing it" to become an excuse. You *must* demand that *every* officer or soldier be able to *personally* justify the morality of their actions or you will get more atrocities.

I understand why modern police officers and soldiers might want to tell themselves they aren't responsible as long as they are following procedures someone else wrote, but that doesn't make it so.

Every gangland enforcer is just following procedure and doing his job too. Just because you work for the biggest gang on the block doesn't change your responsibilities to act morally and ethically.

See, you are asking for that Time Machine effect. Slavery is wrong but do you condemn almost everyone in the Bible for it? Any soldier in Vietnam, or World War Two who planted a mine is now a war criminal? Some treaties by todays standards say yes. And by your standards, the answer is yes. And we will definitely disagree about drugs . The people who deal certain drugs are slavers of today .

 

[Jmac00]

"with a blood alcohol content of .22 percent."

What is a BAC of .22 on a "how drunk" scale from 1 to 10?

it also was his Grade point average at the academy

 

[spat]

See, you are asking for that Time Machine effect. Slavery is wrong but do you condemn almost everyone in the Bible for it? Any soldier in Vietnam, or World War Two who planted a mine is now a war criminal? Some treaties by todays standards say yes. And by your standards, the answer is yes. And we will definitely disagree about drugs . The people who deal certain drugs are slavers of today .

No time machine effect.

Slavery would depend on which form of it, there have been many versions throughout history, some far more egregious than others, but no, you don't get a pass on owning other people just because "everyone was doing it".

Land mines ? Perfectly acceptable in war. How are they a violation of someone else's rights ?

You *keep* making the mistake of letting someone else try to tell you what's moral and what isn't. If you let them tell you land mines are not OK, then you'll let the same assholes tell you it's fine to round "vaccine deniers" up and send them to camps.

As for drugs, are you saying that pot dealers 100 years ago were fine, but 20 years ago they were evil, but now they're fine again ? And you accuse *me* of having a "time machine" problem ?

Now, I'm not saying todays drug dealers are fine people, most are horrible and absolutely are violating other people's rights, just not by selling them drugs. You also don't seem to get that just because junkies and dealers tend to be criminals doesn't mean the act itself should be criminal.

A little over 100 years ago you could buy heroine mail order from the Sears catalog. Did that make them the scum of the earth ?

 

[Truebeliever]

wrong time period

with the latest ruling from Thomas .. all that is null n void ..

back is the old old days if you had a gun and someone complained .. you would post a surety bond that you would be nice with your gun

you kept your gun and if you were nice for a time period .. you got your money back ..

also back in the old old days .. you were asked to bring your gun to church too ..




If you let them out of Jail / prison .. then you trust them with a gun or car or truck ..

You proved my point … a “ surety” bond was …. a form of a permit to carry.
Just the fact it’s not clear cut as spat thinks shows it’s not the crime against humanity and the police are like Nazis he equates it to be.

 

[Truebeliever]

No time machine effect.

Slavery would depend on which form of it, there have been many versions throughout history, some far more egregious than others, but no, you don't get a pass on owning other people just because "everyone was doing it".

Land mines ? Perfectly acceptable in war. How are they a violation of someone else's rights ?

You *keep* making the mistake of letting someone else try to tell you what's moral and what isn't. If you let them tell you land mines are not OK, then you'll let the same assholes tell you it's fine to round "vaccine deniers" up and send them to camps.

As for drugs, are you saying that pot dealers 100 years ago were fine, but 20 years ago they were evil, but now they're fine again ? And you accuse *me* of having a "time machine" problem ?

Now, I'm not saying todays drug dealers are fine people, most are horrible and absolutely are violating other people's rights, just not by selling them drugs. You also don't seem to get that just because junkies and dealers tend to be criminals doesn't mean the act itself should be criminal.

A little over 100 years ago you could buy heroine mail order from the Sears catalog. Did that make them the scum of the earth ?

See, you were not aware that world morality on land mines has changed and it’s a war crime now.
And selling certain drugs is worse than robbing them of money or property because it steals their soul and causes them to commit other crimes to pay for the habit .

 

[Truebeliever]

Just to add Spat.
By your standards, Luke Skywalker in Star Wars should be cancelled. He was for the enslavement of sentient beings ( droids) and helped buy and sell them .

 

[spat]

See, you were not aware that world morality on land mines has changed and it’s a war crime now.
And selling certain drugs is worse than robbing them of money or property because it steals their soul and causes them to commit other crimes to pay for the habit .

No, the morality of land mines hasn't changed. It never has and it never will. It cannot change anymore than the value of PI can change.

What has changed is the fashionable way to think about them.

You are demanding we ebb and flow with the winds of fashion. I am saying right and wrong are completely divorced from what's popular.

You are saying that if the LGBXYZ crowd gets their way then extreme pedophilia will be perfectly acceptable in 20 years.

I am saying that it might be socially acceptable, but it will *always* he morally abhorrent.


Do you condemn the slavery that's going on in China right now ? Or is it fine to farm humans for organs because the state says so and the people agree ?


If you were around in the 1850s I think you would have viewed the operators of the underground railroad the way you do drug dealers now.

I think if you were a policeman in Frankfurt in the 1940s and someone reported to you that their neighbor was harboring Jews you would have "done your duty" and arrested them all.

And I think you know this and your disgusting moral relativism is an attempt to deflect blame for that.

 

[Truebeliever]

No, the morality of land mines hasn't changed. It never has and it never will. It cannot change anymore than the value of PI can change.

What has changed is the fashionable way to think about them.

You are demanding we ebb and flow with the winds of fashion. I am saying right and wrong are completely divorced from what's popular.

You are saying that if the LGBXYZ crowd gets their way then extreme pedophilia will be perfectly acceptable in 20 years.

I am saying that it might be socially acceptable, but it will *always* he morally abhorrent.


Do you condemn the slavery that's going on in China right now ? Or is it fine to farm humans for organs because the state says so and the people agree ?


If you were around in the 1850s I think you would have viewed the operators of the underground railroad the way you do drug dealers now.

I think if you were a policeman in Frankfurt in the 1940s and someone reported to you that their neighbor was harboring Jews you would have "done your duty" and arrested them all.

And I think you know this and your disgusting moral relativism is an attempt to deflect blame for that.

I didn’t say if the alphabet people get their way as in some slippery slope but a certain “woke” movement is advocating for the pedophiles to be called something different and to decriminalize their behavior.— that movement will make it legal if it’s not stopped.
As far as reporting Jews comparison, it’s just a wrong comparison. Those were new laws against the fabric of society similar to some of the covid ones. Most cops did not enforce covid restrictions. Cuomo got someone else to do it.
I just showed how some gun regulations was allowed in 1791 or before in some areas. People can honestly believe private gun ownership is wrong . They are wrong but they believe it and the democrats use that believe to pass gun control.
How many soldiers did not believe in a war but went— were they morally wrong to do so? It’s the same thing for police officers.

And the morality and land mines did change . With some exceptions, in 1997 it was made a war crime. Go look it up. Or ask a solider if they are allowed to attach the tripwires to a claymore anymore.

 

[spat]

I didn’t say if the alphabet people get their way as in some slippery slope but a certain “woke” movement is advocating for the pedophiles to be called something different and to decriminalize their behavior.— that movement will make it legal if it’s not stopped.
As far as reporting Jews comparison, it’s just a wrong comparison. Those were new laws against the fabric of society similar to some of the covid ones. Most cops did not enforce covid restrictions. Cuomo got someone else to do it.
I just showed how some gun regulations was allowed in 1791 or before in some areas. People can honestly believe private gun ownership is wrong . They are wrong but they believe it and the democrats use that believe to pass gun control.
How many soldiers did not believe in a war but went— were they morally wrong to do so? It’s the same thing for police officers.

And the morality and land mines did change . With some exceptions, in 1997 it was made a war crime. Go look it up. Or ask a solider if they are allowed to attach the tripwires to a claymore anymore.

You are *still* falsely equating morality to legality.

The legality of land mines changed. The morality did not. True morality is fixed and unchanging.

This is also the flaw in your arguments about how society views things. Do you really think pedophilia will be morally acceptable just because society changes it's views in 20 years ?

What about societies that have different views ? Is executing people for being homosexual morally acceptable because it's considered virtuous in the middle east ?

Is it a moral act in one country but immoral in another ? How can that work ?

True morality is independent of time or location.

 

[Acer-m14]

You proved my point … a “ surety” bond was …. a form of a permit to carry.

no it was a promise note that you would not shoot your unhappy scared neighbor for 60 days

so if you didn't shoot him you got your money back ..

not even close to a gun permit

 

[Truebeliever]

no it was a promise note that you would not shoot your unhappy scared neighbor for 60 days

so if you didn't shoot him you got your money back ..

not even close to a gun permit

Really? And what happened if you didn’t pay it? You either had to leave or surrender the weapon .