Idiana makes new law protecting the 4th amendment... - Page 11
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Idiana makes new law protecting the 4th amendment...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2012, 12:00 PM   #101
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,456
Liked 754 Times on 438 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombiegirl View Post
Yes, I've heard of this site. I also know through research that this is considered a Liberal organization. I find it odd that you are referencing this site, as you were bashing Liberalism earlier. Here's a little excerpt from cato.org under the section "How to label Cato".



Attachment 49632
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggerjob View Post
Cato is a "libertarian"" organisation not a liberal one. The us fouding fathers were all libertarians, none of them could be classified as a modern liberal. Liberals today are actually jusr renamed fascists. Libertarians on the other hand are Costitution loving patriots.
As triggerjob says..LIBERTARIAN!!! The Cato institute believes in the Constitution as it was written, wholey and completely!! Hell the Cato institute has printed up "pocket constitutions". The Cato institute has done more to promote the founders ideas and ideals than pretty much any other organization. If you read the begining of the very first line in what you posted, you will see "The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work". This should be your FIRST clue this is no "modern liberal" organization. No "modern Liberal" or "progressive" would ever be caught dead quoting Jefferson.

As to liberals...at one point in history, being labeled or being liberal didnt mean you were a pathetic douchbag that couldnt understand basic reasoning.

Once upon a time a liberal was one that was highly educated, and could understand reasoning and had some sense.

What we have today are "Modern liberals" or educated and uneducated idiots that dont live in the real world or live in a fantasy world and continue to hope for a eutopian society that can never be achieved. "modern Liberals" ignore facts and make it up as they go along.
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!

Last edited by fmj; 06-22-2012 at 12:13 PM.
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 12:02 PM   #102
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 7,490
Liked 8231 Times on 4240 Posts
Likes Given: 9476

Default

I think it boils down to a couple facts, Police are required to serve and protect. If something they do doesnt serve both of those prerequesits, they arent doing their job.

Civilians have no authority or responsibility to protect or serve anyone to include the police. They do however have the legal right to defend themselves from threats and the police cannot do that so we must.

Breaching an obstacle in the offense is one of the most perilous procedures in the Soldiers Handbook. Even a Grunt knows, it should be avoided if possible but when it must be done, retain the element of surprise, it must be swift and instantaneous deadly force is expected to be applied every single time. The police use the same tactics, they must otherwise they will die.

Urban offensive small or large has significant risk involved. Breaking down someones door and rushing in is nearly the most dangerous of all tactical maneuvers. Cops dont know whats on the other side of that door and even if they yell "Police, get down on the ground"!, neither do the occupants inside, deception isnt against the code of criminal conduct.

Until some form of proof is established and the scene is secure, its the OK Corral! The occupants arent required to stand down against anyone they cant be sure isnt intent on causing them harm in any manner.

I said it before, high speed car chases generally produce unintended victims that dont deserve a death sentence due to a car thief's reckless attempts to escape an armed and max Horsepower pursuer hell bent on catching the thief at all costs. Losing one Officer or one innocent bystander or misidentifying and assaulting one law abiding citizen is unacceptable. The fact that it does happen often enough with no knock warrants means that the planning and execution of this most dangerous action is not adequate for less than deadly situations. It should not be used without the imminent threat of life and limb. Trying to catch a drug dealers before they flush their drugs nowhere nearly approaches that level of immediate action even if they may be suspected of possessing a firearm.

There are other ways to catch criminals than this Infantry Tactic, its up to the legal systems to find a safer method of doing their jobs for them and us.
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 12:10 PM   #103
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,456
Liked 754 Times on 438 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
I think it boils down to a couple facts, Police are required to serve and protect. If something they do doesnt serve both of those prerequesits, they arent doing their job.

Civilians have no authority or responsibility to protect or serve anyone to include the police. They do however have the legal right to defend themselves from threats and the police cannot do that so we must.

Breaching an obstacle in the offense is one of the most perilous procedures in the Soldiers Handbook. Even a Grunt knows, it should be avoided if possible but when it must be done, retain the element of surprise, it must be swift and instantaneous deadly force is expected to be applied every single time. The police use the same tactics, they must otherwise they will die.

Urban offensive small or large has significant risk involved. Breaking down someones door and rushing in is nearly the most dangerous of all tactical maneuvers. Cops dont know whats on the other side of that door and even if they yell "Police, get down on the ground"!, neither do the occupants inside, deception isnt against the code of criminal conduct.

Until some form of proof is established and the scene is secure, its the OK Corral! The occupants arent required to stand down against anyone they cant be sure isnt intent on causing them harm in any manner.

I said it before, high speed car chases generally produce unintended victims that dont deserve a death sentence due to a car thief's reckless attempts to escape an armed and max Horsepower pursuer hell bent on catching the thief at all costs. Losing one Officer or one innocent bystander or misidentifying and assaulting one law abiding citizen is unacceptable. The fact that it does happen often enough with no knock warrants means that the planning and execution of this most dangerous action is not adequate for less than deadly situations. It should not be used without the imminent threat of life and limb. Trying to catch a drug dealers before they flush their drugs nowhere nearly approaches that level of immediate action even if they may be suspected of possessing a firearm.

There are other ways to catch criminals than this Infantry Tactic, its up to the legal systems to find a safer method of doing their jobs for them and us.
Correct! and the first step on this path would be end or surrender this failed war on the American people...errrr i mean, war on drugs!
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!

Last edited by fmj; 06-22-2012 at 12:14 PM.
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 02:15 PM   #104
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Zombiegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northwest,Indiana
Posts: 4,126
Liked 1819 Times on 994 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj

As triggerjob says..LIBERTARIAN!!! The Cato institute believes in the Constitution as it was written, wholey and completely!! Hell the Cato institute has printed up "pocket constitutions". The Cato institute has done more to promote the founders ideas and ideals than pretty much any other organization. If you read the begining of the very first line in what you posted, you will see "The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work". This should be your FIRST clue this is no "modern liberal" organization. No "modern Liberal" or "progressive" would ever be caught dead quoting Jefferson.

As to liberals...at one point in history, being labeled or being liberal didnt mean you were a pathetic douchbag that couldnt understand basic reasoning.

Once upon a time a liberal was one that was highly educated, and could understand reasoning and had some sense.

What we have today are "Modern liberals" or educated and uneducated idiots that dont live in the real world or live in a fantasy world and continue to hope for a eutopian society that can never be achieved. "modern Liberals" ignore facts and make it up as they go along.
There are many sources that site Cato as being Liberal, but I grabbed a tiny excerpt from your site. Just because people like you look at Liberalism in a negative light doesn't mean that there aren't Liberals out there that share the same beliefs as our founding fathers. As usual, you're throwing insults. If you're going to call people "douchebags", at least spell it properly. I have a Masters Degree in mathematics/education. I'm pretty sure that I have basic reasoning skills. You enjoy staying at home and not working and work on your spelling and grammar. Not so nice when you're insulted is it? As we have nothing more to say, you have a nice life.
Zombiegirl is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:24 PM   #105
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9088 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Zombiegirl,
Not to stoke things any more than is needed, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian organization. There are distinct and important differences between Liberalism and Libertarianism, most obvious that Libertarianism is for individual liberty (italics are mine as I believe this is the most important distinction), limited government and free markets. This is in stark contrast to Liberalism which is for collectivism (or the more radical liberal is for communism or socialism or perhaps a variation thereof), more government and regulated markets.

This Indiana legislation is all about individual liberty and the 4th Amendment, to wit:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
.

The way Indiana law was being enforced previously enabled police to make mistakes (such as no-knock warrants served on the wrong residence) in serving warrants and in entering private homes (there are no provisions for mistakes in the Constitution) and the citizens had no recourse, legally or otherwise. There were prosecutions of private citizens for defending their own property against unwarranted searches (as you and others agree, even one is too many). The new legislation gives citizens not the right to shoot cops entering their home illegally, it gives them legal recourse should it happen, and if a cop is shot and/or killed in the process the citizen (or their survivors) now have a legal recourse.

It is not about individuals shooting cops on the doorstep. This conversation seems to have no middle ground, that is why I have stayed out of it for the most part.

I have no idea what I would do if a no-knock warrant is mistakenly served on my home, and I pray that I never find out. I also pray that nobody reading this ever finds out as well.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 04:47 PM   #106
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Zombiegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northwest,Indiana
Posts: 4,126
Liked 1819 Times on 994 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad
Zombiegirl,
Not to stoke things any more than is needed, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian organization. There are distinct and important differences between Liberalism and Libertarianism, most obvious that Libertarianism is for individual liberty (italics are mine as I believe this is the most important distinction), limited government and free markets. This is in stark contrast to Liberalism which is for collectivism (or the more radical liberal is for communism or socialism or perhaps a variation thereof), more government and regulated markets.

This Indiana legislation is all about individual liberty and the 4th Amendment, to wit: .

The way Indiana law was being enforced previously enabled police to make mistakes (such as no-knock warrants served on the wrong residence) in serving warrants and in entering private homes (there are no provisions for mistakes in the Constitution) and the citizens had no recourse, legally or otherwise. There were prosecutions of private citizens for defending their own property against unwarranted searches (as you and others agree, even one is too many). The new legislation gives citizens not the right to shoot cops entering their home illegally, it gives them legal recourse should it happen, and if a cop is shot and/or killed in the process the citizen (or their survivors) now have a legal recourse.

It is not about individuals shooting cops on the doorstep. This conversation seems to have no middle ground, that is why I have stayed out of it for the most part.

I have no idea what I would do if a no-knock warrant is mistakenly served on my home, and I pray that I never find out. I also pray that nobody reading this ever finds out as well.
I understand the difference between Liberalism and Libertarianism. I just pointed that out because online a bunch of sources sited that Cato could be considered both. I hope neither of us have to ever find out what it would be like either. I just don't like when people are rude when they could be polite as you are. People making rude comments do not know about my past experiences or my beliefs and I don't like being lumped into a category, when I don't categorize myself as anything...... I had a friend when I was younger get killed by a police officer in his house so I understand the purpose of the law. I do not prejudice myself against all law enforcement because one had a lack of better judgment. I simply appreciate people that look at things from all angles and are polite.
Zombiegirl is offline  
Vikingdad Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 05:03 PM   #107
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9088 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombiegirl View Post
I understand the difference between Liberalism and Libertarianism. I just pointed that out because online a bunch of sources sited that Cato could be considered both. I hope neither of us have to ever find out what it would be like either. I just don't like when people are rude when they could be polite as you are. People making rude comments do not know about my past experiences or my beliefs and I don't like being lumped into a category, when I don't categorize myself as anything...... I had a friend when I was younger get killed by a police officer in his house so I understand the purpose of the law. I do not prejudice myself against all law enforcement because one had a lack of better judgment. I simply appreciate people that look at things from all angles and are polite.
Rather than citing online sources I prefer to go to the actual source (in this case Cato Institute) and read what they say about themselves. Frequently there is some interpretation needed but I don't think that is necessary here (probably more so with liberal sites).

I am frequently dismayed by the vitriol that some members here throw at me for expressing my Libertarian views and opinions (you should have seen the stuff I received for my stance in favor of gay marriage!). Being called a liberal has usually been the beginning of it. It is difficult to see how people can function with such closed minds as to not be able to logically debate a subject based on the facts.

As you have observed, as soon as they run out of logical and factual arguments the personal attacks begin which solves nothing and frequently causes the thread to be locked down. Oh well, I figure when things go that way my argument has won.
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 05:25 PM   #108
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Zombiegirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northwest,Indiana
Posts: 4,126
Liked 1819 Times on 994 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad

Rather than citing online sources I prefer to go to the actual source (in this case Cato Institute) and read what they say about themselves. Frequently there is some interpretation needed but I don't think that is necessary here (probably more so with liberal sites).

I am frequently dismayed by the vitriol that some members here throw at me for expressing my Libertarian views and opinions (you should have seen the stuff I received for my stance in favor of gay marriage!). Being called a liberal has usually been the beginning of it. It is difficult to see how people can function with such closed minds as to not be able to logically debate a subject based on the facts.

As you have observed, as soon as they run out of logical and factual arguments the personal attacks begin which solves nothing and frequently causes the thread to be locked down. Oh well, I figure when things go that way my argument has won.
There was more on the Cato site but on my phone it is difficult to copy some things. I also think that people should get information from more than one source. I'm sure there was outrage with regards to gay marriage. Haha. I have a "live and let live" mentality. If what someone else is doing does not affect me directly, it's really not my concern. People should do what makes them happy and not worry so much about little things.
Zombiegirl is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 05:36 PM   #109
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,456
Liked 754 Times on 438 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombiegirl View Post
There are many sources that site Cato as being Liberal, but I grabbed a tiny excerpt from your site. Just because people like you look at Liberalism in a negative light doesn't mean that there aren't Liberals out there that share the same beliefs as our founding fathers. As usual, you're throwing insults. If you're going to call people "douchebags", at least spell it properly. I have a Masters Degree in mathematics/education. I'm pretty sure that I have basic reasoning skills. You enjoy staying at home and not working and work on your spelling and grammar. Not so nice when you're insulted is it? As we have nothing more to say, you have a nice life.
Did you read and comprehend a thing i typed?? It sure doesnt seem that way. Mayhaps you should go back to whatever school you got your "masters" from and try again. OH, wait, i can see you got your moneys worth from a liberal institution. You learned to ignore what is said or typed and just make it up as you go along!

Now, if you will go back and actually READ and attempt to COMPREHEND what i typed, you will see I attempted to point out the difference between what has become known today as liberals or progressives and the actual definition of liberalism.

I havent tossed an insult your way...yet! If you deemed the words i typed an insult, methinks its you that has the issue. Would seem you're simply offended looking for a place to happen. As far attempting to degrade someone for spelling on a forum...if thats all you have,well, thats quite sad.

As far as your sad attempt to insult me...try again! My skin is way too thick to be penetrated by your failed attempt.

For the record, not that it matters, I am a full time dad of three, (the eldest starting his pre-med classes this fall, the daughter an honors student starting her senior year of high school) a full time college student, carry a journeyman tinners card, an HVAC or mechanical journeymans card, (I work on/install furnaces and air conditioners when i get called to do so) have 8 ASE certifications as well being a (fledgling) student of history and the united states constitution. So much for just staying at home "not working". In other words I have MUCH better things to do than worry about spelling on a GUN forum!

Good day.
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 05:40 PM   #110
fmj
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fmj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne,IN
Posts: 3,456
Liked 754 Times on 438 Posts
Likes Given: 306

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad View Post
Rather than citing online sources I prefer to go to the actual source (in this case Cato Institute) and read what they say about themselves. Frequently there is some interpretation needed but I don't think that is necessary here (probably more so with liberal sites).

I am frequently dismayed by the vitriol that some members here throw at me for expressing my Libertarian views and opinions (you should have seen the stuff I received for my stance in favor of gay marriage!). Being called a liberal has usually been the beginning of it. It is difficult to see how people can function with such closed minds as to not be able to logically debate a subject based on the facts.

As you have observed, as soon as they run out of logical and factual arguments the personal attacks begin which solves nothing and frequently causes the thread to be locked down. Oh well, I figure when things go that way my argument has won.
I am with you brother. As you may have guessed form my many postings/comments here that i am a Libertarian at heart (actually more of a constitutionalist, but we'll leave that for another argument, another day) I get a LOT of trash thrown my way for my views on gay marriage and abortion.

As to insults...generally, you wont find me using them...its not my style.
__________________
"Those that would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjammin Franklin

The 1911: Turning useless trash into good fertilizer for over 100 years!!
fmj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
New York S1427-2011: Proposes a constitutional amendment protecting the RKBA mrreynolds Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 7 05-15-2012 01:13 PM
The Second Amendment: What a Difference a Comma Makes tracker Legal and Activism 7 06-22-2008 08:41 PM
Protecting Blades? gatgurl Other Weapons 7 02-21-2008 01:46 AM



Newest Threads