police arrest,assault family for refusing to open home for stakeout.

[JoeB131]

[

30 of 50 governors, and we still control the house, asshole. Suck on it.

again, not for much longer.

 

[R.C. Christian]

[

30 of 50 governors, and we still control the house, asshole. Suck on it.

again, not for much longer.

Some kind of fortune teller are you? More like a punk as near as I can tell.

 

[MisterBeale]

A relevant article.

Indeed. Certainly explains Watertown.

Although the regulations changes were sudden and unpublicized, vigilant constitutionalists were not surprised by this seizure of power. U.S. Army chief of staff General Raymond T. Odierno telegraphed the taking in an article published last year by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In the May/June 2012 issue of that shadowy organization’s official organ, Foreign Affairs, Odierno and the CFR said the armed forces should address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

Odierno’s words seem to have been the blueprint the Pentagon used in crafting the new regulations.

As the law now stands, should an “extraordinary emergency circumstance” a la Watertown arise, local police leaders can call out the U.S. Army and bring a “rapid response” force as described by General Odierno that is robust enough to eliminate the problem.

Odierno’s CFR-backed ideas were apparently not the musings of an unknown academic written in an obscure journal of little importance. In light of the Pentagon’s police power power grab, the general’s words were the black-and-white plans for “building a flexible force” as laid out by the man in charge and published for all the world to read by the people who may have put him there.

This latest regulatory revision is but the latest attempt by the Obama administration to convert the military into an all-powerful, unrestrained personal army answerable only to the president and subject to his orders, no matter how unconstitutional.

Consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); that federal “law” signed by President Obama at the end of 2011 and again in January of this year places the American military at the disposal of the president for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner).

Giving the president that power is nothing less than another de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The code rewriting and the NDAA are frightening examples of the federal government's apparent intent to impose Stalinist-style authoritarianism and place in clear and present danger the Constitution and the God-given liberties that it protects.

Although proposed in April, the rules went into effect on Monday, May 13.

 

[R.C. Christian]

A relevant article.

Indeed. Certainly explains Watertown.

Although the regulations changes were sudden and unpublicized, vigilant constitutionalists were not surprised by this seizure of power. U.S. Army chief of staff General Raymond T. Odierno telegraphed the taking in an article published last year by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In the May/June 2012 issue of that shadowy organization’s official organ, Foreign Affairs, Odierno and the CFR said the armed forces should address “challenges in the United States itself” in order to keep the homeland safe from domestic disasters, including terrorist attacks. Odierno writes:

Where appropriate we will also dedicate active-duty forces, especially those with niche skills and equipment, to provide civilian officials with a robust set of reliable and rapid response options.

Odierno’s words seem to have been the blueprint the Pentagon used in crafting the new regulations.

As the law now stands, should an “extraordinary emergency circumstance” a la Watertown arise, local police leaders can call out the U.S. Army and bring a “rapid response” force as described by General Odierno that is robust enough to eliminate the problem.

Odierno’s CFR-backed ideas were apparently not the musings of an unknown academic written in an obscure journal of little importance. In light of the Pentagon’s police power power grab, the general’s words were the black-and-white plans for “building a flexible force” as laid out by the man in charge and published for all the world to read by the people who may have put him there.

This latest regulatory revision is but the latest attempt by the Obama administration to convert the military into an all-powerful, unrestrained personal army answerable only to the president and subject to his orders, no matter how unconstitutional.

Consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); that federal “law” signed by President Obama at the end of 2011 and again in January of this year places the American military at the disposal of the president for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner).

Giving the president that power is nothing less than another de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The code rewriting and the NDAA are frightening examples of the federal government's apparent intent to impose Stalinist-style authoritarianism and place in clear and present danger the Constitution and the God-given liberties that it protects.

Although proposed in April, the rules went into effect on Monday, May 13.

I've read this. Thank you for posting it. Not that it will do any good with these neanderthals.

 

[JoeB131]

[

30 of 50 governors, and we still control the house, asshole. Suck on it.

again, not for much longer.

Some kind of fortune teller are you? More like a punk as near as I can tell.

More like simple demagraphics.

Obama carried Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Women by good margins.

The only groups the Weird Mormon Robot carried were whites and men.

White Males are becoming an ever shrinking portion of the electorate.

Now, the tragedy for the GOP is that in order to maintain control over the house, they gerrymandered those districts to such a way that they have to be more afraid of losing a primary than a general election,so these guys are less likely to comprismise or actually do their jobs.

In the long run, this will further marginalize the GOP.

 

[Capstone]

Indeed. Certainly explains Watertown.

That and a trail of fallen dominoes going back to the mid-eighties, transcending partisan politics along the way.

Over the years my own take on 'the big picture' has evolved significantly, coming full circle to the explicit concerns of Ronald Reagan and his unifying "alien threat". Today I see the New World Order as less an effort at internationalism for its own sake and more a preparation for future damage control for a looming, unavoidable catastrophe of cosmic proportions, for which premature public disclosure in its own right would have disastrous consequences on society at large.

Something's coming.

 

[martybegan]

Britan has a lower MURDER rate than us, thier violent crime rate, however is higher. Which shows that yes, less people get shot, but because the yobs know they have time to rough someone up, they have more crime.

The problem is, what counts as a "violent crime" in the UK vs. the US isn't the same standard. In the UK, a Pub fight is considerd a violent crime. IN the US, a Bar fight is "Get over it, you pussy!"

Again, you like big people being able to beat up little people. Its just that simple. You want the 110 lb woman to have to take the rape by the 230 lb thug instead of being able to defend herself.

Or that I realize a gun only gives a woman a false sense of security, as they almost never use guns in that way.

Most victims of violent crime, including rape, know their attackers.

You are FOR criminals, because you want to disarm law abiding people.

You are a horrible person, and also a coward.

Guy, the Criminals aren't the problem. The problem is that most gun deaths are 1) Suicides 2) Domestic violence and 3) Accidents.

Come on, guy, we've been over this.

Your bullshit is still the same, but at least you didnt quote the stupid study again.

You want small people to be lorded over by bigger people. You want the government to control all means of defending oneself. You are afraid of a steel tube and some gunpowder. You are a coward of the highest order.

Saying criminals are not the problem proves you are an idiot of the highest order.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Your bullshit is still the same, but at least you didnt quote the stupid study again.

You want small people to be lorded over by bigger people. You want the government to control all means of defending oneself. You are afraid of a steel tube and some gunpowder. You are a coward of the highest order.

Saying criminals are not the problem proves you are an idiot of the highest order.

43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. Proven fact.

Criminals aren't the problem. People who own guns who shouldn't have them are. Because most of you jerks don't know what you are doing and have serious mental issues. Combining that with a metal tube that shoots metal slugs at a high velocity is a recipe for disaster.

32,000 of them a year, as a matter of fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, Marty, just another fine day for 2nd Amendment Rights.

Raytwon Briggs, Youngstown: Ohio is America?s capital of "accidental" child shooting deaths.

On Saturday, the New York Daily News reported that, since Newtown, at least 40 children 12 and under have died in “accidental” shootings—ones in which the child either shot himself or was shot by another child. Make that 41: On Sunday night a 4-year-old Ohio boy apparently shot and killed himself with an unsecured gun while his 1- and 5-year-old siblings watched. Police report that three handguns were found in the room where Raytwon Briggs was shot. It’s not yet clear who owned the guns, or how they were stored, or whether anyone will be charged in the matter. The local police chief told WKBN television that “we’re working with the theory right now that it was probably accidental but we got a long way to go yet until we can say that for sure.”

 

[rightwinger]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

 

[JoeB131]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

It also sounds like they had an ongoing hostage situation on the house they were looking to watch.

 

[martybegan]

[

Your bullshit is still the same, but at least you didnt quote the stupid study again.

You want small people to be lorded over by bigger people. You want the government to control all means of defending oneself. You are afraid of a steel tube and some gunpowder. You are a coward of the highest order.

Saying criminals are not the problem proves you are an idiot of the highest order.

43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy. Proven fact.

Criminals aren't the problem. People who own guns who shouldn't have them are. Because most of you jerks don't know what you are doing and have serious mental issues. Combining that with a metal tube that shoots metal slugs at a high velocity is a recipe for disaster.

32,000 of them a year, as a matter of fact.

Can't neg you yet for using the moron number again, will have to wait. You are such a fucking tool.

CRIMINALS are always the problem, and an armed citizen is the solution.

And again, I can give a rats ass about suicides. Pussies, all of them.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, Marty, just another fine day for 2nd Amendment Rights.

Raytwon Briggs, Youngstown: Ohio is America?s capital of "accidental" child shooting deaths.

On Saturday, the New York Daily News reported that, since Newtown, at least 40 children 12 and under have died in “accidental” shootings—ones in which the child either shot himself or was shot by another child. Make that 41: On Sunday night a 4-year-old Ohio boy apparently shot and killed himself with an unsecured gun while his 1- and 5-year-old siblings watched. Police report that three handguns were found in the room where Raytwon Briggs was shot. It’s not yet clear who owned the guns, or how they were stored, or whether anyone will be charged in the matter. The local police chief told WKBN television that “we’re working with the theory right now that it was probably accidental but we got a long way to go yet until we can say that for sure.”

Again, why should that impact why I cannot own a firearm? Somone else being stupid does not allow you to infringe on my rights. Its like banning my car because someone else got into an accident.

And you are implying that the 40 kids are just in ohio or youngstown by the way you posted, so you are adding dishonesty to your normal stupidity.

The NY Daily news is full of the worst type of gun grabbers, the ones that want thier own security, thier own high level access to the police, and want to deny it to normal people. Fuck the NY Daily News with a tire iron.

 

[FA_Q2]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

Not really.

Even for a few hours, the government does not have the right to come in and take your property from you for any reason outside of illegal activity (of the property owner). I own my home, not the government.

 

[rightwinger]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

Not really.

Even for a few hours, the government does not have the right to come in and take your property from you for any reason outside of illegal activity (of the property owner). I own my home, not the government.

I believe in the case of imminent danger or emergency they do have that right

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's power to commandeer private property but imposed strict limits. In United States v. Russell, the court noted:

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized and appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . but the public danger must be immediate, imminent, and impending, and the emergency in the public service must be extreme and imperative, and such as will not admit of delay or a resort to any other source of supply, and the circumstances must be such as imperatively require the exercise of that extreme power in respect to the particular property so impressed, appropriated, or destroyed.

 

[rightwinger]

An example of this occurred on 9-11 in the area of ground zero and police commandeered numerous businesses and churches to treat the wounded and act as command posts

 

[Skull Pilot]

An example of this occurred on 9-11 in the area of ground zero and police commandeered numerous businesses and churches to treat the wounded and act as command posts

That was after a clear state of emergency.

Sorry but there was no emergency in this case.

These cops colluded to storm this guy's home after he denied their request.

There is absolutely no reasonable analogy to 9/11

 

[Skull Pilot]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

They still violated his rights by not having a warrant.

The public is not obligated to allow cops into their home for any reason other than they hold a valid warrant

 

[Yurt]

Should be interesting....

I don't see local law enforcement being soldiers
And "quartering" involves food and shelter for more than a few hours

Its a tough sell

Not really.

Even for a few hours, the government does not have the right to come in and take your property from you for any reason outside of illegal activity (of the property owner). I own my home, not the government.

I believe in the case of imminent danger or emergency they do have that right

The Straight Dope: Can cops really commandeer cars?

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal government's power to commandeer private property but imposed strict limits. In United States v. Russell, the court noted:

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized and appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . but the public danger must be immediate, imminent, and impending, and the emergency in the public service must be extreme and imperative, and such as will not admit of delay or a resort to any other source of supply, and the circumstances must be such as imperatively require the exercise of that extreme power in respect to the particular property so impressed, appropriated, or destroyed.

are you actually claiming that is the case here?

please tell me you are not.

 

[rightwinger]

An example of this occurred on 9-11 in the area of ground zero and police commandeered numerous businesses and churches to treat the wounded and act as command posts

That was after a clear state of emergency.

Sorry but there was no emergency in this case.

These cops colluded to storm this guy's home after he denied their request.

There is absolutely no reasonable analogy to 9/11

We shall find out won't we?

This is a case of commandeering not of quartering soldiers in someones house

They will have to justify whether the domestic dispute at the neighbors house was an imminent threat. Domestic cases do get nasty sometimes