narcotics checkpoint sign.....

[superA 289]

Alcohol and Tobacco use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time. In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who owns one should be subject to search at any time....just to make sure you arent doing anything you know illegal. Because its not protected under the constitution. Oh and while im thinking of it you know land lines are a privilege too and are not protected as a right under the constitution and should be subject to wire taps at any time just to make sure you arent abusing your privileges...I almost forgot toaster ovens and microwaves are not a right protected by the constitution and if you own or operate one you should be subject to any means necessary to catch criminals that might use one....oh and I almost forgot your internet and the hot water heater that warms your bath water....

 

 

Did I miss anything?

 

 

 

Technically, those are not things that require a license to operate. You are subject to a search or breech of privacy if you want to use alcohol and tobacco.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

...The Founding Fathers did not pattern this country as a Void or an Anarchy, they founded it on a set of basic agreements that certain rights are inalienable...

 

So, do you really think that the Founders, (libertarians all, God bless em), would agree with the practice of "narcotics check points", (either real or farcical), or even with the concept of outlawing certain substances for personal recreational consumption?

 

Terrible attempt at a point, there, Az. The Founders believed in far more personal freedoms than are "allowed" by our present, ever-expanding police state.

[Koliadko 207]

Seems to me, checkpoints (not for DUI) treat officers like nothing more than tax collectors. As for DUI's, I agree we need to do what we can to keep all safe while on the highways and byways. BUT, in NC, 35% of all traffic fatalities are caused by people under the influence, but that leaves 65% caused by people that just DON'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!!!!!! I'm twice as likely to be killed by a sober person! Maybe we could prevent some of those by not passing DL out like flashing K-Mart blue light specials.

[chevyman097 2,579]

Alcohol and Tobacco use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time. In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who owns one should be subject to search at any time....just to make sure you arent doing anything you know illegal. Because its not protected under the constitution. Oh and while im thinking of it you know land lines are a privilege too and are not protected as a right under the constitution and should be subject to wire taps at any time just to make sure you arent abusing your privileges...I almost forgot toaster ovens and microwaves are not a right protected by the constitution and if you own or operate one you should be subject to any means necessary to catch criminals that might use one....oh and I almost forgot your internet and the hot water heater that warms your bath water....

 

 

Did I miss anything?

 

 

 

Technically, those are not things that require a license to operate. You are subject to a search or breech of privacy if you want to use alcohol and tobacco.

 

 

Lol some people should have to have a license to use a few of those though....

[Azrial 1,091]

If I ride a horse am I free to do as I will?.....

Sure, till you ride him out on the public roads where traffic law applies, or fail to take care of him where Animal cruelty laws apply, or he takes a dump in the middle of the sidewalk, when anti-littering laws apply ....

 

Please name me the countries where you can "do what you will" simply because you are riding a horse?

 

Again, I am just telling you how it is and why, I did not write these laws.

[Azrial 1,091]

I feel our society is set up so one must commute to make a living, so it is an implied right that could be argued as the pursuit of happiness. Yeah, I'll likely lose in court, but oh well.

For that matter, one can get a DWII for riding a bicycle while drunk & when this happens, the officer states that the rider is the motor of the vehicle. However, once you take your bicycle on the freeway & ride on the shoulder, the officer says that you're in violation of the law because there's a sign stating "Non Motorized Vehicles Prohibited".

 

No response needed, just random thoughts on the subject.

 

While I respect the fact hat you have properly labeled these as your feelings, your legal argument is deeply flawed. When working patrol I have never told a man that he was a "motor" or told a Bicyclist that he was prohibited from riding on the shoulder on the road, unless you are referring to the Interstate, where is is prohibited by many states laws.

 

Frankly I have know of no place where this type of "legal logic" flies. The law is not normally designed to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " proposition. It is normally desigend to try and promote a civilized society. Like to prevent drunken bicyclists from weaving in and out of the roadway containing 3000 Lbs plus vehicles.

 

I am saying that I do not always agree with what the law thinks is "safe," like 922R, but again, I never got to write any laws.

[Azrial 1,091]

How far does the reach extend past illegal maneuvers than?

I am not sure that I understand this question.

 

However most states allow an officer to stop an automobile simply to verify that the driver is in fact licensed. In the course of that lawful stop if evidence becomes readily apparent that there is illegal activity then the officer many act on that. If he must really dig for something that invokes reasonable suspicion then usually the stop is thought to be pretextual and an infringement on the driver's civil rights.

 

If this sounds kind of "iffy" to you, well it can be. It is a gray area and there have been errors in both directions that must be decided by a court of law.

 

I see the problem from both directions, as an infringement on the rights of the citizenry of which I am also a member and the legal maneuvering by criminals who desire to circumvent the legal system.

[Azrial 1,091]

You're right, the supreme court decision as a whole did favor allowing checkpoints. However, it was a hotly debated issue and there was a lot of dissent among justices. Even some of those who favored allowing this acknowledged that there was no question that it infringed upon constitutional rights, they just decided that this issue was worth infringing upon people's rights a little bit. I still can't get over that logic. I don't know how many state constitutions prohibit these checkpoints but mine is one of them, thank God. Still in all my travels in other states I have never encountered any kind of checkpoint except the obligatory "Do you have any fruit?" question at the California border.

 

EDIT: And I'll add just one more thing. Never in the history of this country has a favorable supreme court decision made something "right". It only makes it "law", for now. Debating whether something is right or not is how laws get changed because supreme court decisions are made by mere mortals who are appointed by people elected to office by THE PEOPLE. Supreme court decisions can swing wildly just based on who is sitting behind the bench. That's why we have a right and an obligation to debate whether something is right or not, including supreme court decisions we disagree with, which is what some of us are doing here. And hopefully when that debate ends people are motivated enough to vote the bastards in or out of office who put those mere mortals behind the supreme court bench.

Well we are in agreement, it is a an infringement on people's rights, just as of today, not an illegal one.

 

But my point is all government and law is an infringement on something that somebody sees as their "rights." That is the price of civilization. I still say that our government has made the best compromises in the past and I too have concerns about its future.

 

Can we chalk this one up as an agreement?

[Azrial 1,091]

Alcohol and Tobacco use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time. In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who owns one should be subject to search at any time....just to make sure you arent doing anything you know illegal. Because its not protected under the constitution. Oh and while im thinking of it you know land lines are a privilege too and are not protected as a right under the constitution and should be subject to wire taps at any time just to make sure you arent abusing your privileges...I almost forgot toaster ovens and microwaves are not a right protected by the constitution and if you own or operate one you should be subject to any means necessary to catch criminals that might use one....oh and I almost forgot your internet and the hot water heater that warms your bath water....

 

Did I miss anything?

Just my point.

 

Constitutionally protected activities are less prone to interference from law enforcement, with firearms being a growing exception. One that I completely disapprove of, for what it is worth.

 

Your argument is spacious and has no legal merit., but I think that you are just trying to be funny.

[Azrial 1,091]

Alcohol and Tobacco use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time. In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who ....

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Technically, those are not things that require a license to operate. You are subject to a search or breech of privacy if you want to use alcohol and tobacco.

Bingo!

[Azrial 1,091]

...The Founding Fathers did not pattern this country as a Void or an Anarchy, they founded it on a set of basic agreements that certain rights are inalienable...

 

So, do you really think that the Founders, (libertarians all, God bless em), would agree with the practice of "narcotics check points", (either real or farcical), or even with the concept of outlawing certain substances for personal recreational consumption?

 

Terrible attempt at a point, there, Az. The Founders believed in far more personal freedoms than are "allowed" by our present, ever-expanding police state.

I completely disagree my argument is completely on point and far that goes factual as it presently the law of the land. Your argument is based on your opinion and assumptions only, some of which are historically incorrect.

 

As a good example, during the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 George Washington used Federal troops to man checkpoints looking for unregulated untaxed whiskey. I think that this is very telling of the Founder's intent as this one one of the first crises that tested our new born countries laws. Now does this sound like something that a modern Libertarian would do?

 

The first instances of real "Drug Enforcement" in the US dates from the 1850's with the Chinese immigrants subsequent importation of opium smoking. The first historically recorded reference I am aware of "drug enforcement" was in 1729 when Chinese emperor, Yung Cheng, issued an edict prohibiting the smoking of opium and its domestic sale, except under license for use as medicine. By 1796 the import of opium into China had become a contraband trade.

 

And why did the Founding Fathers of the US not address drug enforcement in the blueprints of this country? For the same reason that they did not see fit to regulate space travel or teleportation, it had not become a problem yet.

 

My opinion is if it was, they would have. There intent was obviously to make the young county a success while providing for a much personal freedom as possible, not as a Utopian paradise for drunkards.

 

 

 

[sharkbit 109]

There intent was obviously to make the young county a success while providing for a much personal freedom as possible, not as a Utopian paradise for drunkards.

 

 

I got your Utopian paradise for drunkards, it's called Wisconsin, and we've been out drinking your state since 1848! LOL

 

 

I had no point to make, just stating a drunkard fact.

[superA 289]

How far does the reach extend past illegal maneuvers than?

I am not sure that I understand this question.

 

However most states allow an officer to stop an automobile simply to verify that the driver is in fact licensed. In the course of that lawful stop if evidence becomes readily apparent that there is illegal activity then the officer many act on that. If he must really dig for something that invokes reasonable suspicion then usually the stop is thought to be pretextual and an infringement on the driver's civil rights.

 

If this sounds kind of "iffy" to you, well it can be. It is a gray area and there have been errors in both directions that must be decided by a court of law.

 

I see the problem from both directions, as an infringement on the rights of the citizenry of which I am also a member and the legal maneuvering by criminals who desire to circumvent the legal system.

 

 

 

You got it, I was highlighting the gray area. Insurance, license, where are you going, who do you work for. I don't like it when they start questioning me about the latter and I have been harassed when I refused to answer. It just seems that with the help of technology our private lives are becoming less than private. How long will it be until I have to prove where I'm going and prove who I work for? Will my license begin to show my political views as well as how many people I live with, how many kids do I have and where they go to school? I'm honestly not crazy about them being able to run my info for a simple speeding infraction. I know it helps catch people with warrants but...

[Paulyski 2,227]

If I ride a horse am I free to do as I will?.....

You are legally required to have lights on the back of your horse at night from what I understand.

I do wonder if it would be legal to drive a horse & buggy without a license though.

 

 

Alcohol use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time.

Ever walked around really drunk, or have you read Post Apoc's thread that recently got flushed from FC?

If you use alcohol, you are in fact subject to search in practice.

 

 

In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who owns one should be subject to search at any time....just to make sure you arent doing anything you know illegal. Because its not protected under the constitution. Oh and while im thinking of it you know land lines are a privilege too and are not protected as a right under the constitution and should be subject to wire taps at any time just to make sure you arent abusing your privileges...

Ever heard of the "patriot"-act, that Bushie Jr. put in place & 0bama renewed? (even though "democrats" raised hell over it when it was imposed on us(fucking hypocrites))

Just by calling someone who's under investigation, your phone is subject to wire taps. Hell, you don't even need to call someone who's under investigation, just call a # outside the US & you're legally subject to the conversation being monitored.

Anyone call Oleg in the UK lately?

 

............oh and I almost forgot your internet ....

Now that one's just too easy.

Not only are there back doors in your software for big brother to watch you, but the laptops that schools issue to kids have cameras that can be remotely operated, so your kid's school's staff may be watching & listening to you & your kids without your knowledge.

They're probably whacking off while watching your kid whack off.

 

Did I miss anything?

Only the fact that your satire is more reality than one might like to think.

[DogMan 2,343]

You're right, the supreme court decision as a whole did favor allowing checkpoints. However, it was a hotly debated issue and there was a lot of dissent among justices. Even some of those who favored allowing this acknowledged that there was no question that it infringed upon constitutional rights, they just decided that this issue was worth infringing upon people's rights a little bit. I still can't get over that logic. I don't know how many state constitutions prohibit these checkpoints but mine is one of them, thank God. Still in all my travels in other states I have never encountered any kind of checkpoint except the obligatory "Do you have any fruit?" question at the California border.

 

EDIT: And I'll add just one more thing. Never in the history of this country has a favorable supreme court decision made something "right". It only makes it "law", for now. Debating whether something is right or not is how laws get changed because supreme court decisions are made by mere mortals who are appointed by people elected to office by THE PEOPLE. Supreme court decisions can swing wildly just based on who is sitting behind the bench. That's why we have a right and an obligation to debate whether something is right or not, including supreme court decisions we disagree with, which is what some of us are doing here. And hopefully when that debate ends people are motivated enough to vote the bastards in or out of office who put those mere mortals behind the supreme court bench.

Well we are in agreement, it is a an infringement on people's rights, just as of today, not an illegal one.

 

But my point is all government and law is an infringement on something that somebody sees as their "rights." That is the price of civilization. I still say that our government has made the best compromises in the past and I too have concerns about its future.

 

Can we chalk this one up as an agreement?

 

I guess we are in agreement, which probably means that hell has officially frozen over.

[Paulyski 2,227]

 

Can we chalk this one up as an agreement?

 

I guess we are in agreement, which probably means that hell has officially frozen over.

[lance 4]

as long as the dog didn't alert to my vehicle I would not consent to search.

[Azrial 1,091]

I guess we are in agreement, which probably means that hell has officially frozen over.

The end of the world as we know it, yet perhaps a good start!

[hawk81 2]

Amen brother.

 

 

 

How about we don't live in a Country where narcotics checkpoints exist. How about we stop with all the over active police bull shit about the drugs when it's our own government is the one shipping them in. Let's just say that we all agree on what scum bags really are for just a day or two and kill em. To all the police out here, we understand that you are just people and are just doing a job, the problem is the job, stop serving crooked politicians that use you to try and control the population of us and join us. I understand that many of you and probably almost all of you are good people, so are we. I'm sure many of you do good works through the day that you may use to justify your job, stop picking the good chunks out of vomit. You know who the true criminals are and yet refuse to touch them, this proves you are, as a whole, bought and paid for by the scum that everyone of us is trying to refuse in our lives. Child molesters and rapists are allowed to roam free while you confront and ticket the public for a number of lame reasons and then crash into houses shooting and getting rowdy when evidence shows that they are dealing drugs, drugs that scum deem illegal, and that many of you partake in or at least know some who do. Almost all of you drink and drive. Go out and truly be a hero for the public, if you want to justify yourself in society join together to destroy the real criminals and leave the rest of us alone. Stop justifying our safety as you blindly obey regulations to strip us of our freedoms. If you are that zealous to stop drugs than go down to the border and have at it, but wait, the law tells you to stay put and attack us. That should tell you something of the law you serve and the people that provide it.