JayC

MacGyver,   Not to be argumentative, but the OP and the quoted text doesn't seem to match...  In your original post you specifically call out a group of people who are being "anti-law enforcement" and "anti-government"...  Again you guys make the rules, and we need to follow them...   But this thread has the potential to have a chilling effect only on one set of viewpoints being expressed on this forum, and not the competing viewpoints.  And that may very well be your intention?   But, instead of asking everybody to tone down the rhetoric during these politically charged times, you're asking one group of people to do so and not the other group involved in these discussions.   So which is it, are we all being asked to tone the rhetoric down, or do you specifically mean the 'small government', 'libertarian' types only?   I'm not questioning your ability to set the rules, or the fact we're guests here and need to follow the rules, just that the OP has a number of 'us' that fit that description concerned, like we have a target on our backs.  And we're the only ones who need to watch what we're posting and saying in regards to the rhetoric     

And people think I'm nuts for saying we need to get the government out of educating our children :)

Unless you got some PM or feedback, I doubt it's aimed at you directly...  I'm sure myself, and some others are being lumped in there with you ;)  You know all of us anarchist anti-government types ;)  

It's probably about as fair as every time one of us speaks up and is labeled anti-leo/anti-government we constantly get compared to 'the one who shall not be named', or even accused of being a sock puppet of Voldemort :)   There are cheerleaders on both sides of these issues that sometimes (myself included) taking things a little too far, or harp on a specific subject...  the issue I see is only one side of that equation is getting called out by the forum admins/mods, and the other side isn't being called to the carpet at all.  There are some really out and out 'big government' trolls who are just as bad if not worse than us "anti-government" types as we're being labeled.   I truth is I haven't seen any true anti-government or overthrow the government posts since the Newtown fallout threads ended months ago.     You guys make the rules, we are guests here and need to follow them, but this one sure feels a little slanted against one viewpoint that is held by a significant number of forum members (clearly a minority but it's more than just 3 or 4 of us).  

Or remove 100,000 parasites from the government who drain from productive members of society.  Turn working for the government back into a public service instead of a 'job'.   I want to be careful, I'm sure that the vast majority of those officers could end up being a productive part of our economy if moved off of the government payroll...  but if they can be replaced by unpaid volunteers then they are a drain on the productive members of society.    It's not a personal attack, or even an attack on police officers... every person who works for, or receives money from the government more than they pay into the system is by their very nature a parasite on those of us who get up everyday and go to work to pay for them.  Just like with welfare reform we need to do everything in our power to reduce the number of people on the government dole, and first and foremost that is employees of the government including in no small part police officers and firefighters.   And the issue isn't entirely their fault...  If we would simply go back to needing a victim for every crime, it would drastically reduce the workload on police officers today, they're general interact with the public would be much more positive...   Just a simple change to there is no crime without a victim would reduce 50-75% of their workload?  

It's sad to see an officer arrest somebody, he handed a copy of the law hear them readings it aloud, see the oh crap look on their face, then completely refuse to admit he made a mistake and make up other charges to justify their illegal arrest.   These officers need to be in jail for a 1983 violation, the local DA should throw the book at them.

DaveS,   We fundamentally disagree what is wrong with this country...  You see things as the government needs more people and more power to solve our problems...  And I think the government is the biggest problem we have and want to make it smaller and reduce my interactions with it.   We've been trying your method for decades, how is it working out?  My method worked fine for the first 150 years of this country...  and would work again today.   The difference is I've worked on my life...  create businesses and producing...     You sir have taken for a large part of your life working for the government and living off of the productive members of society.  It's not a shocking surprise that somebody who retired from government 'service' (spending at least 20 years or more I'd guess), doesn't understand how business in the real world works, they've never had to make payroll, never had to risk their capital and future only to have useless government regulations stifle and hinder your business.   When the government runs out of money, they just steal more of it from the productive members of society.  They have a bunch of fancy names for this theft, but it's theft pure and simple.  

I think you have the volunteer department you community deserves...  If you want a better one, maybe start volunteering?  Go around your neighborhood and talk to people and see if they would volunteer?   The fact is somebody did show up... and they do so out of the goodness of their heart and a desire to help their community.   I've never relied on a police officer to 'protect' me, and I for sure don't 'depend' on them to keep me alive...  Every time I've 'needed' a police officer it's always taken them 15-30 minutes to show up, that doesn't concern me...   We have great reserve programs already in this state that are doing a great job, Williamson and Sumner Counties for example...  The issue is that police unions are fighting expanding these programs because they fear it will take away 'paying jobs'.     And we should be expanding them because we should be taking away those jobs.   If we'd stop this silly prohibition we call the 'war on drugs', we'd be able to lay off 50% of most large departments...  Layoff another 25-40% and replace them with volunteers...  And the problems we see with law enforcement would go way down.   BTW I do volunteer work in my community...  not volunteer fire or police but I help out when and where I can... and if my county/city had a reserve fire or police program and the community needed help I'd be there willing to do whatever I could.  

Dave, A volunteer fire department is a great model...  Here you have citizens of a community volunteering their time to help protect their community.  On top of that at a fraction of the cost of a 'professional' full time fire department.   I'm not suggesting that we do away with 911, or not have duty shifts with reserve officers on patrol, only that we don't have to pay for a full time police force...  you might need some full time officers even in a small department... but a large chunk of the public facing workload can and should be done by everyday citizens of the community...  people who make a living doing something else and want to give back to their community.   As for speeding tickets...  I personally think that a crime requires a victim, if there is no victim filing a complaint then there is no crime.  Everything else is a ruse to steal more money from the producers in society.    

You are mistaken.   We can legally carry on the state grounds of the capital, just not in the building...  and the only reason we can't carry in the building is because the RINO Harwell refuses to sign a letter allowing the 39-17-1359 signs to be removed.   We could legally carry into the capital tomorrow if she would sign that letter.  

Or instead of arresting somebody and making a fool of yourself...  Take down his information, consult with the DA and if the DA believes a crime has been committed go arrest the guy after the fact.   It's not like any sane person believed this guy was going to be hard to find a week from now.  He clearly wasn't a danger to the public, so why the rush to arrest him on the spot?    

Corporate welfare at it's finest.    

I would agree, but I think we need a less 'professional' police force, but one that still works the way you describe...  In towns and counties in this state there should be very few if any full time paid police officers or deputies and we should have departments made up of mostly reserve officers/deputies who are unpaid volunteers.   People who are outstanding members of the community already, business owners, teachers, plumbers and other professionals...  People who you'll see at the local market or sitting next to you at church next Sunday.     In the larger cities where we have much higher crime rate, full time officers are likely needed, but at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the department should still be manned by unpaid volunteer officers.   Protection of the community should be seen as a service not a job...     Then again if we do away with all the unconstitutional laws that we're trying to enforce, there would be a lot less crime, and a lot less risk to officer safety and the vast majority of arguments used to justify excessive force would go away.  We also be able to lay off more than 50% of big city police forces and save a ton of money.  

There is no natural right to feel comfortable, or to not feel uncomfortable.  There is a natural right to carry a firearm for protection.    

Please stop telling people this myth.  A license plate check does NOT show if you have a permit or not!  It never has, they must run your drivers license number in order to see if a person has a permit or not, and that only works for TN permit holders.    

There is some question as to what this guy did was or wasn't against the law...  carrying a baton on your person is against the law with a little bit of paper...  Having one in your car out of reach of the driver, is probably perfectly legal under current state law.   So, we just don't have enough information to say whether this guy was or wasn't breaking the law at this point.  

I went back and did another Lexus/Nexus search I can't find any record of a conviction...  not saying it didn't happen but I can't find a record.   I can't imagine a Judge would rule that the opening carrying of a gun meets b1, a lot of people wear badges and carry guns who aren't police officers including armed private security and they aren't exempt from this law the best I can tell.

My question to you, is what section in the TN constitution grants the legislature the power to allow DUI checkpoints?  

Please for the love of God stop spreading this misinformation!   Running the plates does NOT show if there is a HCP involved or not.   Only when running your drivers license do they get that information, not when running the plates.  And only on TN residents.  This has been confirmed by a number of LEOs and people who worked as dispatchers on this forum.    

I might suggest using ctrl + it will make the font larger just on your screen, and keep it regular for the rest of us.

I going to go one further...  I think the security searches before 9/11 were just as unconstitutional as the searches they do today, but for a different reason.  The government was forcing all airlines to be part of a local security group, and that security group was directed by the government to search you...  So those security companies were acting as agents of the government when conducting those searches...   But the real reason this is evil, is by playing this private/public game the airlines had their security liability capped, if somebody got through screening it wasn't their fault it was the government mandated screeners and you can't sue the government.  The airlines loved this because it reduced their costs and allowed them to hide behind a single screening company that was mandated at every airport, and because most travelers didn't have the ability to pick between different airports (another government limitation that big business loves), you had a captive market.   We should give the airlines 100% individual control over security in their terminals, and in the air. Let them be 100% responsible and liable for their security.  Some airlines would cater to the security minded traveler offering extra 'security theater' to put their mind at easy...  while some would be party airlines where you received almost no security screening and charged less money (or maybe today more since a lot of travelers might view fewer hassles as a value add).   Get the government out of capping liability for big business, let those businesses stand on their own 2 feet with the rest of us...  The local nightclub does get special 'security' provided free of charge... why should multinational corporations to run airlines?    

Woah, you're the one saying stop complaining about a ruling that is 'constitutional' because SCOTUS ruled so, and focus on stopping drunk driving instead... which can't be stopped through any reasonable or logical method so it's a false argument.   I have a natural right (and protected by the constitution) to have freedom of movement without having to show my papers within the US...  Any ruling by any court, any law by any level of government is a violation and an infringement on those natural rights...  The method I use to travel doesn't change or alter my right to free travel, even more so if the excuse used is because said mode of travel wasn't invented at the time the constitution was written.   Just because a group or majority of people follow an unconstitutional law/ruling, or are so poorly educated to not recognize the violation of their natural rights, doesn't give the ruling or law anymore authority, or make the violation of peoples freedoms who do notice any less serious.   Does the fact that millions of black people followed the 'separate but equal' laws that were ruled constitutional by SCOTUS make those rulings any less immoral, or a lesser violation on the civil rights of black Americans who suffered through them for decades?  No of course not.   You might be fine giving up your freedom for the fake security of DUI checkpoints...  but you have no right or authority to give up MY freedoms and rights for your crusade against drunk drivers...  anymore than the men and women who sit on the bench have...  It's not your freedom to give or take, it belongs to me and only I can willing give up my freedoms...  Just because I'm suffering through these violations doesn't make it any less immoral or less of a gross violation of my natural rights.   ​The real problem here is nobody ever explained liberty, freedom and rights to you...  you've somehow gotten the notion in your head that somehow your rights come from the law, the government, or the collective of society...  and are not endowed to you individually by your creator...   Robert with all do respect you seem to think you know what's best for your fellow man, that somehow your choices are the 'right' choices and they should be forced to obey for your vision for the good of society...  That your perceived risk of drunk drivers is so great that we must force innocents to suffer at the hands of the government to save us from this 'threat'...  This is the same twisted line of thinking as used by many of the progressives you love to disagree with on a regular basis :)   I'm smart enough to realize I don't know what's best for my fellow man, that there can never be a 'perfect' or safe society...  That I'm not smart enough to see all of the unintended consequences of my 'master plan'...  the best I can do is trust they will do what is in their best interest for themselves and their families, and unless they physically harm me, or steal from me, it's none of my business what they do with that freedom. And that is all I ask in return from them.   But hey look on the bright side, your argument is winning in the public, and it's working out so well for us as a country huh?  

I think it's already been established that just because SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so...  nor does it make it moral, ethical, or somehow magically not a violation of peoples rights...  Every now and again SCOTUS even admits they've made really bad case law and reverses itself...   I think we can all agree that locking up 100,000+ Americans in concentration camps with no proof of criminal activity let alone a trial is completely unconstitutional and a clear violation of a persons natural rights...  Yet SCOTUS ruled it constitutional in 1944.  Or do you argue that because SCOTUS said it was constitutional everything was just fine?   How about separate but equal?  Which SCOTUS ruling on that issue was the 'constitutional' one with ZERO changes in the constitution between the two rulings?   I think you're the crazy one for thinking that 9 men and women sitting on the bench in Washington are somehow infallible and just because they say so we must all obey.   The issue is drunk driving can not and will not be solved until we outlaw all people from driving.  Since outlawing all people from operating motor vehicles doesn't seem like a reasonable step, we must assume some reasonable risk in a free society...  Today that risk is about 6-7% of fatalities on the road are causing the deaths you're describing.   So you're talking about well under 10k of deaths a year (probably a lot closer to 2k),,,  I'm not sure the cost of my freedoms are worth 100,000 lives a year let alone 10,000 or 2,000.  

Robert,   Lets pretend you're right...  That there is no natural right to freely travel via the least expensive, quickest, safest, easiest mode of travel...  Lets pretend for a minute that is the case...     Can we agree that you do have a right to freely travel in this country and that is a natural right?  If so what modes of travel are you free from being stopped with no RAS/PC at a checkpoint and be forced to show you papers?   I don't think anybody here is making the argument that drunk drivers shouldn't be punished when they get caught...  I see people complaining about checkpoints that stop people at random and force them to interact with the police when they haven't done anything criminal to justify the stop.   So again, is there a natural right to freely travel, and if so what modes of travel are covered by that natural right?    

The Naturalization Act of 1790 did state something about "natural born citizens", but that law was changed with the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the wording and it's never been placed back into the law.