Wisconsin you falling for this?? · Page 2

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#21

When you were here before..
Couldn't look you in the eye.... :-"

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#22

When you were here before..
Couldn't look you in the eye.... :-"

DrafterX wrote:

Well... at least until you were done blowing him but the shame prolly made it even more difficult then

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#23

😠

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#24

If you ask the police to come find the weed in your closet, they find it, and you ask them not to arrest you can they choke you to death for resisting?

teedubbya wrote:

Hopefully.

Buckwheat
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#25

Yeah I'll bet they're NOT expecting the phone to ring off the hook......
This guy's a real tool bag, using Ebola and such as comparisons......head in ass syndrome 🌫

TMCTLT wrote:

I second the above statement from the right honorable gentleman from Avon. 🌫

Edited by user 11 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#26

Victor, you say this is pointless (policy) but you don't see the incrimental creep?

The fact you pointed out emphasizes it IMO

ZRX1200 wrote:

But the creep isn't in relation to actual rights citizens have.

The only place this could get interesting is the following situation:
Wife and husband live together in a home they share, husband has some illegal weapons (unregistered... maybe some guns he used in a couple store robberies or something, but in a location unknown to the wife). If, after finding out the husband is screwing the local diner waitress, the wife calls the cops to come and "see if they can find any weapons" and they do. That becomes a problem.

The husband is a co-owner of the house, I would argue that the wife can't just give away his freedom from unlawful search and seizure. I think if some instances like that pop up, then it could get a little odd.

Of course, I'm not certain that's any different than if the wife just called 911 and said she was sure her husband had some illegal guns and she wanted to report him. The po-po will come and search either way.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#27

ya but she prolly wouldn't get a turkey or a ham... 😟

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#28

Again, convinving you to give up your rights is still creap.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#29

Again, convinving you to give up your rights is still creap.

teedubbya wrote:

Meh... I think we're splitting hairs here, but I would argue that you aren't giving up any rights. Your right is against unlawful search and seizure. If you are requesting said search/seizure, that doesn't even intersect with your rights.

It's kind of like saying voluntarily choosing not to bear arms is giving up your rights to do so.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#30

Edited by user 11 years ago | Reason: Not specified

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#31

In one instance it's the right to do something if I so choose. Choosing not to does not give up that right. In the other it is the right to prevent someone else (authorities) from doing something the law views as unreasonable. Chosing to give up the latter gives up a right. Choosing to not to immediately excersize the former does not give up the right. It's still there.

I understand what you are saying....once I allow it I have given up the right so it is no longer a right. But I did give it up. I didn't give up anything by choosing not to own a gun. Now if I entered into an agreement with the government preventing me from owning a gun that would be different. Then I would be giving up that right.

Edited by user 11 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#32

If I give permission for search and seizure that would normally not be legal (I have the right not to have it happen and if it did it would be bogus if not punishable for them doing it) then I have directly given up my right. Just because I gave it up doesn't mean it was never a right. Thus there is a very solid intersection here.

As for the right to bear arms, if I choose not to I have not actively waived that right by telling someone it's ok to take it away from me.

As for the frog boil if I give up my rights voluntarily I probably will not notice the heat until it's too late

In one instance it's the right to do something if I so choose. Choosing not to does not give up that right. In the other it is the right to prevent someone else (authorities) from doing something the law views as unreasonable. Chosing to give up the latter gives up a right. Choosing to not to immediately excersize the former does not give up the right. It's still there.

I understand what you are saying....once I allow it I have given up the right so it is no longer a right. But I did give it up. I didn't give up anything by choosing not to own a gun.

teedubbya wrote:

No. Because you still hold the right against any unreasonable search and seizure.

Very simply, if I invite law enforcement to come to my home and search for guns today, they can't just decide to come by and search again tomorrow. My rights still are in place. Once you invite someone over to search for something, you have immediately made the search and seizure "reasonable" or "lawful"... because you invited them over. You're still protected from unreasonable or unlawful searches.

I know it's quibbling, but I just don't see how this is turning WI into ("shelter in place for your own good!")Boston

Edited by user 11 years ago | Reason: Not specified

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#33

I guess we just disagree.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#34

Once you let them in, they're going to nail your ass to the wall.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...no warrant...GTFO! Thank you and good day!

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#35

Once you let them in, they're going to nail your ass to the wall.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...no warrant...GTFO! Thank you and good day!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

I don't disagree with you at all. Choosing not to have the cops over doesn't even come into play in something like this.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#36

Sure it does.

They want citizens to volunteer. I'd tell the police to pound sand and that I'm protected by the Constitution. IF they have a reason to search my property get a warrant. There will be NO volunteering on MY property...whatsoever.

Now, if people want to let them...that's up to them but c'mon...know your rights people.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#37

victor809 wrote:

not so sure they can't come back tomorrow, or wouldn't try really hard to find a reason to after your voluntary invitation. You'd be opening up the candy store after hours! However, I agree with you that it is different than losing rights, though it is dumb. No program is needed for people harboring fears of their wild child or criminal husband...just drop a dime.

one off topic reaction to the Boston (actually Watertown) MA situation that has been added to this discussion. Though I live in the general vicinity, I did not have to make a decision about allowing a search of my property nor was my movement restricted.

Here is the thing everyone should consider instead of just ragging on Bostonians (fun as it may be for those jealous of us)...had this been one in a series of or simply one instance of abuse of power by the police/military by performing a "preventive crime sweep to benefit the citizenry" all the catcalls would make sense.

But many people had genuine reason to fear for their lives and welcomed the police. This was no false alarm like Ebola, trumped up to provide more power to those with uniforms. This was real kids, an ugly terrorist attack followed by at least one more murder followed by a perp tracked into their town. Alot of people reading this just might also have been willing to open the door to their home without feeling they'd opened the door to erosion of the Bill of Rights...especially at that point in time. Hard to be honest with oneself about this, easy to point the finger. Absolutists in print might be capable of wetting their pants in reality.

Honestly, I'm still not sure what I would have done.

I know the joke is coming so...Depends, right?

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#38

Looks like one vote for giving up all your rights every time your butt puckers lol

Jk frank.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#39

Looks like one vote for giving up all your rights every time your butt puckers lol

Jk frank.

teedubbya wrote:

It's cool, I heard Frank's butthole never puckers after all those large-diameter strapons he's been pegged with.

See, I got your back Frank.

teedubbya
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#40

I hear you've had his back several times.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: