Agreed Pat H. Mr. Summit cop supports rights enumerated, but I'm sure he and his praetorian thugs have caved in many doors on once-private property in the name of enforcement of myriad victimless crime laws, because those rights have not been "enumerated" in that piece of parchment. Arrest stats and quota-fills show "productivity". How many innocents has he rousted for embibing a non-master-approved plant in the privacy of their own home? How many innocents has he assaulted in the name of countless private-property-invading and arbitrary regulatory, code enforcements? How many roadside highwayman hold-ups has he and his committed against his neighbors for victimless, ticky-tacky traffic "offenses"? How many kiddie lemonade stands has he shut down for "public health" reasons? The list is endless. I wonder if he and his have read the 9th and 10th Amendments wherein rights NOT enumerated, which are multitudinous, are protected from govt. thuggery, and the 10th which addresses "limited" govt. powers, with the bulk retained by the people. How much ill-gotten loot has he stolen from his neighbors with federal support as "asset forfeiture", which many cop depts. rely on for funding? Fed.-Gov. incentivizes police depts. monetarily to enforce many natural-rights-destroying laws (anti-marijuana grants, 4th Amendment-destroying snoop-and-search roadblock grants, ad nauseum). And yet I'm supposed to believe that he is concerned with protecting my natural right to own tools and protect myself and mine with those tools. I remember not long ago in the north SLC area a LAWFUL open-carrier was accosted by a thugscrum of "peace officers" at gunpoint for LAWFUL carry! And, because some hoplophobic and neurotic anti-gun ninny reported it, our great 2nd Amendment supporting praetorians cited him for disorderly conduct!! Tell me, who was the real "disorderly conduct" perpetrator in this scenario?! Will Grigg @ "Pro Libertate" wrote a great piece debunking the whole idea that a cop is going to defend your gun rights, while simultaneously crushing the rest of them. In short, Mr. Summit functionary, consider me "UNIMPRESSED"!
Good point - the modern term "constitutional" means completely "F'd" up by congressional agenda
Me thinks avoiding the weasel words can be accomplished while invoking the constitution by stating that the sheriff(s) support the original understanding of the Bill of Rights according to custom and as found in the plain language of the writings of the day.
"Constitutional" rights as opposed to intrinsic rights?
ReplyDeleteInserting "Constitutional" into that phrase turns it into a weasel phrase, a non-starter for me.
Let me know when these sheriffs begin to use the term intrinsic or God given rights instead of "Constitutional".
You sure can't find that kind of sheriff here in the PDRK!
ReplyDeleteAgreed Pat H. Mr. Summit cop supports rights enumerated, but I'm sure he and his praetorian thugs have caved in many doors on once-private property in the name of enforcement of myriad victimless crime laws, because those rights have not been "enumerated" in that piece of parchment. Arrest stats and quota-fills show "productivity". How many innocents has he rousted for embibing a non-master-approved plant in the privacy of their own home? How many innocents has he assaulted in the name of countless private-property-invading and arbitrary regulatory, code enforcements? How many roadside highwayman hold-ups has he and his committed against his neighbors for victimless, ticky-tacky traffic "offenses"? How many kiddie lemonade stands has he shut down for "public health" reasons? The list is endless. I wonder if he and his have read the 9th and 10th Amendments wherein rights NOT enumerated, which are multitudinous, are protected from govt. thuggery, and the 10th which addresses "limited" govt. powers, with the bulk retained by the people. How much ill-gotten loot has he stolen from his neighbors with federal support as "asset forfeiture", which many cop depts. rely on for funding? Fed.-Gov. incentivizes police depts. monetarily to enforce many natural-rights-destroying laws (anti-marijuana grants, 4th Amendment-destroying snoop-and-search roadblock grants, ad nauseum). And yet I'm supposed to believe that he is concerned with protecting my natural right to own tools and protect myself and mine with those tools. I remember not long ago in the north SLC area a LAWFUL open-carrier was accosted by a thugscrum of "peace officers" at gunpoint for LAWFUL carry! And, because some hoplophobic and neurotic anti-gun ninny reported it, our great 2nd Amendment supporting praetorians cited him for disorderly conduct!! Tell me, who was the real "disorderly conduct" perpetrator in this scenario?! Will Grigg @ "Pro Libertate" wrote a great piece debunking the whole idea that a cop is going to defend your gun rights, while simultaneously crushing the rest of them. In short, Mr. Summit functionary, consider me "UNIMPRESSED"!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHey Pat -
Good point - the modern term "constitutional" means completely "F'd" up by congressional agenda
Me thinks avoiding the weasel words can be accomplished while invoking the constitution by stating that the sheriff(s) support the original understanding of the Bill of Rights according to custom and as found in the plain language of the writings of the day.
Exclusive of modern legislative agenda
Bulky but more specific
Just a thought
Fight islam Now