Superbadbrutha no it’s like saying americans didn’t exist until they became their own country. our founders weren’t americans when they came here from england. just like the moors weren’t moors until they founded their own kingdom
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
agreed they likely did call themselves something else...citizens of the kingdom of al-andalus...the brits called those people moorsThey didn't just come into being when the Brits called them Moors, hell they probably called themselves something else.the term Moor was created by the English centuries later to refer to the folks living in the kingdom.In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from northern Africa led the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. The Iberian peninsula then came to be known in Classical Arabic as al-Andalus, which at its peak included most of Septimania and modern-day Spain and Portugal.they didn’t settle there because they conquered it...the were refugees in the countries you mentioned because they were conquered and their kingdom destroyedThey settled there because they conquered it.agreed. as i said they settled in the places you mentioned after the kingdom of Al- Anduslus fellLMAO if they settled there it means they came from somewhere else.Arabs.....a lot of Moors settled their after the fall of the Kingdom of Al-AndalusWhat does that have to do with their origin, what are most folks who come from Algeria and Morocco?they were called Moors by the Brits...they created an empire that included parts Europe.somebody has watched hollywood’s Robin Hood too many times...Moors did not refer to race. Moors were from Spain and Portuguese originEducated people know who the moors were and what color they were. I guess they have to spell it out for you people.
The Moors were North African Berbers and muslim, that invaded parts of Spain and Portugal. They were called Moors by the people living in the invaded lands.
.
Not a race, like black or white
In 827, the Moors occupied Mazara on Sicily, developing it as a port. They eventually went on to consolidate the rest of the island.
Did you ever attend World History class.
yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possiblyNo..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.
The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.
And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.
As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.
You’ve become a tedious and ridiculous troll in your own thread.derp
Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether.A Massachusetts Non-Resident Class A LTC is one of those wonderful objects that exists in law but not in the real world.
yes but driving suspended or revoked is...possiblyNo..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.
The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.
And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.
As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.
Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer.You know why I’m an Authoritarisn? You REALLY want to know why???….
Because stupid motherfuckers like you and these eleven idiots get to vote in a Democracy and that scares the living shit out of sane people like me.
sure...but when everyone else fled the scene to go into the woods it sort of escalated the situation and the police had every right to continue their investigationsyes but driving suspended or revoked is...possiblyNo..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.
The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.
And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.
As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.
Which would apply to the driver.
sure...but when everyone else fled the scene to go into the woods it sort of escalated the situation and the police had every right to continue their investigationsyes but driving suspended or revoked is...possiblyNo..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.
The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.
And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.
As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.
Which would apply to the driver.
you can have a right to do something and your actions may or may not be perfectly legal...but your actions can also raise suspension, and law enforcement is justified in investigating
and you are right having an attitude with an officer is not illegal per se, but it certainly can man the officer have an attitude right back
I’m more than willing to give it a try to determine that for myself.Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer
Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether
I just posted this in another thread, and it applies to you and your fellow conservatives well:I’m more than willing to give it a try to determine that for myself.Be that as it may – authoritarian dictatorships isn’t the answer
When gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether
RI > MA > ME
or
RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME
Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.
They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.
Illegal possession of firearms, for starters.What law did they break?
if a person went to prison for a violent crime they shouldn't be allowed out of prisonI partially agree with you. ...yes they lose their rights So they also lose their right to life when they leave prison don't you agree?
If a person went to prison for a non violent offense like writing bad checks. I have no problem with them having all their rights restored after a few years.
But if they went to prison for things like rape, robbery, murder, etc.
Then no, they have forfeited their rights. Period.
illegal possession of a firearm? How did the cops know they were illegal?Illegal possession of firearms, for starters.What law did they break?
ignorance of the constitution is also not an excuse for unconstitutional laws.When gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether
RI > MA > ME
or
RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME
Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.
They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
the 14th amendment says otherwiseWhen gunowners are traveling with firearms, it’s their responsibility to know the gun laws of the states they’re traveling through or to.Rhode Island to Maine can be done one of two ways in a car….Then they should have contacted authorities in New York to see if they could obtain safe passage through that state, bypassing MA altogether
RI > MA > ME
or
RI >CT > NY > VT > NH > ME
Connecticut and New York have even less interest in you traveling through their states with guns than Massachusetts does.
They would probably have been fine if they’d gotten gas before leaving RI, or remembered that there are no rest areas on I-95 in MA.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
They have to by law, assume the legality of every armed citizen, just as they have to assume that anyone operating a motor vehicle is fully legal to do so.No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.
The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.
And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.
MA has a lot of truly fucked up laws that are inconsistent with the US Constitution and a free country, IMO. NY state is the same way.I have the benefit of having the local news stations here in Boston in my cable package.I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one
Inly two may have needed them, but none had them. I looked it up this morning and apparently MA law also allows LEOs to request IDs from all individuals in a vehicle being stopped or investigated.,
the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land says shall not be infringedThey are following the Constitution – which holds that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm in no manner violate the Second Amendment.state law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution why are those law enforcement officers not following the U.S. Constitution?
Should at some point the Supreme Court rule that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm are invalid, state law enforcement will stop enforcing the licensing requirement thereby following the Constitution.