Friend was stopped and disarmed tonight

[Adam-12]

Potato pahtahtah - you are arguing semantics.

It's a bit more than semantics: saying "the Federal government has no power to do X" is very different from saying, "we don't want the Federal government doing X to certain people."

Consider the example of torture. If the federal government has NO power to torture, then they're committing a crime not just by torturing, but by building a facility for torture, or writing a manual on torture, or hiring a torturer, or requisitioning torture equipment, etc. All that stuff would be a crime, long before the first victim ever got a bag thrown over his head. And everyone in the universe would be safe from torture (by the US), because long before the first victim was even picked out, the men setting up torture facilities, etc., would be in prison and any Federal office holders impeached.

If all we do is ask the federal government not to torture certain people (namely, American Citizens), then the government is perfectly free to set up torture centers, hire torturers, publish manuals, set up the infrastructure to abduct and transport people for torture, etc. All we ask is that when they start cranking the thumbscrews, the victim should please not be an American. Foreigners would of course have every reason to fear torture by the US. And Americans would too: all it takes is a "mistake" where they "accidentally" (or not) grab an American and put him through the torture mill; afterward, they can say, "Whoopsie! We thought he was a Frenchman!"

That's a pretty huge difference. Even setting up the capability to do things the Constitution forbids is, and should be, a capital crime and high treason. Not only don't we want the government restricting our speech, religion, and armaments, or forcing us to testify against ourselves: we don't even want the government to have the capability of doing it, at all, to anyone, ever--because we believe that if it has the capability, it will misuse it.

You (and at least a couple others) think that the Constitution 'originally' protects (the Rights from government infringement/trampling/et cetera of) "all" people - no matter who - who happen to be in the United States.

Not true: it also protects people living on Mars, Venus or Pluto, and alien species we haven't met yet. The Federal Government has no power to (among other things) extract confessions by torture. From anyone. Including, as I already said, Vulcans. Klingons either, for that matter. In the US or out, on this planet or off it, anywhere, any time. It can't torture because it isn't allowed even the capability to do so.

I found the Federalist ideas compelling. Let me guess, though - you are an anti-federalist. Figures...

I'm betting your first clue was when I wished for a time machine, so I could off Hamilton.

They are called "States" - they've always been called that.

Exactly! "State" is a synonym for "nation" or "country." The name "United States" means literally, precisely, "United Nations." We set up the first UN, and it completely demolished the sovereignty of the STATES that joined it. So much so that you (and most everyone else) actually think "state" is a synonym for "province"! Every time you see "state/province" on an Internet form, you should weep for the death of our Republic.

[Bruce]

It's a bit more than semantics: saying "the Federal government has no power to do X" is very different from saying, "we don't want the Federal government doing X to certain people."

I saw something about "cruel and unusual punishment" (actually, it also mentioned "excessive bail" and "fines" too - that would be in the 8th A.), but I guess that I just missed the direct quote found in the Constitution itself that explicitly forbids ("limits") the government from "torturing" captured enemies (or anyone not being 'punished' for that matter) - or where it even specifically mentions the word "torture".

...Where is it again that the word "torture" is mentioned in the Constitution, exactly?

I am not without conscious or morals - I would never condone unnecessary torture - but I'm guessing here that you would view any/all torture as "unnecessary". You have your views on torture (obviously) and I have mine; I'd be willing to bet that we'd even disagree a lot about what could be defined as "torture".

In any case, it is very obvious that you wanted this 'discussion' to lead to the topic of "torture", but - honestly - I am not interested in the least in discussing that matter here; "way off topic" does not begin to describe it.

I've already stated that I do not dispute that the everyone (including Klingons) has the unalienable rights that are mentioned in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, and you just do not seem to comprehend this, but all that *I* have been discussing with you is who was originally afforded protection (from the United States government) of those Rights by the Constitution of the United States of America itself. ...You very much seem to have your own agenda regarding this discussion and obviously needed to espouse some of what you surely perceive as some 'righteous indignation' on the topic of "torture" for some reason (probably known only to you at this point).

Back to the topic of this thread - (until mickey01023 mentions otherwise) I believe it is safe to assume that mickey01023's friend is, indeed, a United States citizen - so, again, your insistences in this discussion, your entire 'argument' in fact, is truly meaningless (some might even suggest inappropriate) here.
.

[Adam-12]

I saw something about "cruel and unusual punishment" (actually, it also mentioned "excessive bail" and "fines" too - that would be in the 8th A.), but I guess that I just missed the direct quote found in the Constitution itself that explicitly forbids ("limits") the government from "torturing" captured enemies (or anyone not being 'punished' for that matter) - or where it even specifically mentions the word "torture".

Wait, so you're saying that extracting a confession under torture is not "compelling a person to be a witness against himself"? Really?

I am not without conscious or morals - I would never condone unnecessary torture - but I'm guessing here that you would view any/all torture as "unnecessary".

The guys that wrote the Constitution decided that they wanted a Federal government that had no power to "compel any person to be a witness against himself." If you support the Constitution, and especially if you're taken an oath to defend the Constitution, you should take that pretty seriously.

In any case, it is very obvious that you wanted this 'discussion' to lead to the topic of "torture"...

Not at all--the same applies to every God-given right protected by the Constitution. They also created a Federal government with no power to disarm people, for example, or to prohibit speech or peaceable assembly, or to take life, liberty or property without due process. I literally picked torture out of a hat, as one extreme example of "compelling a person to be a witness against himself." I could have picked anything. My post would have lacked a little oomph, though, if I'd decided to use the 3rd Amendment as my example and talk about quartering troops.

I've already stated that I do not dispute that the everyone (including Klingons) has the unalienable rights that are mentioned in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, and you just do not seem to comprehend this, but all that *I* have been discussing with you is who was originally afforded protection (from the United States government) of those Rights by the Constitution of the United States of America itself.

The Constitution bars the Federal government having certain powers. If it lacks a certain power, then it lacks it--it can't use it against anyone, anywhere. Therefore, the Constitution protects everyone, everywhere, by restraining government. Alexander Hamilton himself, in defending the Constitution, swore up and down that that's exactly what the Constitution is supposed to do: define and limit the powers of the federal government.

[Bruce]

Wait, so you're saying that extracting a confession under torture is not "compelling a person to be a witness against himself"? Really?

If they already know/suspect/have evidence of what a person did - then torture would be unnecessary anyway. I've already stated that I would not condone unnecessary torture. ...Do you even bother to read what I write? Or are you just blindly enraged or something?

The non-citizen known, self-proclaimed terrorist from Afghanistan who, after two bombs set in pre-schools already went off, killing 37 children under 5 years old and 12 adults, claims there are six more bombs set to go off in seven hours - but laughingly refuses to say exactly where or exactly when; even taunts officials by saying that they "won't be in pre-schools".

Your idea that we should serve him tea and biscuits and "hope" he grows a conscious before the next bombs go off does not cut it for me. Unfortunately, a lot of (imo) 'morons' (including judges) happen to agree with you - so, serving tea and biscuits, and having 'hope', is what we do now.

The guys that wrote the Constitution decided that they wanted a Federal government that had no power to "compel any person to be a witness against himself." If you support the Constitution, and especially if you're taken an oath to defend the Constitution, you should take that pretty seriously.

You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who takes the Constitution more seriously than I do.

Like so many others, though - you seem to see things in it that I just do not. ...I'm curious, do you see 'emanations and penumbras' coming from it too?

The Constitution bars the Federal government having certain powers. If it lacks a certain power, then it lacks it--it can't use it against anyone, anywhere. Therefore, the Constitution protects everyone, everywhere, by restraining government. Alexander Hamilton himself, in defending the Constitution, swore up and down that that's exactly what the Constitution is supposed to do: define and limit the powers of the federal government.

The government cannot do what the Constitution says it cannot do; that much is correct.

You are not going to 'change my mind', dude; yesterday was not the first day I read the Constitution. I have a real good idea about what it says - I also know what it does not say.

It seems as though we are at an impasse here - you believe that the Constitution protects the (listed) Rights of all people everywhere in the universe from our government whereas I do not. The only evidence that you have for your argument is the exact same evidence I have for mine.

Just let it go, man. besides - your side "won", remember? The people intent on serving the terrorists "tea and biscuits" and "hoping" they will all stop hating us and leave us alone are all in charge now.

I know I should let this go, but...just out of curiosity - aren't you, like, just TOTALLY PISSED that our President won't just 'give up' on all of this 'war in Afghanistan' business? I'm betting that you are - 'cuz, after all, those Al Qaeda and Taliban "people" should all be enjoying the same exact protections (from the US government) and limitations (on the US government) that *any* American citizen enjoys - right?

...You should write a letter or something - tell the President that he's "violating the Constitutional rights" of those people and "exceeding the limitations" of the Constitution by using the military against them.
.

[Adam-12]

If they already know/suspect/have evidence of what a person did - then torture would be unnecessary anyway. I've already stated that I would not condone unnecessary torture...

Dude, what the fuck does "necessary" have to do with it? The Constitution says the Federal government may not "compel any person to be a witness against himself," period. That has nothing to do with "necessary" or "unnecessary" or how much evidence they have. It may not do so. May not. You seem to be saying, "Sure, of course it may not if it isn't necessary!" You can check the Constitution for yourself: it most certainly does not say, "No person shall be... unnecessarily compelled... to be a witness against himself."

The non-citizen known, self-proclaimed terrorist from Afghanistan who, after two bombs set in pre-schools already went off, killing 37 children under 5 years old and 12 adults, claims there are six more bombs set to go off in seven hours...

That scenario has never happened outside TV and comic books. You're trying to justify violations of the Fifth Amendment against people who haven't done anything like what you're saying, by appealing to a fictional hypothetical case.

You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who takes the Constitution more seriously than I do.

So far I'm not seeing it: you're pretty clearly saying you don't believe in the Fifth Amendment. José Padilla was an American Citizen, for Pete's sake.

Like so many others, though - you seem to see things in it that I just do not. ...I'm curious, do you see 'emanations and penumbras' coming from it too?

I'm quoting its exact wording. You're suggesting that "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself" doesn't mean exactly what it says. Which one of us is seeing penumbras here?

The government cannot do what the Constitution says it cannot do; that much is correct.

If you read the framers' own words, you'll know that's not true: the truth is that the government cannot do anything the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize it to do. There's a BIG difference.

[k9sportsnut]

dude why did you not hand the cop your firearms ID with your license to save all aggravation or did your county not issue one? I was told to hand the cops my ID with my license. Correct me if I am wrong. Who needs to be embarrassed or be pissed off.

[IronSight]

dude why did you not hand the cop your firearms ID with your license to save all aggravation or did your county not issue one? I was told to hand the cops my ID with my license. Correct me if I am wrong. Who needs to be embarrassed or be pissed off.

I'm half-thinking you're trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Here's the short version of my response, I'll type the long version if need be.

If a cop has a reasonable belief you are armed, then he can search the passenger compartment of your vehicle while you sit on the side of the road, or in the back of his car, in handcuffs. If he doesn't have reason to believe you're armed, the most he can really do is order you out of the car.

Many people don't want to grant an officer a free search of their vehicle, and since handing over your LTCF with your DL would have the affect of doing so people tend to keep the LTCF in their wallet out of site of any officer that may pull them over.

I'm of the opinion that civil rights shouldn't be freely surrendered, if you want to give the police a free search of your car then by all means do so, I know I won't.

[customloaded]

Rare form tonight but this thread literally got my head hurting!!!

[Al1195]

A friend recently completed a Utah none resident course.

He was told by the instructor to place both hands on the steering wheel an advise the officer that he was CCW permit holder and that he was carrying.

To his dismay he has been stopped three time since then in Ohio and Western PA But he has not experianced any problems by advising the LEO that he was carrying.

I'm confussed, why all the BS?

[LittleRedToyota]

for those wondering why some of us choose not to inform police officers we are carrying and try to avoid answering the question of whether we are armed, here is one reason:

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/914...hawley-pd.html

and then there are the many stories of people being involuntarily disarmed during traffic stops upon informing...sometimes given their guns back by the officer/trooper unloading all the ammo from the mag and placing gun, mag, and ammo in the trunk (a side effect of which is that the officer/trooper searches your trunk without a warrant or even PC...but hey, why should the 4th mean any more than the 2nd? )