Mike in VA
New member
My recolection is that CCW was up for referendum in Missouri and Wisconsin (Others?) this time around. Anyone know how they fared?
CCW in MO, WI?
- Thread starter Mike in VA
- Start date
chris in mo
New member
The referendum in Missouri is on the ballet for the election on APRIL 6 1999. We need every yes vote we can get. Anyone from Missouri be sure to tell everyone you know about the vote and the benefits of ccw laws in the 31 other states which have them already. If you are interested in other info it is available at www.moccw.org
[This message has been edited by chris in mo (edited 11-06-98).]
[This message has been edited by chris in mo (edited 11-06-98).]
Ed Brunner
New member
Do you think that a CCW is a measure of success in the expression of the right to keep and bear arms?
Or is it a measure of the success of gun owner registration? WITH FINGERPRINTS AND DOSSIER.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Or is it a measure of the success of gun owner registration? WITH FINGERPRINTS AND DOSSIER.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Ed, i think if you read what i had to say in another thread, i seem to think it's the latter. but maybe it's only my paranoid delusions. i was thinkin' about startin a thread on, when big brother decides he's comming door to door, how are the LEO and Military people on here and in general going to act. are they blindly going to follows orders and go against the Constitution or are they going to fight. let me say, that i hope it never gets that far, but at the rate our rights are being violated,and taken away, all in the name of the, "war on drugs", "it's in the publics best interest"," etc, etc" I it kinda makes you wonder. But no, that can't happen here, this is America.
from your local paranoid freakazoid
------------------
longhair
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-07-98).]
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-07-98).]
from your local paranoid freakazoid
------------------
longhair
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-07-98).]
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited 11-07-98).]
Rob Pincus
New member
While it is true that some 4th amendment trampling has been done in the name of anti-terrorism and the war on drugs, The local LEO is hardly ever involved in those cases.
I can't imagine even 1% of the officers I know being involved in anything close to door-to-door searches.
------------------
-Essayons
I can't imagine even 1% of the officers I know being involved in anything close to door-to-door searches.
------------------
-Essayons
Jason Kitta
New member
Ok, I have a question, how is the UN going to do this?
First, for the UN to use force it has to be appoved by the security council were ONE veto is all that is needed to stop something, and the US has a veto on the council. Next, the UN does not have any troops of its own. It gets forces from member nations, so this means that some other country would have to decide, hey lets send our soldiers to the US. (IF this is happening then someone declared war and the UN isn't going to mean much anyway). Also the US pays something like 50% of the UN annual budget. Am I saying bad things don't come out of the UN, no the crap about civilan disarment and such has, is it anyway enforcable on us if we don't want it, no. The UN as an organization, if the security council dosen't want something to happen then it is impotent. IF the security council is doing something, then we have a veto, if something is still happening then we have other problems with our leadership than the UN. IF some other part of the UN is trying to "enforce" something then by the UN charter it is nonbinding (as if any international law is) and somebody wants to fight.
Jason
First, for the UN to use force it has to be appoved by the security council were ONE veto is all that is needed to stop something, and the US has a veto on the council. Next, the UN does not have any troops of its own. It gets forces from member nations, so this means that some other country would have to decide, hey lets send our soldiers to the US. (IF this is happening then someone declared war and the UN isn't going to mean much anyway). Also the US pays something like 50% of the UN annual budget. Am I saying bad things don't come out of the UN, no the crap about civilan disarment and such has, is it anyway enforcable on us if we don't want it, no. The UN as an organization, if the security council dosen't want something to happen then it is impotent. IF the security council is doing something, then we have a veto, if something is still happening then we have other problems with our leadership than the UN. IF some other part of the UN is trying to "enforce" something then by the UN charter it is nonbinding (as if any international law is) and somebody wants to fight.
Jason
Jason,I posted in support of US police and military. The studies I am aware of have said they would not.Who'left? Would Bill or Chucky,the junior senator from NY, cast the negitive vote. The UN operates under Treaty, not international law.Such an event as house to house would have to have some type of Federal support, direct or indirect.
Jason Kitta
New member
Jer,
Ok, misunderstood part of your post, thanks for the clarification. As for the treaty bit, it is as enforcable as international law, when a nation-state deciedes it is not going to do something then short of some other nation-state waging war to make them, then they aren't going to do it. Do agree with you that for the UN to do something like what was proposed they would have to have Direct federal suport.
Jason
Ok, misunderstood part of your post, thanks for the clarification. As for the treaty bit, it is as enforcable as international law, when a nation-state deciedes it is not going to do something then short of some other nation-state waging war to make them, then they aren't going to do it. Do agree with you that for the UN to do something like what was proposed they would have to have Direct federal suport.
Jason
The scenario I have seen theorized goes something like this: Some future president (Klinton clone) arranges to have most of our troops overseas on some "peacekeeping mission" ala Desert Storm, while he/her seizes total power here. Since we already have large contingents of foreign troops training on U.S bases all the time now, he/she would have pre-arranged autorization from U.N. to use these troops to enforce martial law. >p? The theory is that U.S. troops could not be trusted to fire on Americans, but foreign troops would have no such qualms. Of course, this theory assumes an international conspiracy by U.S. and other world leaders to construct a New World Order type world dictatorship. Seems pretty far out, but a lot of people think something like this is already in the works. Several aquaintances in my former home town really believe this, and they keep track of reports of foreign troops and equipment moving around U.S. I am skeptical myself, but it makes for some scary speculation if you are a conspiracy theorist.
Jason Kitta
New member
Ed,
question for you, what "large contingents" are you talking about? I know that other armies use our trainging ground, do to size problems in their own countries, and that we regularly train other, but the numbers of troops that would be needed to do something like that? Plus the senario assumes that no one in government, the intelligence community, or anything else for that matter would have a problem with this take over.
Had a Deputy US Marshal talk to one of my criminal justice classes, he appologized for a 10 minute tirade against clinton, said he had a bad week and need to vent. Yes the US government had done bad things, and yes we need to be very vigalent(sp?) about our rights, but I for one have some difficulty with the UN take over senario. For one thing I think that it would make Afganistan look like the Soviets were playing a friendly game of tag with little kids if really came down to it. Oh well, comments?
Jason
[This message has been edited by Jason Kitta (edited 11-17-98).]
question for you, what "large contingents" are you talking about? I know that other armies use our trainging ground, do to size problems in their own countries, and that we regularly train other, but the numbers of troops that would be needed to do something like that? Plus the senario assumes that no one in government, the intelligence community, or anything else for that matter would have a problem with this take over.
Had a Deputy US Marshal talk to one of my criminal justice classes, he appologized for a 10 minute tirade against clinton, said he had a bad week and need to vent. Yes the US government had done bad things, and yes we need to be very vigalent(sp?) about our rights, but I for one have some difficulty with the UN take over senario. For one thing I think that it would make Afganistan look like the Soviets were playing a friendly game of tag with little kids if really came down to it. Oh well, comments?
Jason
[This message has been edited by Jason Kitta (edited 11-17-98).]
Rob Pincus
New member
as a psrting contribution as I prepare to head to parts colder than these....
First of all, one of the main feeders for UN is Canada, there are a whole pile of military personnel right across the imaginary border just sittin around waiting for orders to do something besides "keep warm."
That said, I'm not in the camp that thinks the UN is going to "take over" the US. Nor have I seen the movie "Under Siege" yet, but I can forsee some scenarios under which the slow creep towards a police state is reached. Maybe they won't come door to door, but if "they" (they being defined for the purposes of this post as federal agents, members of the National Guard, etc..) are standing on every street corner and conducting random searches we probably aren't going to drive around with a rifle in the back window of our pick ups or a 1911 under or sportscoats if they tell us not to.
Never Happen? Well, for about 4 months in a major city in the south east, state and local police officers set up roving road blocks stopping everyone walking or driving down whichever street they picked that night, checking ID and conducting searches with some very loosely defined Probable Cause. These roadblocks were the result of a recommendation by a highly paid consultant that the mayor had hired to help lower the homicide rate. Hardly a thing was said in the media or anywhere else. Most of these Road Blocks were in decidely "bad" parts of town and involved people who have little voice in either the media or the right wing circles.
Problem is, now that the rountine is established, what's to stop them from heading a few blocks east or west and ending up in "regular neighborhoods." ?? Nothing as far as the precedent is concerned. And then, when guys like you and me decide to raise our voices and say "No, not here.." all of a sudden we are racists or elitists, because nothing was said when it was those other nieghborhoods. It's already too late for that fight. Its already happened. The people have already read the articles in the papers about how "no one minded".. "everything went smooth" .."the citizens appreciated the police presence."
The talking heads have already told them that "crime was down" in those neighborhoods that had the police presence.
I happen to know that there were federal agents involved in those road blocks. It wasn't publicized at all and htey may not have been officially assigned to be there. I am not saying they were beyhind it, just that they were involved and they became involved in some of the result cases. This is not conspiracy theory BS, I work with and am good friends with the guys who were working right next to them, I even visited one of these set ups one night.
Is this inherently evil? Is this the beginning of a police state? I don't know. BUT...we really aren't that far away folks.
------------------
-Essayons
First of all, one of the main feeders for UN is Canada, there are a whole pile of military personnel right across the imaginary border just sittin around waiting for orders to do something besides "keep warm."
That said, I'm not in the camp that thinks the UN is going to "take over" the US. Nor have I seen the movie "Under Siege" yet, but I can forsee some scenarios under which the slow creep towards a police state is reached. Maybe they won't come door to door, but if "they" (they being defined for the purposes of this post as federal agents, members of the National Guard, etc..) are standing on every street corner and conducting random searches we probably aren't going to drive around with a rifle in the back window of our pick ups or a 1911 under or sportscoats if they tell us not to.
Never Happen? Well, for about 4 months in a major city in the south east, state and local police officers set up roving road blocks stopping everyone walking or driving down whichever street they picked that night, checking ID and conducting searches with some very loosely defined Probable Cause. These roadblocks were the result of a recommendation by a highly paid consultant that the mayor had hired to help lower the homicide rate. Hardly a thing was said in the media or anywhere else. Most of these Road Blocks were in decidely "bad" parts of town and involved people who have little voice in either the media or the right wing circles.
Problem is, now that the rountine is established, what's to stop them from heading a few blocks east or west and ending up in "regular neighborhoods." ?? Nothing as far as the precedent is concerned. And then, when guys like you and me decide to raise our voices and say "No, not here.." all of a sudden we are racists or elitists, because nothing was said when it was those other nieghborhoods. It's already too late for that fight. Its already happened. The people have already read the articles in the papers about how "no one minded".. "everything went smooth" .."the citizens appreciated the police presence."
The talking heads have already told them that "crime was down" in those neighborhoods that had the police presence.
I happen to know that there were federal agents involved in those road blocks. It wasn't publicized at all and htey may not have been officially assigned to be there. I am not saying they were beyhind it, just that they were involved and they became involved in some of the result cases. This is not conspiracy theory BS, I work with and am good friends with the guys who were working right next to them, I even visited one of these set ups one night.
Is this inherently evil? Is this the beginning of a police state? I don't know. BUT...we really aren't that far away folks.
------------------
-Essayons
Rob, as usual you're the man w/ the infromation. There's proof right there that it can, and evidently has, already started to occur.
everybody wants to deny a conspiracy, there is, there isn't. what difference does it make if it's a conspiracy or not. what Rob just described is real, and it ain't right, and y'all know it ain't right. so what to do?
I don't know the answer, but you can start by raising holy hell everytime something like this goes on, in any part of your city, town, county, whatever. well, will that accomplish anything? if nothing else, it will bring it to light, and just maybe, get somone else thinking about what's going on. it's kinda like in Arlo Guthrie's song Alice's Resturant, if one person raises hell, they won't think much about it. and if two does it, it kinds gets their attention. but if a bunch do it, then they think it's a movement,
and maybe, just maybe, the powers to be will see the people ain't gonna stand for that kind of thing. now that ain't exactly how the song goes, but it's close enough..
remember, just because i'm paranoid, don't mean they ain't out to get me!!
------------------
longhair
everybody wants to deny a conspiracy, there is, there isn't. what difference does it make if it's a conspiracy or not. what Rob just described is real, and it ain't right, and y'all know it ain't right. so what to do?
I don't know the answer, but you can start by raising holy hell everytime something like this goes on, in any part of your city, town, county, whatever. well, will that accomplish anything? if nothing else, it will bring it to light, and just maybe, get somone else thinking about what's going on. it's kinda like in Arlo Guthrie's song Alice's Resturant, if one person raises hell, they won't think much about it. and if two does it, it kinds gets their attention. but if a bunch do it, then they think it's a movement,
and maybe, just maybe, the powers to be will see the people ain't gonna stand for that kind of thing. now that ain't exactly how the song goes, but it's close enough..
remember, just because i'm paranoid, don't mean they ain't out to get me!!
------------------
longhair
RE: Police state...overt or indirect?
The time isn't ripe for an overt door to door police state. However, here is an example:
A man (some kind of financial planner/investment type) was recently arrested here for defrauding and bilking an old man out of his savings (ca 20K). There are other similar complaints against this guy as well. The police go to his home and arrest him.....on the local news its reported that the police seized "Guns, pornography magazines and child porn images on his computer".
Now...this man was not a prior felon and we know that if the guns were illegal types that would be reported. Therefore the police confiscated his guns (which he may never get back if unconvicted of the fraud charges), they brand him as a purveyor of kiddie porn with no trial or establishment that the stuff he had is indeed truly kiddie porn.
I asked an LEO friend of mine (not involved) what gives. He said that if a warrant is served then they can seize anything they are told to...and guns, pornography, right wing literature and drugs are always on the list. The DAs add all these charges or implied wrongdoing in order to maximize charges (or bias juries) or get the maximum penalty on a plea bargin.
Next time you watch your news pay attention to the arrest stories. We are living in a police state.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
The time isn't ripe for an overt door to door police state. However, here is an example:
A man (some kind of financial planner/investment type) was recently arrested here for defrauding and bilking an old man out of his savings (ca 20K). There are other similar complaints against this guy as well. The police go to his home and arrest him.....on the local news its reported that the police seized "Guns, pornography magazines and child porn images on his computer".
Now...this man was not a prior felon and we know that if the guns were illegal types that would be reported. Therefore the police confiscated his guns (which he may never get back if unconvicted of the fraud charges), they brand him as a purveyor of kiddie porn with no trial or establishment that the stuff he had is indeed truly kiddie porn.
I asked an LEO friend of mine (not involved) what gives. He said that if a warrant is served then they can seize anything they are told to...and guns, pornography, right wing literature and drugs are always on the list. The DAs add all these charges or implied wrongdoing in order to maximize charges (or bias juries) or get the maximum penalty on a plea bargin.
Next time you watch your news pay attention to the arrest stories. We are living in a police state.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Rob's post of yesterday strikes a memory chord. Recently, a few miles south of here in Indianapolis, there were regular reports of roving roadblocks to "control drugs" and to "get a handle on the rising homicide rate". It was mostly confined to the rougher neighborhoods and aimed primarily at local minorities (that did get a little legal attention). The good suburban folks, fully convinced "It couldn't happen here" kept quiet and the folks living in those neighborhoods, except for the males targeted in the roadblocks quietly accepted this tactic on the basis that it would get the bad guys off the street. It has quieted down again -- but will probably return. It looks like this is becoming a popular urban control tactic. Another case of the camel getting his nose under the tent flap.
Jim from Indiana
------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
Jim from Indiana
------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
Ed Brunner
New member
THR POLICE ARE OUR EMPLOYEES.
We have to protest through our representatives and get it stopped.
LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
If they dont do it lets find some who will.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
We have to protest through our representatives and get it stopped.
LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution.
If they dont do it lets find some who will.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Bottom Gun
New member
JJB. . .
The police in Ft Wayne were also planning to set up road blocks with the intent of searching all vehicles for drugs. . . . without probable cause. They were stopped by the Mayor who in so many words said that although these roadblocks and searches WERE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they simply were not the right thing to do. I'm pleased to see that at least some of our government officials have a little common sense left, but the part about the searches not being unconstitutional frightens me.
The police in Ft Wayne were also planning to set up road blocks with the intent of searching all vehicles for drugs. . . . without probable cause. They were stopped by the Mayor who in so many words said that although these roadblocks and searches WERE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they simply were not the right thing to do. I'm pleased to see that at least some of our government officials have a little common sense left, but the part about the searches not being unconstitutional frightens me.
Bottom Gun--
That Mayor of Fort Wayne, with some sense and honor, was also defeated for the US Senate by our pseudo conservative ex governor.
And this week the courts ruled that the roadblocks in Indianapolis were legal contrary to the contentions of a Law Suit by some locals who -- although not drug dealers or felons -- were stopped under the program. And the beat goes on...
Jim in IN
------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
That Mayor of Fort Wayne, with some sense and honor, was also defeated for the US Senate by our pseudo conservative ex governor.
And this week the courts ruled that the roadblocks in Indianapolis were legal contrary to the contentions of a Law Suit by some locals who -- although not drug dealers or felons -- were stopped under the program. And the beat goes on...
Jim in IN
------------------
-- TANSTAAFL