In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

On 4/23/13 8:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?


It is Constitutional to peacefully protest any government action, but I
think it is disgusting, even though it is legal, to protest at the
funeral of a soldier killed in action.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.

Here are some very important rulings regarding the 2nd amendment:

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court
ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the
powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled
that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This
ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on
whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective
militia right

A "militia" isn't one person.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

I wholeheartedly agree! Therefore, you can't cherry pick which passages
you want upheld because you want them upheld, and deny the ones you want
to deny.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

I wholeheartedly agree! Therefore, you can't cherry pick which passages
you want upheld because you want them upheld, and deny the ones you want
to deny.

Which ones are those who are not of your vien of thought not wanting to ensure?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.


You cherry pick "freedom of speech" from the 1st amendment without
including "Congress shall make no law".

If you are going to say that was modified by the 14th amendment
prohibiting a state or local government from making a law prohibiting
free speech, I would counter that state and local government could not
make a law stronger than the federal ones on gun ownership.

It is clear we do limit rights and most have been so strictly limited
that they virtually fail to exist. What does the 4th amendment mean if
a cop can stop your car for virtually any reason, demand everyone get
out, demand ID from everyone, (MARYLAND v. WILSON) search them, the
car and the passenger compartment of the car (ostensibly for weapons)
without a warrant or probable cause(Michigan v. Long )?
If there is a "custodial arrest" (eliminating that confusion about
what an arrest is) they can also impound the car and search it in
detail under the guise of an "inventory".(New York v. Belton)
They can even make you wait on the side of the road until a dog
arrives for a sniff (ILLINOIS v. CABALLES)

I didn't cherry pick ANYTHING. In the case of Maryland v. Wilson, there
was probable cause and laws were broken LONG before the search.

"At about 7:30 p.m. on a June evening, Maryland state trooper David
Hughes observed a passenger car driving southbound on I-95 in Baltimore
County at a speed of 64 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 55
miles per hour, and the car had no regular license tag; there was a torn
piece of paper reading "Enterprise Rent A Car" dangling from its rear.
Hughes activated his lights and sirens, signaling the car to pull over,
but it continued driving for another mile and a half until it finally
did so.

During the pursuit, Hughes noticed that there were three occupants in
the car and that the two passengers turned to look at him several times,
repeatedly ducking below sight level and then reappearing. As Hughes
approached the car on foot, the driver alighted and met him halfway. The
driver was trembling and appeared extremely nervous, but nonetheless
produced a valid Connecticut driver's license. Hughes instructed him to
return to the car and retrieve the rental documents, and he complied.
During this encounter, Hughes noticed that the front seat passenger,
respondent Jerry Lee Wilson, was sweating and also appeared extremely
nervous. While the driver was sitting in the driver's seat looking for
the rental papers, Hughes ordered Wilson out of the car.

When Wilson exited the car, a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the
ground. Wilson was then arrested and charged with possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute. Before trial, Wilson moved to suppress the
evidence, arguing that Hughes' ordering him out of the car constituted
an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court
for Baltimore County agreed, and granted respondent's motion to
suppress. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed,
106 Md. App. 24, 664 A. 2d 1 (1995), ruling that Pennsylvania v. Mimms
does not apply to passengers. The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied
certiorari. 340 Md. 502, 667 A. 2d 342 (1995). We granted certiorari,
518 U. S. ___ (1996), and now reverse."

But, the task remains, are you going to uphold the constitution for some
things and not for others?

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.


You cherry pick "freedom of speech" from the 1st amendment without
including "Congress shall make no law".

If you are going to say that was modified by the 14th amendment
prohibiting a state or local government from making a law prohibiting
free speech, I would counter that state and local government could not
make a law stronger than the federal ones on gun ownership.

It is clear we do limit rights and most have been so strictly limited
that they virtually fail to exist. What does the 4th amendment mean if
a cop can stop your car for virtually any reason, demand everyone get
out, demand ID from everyone, (MARYLAND v. WILSON) search them, the
car and the passenger compartment of the car (ostensibly for weapons)
without a warrant or probable cause(Michigan v. Long )?
If there is a "custodial arrest" (eliminating that confusion about
what an arrest is) they can also impound the car and search it in
detail under the guise of an "inventory".(New York v. Belton)
They can even make you wait on the side of the road until a dog
arrives for a sniff (ILLINOIS v. CABALLES)

I didn't cherry pick ANYTHING. In the case of Maryland v. Wilson, there
was probable cause and laws were broken LONG before the search.

"At about 7:30 p.m. on a June evening, Maryland state trooper David
Hughes observed a passenger car driving southbound on I-95 in Baltimore
County at a speed of 64 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 55
miles per hour, and the car had no regular license tag; there was a torn
piece of paper reading "Enterprise Rent A Car" dangling from its rear.
Hughes activated his lights and sirens, signaling the car to pull over,
but it continued driving for another mile and a half until it finally
did so.

During the pursuit, Hughes noticed that there were three occupants in
the car and that the two passengers turned to look at him several times,
repeatedly ducking below sight level and then reappearing. As Hughes
approached the car on foot, the driver alighted and met him halfway. The
driver was trembling and appeared extremely nervous, but nonetheless
produced a valid Connecticut driver's license. Hughes instructed him to
return to the car and retrieve the rental documents, and he complied.
During this encounter, Hughes noticed that the front seat passenger,
respondent Jerry Lee Wilson, was sweating and also appeared extremely
nervous. While the driver was sitting in the driver's seat looking for
the rental papers, Hughes ordered Wilson out of the car.

When Wilson exited the car, a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the
ground. Wilson was then arrested and charged with possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute. Before trial, Wilson moved to suppress the
evidence, arguing that Hughes' ordering him out of the car constituted
an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court
for Baltimore County agreed, and granted respondent's motion to
suppress. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed,
106 Md. App. 24, 664 A. 2d 1 (1995), ruling that Pennsylvania v. Mimms
does not apply to passengers. The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied
certiorari. 340 Md. 502, 667 A. 2d 342 (1995). We granted certiorari,
518 U. S. ___ (1996), and now reverse."

But, the task remains, are you going to uphold the constitution for some
things and not for others?

You forgot to use the word "allegedly" numerous times.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:06:40 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.


You cherry pick "freedom of speech" from the 1st amendment without
including "Congress shall make no law".

If you are going to say that was modified by the 14th amendment
prohibiting a state or local government from making a law prohibiting
free speech, I would counter that state and local government could not
make a law stronger than the federal ones on gun ownership.

It is clear we do limit rights and most have been so strictly limited
that they virtually fail to exist. What does the 4th amendment mean if
a cop can stop your car for virtually any reason, demand everyone get
out, demand ID from everyone, (MARYLAND v. WILSON) search them, the
car and the passenger compartment of the car (ostensibly for weapons)
without a warrant or probable cause(Michigan v. Long )?
If there is a "custodial arrest" (eliminating that confusion about
what an arrest is) they can also impound the car and search it in
detail under the guise of an "inventory".(New York v. Belton)
They can even make you wait on the side of the road until a dog
arrives for a sniff (ILLINOIS v. CABALLES)

I didn't cherry pick ANYTHING. In the case of Maryland v. Wilson, there
was probable cause and laws were broken LONG before the search.

"At about 7:30 p.m. on a June evening, Maryland state trooper David
Hughes observed a passenger car driving southbound on I-95 in Baltimore
County at a speed of 64 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 55
miles per hour, and the car had no regular license tag; there was a torn
piece of paper reading "Enterprise Rent A Car" dangling from its rear.
Hughes activated his lights and sirens, signaling the car to pull over,
but it continued driving for another mile and a half until it finally
did so.

During the pursuit, Hughes noticed that there were three occupants in
the car and that the two passengers turned to look at him several times,
repeatedly ducking below sight level and then reappearing. As Hughes
approached the car on foot, the driver alighted and met him halfway. The
driver was trembling and appeared extremely nervous, but nonetheless
produced a valid Connecticut driver's license. Hughes instructed him to
return to the car and retrieve the rental documents, and he complied.
During this encounter, Hughes noticed that the front seat passenger,
respondent Jerry Lee Wilson, was sweating and also appeared extremely
nervous. While the driver was sitting in the driver's seat looking for
the rental papers, Hughes ordered Wilson out of the car.

When Wilson exited the car, a quantity of crack cocaine fell to the
ground. Wilson was then arrested and charged with possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute. Before trial, Wilson moved to suppress the
evidence, arguing that Hughes' ordering him out of the car constituted
an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court
for Baltimore County agreed, and granted respondent's motion to
suppress. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed,
106 Md. App. 24, 664 A. 2d 1 (1995), ruling that Pennsylvania v. Mimms
does not apply to passengers. The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied
certiorari. 340 Md. 502, 667 A. 2d 342 (1995). We granted certiorari,
518 U. S. ___ (1996), and now reverse."

But, the task remains, are you going to uphold the constitution for some
things and not for others?

Unfortunately Wilson is now used to allow the cops to make everyone
get out of a car and show ID with the most ambiguous "suspicious
activity" like driving while black. When coupled with the other cases
I cited, you basically have no rights on the road..

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that you don't have any rights on the road
anymore. Another precedent that is diluted to nothing is entrapment. But
again, if you are going to cite constitutional precedent, so be it, but
you can't cherry pick.

On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."


You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella.