Where'd my post go?

[h8monday]

I posted a link to blog about protecting your 2A rights and it was deleted? Why?

[birddog]

[Pop]

Thats usually how this goes..........

[van7559]

Cuz your a newb!

[SideShow Bob]

Cuz your a newb!

Join Date : Oct. 2009. He's been here longer than you.....[LOL]

[patrick0685]

he has been here longer than a lot of ppl

[Teufelhund]

I was halfway through reading it, hit the back button on my mouse by accident and when I tried to go forward it was gone. I lol'd.

Though many of us may agree with the sentiment of the article you pasted, the powers that be don't want you posting something which advocates non-compliance with the law. Their house, their rules.

[Pancho Villa]

Isn't there also potential legal problems for forum owners that let that sort of stuff be advocated on their forum?

[van7559]

Join Date : Oct. 2009. He's been here longer than you.....[LOL]

Fuck me!

[h8monday]

[Pop]

Thats usually how this goes..........

Mods don't want any feathers ruffled. I get it.

[Fmedges]

I posted a link to blog about protecting your 2A rights and it was deleted? Why?

PM me the link to that blog plz

[SideShow Bob]

Mods don't want any feathers ruffled. I get it.

I think what the Mods did is called: CYA

[Teufelhund]

PM me the link to that blog plz

I'd actually like to finish reading it. If you could send me the link as well, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

[birddog]

Mods don't want any feathers ruffled. I get it.

I think we already give them enough thankless BS.

[jerrymrc]

Mods don't want any feathers ruffled. I get it.

Not it at all. Has nothing to do with us.

[2ndAmendment]

Pacman??????

[Fmedges]

I just read that article and it is 100% what needs to be said. I agree with everything that was said.

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[h8monday]

I just read that article and it is 100% what needs to be said. I agree with everything that was said.

It's the truth.

[Teufelhund]

I just read that article and it is 100% what needs to be said. I agree with everything that was said.

This is exactly what I came back to this thread to say. Great read.

[Ashton]

I'd like the link please PM me it.

[cofi]

I'd like the link please PM me it.
me 2

[Sharpienads]

John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall.

[Sharpienads]

That was a good read.

[theGinsue]

Whether we agree or disagree with the posts, in today's climate, such articles and/or comments along those lines open the site and it's staff up to civil and criminal litigation. Yes, removing such posts/threads is IN PART a CYA move.

[Pancho Villa]

Whether we agree or disagree with the posts, in today's climate, such articles and/or comments along those lines open the site and it's staff up to civil and criminal litigation. Yes, removing such posts/threads is IN PART a CYA move.

Also, jesus, it was a boring slog and stream-of-consciousness style blog post. I just managed to finish it and I'd rather go to the dentist, independent of whether I agree with the opinion or not.

[Sharpienads]

Did you just call Thomas "Jesus"?

[StagLefty]

Did you just call Thomas "Jesus"?

I knew it !!!!

[theGinsue]

Did you just call Thomas "Jesus"?


I knew it !!!!
I get that a lot. Probably 'cuz we have the same Father.

(see what I did there?)

[Byte Stryke]

John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall.

[Alrigh]

[Byte Stryke]

Whether we agree or disagree with the posts, in today's climate, such articles and/or comments along those lines open the site and it's staff up to civil and criminal litigation. Yes, removing such posts/threads is IN PART a CYA move.


for the sake of understanding, you would advocate compliance with illegal and unconstitutional acts?

not accusing, just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

[Monky]

for the sake of understanding, you would advocate compliance with illegal and unconstitutional acts?

not accusing, just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Capitulate!

[HoneyBadger]

for the sake of understanding, you would advocate compliance with illegal and unconstitutional acts?

not accusing, just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

[Poke]

[Monky]

[Poke]

Not poking. Honest question. Remember in history.. when people would hide the jewish.. just to turn them in and look good to the nazis.

[theGinsue]

for the sake of understanding, you would advocate compliance with illegal and unconstitutional acts?

not accusing, just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.
What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

[Monky]

This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

[Byte Stryke]

What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.


http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

This has already been decided on.
You are welcome

[HoneyBadger]

Not poking. Honest question. Remember in history.. when people would hide the jewish.. just to turn them in and look good to the nazis.

I guess I should have been more clear: I was poking TheGinsue for an answer.


What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

Thanks for the answer. I totally understand. Don't need to have any witchhunts or midnight raids. I wish we didn't have to be afraid to exercise the 1st amendment...

[HoneyBadger]

Interesting read... Thanks for posting byte. I wish everyone were a constitutional scholar... And by that I mean I wish everyone would read the friggin constitution. [Bang]

[Melvin]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

I would beg to differ. Watched this movie last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnPi5cXlVHo
Even though the govt of Mexico has done everything to purge these events from the history books, it did happen.
Men and women of principle stood and fought. History has countless examples where the yoke of tyranny has been
cast off by people who said, "Enough is enough".

[Gman]

John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall.
Loved the movie reference.

[h8monday]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

Look what happened with Obamacare. The penalty to not buy health insurance was not constitutional so they changed the word penalty to tax and it became legal. The same thing could happen here. Change a few words around and make it vague enough that it somehow becomes legal for them to make me do something that is clearly unconstitutional and outside the bounds of what the feds can do to you. Molon Labe.

[Byte Stryke]

from someone more articulate and more free time
http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

[Teufelhund]

from someone more articulate and more free time
http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

LOL that's the same blog which prompted the deleted thread and the spawning of this thread.

[cofi]

LOL that's the same blog which prompted the deleted thread and the spawning of this thread.


circle of life maaaan

[Teufelhund]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.


Look what happened with Obamacare. The penalty to not buy health insurance was not constitutional so they changed the word penalty to tax and it became legal. The same thing could happen here. Change a few words around and make it vague enough that it somehow becomes legal for them to make me do something that is clearly unconstitutional and outside the bounds of what the feds can do to you. Molon Labe.

Absolutely true. This begs the question: What recourse do the People have when even the SCOTUS has upheld as constitutional legislation which contradicts the BoR? e.g. the Patriot Act is a blatant infringement of the Fourth Amendment, NDAA contains language which attempts to void the Sixth Amendment. . . you get the idea. What say you, Byte?

[lead_magnet]

Okay, I'll play.

Being a LAWman, a cop that is. I find it interesting that even the most right wing, constitution loving of us Americans is afraid of the proposed ILLEGAL legislation that is on the table. As a cop, I spend my working days putting my ass on the line to "uphold the law". If I fail to do this, I'm in trouble. The funny thing is, that upon my swearing into my "office" I swore to uphold both the federal and state constitution. Think about that for a min. I SWORE that I would uphold the constitution, not that I would obey the letter of the CRS. Now, lets say that I pull someone over who has committed no traffic violation, and I don't have reasonable suspicion that they have committed any other crime. Did I violate a statue from the CRS? Is it illegal, per state statute to turn on red and blue lights behind a moving vehicle for no reason? Per the black and white letter of the law, no. Now, will somone who sees these lights pull over? Sure, does that MAYBE account to an illegal "holding" of that person? Maybe. Look deeper into this, why is that wrong? Because it violates your constitutional rights to not have me pissing in your cool-aid for no reason.
Let me offer a different example. As an average Joe, can you walk over to your neighbor, in a non-threatening manner, totally calm and collected showing no weapons say "hey you, turn your pockets inside out." Is that against the "law"...no. You didn't threaten him/her, there was no harassment, no assault, no robbery. Is that annoying and an asshole maneuver? Yup. Now what if I as a cop do that? I just violated someone's civil rights. Hmmmmm.... WHY? Because of the constitution. So does that not stand as an example that the constitution is the supreme law of the land? The constitution is the LAW. The supreme law. The most important law! The "bill of rights" is the most fundamental foundation of everything that makes this country what it is. Follow that train of thought for a while and you'll see where I'm coming from.
When anyone proposes that a Statute, or a Federal Code is put into place that violates your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, they are BREAKING THE LAW! If ANYONE is committing conspiracy, it is them! They are the ones breaking the law, not you all for wanting to keep your rights. If you ask me, the "lawman" they are guilty of conspiracy to commit mass unlawful search and seizure. Theft, maybe?
What I'm trying to say is this: Your constitutional rights are NON-NEGOTIONABLE! The constitution is not the Colorado REVISED Statues, it isn't up for re-write, EVER! Why not just toss out the part about black people being able to vote? Can't do that, why? A: Because it's WRONG, two: IT
s AGAINST THE LAW! Ever hear of the phrase :" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You all "mods, site owner" need to decide where you stand. Does that article advocate resisting people who would violate your rights and break the law? Yes it does. Is that wrong? No. Doesn't matter how many talk show hosts tell you that is it. If we are too afraid to face civil lawsuit, how brave will you be when you stare down a man with a rifle coming to take yours?

/rant

- an angry cop

P.S. For the record, EVERY cop I've spoken to on this matter is behind you 100% I can say for certain that should such an illegal legislation come to pass, the department I work for will have 100% of its "peace officers" turn in their badges. The cops are standing behind you, have the courage to stand up for yourselves.

[lead_magnet]

I hate it when I'm too upset to type properly, my apologies for the massive slaughtering of our English language.

[Teufelhund]

Good stuff. Thanks, LM. [Awesom]

[DavieD55]

Right on LM. [Beer]

[james_bond_007]

...Being a LAWman, a cop that is... I wanted to reply to this post, but didn't feel it necessary to quote the wole thing .

These are not intended to discredit your post, your thoughts, or you, in any way. They are just things that come to mind.
NOTE: I have not been given access to nor read the "removed post".( PM me with it if you don't mind. )
It might actually be a GOOD thing that I have not seen it prior to writing this, as my comments are more general and regard the GENERALIZED rather than attempt to judge the CONTENT of the article.

I also am not trying to "speak" for the owner(s) or mods, as I've never met them in person, but am speaking in general of ANY forum owner.

1) Private Property - Although this forum is accessible to the public, it is private property and not public property. It would seem to me that the owner(s) have the right to manage it how they see fit. They can allow Who they want, What they want on it, and set rules for users so things are done How they want. When posts are in the wrong place they can even decide Where they want the information. etc.

2) Legal Responsibility - The owner(s) are legally responsible for the content on this site. EX: If copyrighted material is posted, and the owner(s) receive a "Take Down Order" and fail to do so, they can be held responsible. EX: If extremely racist or "hate" material were posted, threats on others lives, etc., I'd expect it to be "taken down" and the poster banned...all at the discretion of the site owner(s) and their trusted delegates (admins and mods).

3) Owners' Request - Earlier, shortly after Sandy Hook, a "mass PM" to each forum member from the site came out to EACH forum member. (Usually there is just a "Posting" with an announcement, but it seemed important to them to send EVERYONE a PM.) The posting asked us all to be mindful of what we post, as it is publicly searchable and could appear quoted elsewhere as something like "The members of AR-15.co forum say ....". And who would be the likely person that could be called on for comment? The poster ? NAHHHH. It would be the owner(s).

4) Held to a Higher Standard - Your comment regarding "...Now what if I as a cop do that? I just violated someone's civil rights." I believe falls into this category. Many people, in court, are held to a higher standard and judged accordingly. A sort of "You, of ALL people, should have known better" scenario. I think, on many fronts, a law officer falls into this category. EX: If lawyers are caught advising clients to purger, the lawyer is "Held to a higher standard".

5) Intentionally Disobeying Federal Laws/State Statutes - In my opinion, the Federal Laws/State Statues are more detailed enumerations of specific situations that are considered illegal by those entities. They "should" to be consistent with the Constitution. If not, they need to be challenged in court and struck down. But, UNTIL they are struck down, they ARE the law and we must obey them. If WE choose to disobey them, then it will be our job to try and prove them unconstitutional. This is a process for which I, as an individual, have neither the time, fortitude, or finances to pursue.

6) Pick the Battles - Your comments to the mods/owner(s) about standing up for what is right may be "On Target", but they and they alone can determine which "battles" they want to fight. I think we should respect their decisions, even if we don't agree with them. We can "accept" their decision and live with it (ACCEPT IT). If the decision bothers us sufficiently, we can then try to "negotiate" some middle ground with them (CHANGE IT) , leave the site and move on to a new site at OUR discretion (QUIT), or risk "ticking them off" to the point where we get banned (GET KICKED OUT).

[Sharpienads]

Good to know, LM.

[Fmedges]

5) Intentionally Disobeying Federal Laws/State Statutes - In my opinion, the Federal Laws/State Statues are more detailed enumerations of specific situations that are considered illegal by those entities. They "should" to be consistent with the Constitution. If not, they need to be challenged in court and struck down. But, UNTIL they are struck down, they ARE the law and we must obey them. If WE choose to disobey them, then it will be our job to try and prove them unconstitutional. This is a process for which I, as an individual, have neither the time, fortitude, or finances to pursue.

Are you saying that your just going to follow whatever is passed? Did I understand that right?