Governments do not protect rights

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm sending this video to Alex Jones right now. This one needs to go viral.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Yep... She says it in plain english.. the nazis told the citizens to come in and register, then they were called to turn them in to the police stations. If the German - Austrian citizens refused to comply and turn in their firearms they were charged with Capitol Crime and Capitol Punishment ( execution ) so you can see here she has exposed the liberal liars on this board who would have you believe that only the Jews were not allowed to own firearms. That is a lie and she does very well to expose it as such. Hitler confiscated all weapons under the threat of capitol punishment. So there it is. At last. The Truth.

- Jeremiah

You do realize, however, that Germans and Americans are vastly different types of people. Americans would never stand for that, and therefore, will not ever happen. Germans get sexual satisfaction from pooping on each other for God's sake.

All this Nazi alarmism is pathetic.

Not so sure about that. You see, I notice that Obama seems to have the same charismatic charm Hitler used in the beginning - women adored him, etc. Trust was at an all time high just as it is for many who listen to Obama now. I see the comparisons between Hitler and Obama to be undeniable. Very scary dude. - Jeremiah

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That is impossible because it is clear from the people who were there ( Kitty Werthmann being only one such testimony - there are dozens ) say Hitler ordered them to turn in all firearms - ALL Citizens - if they didn't comply it was a capitol crime. That would mean the death penalty. How much tougher could these gun laws be? I fail to see you've made any case here. - Jeremiah

 

[Agit8r]

I'm sending this video to Alex Jones right now. This one needs to go viral.

as if the contagion of willful ignorance wasn't bad enough.

seriously, she has obviously adapted her narrative to include all the talking points of the group she represents:

Join Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly -- Join Eagle Forum so you will have a voice at the U.S. Capitol and at State Capitols

because all reliable sources tell a very different history:

Women in the Third Reich

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yep... She says it in plain english.. the nazis told the citizens to come in and register, then they were called to turn them in to the police stations. If the German - Austrian citizens refused to comply and turn in their firearms they were charged with Capitol Crime and Capitol Punishment ( execution ) so you can see here she has exposed the liberal liars on this board who would have you believe that only the Jews were not allowed to own firearms. That is a lie and she does very well to expose it as such. Hitler confiscated all weapons under the threat of capitol punishment. So there it is. At last. The Truth.

- Jeremiah

You do realize, however, that Germans and Americans are vastly different types of people. Americans would never stand for that, and therefore, will not ever happen. Germans get sexual satisfaction from pooping on each other for God's sake.

All this Nazi alarmism is pathetic.

Not so sure about that. You see, I notice that Obama seems to have the same charismatic charm Hitler used in the beginning - women adored him, etc. Trust was at an all time high just as it is for many who listen to Obama now. I see the comparisons between Hitler and Obama to be undeniable. Very scary dude. - Jeremiah

Reagan was also charismatic and there were those who felt the same way about him.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection. Before anyone starts by positing to the USA I want to point out the Japanese Internment camps, Jim Crow laws, and the PATRIOT Act, all of which existed in the last 100 years.

I'm so glad you posted this video of Kitty Werthmann because it appears the liberals on this board are too lazy to go to her website and see her testimony - hear her out on why Obama is doing the exact same thing Hitler did. Kitty Werthmann is a true hero. I love that woman! I am hoping the video will include her testimony about the 5th year of hitlers reign when he confiscated all the firearms citizens of Germany - Austria owned. He did that right after he had them register the weapons. Because they were registered there was no way to hide them and the people made the mistake of believing they could trust him. They found out just how huge a mistake that was. NEVER AGAIN.

Americans must watch the video / google Kitty Werthmanns articles and realize the liberal agenda in this nation now is to rewrite history and claim only Jews had their guns confiscated. That is a bold faced LIE.

I've got news for you. The Jews were already in the camps. The guns were owned by the civilians in Germany and Austria and they were taken away by the Nazis. - Jeremiah

In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.

Salon is a radical left wing media source and its been proven their research was flawed - truth is guns were confiscated under threat of capitol punishment. Another liberal lie exposed. Your welcome.... hey! Where is Snopes when you need them? Hanging on Soros every word to confirm what is true and what isn't. Never trust the communists to do your fact checking for you. - Jeremiah

 

[bucs90]

Yep... She says it in plain english.. the nazis told the citizens to come in and register, then they were called to turn them in to the police stations. If the German - Austrian citizens refused to comply and turn in their firearms they were charged with Capitol Crime and Capitol Punishment ( execution ) so you can see here she has exposed the liberal liars on this board who would have you believe that only the Jews were not allowed to own firearms. That is a lie and she does very well to expose it as such. Hitler confiscated all weapons under the threat of capitol punishment. So there it is. At last. The Truth.

- Jeremiah

You do realize, however, that Germans and Americans are vastly different types of people. Americans would never stand for that, and therefore, will not ever happen. Germans get sexual satisfaction from pooping on each other for God's sake.

All this Nazi alarmism is pathetic.

Not so sure about that. You see, I notice that Obama seems to have the same charismatic charm Hitler used in the beginning - women adored him, etc. Trust was at an all time high just as it is for many who listen to Obama now. I see the comparisons between Hitler and Obama to be undeniable. Very scary dude. - Jeremiah

You miss two key differences: The American people are not desparate, or embarrassed.

The German people were desparate from harsh living conditions, and they were embarrassed as a nation from the WW1 treaty.

America is still the most powerful nation on Earth, we are proud beyond belief, and we are not ready to rally against any common enemy. Also, we are not living in desparation, despite what some talking heads say. We are very fat, live in air conditioning, drive cars that are nicer than many Earth resident's homes, treat our dogs better than most Chinese workers get treated, and we tolerate athletes being paid $100 million to play a game. We are spoiled beyond belief, and live a better standard of living than any other living creature the world has ever seen.

So, there is a HUGE difference between today's American people and the German people of the 1930's.

Could our country collapse into that same sort of despair one day? Sure. Any nation could. But it wont happen before 2016, so the talk about Obama becoming Hitler can just freakin' stop. Because if you asked the American people right now to rally behind Obama and start a civil war and blitzkreig against Canada and Mexico (parrallel to the Nazis).....OR, enjoy March Madness and get ready for the 2013 football season, I guarantee our fat asses will pick laziness and sports over a civil war and blitzkrieg against our neighbors. Just sayin'. A charismatic, motivated dictator only succeeds with a desparate, embarrassed, angry population. And we are none of that. Its the same reason poor, hungry, angry Afghanis will sign on with the Taliban, yet, they cant seem to get very many US citizens to do the same.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm sending this video to Alex Jones right now. This one needs to go viral.

as if the contagion of willful ignorance wasn't bad enough.

seriously, she has obviously adapted her narrative to include all the talking points of the group she represents:

Join Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schlafly -- Join Eagle Forum so you will have a voice at the U.S. Capitol and at State Capitols

because all reliable sources tell a very different history:

Women in the Third Reich

Wrong. Radical leftist websites spewing lies such as Salon has been outed for are the only thing standing between you people and the truth. Kitty Werthmann isn't telling a lie here! Are you out of your mind?? What is it with you people?? Take off the tinfoil hat!


-Jeremiah

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh boy. This should be fun.

Ok. Lets lay out just a few "rights" to set the table, and explain how the govt helps protect them:

Except that wasn't the challenge, was it?

But I will be happy to show you how the government infringes on every single right you insist they are protecting, or prove to you they aren't actually protecting it.

1) Right to pursuit of happiness: It makes you happy to walk the beach, to stroll around downtown. To walk your dog. To relax in your home watching a movie while the kids play hide-n-go-seek outside. The reason you can do that safely is because murderers, rapists, thieves and drug dealers are cautious of police presence, and therefore, crime is not as rampant here as it is in shitholes like Afghanistan or Mexico.

Walking on the beach makes me happy? Are you sure about that? Can you see inside my brain? What if what makes me happy is that beaches are protected from the encroachment of people who do not respect their ecosystem?

Strike one.

2) Right to Due Process: You get due process when accused of a crime. Governments uphold this. By supporting and continuing the checks and balances, a govt paid judge can keep the police in line. Police supervisors can keep line officers in line. Govt paid mayors and city councils can keep judges and police chiefs in line. And, unlike many nations like Germany and Brazil, our police are not nationalized. They are broken down into thousands of small, independent agencies. Power is broken into thousands of independent cells, therefore, no tyrannical order can be given by a National Police Chief. Incredible balance of power.

Gee, I wonder how you would feel if say, a police officer said you confessed, you denied it, and you went to court and were convicted based on that officer's testimony despite the fact that there was no physical evidence tying you to the crime.

Let us further this by assuming that the police officer in question had a long record of misconduct, including lying under oath, and that the DA who brought charges, and the supervisors of that cop, knew about this.

If something like that happened, and you spent 23 years in prison, would you think your due process rights had been protected?

That really happened.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001 web - corrected.pdf

Right to Free Speech: See #2. Go watch videos from the website Cop Block, or Cop Blocker. Watch those knuckleheads express their free speech, without consequence.

Want me to post videos of people expressing themselves and getting the crap beat out of them for it?

How about Obama ordering the death of Anwar al Awlaki because he made some videos that urged people to fight against the US? Does that count as the government protecting free speech?

Those are just a few examples. And they focus on local and state government. Those governments are broken into smaller units of power, for a balance. They have elected officials, judges, police command staffs, etc, etc, that counter each other, and protect YOU from being abused by the other. Often times if one element of govt seeks to abuse your rights, another element of govt steps in to correct it. If a local police dept is abusing 4th amendment rights, often times the State Police, or even the Dept of Justice and FBI, will step in, investigate, and prosecute those offenders. Thus, the govt is protecting you from the OTHER government that is abusing your rights. If no govt ever held other govts accountable, your rights would disappear quickly.

I suggest you go back and reread the challenge I issued. Finding isolated examples of the government not abusing its power is not the same as finding an example of a government that never violates the rights of the people who live under its power.

Governments have to violate people's rights in order to exist, that is simply the way it is. The bigger, the more powerful, a government is, the more it violates people's rights. Sad, but true. Denying that is just going to lead you to a lifetime of confusion.

Now, all of that stuff listed above is domestic and local. We are able to do that because have a relatively very safe, stable society. That is made possible in large part due to our military (aka, THE GOVERNMENT) keeping foreign enemies at bay.

We are able to do that because people do that. The more stable and safe our society is, the harder it is to do things like that. People used to view common areas, like parks, as places people could use. People used to sleep in parks when it got to hot to sleep in their house, now you go to jail for it.

Now, I eagerly await this response!!!

You like being wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The first fallacy is to assume that government is infallible.The second fallacy is that owning guns protect any rights other than the right to own guns. The third fallacy is to assume that the government intends to deprive anyone of their guns and the fourth is the assumption that guns will actually protect anyone from anything at all.

We the people are the government and therefore we the people have a responsibility to protect the rights of everyone. When we the people fail to protect the rights of others we forfeit those rights for everyone including ourselves. There is a caveat to the rights of we the people and that is that with each right comes a corresponding responsibility to everyone else. The rights of one individual cannot infringe upon the rights of another.

So the answer to the challenge is to ensure that we the people always have a government of the people and for the people. Bringing that about is the real challenge we the people face today.

Excuse me? Where did I say that governments are infallible?

My apologies if you believe that I implied that you had said that.

Like you I was merely prefixing my response so that my answer to your challenge would be taken in the the appropriate context.

I protect my rights by using them. The people here who benefit from that think I am crazy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Excuse me? Where did I say that governments are infallible?

My apologies if you believe that I implied that you had said that.

Like you I was merely prefixing my response so that my answer to your challenge would be taken in the the appropriate context.

I protect my rights by using them. The people here who benefit from that think I am crazy.

Please explain exactly how using your rights benefits those people who think that you are crazy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.

He sure did. he allowed people who were in favor with the government to won guns, and prohibited people who were not in favor from owning them. Sounds a lot like what Feinstein is proposing, doesn't it?

Please provide the exact parallels between what Hitler enacted and what you believe Feinstein is going to enact.

Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.

If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.

He didn't reverse strict gun control, there is a huge misconception on what happened in 38.

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm so glad you posted this video of Kitty Werthmann because it appears the liberals on this board are too lazy to go to her website and see her testimony - hear her out on why Obama is doing the exact same thing Hitler did. Kitty Werthmann is a true hero. I love that woman! I am hoping the video will include her testimony about the 5th year of hitlers reign when he confiscated all the firearms citizens of Germany - Austria owned. He did that right after he had them register the weapons. Because they were registered there was no way to hide them and the people made the mistake of believing they could trust him. They found out just how huge a mistake that was. NEVER AGAIN.

Americans must watch the video / google Kitty Werthmanns articles and realize the liberal agenda in this nation now is to rewrite history and claim only Jews had their guns confiscated. That is a bold faced LIE.

I've got news for you. The Jews were already in the camps. The guns were owned by the civilians in Germany and Austria and they were taken away by the Nazis. - Jeremiah

In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.

Salon is a radical left wing media source and its been proven their research was flawed - truth is guns were confiscated under threat of capitol punishment. Another liberal lie exposed. Your welcome.... hey! Where is Snopes when you need them? Hanging on Soros every word to confirm what is true and what isn't. Never trust the communists to do your fact checking for you. - Jeremiah

Allegations without substantiation carry no weight. Please provide credible sources refuting in detail all of the findings in the 2004 study by Law Professor Harcourt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My apologies if you believe that I implied that you had said that.

Like you I was merely prefixing my response so that my answer to your challenge would be taken in the the appropriate context.

I protect my rights by using them. The people here who benefit from that think I am crazy.

Please explain exactly how using your rights benefits those people who think that you are crazy?

How did the people that insisted that MLK was crazy benefit from him exercising his rights?

 

[Derideo_Te]

He sure did. he allowed people who were in favor with the government to won guns, and prohibited people who were not in favor from owning them. Sounds a lot like what Feinstein is proposing, doesn't it?

Please provide the exact parallels between what Hitler enacted and what you believe Feinstein is going to enact.

Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.

If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.

So would you be safer from tyranny if you were allowed to own nuclear missiles since that would mean that you would be on a par with the government as far as weapons are concerned?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In 1938 Hitler actually reversed the strict gun control regulations that had been in force since 1919.

Salon is a radical left wing media source and its been proven their research was flawed - truth is guns were confiscated under threat of capitol punishment. Another liberal lie exposed. Your welcome.... hey! Where is Snopes when you need them? Hanging on Soros every word to confirm what is true and what isn't. Never trust the communists to do your fact checking for you. - Jeremiah

Allegations without substantiation carry no weight. Please provide credible sources refuting in detail all of the findings in the 2004 study by Law Professor Harcourt.

Which is why it was so easy to expose the Salon left wing propaganda for what it was. Because we have eyewitness testimony from those who were there that the guns were totally confiscated under threat of capitol punishment ( death penalty )

Kitty Werthmann is telling the truth. She was there. Salon wasn't. Who are you going to believe? Radical left wingers set on confiscating your guns by claiming there is no precedent for fear of the consequences or an eyewitness? Grow a brain why don't you!
- Jeremiah

 

[Derideo_Te]

He didn't reverse strict gun control, there is a huge misconception on what happened in 38.

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon.

Would they have won if they fought back? Maybe not, but their fighting back would have made it a lot harder for the world to pretend nothing was happening. Everyone disappearing in the middle of the night is a lot easier to ignore than dead bodies piled in the streets.

By taking up arms against the state they would have criminalized themselves. Furthermore they had families whose lives they would be placing at risk. Not every human rights abuse can be defeated by resorting to violence.

 

[bucs90]

Oh boy. This should be fun.

Ok. Lets lay out just a few "rights" to set the table, and explain how the govt helps protect them:

Except that wasn't the challenge, was it?

But I will be happy to show you how the government infringes on every single right you insist they are protecting, or prove to you they aren't actually protecting it.

1) Right to pursuit of happiness: It makes you happy to walk the beach, to stroll around downtown. To walk your dog. To relax in your home watching a movie while the kids play hide-n-go-seek outside. The reason you can do that safely is because murderers, rapists, thieves and drug dealers are cautious of police presence, and therefore, crime is not as rampant here as it is in shitholes like Afghanistan or Mexico.

Walking on the beach makes me happy? Are you sure about that? Can you see inside my brain? What if what makes me happy is that beaches are protected from the encroachment of people who do not respect their ecosystem?

Strike one.



Gee, I wonder how you would feel if say, a police officer said you confessed, you denied it, and you went to court and were convicted based on that officer's testimony despite the fact that there was no physical evidence tying you to the crime.

Let us further this by assuming that the police officer in question had a long record of misconduct, including lying under oath, and that the DA who brought charges, and the supervisors of that cop, knew about this.

If something like that happened, and you spent 23 years in prison, would you think your due process rights had been protected?

That really happened.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/03/14/07-99001 web - corrected.pdf



Want me to post videos of people expressing themselves and getting the crap beat out of them for it?

How about Obama ordering the death of Anwar al Awlaki because he made some videos that urged people to fight against the US? Does that count as the government protecting free speech?



I suggest you go back and reread the challenge I issued. Finding isolated examples of the government not abusing its power is not the same as finding an example of a government that never violates the rights of the people who live under its power.

Governments have to violate people's rights in order to exist, that is simply the way it is. The bigger, the more powerful, a government is, the more it violates people's rights. Sad, but true. Denying that is just going to lead you to a lifetime of confusion.

Now, all of that stuff listed above is domestic and local. We are able to do that because have a relatively very safe, stable society. That is made possible in large part due to our military (aka, THE GOVERNMENT) keeping foreign enemies at bay.

We are able to do that because people do that. The more stable and safe our society is, the harder it is to do things like that. People used to view common areas, like parks, as places people could use. People used to sleep in parks when it got to hot to sleep in their house, now you go to jail for it.

Now, I eagerly await this response!!!

You like being wrong?

Yes, FUN!!!

1) If happiness is protecting the beaches, then you also have the right to protest the descruction of those beaches. You can do so in peace, with signs and everything, and no one can harm you because the police will arrest anyone who tries to hurt you for protesting.

2) If a cop says you confessed, and didnt document it, he has no case. It's called heresay. Courts have ruled against that. ALL confessions must be in writing, and most circuit courst now want them in writing AND to have the written confession to be videotaped. Do you not even watch "The First 48"???

2B) Despite what you see in Hollywood, almost all corrupt cops wash out within 5 years. In today's day in age, lawsuits and "Misconduct in Office" charges by the DOJ have almost virtually erased the Blue Wall of police coverup. Thank the FBI for cleaning up a vast majority of police corruption in the 70's and 80's.

2C) You also have a right against self-incrimination. So if you just walk into a PD, and say "I killed that missing girl"........but no other evidence exists, guess what? YOU WONT BE CHARGED. That is a phenomenon that happens very often. People want that notoriety. Cops have to weed out the fake confessions with evidence. So no, if you didnt confess, and there is no evidence.......or even if you DID confess, with absolutely no other evidence, you'd never be charged.

3) You are accusing me of providing "isolated examples" of how the govt protects our rights, and you counter with with.....yep, isolated examples of how it abuses our rights.

YOU MUST HAVE MISSED MY CHECKS AND BALANCES LESSON.

Where I explained how 1 government can hold another government accountable. So if 1 abuses your rights, another will take action. Like how the Dept of Justice or State Police WILL arrest local cops who beat the shit out of someone for no reason. A former coworker of mine at Atlanta PD did 3 years in prison for kneeing a handcuffed suspect in the face. DOJ doesnt play around with that. HOWEVER...stories like that dont sell newspapers. The news will plaster the abusive incident on the front page for a week. But the prosecution a year later wont get any coverage. It doesnt sell, and it leads to folks like you thinking what you see in Hollywood cop movies is reality.


If this were a football game, I'd be putting my 3rd string in right now. You're losing bad.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Salon is a radical left wing media source and its been proven their research was flawed - truth is guns were confiscated under threat of capitol punishment. Another liberal lie exposed. Your welcome.... hey! Where is Snopes when you need them? Hanging on Soros every word to confirm what is true and what isn't. Never trust the communists to do your fact checking for you. - Jeremiah

Allegations without substantiation carry no weight. Please provide credible sources refuting in detail all of the findings in the 2004 study by Law Professor Harcourt.

Which is why it was so easy to expose the Salon left wing propaganda for what it was. Because we have eyewitness testimony from those who were there that the guns were totally confiscated under threat of capitol punishment ( death penalty )

Kitty Werthmann is telling the truth. She was there. Salon wasn't. Who are you going to believe? Radical left wingers set on confiscating your guns by claiming there is no precedent for fear of the consequences or an eyewitness? Grow a brain why don't you!
- Jeremiah

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable especially decades after the fact. But she may believe that she is telling the truth and that is her right.

What really matters are the credibly substantiated recorded facts. Up till now you have failed to refute Professor Harcourt's 2004 study.