PDA

View Full Version : These Cops Prove to be some of the most ignorant MF's on the planet - Shoot dangerous Cow.




libertyjam
10-31-2011, 12:16 PM
No people to shoot? well lets practice on this stray calf.

You have to watch this video to see what has to be some of the most ignorant POC's I think I have ever seen.
Just practicing on a poor helpless calf to keep in shape for shooting mundanes don'cha know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jry92dhOtaw

BamaAla
10-31-2011, 12:21 PM
What the F is wrong with these idiots? Who the F does something like that?

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 12:24 PM
The title should read SOME cops, or THESE cops. Not ALL cops are anything. To say so is being just as collectivist as those who paint Ron Paul supporters all one way, because of the behavior of a few.

I would imagine it would be appreciated by at least a few of the Paul supporters who are policemen.

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 12:28 PM
I wonder why someone hasn't turned them into PETA, or somebody like that.

aGameOfThrones
10-31-2011, 12:29 PM
The title should read SOME cops, or THESE cops. Not ALL cops are anything. To say so is being just as collectivist as those who paint Ron Paul supporters all one way, because of the behavior of a few.

I would imagine it would be appreciated by at least a few of the Paul supporters who are policemen.

I agree. Title should be... 95% of cops etc... :D

CCTelander
10-31-2011, 12:29 PM
Just the usual bloodthirsty BS I've come to expect from our "protectors" in blue.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 12:31 PM
What the F is wrong with these idiots? Who the F does something like that?

Cops.

guitarlifter
10-31-2011, 12:31 PM
Wouldn't a policeman who supports Ron Paul be advocating a candidate who believes that his job is unconstitutional?

jkr
10-31-2011, 12:32 PM
Just the usual bloodthirsty BS I've come to expect from our "protectors" in BLACK.

fixed that 4u

libertyjam
10-31-2011, 12:32 PM
The title should read SOME cops, or THESE cops. Not ALL cops are anything. To say so is being just as collectivist as those who paint Ron Paul supporters all one way, because of the behavior of a few.

I would imagine it would be appreciated by at least a few of the Paul supporters who are policemen.

Ok, I changed the title as I agree somewhat with that.

Krugerrand
10-31-2011, 12:35 PM
I wonder why someone hasn't turned them into PETA, or somebody like that.

PETA is a statist-first organization. Their vision requires somebody to implement it.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 12:36 PM
Cops.

btw, these were Canadian Cops.

still frickin' stupid.

libertyjam
10-31-2011, 12:36 PM
Similar story on NC people w/badges that execute livestock without any due process.

SWAT Teams Execute Man's Farm Animals With Shot Guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVslBhY48VA&feature=youtu.be

BamaAla
10-31-2011, 01:08 PM
btw, these were Canadian Cops.

still frickin' stupid.

That makes it even worse. You'd think Canadian cops would know how to handle a cow that got out of the pasture. Hell, 90% of our county cops' job is rustling cows and horses back into pastures. If they have to put the animal down, surely they could have cornered it to the shoulder until another unit with a rifle or shotgun got there; there was no reason to torture the thing by filling it with 40 or 9 rounds. What a despicable lot.

ctb619
10-31-2011, 01:44 PM
Wouldn't a policeman who supports Ron Paul be advocating a candidate who believes that his job is unconstitutional?

Huh? :confused:

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 01:51 PM
Huh? :confused:

Huh what?

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Have you not heard Ron speak against the Police State?

ctb619
10-31-2011, 01:58 PM
Huh what?

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Have you not heard Ron speak against the Police State?

I have indeed heard him speak about the Police State, but I've never heard him make the argument that all police (i.e. state and local) are unconstitutional. If you have a quote or video that shows otherwise, please post.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 02:05 PM
I have indeed heard him speak about the Police State, but I've never heard him make the argument that all police (i.e. state and local) are unconstitutional. If you have a quote or video that shows otherwise, please post.

Not that I can think of right off,, But He does make the Constitution a center of his positions.

With an end to the Drug War, and several agencies (DEA, ATF etc.). And an end to Federal funding ,, I expect there would be less need for an unnecessary expense.

ctb619
10-31-2011, 02:08 PM
Not that I can think of right off,, But He does make the Constitution a center of his positions.

With an end to the Drug War, and several agencies (DEA, ATF etc.). And an end to Federal funding ,, I expect there would be less need for an unnecessary expense.

Yeah, I agree with all of that.

CaptainAmerica
10-31-2011, 02:08 PM
http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/063/973/original/funny.jpg

Yeah ,after reading about cops killing a 14 year old boy who got in a fight,after reading about them killing a USMC veteran in arizona in his home without a warrant ,after reading about them killing lots of family dogs and scaring the shit out of kids by firing guns in homes without even having warrants or probable cause. Im just fucking sick of this shit.

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 02:33 PM
Wouldn't a policeman who supports Ron Paul be advocating a candidate who believes that his job is unconstitutional?

How are local police unconstitutional?

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 02:37 PM
PETA is a statist-first organization. Their vision requires somebody to implement it.

I didn't say I loved the organization. If not, PETA, there are other organizations whose members get mighty ticked off about animal abuse. I can't remember the names of the others. These are the organizations who might go after these cops.

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 02:38 PM
I agree. Title should be... 95% of cops etc... :D

How about not making these types of blanket statements.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 02:40 PM
How are local police unconstitutional?

Point them out in the Constitution please.. Have you read the link I provided,, where that question was asked?

Do you believe the Constitution Society to be a questionable source?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

emphasis mine

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 02:48 PM
Pcosmar, the Constitution is all about constraining the FEDERAL government. It does not dictate to states or local governments except requiring them to have a republican form of government and things like the 2nd amendment.

The Framers in no way wanted federal police, which we now have. I doubt they also wanted the linking of that federal police with our local police forces. Nor, would they likely approve of the militarization of that local police by Homeland Security, or some of the actions being taken now, which are unconstitutional, by various members of these various police forces.

But, the existence of completely local police? I see nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit it.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 03:03 PM
Pcosmar, the Constitution is all about constraining the FEDERAL government. .

WRONG, And I have heard that argument used often. The Constitution is to restrain government. Period.

Or does the 4th amendment not apply to local LE?
Or the 5th. Or the 6th. which is very explicit.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
This has nothing to do with the Federal government,, It is a blanket statement, and applies to ALL states.
As do the whole Bill of RIGHTS.

ZanZibar
10-31-2011, 03:36 PM
Or does the 4th amendment not apply to local LE?
Or the 5th. Or the 6th. which is very explicit.
Nope, it didn't for the first hundred years or so of the Constitution. Look up the legal idea of the incorporation doctrine. AND keep in mind that many states have "bills of rights" that are more restrictive than what the US Constitution offers.

kuckfeynes
10-31-2011, 03:49 PM
WRONG, And I have heard that argument used often. The Constitution is to restrain government. Period.

Or does the 4th amendment not apply to local LE?
Or the 5th. Or the 6th. which is very explicit.


This has nothing to do with the Federal government,, It is a blanket statement, and applies to ALL states.
As do the whole Bill of RIGHTS.

^ If that is the case, that all bureaucratic force is unconstitutional, would that not essentially make the Constitution an ancap document? Is a monopoly on force not what makes a state a state?

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 04:01 PM
Police are an Authoritarian construct and concept. They are contrary to a free society. But then so are 90,000 laws.
From the writings of the founders and their intent,, Law enforcement was a duty of each person. As was defense., Both self and community defense. There was an elected Sheriff as the highest Law Enforcement office.

Police came much later,, and after the deterioration of Liberty was well underway.

EvilEngineer
10-31-2011, 04:05 PM
To be fair... this calf wasn't going for very long anyway... it got out as it was on it's way to the slaughterhouse. It was on it's way to die... like the rest of the cattle... for human consumption.

Granted, if I was the owner I would be pissed, because they ruined the product by shooting it so many times and contaminating it. Now it really will have died for nothing.

Never send a Cop to do a Coyboy's job.

Invi
10-31-2011, 04:28 PM
I'm not going to watch the video. I have no interest in watching an animal get shot for no reason other than it was loose.
Was it only one officer? It doesn't really matter, I guess, but I've dealt with stray calves before and it only took us two people to herd it back to where it was supposed to be. No reason to shoot the thing. Waste of meat. Would have been in someone's freezer soon enough.

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 04:45 PM
WRONG, And I have heard that argument used often. The Constitution is to restrain government. Period.

Or does the 4th amendment not apply to local LE?
Or the 5th. Or the 6th. which is very explicit.


This has nothing to do with the Federal government,, It is a blanket statement, and applies to ALL states.
As do the whole Bill of RIGHTS.

Pcosmar, do you see the problem when the Supreme Court gets to decide which local laws are "constitutional" vs. "unconstitutional"? The problem is that, now, the federal government can basically define everything for us and run a totalitarian government that gets to dictate all aspects of local government. I thought one of the major tenets of this here forum is that we wanted local government as opposed to more federal power. Now that the Bill of Rights has been construed to mean applying to all levels of government, basically the federal government is the only one that has any say in the matter. You can't give the Supreme Court that kind of power. It WILL be abused. If you think the federal government is somehow more capable of protecting you against tyranny than a local government with its own Constitution, then you are sorely mistaken, my friend.

kuckfeynes
10-31-2011, 05:14 PM
Police are an Authoritarian construct and concept. They are contrary to a free society. But then so are 90,000 laws.
From the writings of the founders and their intent,, Law enforcement was a duty of each person. As was defense., Both self and community defense. There was an elected Sheriff as the highest Law Enforcement office.

Police came much later,, and after the deterioration of Liberty was well underway.

Okay yes I agree, but is an elected sheriff with however many number of deputies not still a form of police? If so, how local must it be kept to be constitutional? Just smaller than state level? For the record I do believe that all monopolies are bad including those on force, but my question is not what provides for the greatest liberty but rather simply what is constitutional.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 05:20 PM
Pcosmar, do you see the problem when the Supreme Court gets to decide which local laws are "constitutional" vs. "unconstitutional"? The problem is that, now, the federal government can basically define everything for us and run a totalitarian government that gets to dictate all aspects of local government. I thought one of the major tenets of this here forum is that we wanted local government as opposed to more federal power. Now that the Bill of Rights has been construed to mean applying to all levels of government, basically the federal government is the only one that has any say in the matter. You can't give the Supreme Court that kind of power. It WILL be abused. If you think the federal government is somehow more capable of protecting you against tyranny than a local government with its own Constitution, then you are sorely mistaken, my friend.

I will answer that with questions.
Does a local government have a right to search your home without a warrant?
Does the local government have a right to jail you without trial?
Can a local government compel you to testify against yourself?

Do you believe that they should be able to?

Constitutional protections are across the board.
All states agreed to this as the Law of the land when accepted into the Republic.

The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

or at least,,it was.

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 05:24 PM
Okay yes I agree, but is an elected sheriff with however many number of deputies not still a form of police? If so, how local must it be kept to be constitutional? Just smaller than state level? For the record I do believe that all monopolies are bad including those on force, but my question is not what provides for the greatest liberty but rather simply what is constitutional.
A Sheriff is generally at the County level (or parish). But it is the Duty (responsibility) of each and every citizen to uphold laws.
This assumes of course that the laws are just. No one has any responsibility to uphold unjust laws.

Dr.3D
10-31-2011, 05:27 PM
Maybe those cops are trying to demonstrate how dangerous it is for some people to carry firearms.

iGGz
10-31-2011, 05:30 PM
It is messed up but they were going to the slaughterhouse...

http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/thumbs/troll_icons_2_28891_7697_thumb.png

LibForestPaul
10-31-2011, 05:32 PM
Pcosmar, the Constitution is all about constraining the FEDERAL government. It does not dictate to states or local governments except requiring them to have a republican form of government and things like the 2nd amendment.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

catdd
10-31-2011, 05:46 PM
Well, there won't be much left for the table now that its been shot all to hell with 9mm bullets. Cows get loose all the time around here and you just call the owner and he takes care of it. These have to be city cops.

Travlyr
10-31-2011, 05:54 PM
The highway patrol pretty much started in 1920's & 30's across America which was shortly after central planning became the order of the day.

Pericles
10-31-2011, 08:43 PM
Nope, it didn't for the first hundred years or so of the Constitution. Look up the legal idea of the incorporation doctrine. AND keep in mind that many states have "bills of rights" that are more restrictive than what the US Constitution offers.

When the Constitution was adopted, only 7 of the 13 states had a "BoR" in their state constitutions.

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 09:51 PM
I will answer that with questions.
Does a local government have a right to search your home without a warrant?
Does the local government have a right to jail you without trial?
Can a local government compel you to testify against yourself?

Do you believe that they should be able to?

Constitutional protections are across the board.
All states agreed to this as the Law of the land when accepted into the Republic.

The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land.

or at least,,it was.

That is a straw man. I never said those things, and I don't advocate them. The states have Constitutions, too, ya know. What makes you think the federal Constitution is so much better than the state constitutions?

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 10:05 PM
That is a straw man. I never said those things, and I don't advocate them. The states have Constitutions, too, ya know. What makes you think the federal Constitution is so much better than the state constitutions?

No it is not a straw man. The Constitution of the United States is the constitution of the states. It applies to all and is the supreme LAW of the land. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last arbiter of that law.

And before you start with "states rights",,, States do not have Rights. People have rights. States have sovereignty (within the bounds of the Constitution)

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 10:17 PM
No it is not a straw man. The Constitution of the United States is the constitution of the states. It applies to all and is the supreme LAW of the land. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last arbiter of that law.

And before you start with "states rights",,, States do not have Rights. People have rights. States have sovereignty (within the bounds of the Constitution)

There you go with the straw men. Do you even know what I mean when I say straw man? I never said states had rights.

I effectively answered your questions by saying the states have constitutions. Here is a question for you, Pcosmar:

Why do you think the federal Constitution is so much more capable of protecting your liberties than the state Constitutions?

If you ever studied Constitutional Law and some of the cases that come up over the amendments, you would be shocked as to how it is used to let the federal government regulate everything.

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 10:23 PM
When the Constitution was adopted, only 7 of the 13 states had a "BoR" in their state constitutions.

That doesn't help your argument at all. The 6 probably didn't want to adopt a BoR because they didn't want their state governments to become as tyrannical and overreaching as our federal government now is.

Vessol
10-31-2011, 10:31 PM
That cow was a very clear and present threat to the officers in question. I am certainly glad that we have men and women out there to protect us from the very real bovine threat that is out there.

LibertyEagle
10-31-2011, 10:35 PM
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Which part of that prohibits local police, because I am not seeing it?

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 10:48 PM
Which part of that prohibits local police, because I am not seeing it?
The point to his post is that the Constitution was written to constrain States as well as Federal Government.

There is no prohibition. And that was not my statement.
There is however NO provision for them. They were a later creation.
And I maintain that they are inherently a threat to liberty, And that they are unneeded and unnecessary.

They are an authoritarian construct and contrary to individual liberty and responsibility.

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 10:55 PM
The point to his post is that the Constitution was written to constrain States as well as Federal Government.

There is no prohibition. And that was not my statement.
There is however NO provision for them. They were a later creation.
And I maintain that they are inherently a threat to liberty, And that they are unneeded and unnecessary.

They are an authoritarian construct and contrary to individual liberty and responsibility.

Pcosmar, are you avoiding my question?

Why do you think the federal Constitution is so much more capable of protecting your liberties than state Constitutions? Why is it so much better that it should be trusted with all of the power instead of dividing the power between the states?

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 11:01 PM
Pcosmar, are you avoiding my question?

Why do you think the federal Constitution is so much more capable of protecting your liberties than state Constitutions? Why is it so much better that it should be trusted with all of the power instead of dividing the power between the states?

Only if it is followed.(enforced) It has not been. It is given passing lip service at best and has been largely ignored for well over 100 years.
Even the state Constitution is ignored in favor of Federal Law,(often in direct contradiction to the Constitution)

If the Constitution was followed Gun Laws would NOT EXIST (for example) And my State Constitution has this provision but is also ignored.
Auto searches would NOT BE ALLOWED without a warrant.
Warrants would not be issued on anonymous tips.
Police would have no right even asking for ID unless they witnessed an actual crime.

Most "crimes" would not exist.

We are so far removed from the intent of the founders that they would not even recognise this as the country they founded.

PaulConventionWV
10-31-2011, 11:08 PM
Only if it is followed.(enforced) It has not been. It is given passing lip service at best and has been largely ignored for well over 100 years.
Even the state Constitution is ignored in favor of Federal Law,(often in direct contradiction to the Constitution)

That is precisely my point. If the Bill of Rights applies to the states, the states' Constitutions are ignored in favor of federal law. The problem is that you seem to think we should centralize all these decisions and have one governing body for the whole country to make our laws?

You still haven't answered my question: I said WHY do you think the federal government is so much more capable of protecting your liberties than the state Constitutions? What makes the federal government so special that the state governments can't do? Do you favor local government or one centralized government?

pcosmar
10-31-2011, 11:17 PM
That is precisely my point. If the Bill of Rights applies to the states, the states' Constitutions are ignored in favor of federal law. The problem is that you seem to think we should centralize all these decisions and have one governing body for the whole country to make our laws?

You still haven't answered my question: I said WHY do you think the federal government is so much more capable of protecting your liberties than the state Constitutions? What makes the federal government so special that the state governments can't do? Do you favor local government or one centralized government?

I favor a local government, I also favor limits on both State and Federal government. The Constitution is supposed to be that limit.
I would like to see the limitations returned.
So that the Federal Government did NOT impose unconstitutional Laws on the states and would instead restrict States from imposing Unconstitutional laws on it's people.

mrsat_98
11-01-2011, 05:57 AM
Maybe those cops are trying to demonstrate how dangerous it is for some people to carry firearms.

+ REP



That cow was a very clear and present threat to the officers in question. I am certainly glad that we have men and women out there to protect us from the very real bovine threat that is out there.

Bright , trying to pull over a cow.

PaulConventionWV
11-01-2011, 08:56 AM
I favor a local government, I also favor limits on both State and Federal government. The Constitution is supposed to be that limit.
I would like to see the limitations returned.
So that the Federal Government did NOT impose unconstitutional Laws on the states and would instead restrict States from imposing Unconstitutional laws on it's people.

Ok, that is a good answer. However, I would like to ask you one more question:

Why do you not believe the state Constitutions are capable of limiting state government?

LibForestPaul
11-01-2011, 04:53 PM
Only if it is followed.(enforced) It has not been. It is given passing lip service at best and has been largely ignored for well over 100 years.
Even the state Constitution is ignored in favor of Federal Law,(often in direct contradiction to the Constitution)

If the Constitution was followed Gun Laws would NOT EXIST (for example) And my State Constitution has this provision but is also ignored.
Auto searches would NOT BE ALLOWED without a warrant.
Warrants would not be issued on anonymous tips.
Police would have no right even asking for ID unless they witnessed an actual crime.

Most "crimes" would not exist.

We are so far removed from the intent of the founders that they would not even recognise this as the country they founded.

whoa, bump..

pcosmar
11-01-2011, 05:04 PM
Ok, that is a good answer. However, I would like to ask you one more question:

Why do you not believe the state Constitutions are capable of limiting state government?

For the very same reason that the Federal Constitution is not enforced.
People got lazy and allowed others to rule over them and to establish enforcers to do so.

Government (in this country) is not supposed to rule over the people.
The people are supposed to rule themselves and the government.(for what little it should do)

Johnny Appleseed
11-01-2011, 07:25 PM
That officer should at least be charged with animal cruelty. Barney Fife could have killed that cow with his 1 bullet much more humanly and you would have been able to eat it. A loose cow isn't half as dangerous as a loose cop these days.

pcosmar
11-01-2011, 07:28 PM
A loose cow isn't half as dangerous as a loose cop these days.

Ain't that the truth.

Reason
11-01-2011, 09:20 PM
Perhaps they wanted a free dinner?

PaulConventionWV
11-03-2011, 11:16 PM
For the very same reason that the Federal Constitution is not enforced.
People got lazy and allowed others to rule over them and to establish enforcers to do so.

Government (in this country) is not supposed to rule over the people.
The people are supposed to rule themselves and the government.(for what little it should do)

Ok, this doesn't make any sense at all. If you think state constitutions are inadequate, what makes you think the federal constitution can do any better?

We're not supposed to centralize the authority, we're supposed to DECENTRALIZE. Why is it that you think it's a good thing for 9 people to be able to define rights and liberties for the whole country instead of letting the people control their own government at a local level? If you centralize government, then it has too much power. That is why we need the states to have sovereignty and make the Constitution a limit only on the federal government, just as the state constitutions are a limit on the states. If you mix the two, everything gets messed up. Why do you not see?

PaulConventionWV
11-04-2011, 05:27 PM
Pcosmar, I really want to hear you explain your position better. Answer my last question, please. I still can't comprehend why you support the federal government monopoly on sovereignty over all law issues?

pcosmar
11-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Pcosmar, I really want to hear you explain your position better. Answer my last question, please. I still can't comprehend why you support the federal government monopoly on sovereignty over all law issues?

That is because you DO NOT LISTEN, or read very well at all.

I do NOT.
The Federal Government has NO law enforcement. The Supreme Court is the Court of Last Appeal. (after local and state courts)
The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the land.
To be enforced by every individual, The Highest Law enforcement office is the County Sheriff.

There is NO need for Police. (an army of enforcers)

heavenlyboy34
11-04-2011, 07:22 PM
No people to shoot? well lets practice on this stray calf.

You have to watch this video to see what has to be some of the most ignorant POC's I think I have ever seen.
Just practicing on a poor helpless calf to keep in shape for shooting mundanes don'cha know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jry92dhOtaw

OMFG!!! :eek: That's crazy!

pcosmar
11-04-2011, 07:25 PM
Ok, this doesn't make any sense at all.

We're not supposed to centralize the authority, we're supposed to DECENTRALIZE.
No the intention was to eliminate Authority.
The Constitution limits Government (all of it) It limits governmental authority,, and grants it TO THE PEOPLE.


Why is it that you think it's a good thing for 9 people to be able to define rights and liberties for the whole country instead of letting the people control their own government at a local level?

Where is that supposed to happen? The supreme court is supposed to protect our rights and liberties from state or local abuse.
At least,,that was what it was supposed to do.


Why do you not see?
Why do I not see what?
That Government on all levels has overstepped it's bounds. I see that.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 02:33 PM
That is because you DO NOT LISTEN, or read very well at all.

I do NOT.
The Federal Government has NO law enforcement. The Supreme Court is the Court of Last Appeal. (after local and state courts)
The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the land.
To be enforced by every individual, The Highest Law enforcement office is the County Sheriff.

There is NO need for Police. (an army of enforcers)

I never said there was. I am still wondering why you support a monopoly of the federal government on law.

I hate to break it to you, but that IS what you are proposing. If you say the federal government has the right to intervene in state laws because of its Constitution, then you basically think we should have a centralized federal government that has jurisdiction on almost everything. I know the Supreme Court is the court of last appeal, but that is what has allowed it to make so many BS decisions that are binding on everyone, such as national drug laws against pot and other drugs. If we separated the federal government from the state governments and let the state governments live with their own constitutions and enforce their own laws through their own court system, then we wouldn't have the massive overhaul of 20million national laws that we have today. The states have their Constitutions to keep the state governments at bay, and the federal government has its own Constituion. What's so wrong with that? Of course, there are SOME things that even the states can't do, such as make treaties with other nations, but the federal Constitution cannot and should not determine which state laws are acceptable. That just leads to authoritarianism and a single central, unitary government that can basically run our personal lives. I'm sorry to say, but that's what you support because you think that, somehow, the federal government is more capable of making just laws than the states. That is inherently not true because different people in different places have different situations. That's why we should return sovereignty back to the states to determine their own laws, not let the federal government intervene at every step and make a power-grab on sovereignty.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 02:40 PM
No the intention was to eliminate Authority.
The Constitution limits Government (all of it) It limits governmental authority,, and grants it TO THE PEOPLE.



Where is that supposed to happen? The supreme court is supposed to protect our rights and liberties from state or local abuse.
At least,,that was what it was supposed to do.


Why do I not see what?
That Government on all levels has overstepped it's bounds. I see that.

You are right, but the Constitution CANNOT prevent that. You simply want to give more power to the federal government to oversee the problems it caused in the first place, which is the mixture of state and federal sovereignty. Let the states follow their own Constitutions, make their own laws, and let the people of that state govern themselves. There is simply no other way. If you want the Constitution to prevent ALL governments from gaining more power, then you are simply taking an authoritarian approach by centralizing sovereignty in the federal government. I think the states are just as capable of limiting their own government as the federal government is. If you want to give the federal government more power to regulate the states, then you are inherently granting government authority and centralizing it, not limiting it. The Constitution CANNOT serve as a limitation on ALL governments. That is the antithesis of personal freedom and local government. It is also the antithesis of limited government because it centralizes the authority to regulate law into the hands of the few instead of the many. That's the reason we have all these stupid laws regulating drugs, religion, what have you, in our school systems. Sure, government funding is a problem, but I guarantee you they would be doing it regardless of the funding because YOU want them to have that power.

I'm sorry, but I think you're falling for a fallacy, which is the idea that you can limit governmental authority with more governmental authority placed in the hands of the federal government.

pcosmar
11-05-2011, 02:44 PM
I never said there was. I am still wondering why you support a monopoly of the federal government on law.


Who said anything about making laws.

Again you lack reading comprehension.
The federal Government is supposed to protect Liberties.
Their place is to remove Bad Laws that violate Liberty. (the bill of Rights) and only if the abuse can not be resolved by local or state courts.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Fed has overstepped it's bounds is a given.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 02:44 PM
Where is that supposed to happen? The supreme court is supposed to protect our rights and liberties from state or local abuse.
At least,,that was what it was supposed to do.

It's supposed to happen on the state levels. Were you unaware that there were District Courts and State Supreme Courts? Why give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over things that aren't federal matters? The Supreme Court is supposed to define the laws limiting the federal government. It's not supposed to take jurisdiction over every state issue. If we separate them, what the state supreme court says, goes in that state. I don't see a problem with letting the states solve their own problems instead of always letting the federal government get involved and giving people a way for the federal government to "save them." Someone's going to lose their case eventually, why not let it end at the state level if it's a state issue concerning laws in that state?

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 02:46 PM
Who said anything about making laws.

Again you lack reading comprehension.
The federal Government is supposed to protect Liberties.
Their place is to remove Bad Laws that violate Liberty. (the bill of Rights) and only if the abuse can not be resolved by local or state courts.

That's what the Supreme Court does when it decides civil cases that are matters of state law. It essentially makes a new federal law that applies to all of the states. That's what I meant by making laws.

What you are missing is that, when the Supreme Court gets to decide on a state law, it can basically do whatever it wants and establish a new national law. That kind of power is dangerous. There are almost no checks on the Supreme Court power if we let it decide state law issues.

pcosmar
11-05-2011, 02:49 PM
That's what the Supreme Court does when it decides civil cases that are matters of state law. It essentially makes a new federal law that applies to all of the states. That's what I meant by making laws.

What you are missing is that, when the Supreme Court gets to decide on a state law, it can basically do whatever it wants and establish a new national law. That kind of power is dangerous. There are almost no checks on the Supreme Court power if we let it decide state law issues.

As I said,, Repeatedly,, The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. The states have allowed this as have the people.

We haven't dragged them out and hung them publicly for it. As should have happened long ago.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 03:10 PM
As I said,, Repeatedly,, The Federal Government has overstepped its bounds. The states have allowed this as have the people.

We haven't dragged them out and hung them publicly for it. As should have happened long ago.

I saw you say it. The problem is that you support it overstepping its bounds. I never said you didn't think the federal government was too powerful, but you do want it to have power that it shouldn't have, and power that is not conducive to personal liberty. If the Supreme Court can dictate which state laws are legitimate, then the federal government has too much power, period!

pcosmar
11-05-2011, 03:13 PM
I saw you say it. The problem is that you support it overstepping its bounds. I never said you didn't think the federal government was too powerful, but you do want it to have power that it shouldn't have, and power that is not conducive to personal liberty. If the Supreme Court can dictate which state laws are legitimate, then the federal government has too much power, period!

I do not support Stateist Authoritarianism. Which is what you seem to be promoting.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 03:22 PM
I do not support Stateist Authoritarianism. Which is what you seem to be promoting.

Elaborate. What is Statist Authoritarianism, in your definition?

You think the Bill of Rights in the Constitution should be binding on the states, right? Then you support federal authority over state issues, which is the antithesis of liberty. The states can limit their own government without the federal government doing it for them. They all have their own state constitutions. That is enough for me.

pcosmar
11-05-2011, 03:50 PM
Elaborate. What is Statist Authoritarianism, in your definition?

You think the Bill of Rights in the Constitution should be binding on the states, right? Then you support federal authority over state issues, which is the antithesis of liberty. The states can limit their own government without the federal government doing it for them. They all have their own state constitutions. That is enough for me.

So you want a dissolution of the United States?
That may happen, but it is not my wish.

Do you want to have states decide that some people are property? Or that everyone has to wear the same clothes?

or that people are forbidden to own or carry arms? (Some states have that) Or a mandatory/forbidden religion?

Just what part of the Bill of Rights offends you so much.

PaulConventionWV
11-05-2011, 10:49 PM
So you want a dissolution of the United States?
That may happen, but it is not my wish.

Do you want to have states decide that some people are property? Or that everyone has to wear the same clothes?

or that people are forbidden to own or carry arms? (Some states have that) Or a mandatory/forbidden religion?

Just what part of the Bill of Rights offends you so much.

That would probably violate any of the state constitutions. Beside, if people don't like the laws of their state, they can "vote with their feet" as it were. This will create a sort of free market amongst the state that basically forces the states to have reasonable standards.

None of the Bill of Rights offends me. It offends me if the federal government is allowed to define our rights and have a monopoly on sovereignty. That's why the states also have a bill of rights.

Pcosmar, you are obviously not listening to me. I keep saying the states have their own constitutions, and those things would probably violate any of them. But yes, actually, it was the intent of the founders to allow the states to establish a state religion if they wanted to, as long as it complied with the state constitution. Some of them did have state religions, although there was no enforcement provision. They didn't arrest people for having different religions, they were allowed to tie church and state, though. If that's something you don't like about your state, then change it, or move. Crying to the federal government doesn't solve the problem.

One of the primary reasons the states have sovereignty is that, if any of them are overtaken by a tyrannical mob, it can easily be overthrown and snubbed out because there are 49 other states that notice that somethign is wrong. This isn't true with the federal government. Federal government power to manipulate state laws just gives them that much more incentive to abuse their power.

pcosmar
11-06-2011, 07:26 AM
That would probably violate any of the state constitutions. Beside, if people don't like the laws of their state, they can "vote with their feet" as it were. This will create a sort of free market amongst the state that basically forces the states to have reasonable standards.

None of the Bill of Rights offends me. It offends me if the federal government is allowed to define our rights and have a monopoly on sovereignty. That's why the states also have a bill of rights.

Pcosmar, you are obviously not listening to me. I keep saying the states have their own constitutions, and those things would probably violate any of them. But yes, actually, it was the intent of the founders to allow the states to establish a state religion if they wanted to, as long as it complied with the state constitution. Some of them did have state religions, although there was no enforcement provision. They didn't arrest people for having different religions, they were allowed to tie church and state, though. If that's something you don't like about your state, then change it, or move. Crying to the federal government doesn't solve the problem.

One of the primary reasons the states have sovereignty is that, if any of them are overtaken by a tyrannical mob, it can easily be overthrown and snubbed out because there are 49 other states that notice that somethign is wrong. This isn't true with the federal government. Federal government power to manipulate state laws just gives them that much more incentive to abuse their power.

The Federal Government is NOT Supposed to have power to manipulate state laws except when the State violates basic Human Rights.
(the Bill of Rights)
That is what needs to be addressed. They have usurped powers.
They need to be reigned in.
Some State Constitutions do NOT protect certain Rights. The 2 amendment for instance.
That is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, A standard that applies to all. And ALL States agreed to this when they entered the Union.

The Federal Government has a place,,, but it does need to be put in it's place

PaulConventionWV
11-06-2011, 03:38 PM
The Federal Government is NOT Supposed to have power to manipulate state laws except when the State violates basic Human Rights.
(the Bill of Rights)
That is what needs to be addressed. They have usurped powers.
They need to be reigned in.
Some State Constitutions do NOT protect certain Rights. The 2 amendment for instance.
That is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, A standard that applies to all. And ALL States agreed to this when they entered the Union.

The Federal Government has a place,,, but it does need to be put in it's place

Pcosmar, you're kidding yourself if you think the federal government stepping in to regulate "human rights" laws in other states is different than any other laws. The federal government is not the solution to violation of human rights. It is the job of the states and the people therein to effect a movement of their government toward those policies. If the states do not protect human rights, then you can either move or change your government through activism. Getting the federal government involved in changing the laws of the states only serves to empower the federal government, not protect the people.

When the federal government has the power to manipulate human rights laws, that gives them power to regulate in the area where it hurts liberty most: people's private lives. If you give the federal government the ability to manipulate state laws and set a national standard, that doesn't help liberty or human rights. It is the job of the people and the state governments to figure that out. If we have the federal government deciding which laws are legitimate, then the standard is the same for everyone in the nation. Giving the federal government more power to regulate is a remedy worse than the disease itself.

If a state has bad laws in a true free market, that state loses business. It is a system that seeks to serve the people. However, if you give the federal government sovereignty and jurisdiction on those state matters that affect personal freedom, then there is no incentive not to abuse power because it doesn't matter what the federal government decides, it goes. The idea that we are going to have some morally superior federal court that wants nothing more than to protect human rights is just silly. What makes you think the federal government is any more interested in your human rights than any state courts? We can't just delegate the protection of rights to a higher power and expect every decision to be made in our best interest. You may not like your state laws or your state constitution, but the federal government is not the answer.

It's like the human skull. The human skull has cracks in it that separate certain regions of the skull in respect to which part of the brain it is protecting. The reason for these cracks, or borders, is that, if one part of the skull is damaged, it doesn't affect the rest of the skull. If the skull were simply one huge mass of bone, then a blow to the head would result in way more damage than if the damage were contained within the borders of that portion of the skull. If we allow the federal government to control our state laws, ESPECIALLY in regard to human rights and personal freedom, then one mistake or bad decision hurts everyone in the nation. If a state does it, it is isolated and can be contained and corrected. If a mistake is made in the federal government, it probably won't be corrected, and in fact, was probably made on purpose. It is pure folly to think you can let the federal government oversee human rights and personal liberty and expect that to help us retain our freedoms. Rather, it only speeds the process of taking them away.

pcosmar
11-06-2011, 04:28 PM
Pcosmar, you're kidding yourself if you think the federal government stepping in to regulate "human rights" laws in other states is different than any other laws. The federal government is not the solution to violation of human rights. It is the job of the states and the people therein to effect a movement of their government toward those policies. If the states do not protect human rights, then you can either move or change your government through activism. Getting the federal government involved in changing the laws of the states only serves to empower the federal government, not protect the people.

When the federal government has the power to manipulate human rights laws, that gives them power to regulate in the area where it hurts liberty most: people's private lives. If you give the federal government the ability to manipulate state laws and set a national standard, that doesn't help liberty or human rights. It is the job of the people and the state governments to figure that out. If we have the federal government deciding which laws are legitimate, then the standard is the same for everyone in the nation. Giving the federal government more power to regulate is a remedy worse than the disease itself.

If a state has bad laws in a true free market, that state loses business. It is a system that seeks to serve the people. However, if you give the federal government sovereignty and jurisdiction on those state matters that affect personal freedom, then there is no incentive not to abuse power because it doesn't matter what the federal government decides, it goes. The idea that we are going to have some morally superior federal court that wants nothing more than to protect human rights is just silly. What makes you think the federal government is any more interested in your human rights than any state courts? We can't just delegate the protection of rights to a higher power and expect every decision to be made in our best interest. You may not like your state laws or your state constitution, but the federal government is not the answer.

It's like the human skull. The human skull has cracks in it that separate certain regions of the skull in respect to which part of the brain it is protecting. The reason for these cracks, or borders, is that, if one part of the skull is damaged, it doesn't affect the rest of the skull. If the skull were simply one huge mass of bone, then a blow to the head would result in way more damage than if the damage were contained within the borders of that portion of the skull. If we allow the federal government to control our state laws, ESPECIALLY in regard to human rights and personal freedom, then one mistake or bad decision hurts everyone in the nation. If a state does it, it is isolated and can be contained and corrected. If a mistake is made in the federal government, it probably won't be corrected, and in fact, was probably made on purpose. It is pure folly to think you can let the federal government oversee human rights and personal liberty and expect that to help us retain our freedoms. Rather, it only speeds the process of taking them away.

So you are basically saying that we should have NO Federal Government at all.
No Constitution Of The United States and that the States should all be separate entities unto themselves.

I believe that was attempted once with rather poor results,, but perhaps it may happen after the economy crashes.

but this has gotten far away from my original statement that police should Not Exist in a free society.

PaulConventionWV
11-06-2011, 06:52 PM
So you are basically saying that we should have NO Federal Government at all.
No Constitution Of The United States and that the States should all be separate entities unto themselves.

I believe that was attempted once with rather poor results,, but perhaps it may happen after the economy crashes.

but this has gotten far away from my original statement that police should Not Exist in a free society.

No, you're thinking of the Articles of Confederation. This is way different. There are some rules that the states have to follow, but that doesn't mean the federal government gets to dictate areas of personal freedom. The federal government is there to direct foreign affairs and protect the liberties of the people. That includes letting the states run their own laws according to what the people there think is appropriate. That includes the right to local government that the people can control. If you give the federal government the role of "protecting" the people, all you're really accomplishing is usurping the sovereignty of the states and their people by turning it into a centralized federal bureaucracy.

The Constitution is clear about what the states can and can't do with regard to conducting truly national and international affairs. However, the federal government was never meant to stick its nose into deciding which laws the people should and shouldn't deem appropriate in their state. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Just like the skull, it functions as a unit, but it has its boundaries that allow it to suffer limited damage. The US is the same way. It functions in the world as a unit, but it is composed of several separate governments that are allowed to decide which laws are appropriate for the people in that state. Who is the Supreme Court to tell my state we can't ban sodomy if most of the people feel it is the right decision?

The federal government has its place. If you read the Constitution, I think you will find the federal government still has a place even if you read it the way I read it. It's pretty obvious why.

I agree with you that police should not exist in a free society, but if you ignore the ability of the Supreme Court to make laws that usurp the sovereignty of the states, then you are heading for a federal police agency no matter what you want. That's not a problem if the federal government sticks to its role of conducting foreign affairs and keeping itself in check.

Also, why do you capitalize "Not Exist" in your last post?

pcosmar
11-06-2011, 08:05 PM
Also, why do you capitalize "Not Exist" in your last post?

Because I believe the very concept should vanish from the land and NOT EXIST.
Police are inherently Authoritarian and therefore the opposite of Liberty.

Which was the original point I was making (or attempting to make) before you derailed the thread.

PaulConventionWV
11-06-2011, 08:30 PM
Because I believe the very concept should vanish from the land and NOT EXIST.
Police are inherently Authoritarian and therefore the opposite of Liberty.

Which was the original point I was making (or attempting to make) before you derailed the thread.

Pfft. Whatever. Did you really think this thread was going to keep on the topic about how innocent the cows were? I'm just keeping the thread alive after all have lost interest. It's only because you demonstrate severe misunderstanding about the constitution.

DamianTV
11-08-2011, 01:27 AM
Mass Murderers and Serial Killers frequently started their abuse on Animals. How is this any different? Only difference that I can think of is when the bad apples of the cops decide to start killing animals, it will eventually lead to killing humans. And when they do, they are rewarded and labeled hereoes, not Sociopaths.