cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Has Unleashed an 'Invading Army'
Supreme Court Has Unleashed an 'Invading Army'
Posted by CN Staff on June 26, 2006 at 08:49:43 PT
By Robyn Blumner, Tribune Media Services
Source: Salt Lake Tribune
Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court just eviscerated the ''knock and announce'' rules that require police to announce their presence and give residents a bit of time before smashing in their door. Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan discounted the privacy interest involved, sneering that ''knock and announce'' amounts to little more than the right ''not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes.''
(I don't know about him, but I would put a pretty hefty premium on avoiding that particular scenario.) But Scalia has a point in implying that the case has little practical importance, since the protocol that police knock, identify themselves and then wait 15 or 20 seconds before entering, has gone the way of the 50-cent cup of coffee. It can still be found, but not often. The Joe Friday approach to conducting a search has been replaced by Rambo in riot gear because years earlier the high court permitted the waiver of the ''knock and announce'' requirement - a rule grounded in our 4th Amendment privacy rights - in almost every circumstance. If there's a chance that evidence will be destroyed, such as the possibility of drugs being flushed down the toilet, or a potential for physical violence - police suspecting there is a gun in the home, for instance - the Supreme Court has said it is not necessary to give advanced notice of entry. We now have plenty of experience with ''no-knock'' warrants, as they are called, and the trail of victims this terrorizing tactic has left behind. Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, says that he has documented nearly 200 cases of ''wrong door'' raids occurring in the last 15 years, where the police broke into an innocent person's house. He says the correct figure is probably higher, but police and prosecutors don't generally bother keeping statistics on the operations they botch. And when police come charging through the wrong door, they aren't dressed in a trench-coat and Dockers. These raids are typically conducted by militarized SWAT teams, outfitted for war. They are dressed in black masks and carry military-issue automatic weapons and other paramilitary gear, obtained gratis from the Pentagon. People who experienced such a raid must have felt like they were being attacked by an invading army. It isn't any wonder that, as in war, there is significant ''collateral damage.'' Balko has counted two dozen innocent people who died during one of these raids. Some of the more notorious examples include the 1994 case of 75-year-old retired Methodist minister Accelyne Williams, who was reading a Bible in his living room when Boston police crashed through his door with sledge hammers. He died of a heart attack after being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed. Similarly, in 2003, Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old employee of New York City, died after police battered her door in and threw a concussion grenade inside. The coroner ruled that Spruill's death was a homicide. She had been scared to death. Sometimes, the victim gets shot because his natural reaction to an invasion by gun-toting masked men is to reach for a firearm himself. Is this highly confrontational tactic really necessary to secure evidence or ensure police safety when serving drug warrants? Not in the least, Jack Cole says. Cole is the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- http://www.leap.cc -- an international drug-policy reform group made up of former drug warriors - police, prosecutors, wardens - who believe the U.S. War on Drugs has been a destructive failure. He is also a retired detective lieutenant and undercover narcotics investigator who spent 26 years with the New Jersey State Police. According to Cole, ''too much violence is instigated by the police and it's just not necessary'' to do the job. Cole says a war metaphor has no place in domestic policing in a democratic society. When there is a war, there has to be an enemy, Cole says, and since 110 million people in this country above the age of 12 have admitted to having used an illegal drug, ''The enemy is us.'' Cole says that whenever he served a warrant, he was able to come up with some ruse to get an occupant to open the door without breaking it down or using violence. ''You just don't have to go in as a SWAT team,'' Cole says. SWAT teams have proliferated not because they are needed but because police like to play soldier with relatively little of the battlefield risk; and they have been goosed along by a federal government that hands out surplus military implements like candy. The only backstop to all this has been the U.S. Supreme Court and its rulings establishing basic standards for police interactions with the public. But with the Hudson case, it is pretty clear there is a five-member majority for loosening whatever reins still exist. So, expect the ''war'' to get more bloody and its casualty list to get longer. Welcome to the Roberts court. Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)Author: Robyn Blumner, Tribune Media Services Published: June 26, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Salt Lake TribuneContact: letters sltrib.comWebsite: http://www.sltrib.com/Related Articles: The SWAT Syndromehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21926.shtmlHigh Court Backs Police No-Knock Searcheshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21914.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #88 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 10:09:43 PT
Be careful, and stay safe, Museman!
He's probably already left...but unless his wife and children are going, too, they could post here about any phone calls they got from him.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #87 posted by whig on June 28, 2006 at 10:00:22 PT
Had Enough
Thank you. :)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #86 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 09:55:54 PT
#81
Whig wrote:“I don't understand why you're even talking about using guns, if you're not going to use them in any way against the government”.I will never aim a weapon against any Law Enforcement Agency from this government. Period. Let's be clear about this.Case closed!!!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #85 posted by FoM on June 28, 2006 at 09:44:56 PT
museman
Have a great trip. Stay safe and have fun!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #84 posted by museman on June 28, 2006 at 09:40:32 PT
everyone
I am pretty sure I already posted this message, but when i checked in to make sure, I couldn't find it- something about this computer so I'm tryng again.The news from the gathering has mellowed greatly, the cops and feds have backed off. The word from the camp is "We won this one." Anyway, we figure if we make the window, we will be all right.If I can I will post once I get there. Lots of last minute running around to do, so I got to go. There's lots I'd like to comment on, but...gotta go.I'll see ya on the other side (of this experience).peace
T
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #83 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 09:32:54 PT
Whig
"But it doesn't help our issue at all." This thread has gone off topic, as sometimes happen here. We've been discussing Switzerland and not our issue. Here's something about our "issue". From the U.N. World Drug Report:"Today, the characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin."They like to say they are "sending messages". What kind of message do they think they're sending with that idiotic statement?I think that people who didn't understand the situation, and believed them, could wind up dead for believing that little jewel of a "message".
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #82 posted by whig on June 28, 2006 at 09:23:12 PT
Hope
Armed neutrality is a very different thing from being an armed partisan.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #81 posted by whig on June 28, 2006 at 09:18:44 PT
Had Enough
I don't understand why you're even talking about using guns, if you're not going to use them in any way against the government. If the issue of gun rights generally is important to you, then that's something and I wouldn't advocate taking away your right to defend yourself. But it doesn't help our issue at all.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #80 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 09:06:33 PT
When I'm here alone and I get scared,
and I carry my gun...or keep it close at hand, it's not because I'm violent or want violence. It's because I don't want any violence, and my intention is that someone coming in here against my wishes, wanting some violence against me or mine...I'll be able to put a stop to it quickly. Hopefully without firing a shot.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #79 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 08:59:21 PT
Do you advocate violent revolution?
Certainly not!!! Why do you even ask such a question?But I do advocate changing backward laws.Through the legal process!!!With help at the ballot box.And it "will" be done.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #78 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 08:58:17 PT
Armed Neutrality
is about avoiding violence.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #77 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 08:56:54 PT
"violent revolution" Whig
This whole thing isn't about "violent revolution". It's about the amazing "Armed Neutrality" of the Swiss. I'd always heard of their "Neutrality"...but I don't recall hearing the whole thing before.The point is "Armed Neutrality"...NOT "Violent Revolution".It's really more about what we've lost...and what was never fulfilled.Theres a big, big difference. Armed Neutrality is not Violent Revolution. It's not. It's not even close.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #76 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 08:52:00 PT
Comment 72
I liked what Museman wrote. And obviously, he was right on the mark.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #75 posted by whig on June 28, 2006 at 08:47:50 PT
Had Enough
Do you advocate violent revolution?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #74 posted by Hope on June 28, 2006 at 08:47:20 PT
Afterburner...Nothing ailing your memory!
This thread has been an education for me. I thought I knew a little about Switzerland. Explosives under the bridges and streets! But the most profound revelation was that our "militia", which is interpreted all over the place doesn't have to be figured out...it was modeled on the Swiss example. The government likes to call the National Guard a militia. But it's not. It's part of the standing army. Obviously we were too young and too poor to provide every man a weapon...but he was supposed to have one. He likely was supposed to procure it himself...but he was supposed to have one. It didn't say "Three Hour Men" so they could be armed by the keeper of arms...they were "Minute Men". I understand that better, too. Now.In this search I also read that hundreds of years ago...when there were no guns...there were swords and no man could vote unless he was carrying a sword. That was based on the idea that since he took on the burden of protecting the country and it's people, that only those who took up that burden had a right to vote.Switzerland is and always has been an amazing country and the Swiss, except maybe for the bankers...or a lot of them, are very admirable people...in my book.I don't like to think about what stopped this real "Militia" plan being carried out here after the Revolution. I have a terrible feeling that racial fears kept it from being properly utilized in our country at some point. And yeah..."rabble" like us!What's the situation on their cannabis laws right now?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #73 posted by afterburner on June 28, 2006 at 08:43:41 PT
whig
That's why I put a caution on it. The excerpt is relevant, but the source is "hateful." I am not promoting their view, but I found their description of Faneuil Hall to be a diamond in the rough, and chose not to hide the source, even though their site is distasteful.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #72 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 08:41:08 PT
Full Circle
Well now, after learning all that I have a special respect for our Freedom Loving Swiss friends.I’ve always liked Swiss cheese, for some reason.And I think our freedom loving Swiss would relate the museman’s first post in this thread. So I will repost a portion of it. I hope he won’t mind.*******from museman,If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be shopping for an AK47.
If Sam Adams were alive, he would be handing them out.
If George Washington were alive he would be raising an army to depose a corrupt King named George again.
If Nathan Hale were alive he would be smoking a joint on the front steps of the courthouse.
If Benjamin Franklin were alive, he would be putting our fearful mouse-like 'journalists' to shame.
If John Hancock were alive he would be shot in the streets.
If Patrick Henry were alive, he would be on the run from the modern redcoats (who wear blue).
If Thomas Paine were alive, he would be being deported from Canada right now for writing and distributing seditious material about liberty and justice.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #71 posted by whig on June 28, 2006 at 08:22:55 PT
afterburner
I don't understand the relevance of linking FrontPageMag. They are really hateful over there.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #70 posted by afterburner on June 28, 2006 at 07:11:10 PT
Hope #59
Links showing the connection between Switzerland and the American patriots:Switzerland, Cradle of Liberty.
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/16/thread16203.shtml#1Traitors in the Cradle of Liberty [caution: politically charged article]
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19492
{Boston's Faneuil Hall, built in 1742, is known as the "Cradle of Liberty." It was there that Samuel Adams and other patriots fomented the American Revolution.}Faneuil Hall Boston, the Cradle of Liberty
http://www.celebrateboston.com/sites/faneuilhall.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #69 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 07:07:34 PT
Burned Bridges
Ok, last one. This is good stuff here. Thanks again Hope.From the Anschluss of Austria to the Fall of France, Hitler swallowed nation after nation where cowardly ruling elites surrendered the country to the Nazis—either before the shooting began, or a few weeks afterward. But such a surrender would have been impossible in Switzerland, explains Halbrook. The Swiss governmental system was decentralized, with the separate 26 cantons, not the federal government, having the authority. The federal government did notify the Swiss people that in case of a German invasion, any claim that there had been a Swiss surrender should be disregarded as Nazi propaganda. And because the military power was in the hands of every Swiss man, the federal government would have been unable to surrender had it ever wanted to. Nothing could stop the Swiss militiamen from fighting to the very end. http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #68 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 07:02:34 PT
Burned Bridges
The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed. The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people. http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #67 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 06:49:46 PT
Burned Bridges
When the Nazis occupied France and other countries, they found the registration lists of firearm owners in the police departments. Gun owners who did not turn in their firearms within 24 hours were shot, as were those who failed to inform on their friends and relatives. For whatever reason, historians have shown no interest in highlighting the cruel fate of Jews and subjects in the occupied countries who were firearm owners. And yet some of these gun owners who eluded the Nazis were able to use their firearms to save their families, refugees, and others and even to mount armed resistance. The Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 was initiated with only a half dozen illegal handguns.In Switzerland, the only "gun control" law was that every man must shoot accurately at 300 meters. Had they attacked, the Nazis would have needed no gun registration records – they could have assumed that every man had a gun. As war clouds approached, in 1938 at the World Shooting Championships held in Luzern, Switzerland, Swiss Federal President Philipp Etter declared:"There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home. . . . With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace. The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does not part with his rifle."…http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #66 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 06:45:34 PT
Burned Bridges
When Hitler came to power, his henchmen burned the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists – the excuse to suspend all constitutional rights and to disarm all political opposition. Under the gun control laws passed by the liberal Weimar republic, the Nazis began disarming Jews. Then came Reichskristallnacht in 1938, in which the Nazis smashed up businesses and homes with the excuse that the Jews were dangerous and must be disarmed. Gestapo chief Heinrich Himmler threatened 20 years in the concentration camp for any Jew caught with a gun.http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #65 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 06:43:32 PT
Burned Bridges
HALBROOK: Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."Still today, every Swiss male on reaching age 20 years old is required to attend recruit school and issued a Fucile d’assalto 90 (model 1990, 5.6 mm selective fire rifle) to keep at home. Many women also participate in the shooting sports, as do teenagers and elderly persons. Weapons are carried so commonly on public transportation, around towns, and to hotels – especially when a shooting match is about to occur – that foreigners think a revolution is occurring. For an example of a contemporary shooting match which took place in the Swiss canton of Ticino, visit my website and look for "An Armed Society." …http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #64 posted by Had Enough on June 28, 2006 at 06:40:37 PT
Burned Bridges
Thanks Hope. very interesting info. I think the world could learn a little from our Swiss friends.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #63 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 23:30:17 PT
Also from that site....
A cartoon in the local paper shows a couple leaning curiously out of their window in the middle of the night.“No darling, really, I can’t hear any ticking,” says the woman. “Come back to bed and stop worrying.”
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #62 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 23:27:56 PT
Whoa! From that site listed in my last comment.
And Schuepbach admits that the Lucerne example is not unusual. There are in fact hundreds of strategic roads, tunnels and bridges in Switzerland which conceal permanent stores of explosives.“But I can’t tell you exactly how many, and exactly where they are, because that information is classified,” said Schuepbach.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #61 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 23:25:46 PT
Here it is!...maybe.
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4123773
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 22:54:05 PT
Searching for that...
I ran into the term "Armed Neutrality" several times. That's interesting.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 22:52:42 PT
Had Enough, about Swiss bridges, I found this.
(This was about what was going on there during WW II.)"A Nazi invasion of Switzerland during any of the above periods would have faced the following: The Swiss border forces would have fought to the death and would have been eliminated. But the bridges and roads were charged with explosives and would be destroyed, as would the Gotthard and Simplon tunnels on the Alpine routes to Italy."http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.htmlThere was lots of interesting stuff to be found in looking for that. I liked this:The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.From http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htmAnd this from that same site:America’s Founders admired Switzerland as a “Sister Republic” amidst the despotisms of Europe. The American Founders—like the Swiss—understood the moral implications of a universal militia system: a people who are trained to self-reliance and responsibility will defend their freedom to the utmost. But a people who rely on a professional standing army may not have the nerve to resist tyranny.When, as William Shirer wrote from Berlin, the lamps of freedom were going out all over Europe, they burned brighter than ever in Switzerland, as the Swiss people maintained their democracy, their right to assemble, and their freedom of religion. And the Swiss people saved thousands and thousands of refugees from the gas chambers. A well-regulated militia really was necessary to the security of a free state.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 21:53:51 PT
Had Enough #56
"My bride said that their (Switzerland) bridges are rigged with explosive devices so they can blow them up in case of an invasion."That's nothing. Here in America our skyscrapers are rigged with explosive devices so they can pull them in case they want to invade someone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 21:35:31 PT
Whoa! Explosives on bridges!
I've never heard of that. Bridges are scary anyway. To know you were driving over explosives would sure add to bridge fears. They really mean "Don't Mess with Switzerland"...bigtime!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by Had Enough on June 27, 2006 at 15:05:12 PT
Burned Bridges
Hope #42My bride said that their (Switzerland) bridges are rigged with explosive devices so they can blow them up in case of an invasion.Does anybody know any more about this?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by afterburner on June 27, 2006 at 15:03:03 PT
#28 whig
"Words are metaphors."With all that metaphor talk, you reminded me of a good book I read in the mid-70s (unfortunately it's out-of-print, but still available used):Meta Metaphor -- David Macdermott
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/product.asp?z=y&EAN=2698362252779&Itm=1From the comments: "Metaphor is much more than a mere literary device. Everything our brain concerns itself is a metaphor, yet it is extraordinary to realize how little we know about metaphor itself."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 11:34:07 PT
Barbaro
Whig so far so good. It could be over a year until it can be said he will make it. He could founder at anytime during recovery and that would end it for him. Horses are very delicate animals. The tranquilizer tart isn't something an average person could have on hand because of the drug war. I had to give an intravenous injection into the jugular vein of a horse that went down and would have died if I hadn't. Back then you went to the Vet and he told you how to do it, sold you the syringe full of powerful narcotics and you went back to the farm and did what he said to do. Not anymore.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 11:27:30 PT
FoM
How is Barbaro doing?Last I saw he was out of surgery and was walking again.I was actually thinking of something like a tranquilizer dart that wouldn't have to be eaten to keep the horse from hurting himself worse until the veterinarian could arrive. But I don't actually know much of anything about raising horses or other farm animals.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 11:11:27 PT
Whig
Many years ago we could buy a big bottle of horse tranquilizers but I don't think you can anymore. There is a problem with them though. You have to sprinkle the powder on horse feed and a horse that is seriously injured isn't going to eat anything. That's why when Barbaro stood quietly just holding his leg up and letting them do all they had to do to him made it very unusual and showed me the quality of that horse. They just don't act that calm when in serious pain.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 10:53:54 PT
FoM
Isn't there any kind of tranquilizer that could be given to the horse? Probably you're right, because effective tranqs are scheduled too (like Ketamine) which would help if they could be used.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 10:35:21 PT
Hope
No I couldn't do it either but we know someone that could. When I was a teenager one of my friend's horses broke his leg and he did go crazy and threw himself all over the barn causing injury to the barn and more to himself. It was a terrible thing to see. Vets just can't get to a farm very fast. The reason I mentioned it is guns are necessary for more then wars and for more then self defense. You can't get drugs that will humanely put down a large animal if necessary because of the drug war. Sometimes it's just to dangerous for a person to approach a horse in that condition.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 10:18:19 PT
Horses
I'm less of a horse woman than you, FoM. I couldn't do it, I don't think. It have to be up to someone else.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 10:05:24 PT
Off Topic: About Limbaugh's New Drug Problem
Rush Limbaugh, Sex Tourist?: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/38192/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 09:50:37 PT
whig
I agree with you. We had a gun but we don't anymore. I really felt I had to have a gun powerful enough to humanely destroy a horse if one broke a leg. A horse can go totally crazy while waiting for a Vet to arrive and that wouldn't be humane. Now that I don't have any horses here I don't feel a need for a gun.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:46:52 PT
Comment 44 Whig
I agree.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:46:07 PT
Statistically it's been proven
that crime goes down in areas where an assailant or home invader has to consider whether his prey might be armed or not. Just them thinking you might have a weapon can give them pause.In certain threatening circumstances and places...I've learned how to look like I might be armed when I'm not. Walk like you have a bit of extra weight in your pocket...and keep your hand on it...or pat it occasionally...to "check" on it...even if it's not there. But never ever try to use a gun if you know you won't use it...the would be assaulter will just take it away from you and you'd be in worse peril than before you brought out the weapon.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 09:40:09 PT
Defense
No gun should be ever used in anything but defense.Let's be clear on that point.Ever.A shot fired in anger, in order to enforce a law, or for any other purpose, is illegitimate.Pointing or brandishing a gun, is itself an assault upon the person, it is to create a reasonable terror that one is going to be killed.Police must stop doing this, the government must not continue to behave as criminals.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:40:03 PT
I think our forefathers probably had the Swiss
in mind when they designated that we should have a well armed citizen militia ready to go at any moment.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:38:30 PT
And guess what?
Hitler decided against invading Switzerland all those years ago. His armies ravaged their neighbors but he stayed clear of Switzerland and it's well armed and ammunitioned people.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:36:29 PT
Whig comment 37
Sounds like a good idea. They at least should not be allowed to use deadly weapons against their own citizenry.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 09:35:23 PT
Had Enough
I'm not sure I made my point clearly.I'm not asking the government to disarm the people.I'm asking the government to disarm itself.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by Had Enough on June 27, 2006 at 09:31:43 PT
Back in the Day
One of the first moves Hitler made was to disarm its citizens.We all know where it went from there.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:24:15 PT
Two strangers have tried to push their
way through my front door. We have had prowlers...in the house while we worked. We've had window peepers and theives or God knows what they were up to, enter our property. They were accidentaly seen, creeping around in the dark, on at least three occasions.I hate it that in this world that are people who would harm their fellow man...or themselves. But I am thankful that I'm still allowed a modicum of self-defense.I'm not too good with a baseball bat, except in softball...and I know that if I were close enough to an assailant to hit him with one...it would be all too easy for him to take it away from me and possible use it on me.My six foot four three hundred pound son does a fine job of protecting his family with nothing but a baseball bat...but I know I'd probably fail at it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 09:20:33 PT
Disarmament
I'd like the government to disarm, please.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 09:20:33 PT
Hope
I don't know what to make of it. People like me who aren't a republican care about the right for people to own a gun. This administration seems to decide things behind closed doors and we are left not knowing what is happening. Are they selling the airlines to a foreign country? I heard they wanted to do that but then the news went silent. What are they trying to do to us?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:16:22 PT
FoM
I fully understand your distaste for guns. You've suffered because of misused guns. Very much. I'm sorry.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 09:14:55 PT
Global disarmament of citizens....
It is scary. Very. It is about safe dominion for the tyrant.I always wished this country could be more like a big Switzerland. Standing defense and staying out of other people's wars.A peaceable nation...armed only to protect itself from invaders and not being an invader...ever.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by FoM on June 27, 2006 at 09:10:57 PT
Hope
This is not really important for me to say but it's on my mind. I don't like guns. I have no interest in guns. The further one is from my house the better. That said what is the UN up to? They better not try to ban guns. I am not at all worried about needing to defend my place from an intruder but I fear the world government disarming people. That down right scares me. I don't have to like something to know when something is wrong and better be watched very carefully.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 08:42:14 PT
Of course
Nations neighboring Switzerland want Switzerland to disarm...and they have forced Switzerland to make laws to ban non-citizens from acquiring arms there and taking them back to their own country.It's hard to be different. But the guns in Switzerland are Peace Keepers for them.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 08:39:42 PT
Weaponry
A week or so ago, someone mentioned that Switzerland banned guns. Far from it. Every adult male that is not a criminal or insane has to serve in the militia and they have to keep a government issued, used to be fully automatic, rifle in their home. The entire nation can be mobilized and ready to defend itself within hours.Half the canons (states) in Switzerland don't require any records to be kept on the sale of long guns or the free trade of guns with one another. They have a very low murder rate. Much lower than the European nations that tend to ban most gun ownership. They've never been invaded because of it. Concealed carry is ok in most of the canons without a special permit to do so. Switzerland wants it's people to be responsibly armed. Naturally, home invasion doesn't happen there unless a person is suicidal.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 08:30:35 PT
Barabbas.
Is it just legend that Barabbas became a Christian?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Hope on June 27, 2006 at 08:29:14 PT
Whig
As the "Midnight Toker" said, "Don't want to hurt no one."I think that's what he said, anyway. Don't have time to search for lyrics.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by whig on June 27, 2006 at 00:41:32 PT
afterburner
The recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945 (including the Thanksgiving hymn in the article you linked) is what Phil Dick considered the beginning of the end of the empire and the return of the spirit of Christ.Lots of ways to say the same things. Words are metaphors.http://www.phildickiangnosticism.com/plasmate.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by afterburner on June 27, 2006 at 00:19:45 PT
whig & museman, Did You See this One?
Kannabis Spirituality in the Ancient World
by Dan Russell http://www.drugwar.com/kannabisspirit.shtmOn topic: This preposterous Supreme Court ruling just puts more police and citizens in harm's way. LEAP is for harm reduction, not harm increase. Thank you, Jack Cole.Good, powerful invoking of Founding Fathers in comment #1, museman.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 22:30:21 PT
museman
It occurs to me that in a sense I guess it comes down to whether you are with Y'shua or Barabbas. Hope that makes some sense and no offense intended to anyone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 22:27:57 PT
museman
I understand.As a cannabist, like you I do not keep guns and I encourage my fellow cannabists not to do so either.Am I a complete pacifist? In practice, yes. In theory, no, but here is my qualification: Force must be strictly defensive, never retaliatory, without threatening innocent bystanders; it must be necessary and sufficient to end an actual or imminent attack, in behalf of someone who would not object to being defended; it must be proportionate and not extended beyond the need to stop the immediate attack.When the adversary is incapable of being stopped by force, it is foolish even to attempt. Violence against the state is not effective. Advocation of violence against the state is incredibly counterproductive.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by museman on June 26, 2006 at 21:47:44 PT
whig
And I confess, I was very very angry at our government today.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by museman on June 26, 2006 at 21:36:42 PT
whig
Figuratively rendered, however for some few reasons I feel a bond, and an identity as an 'American.' It's not the politics or religion, it's not even the people so much, it's the land, and the spirit of the land, which is like nowhere else on this planet.I intend to follow the path of peace, and non-violence, and so-far I've managed to keep within those boundaries. Fortunately for me I've managed to find outlets for my anger which is not of my own production, but a reaction to the active evil that is unavoidably in my view. I have music, and the written word. Now Cnews folks have given me another.Truly any action of destruction and corruption such as we see now in the world has no possible result except more of the same, one way or another.I certainly do not advocate or encourage violent reaction even though the push is closer to the brink than it should have ever have been let got, if there were actually any conscionable, responsible men or women in power- but there isn't not really.Standing up and revolving into a new state, does not imply weoponry, though too few can concieve of how it could else be done, and because of that feel that nothing can be done.The image of Thomas Jefferson (for instance) with an AK47 is meant to invoke both the seriousness of the situation, and one of the cores of Amercian liberties which is the right to bear arms, in an accepted American iconic fashion.I don't believe in guns, but I sure wouldn't want the government to take away the right to have them, because the government has got the most of them, and Mr. Jefferson would surely not be trusting this one.I was in the Polaris Misssle program long enough to get a good picture of the 'cold war' and what they called "detente." The atomic standoff that could have anhilated this earth in an hour should it fail.The question of war, violence, and confrontational action accupied a lot of my thoughts. What if a crazed meth-addict (for example) broke into my house and began beating up my wife to find out where our money was or something? In this county the odds of the sheriff responding within 24 hours is iffy. Should I then remain passive? Would you?I decided that there are a lot of factors that leads one to such a situation, and a lot of them are decisions that one makes, like who they choose to associate with, and the kind of life one leads, but sometimes the factors are random. I do not keep a gun, but I do keep a baseball bat by my door.I pray every day to keep myself and my family safe from harm, and I believe more in that than I do in guns, or violence, and I pray I never have to use that baseball bat, but it isn't there just for looks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 18:18:01 PT
mayan
If something happened to Scalia, Bush would appoint someone like Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft, and then the Senate would confirm.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by mayan on June 26, 2006 at 18:14:36 PT
Dead-Eye Dick
I wish Cheney would take Scalia hunting again.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 17:46:14 PT
Max
I think the American Revolution reached its apex in the Declaration of Independence and there was no necessity for a war. There's a lot I'd like to discuss with you and I'm sure we'll have some opportunity soon.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Max Flowers on June 26, 2006 at 17:22:46 PT
whig
Your comments rejecting violence are thought-provoking for me, as usual.They always make me have to stop and wonder what I would choose if it were mine to choose---going along as we are now for decades more, with the vast majority of citizens oppressed and abused, our rights laughed at, our health and resources stolen from us by corporate criminals... or setting things right in less than a year by way of an overthrow (which I am not advocating, I'm just imagining it).I am not a fan of violence just as you are not, but I have to say the choice could be hard. We need change, and a lot of it, and FAST, and that hardly ever happens with solely peaceful means. Sadly, the human animal doesn't respond to that way very strongly. It tends to keep on abusing when it abuses others and nothing is done about it, and it always persists until the weapon (whether that is money, power, guns, etc) is pried away from it or it is rendered harmless somehow.To use a painfully obvious analogy, we would not be having this conversation if the founding fathers were all as pacifist as you are. We would all be Brits, and there would be no America. Still, I know where you're coming from, and I respect that restraint.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 26, 2006 at 17:14:00 PT
Moderation and Balance
What I see is we have lost our balance as a country. This isn't political but an observation. I believed that America was the land of opportunity. That was the ideal I was raised to believe. Since 9/11 we have been moving in an out of control direction. The rich are getting richer and all average citizens have is confusion and harder times making ends meet. I see good and bad happening side by side and in a way it's good. The shades of gray are fading away and we can see much better now.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 17:08:48 PT
Hope
My belief is that the constitutional frame of the United States of America was defective to the point of its own destruction, and we are reaping the results ever since. The contradictions at the outset, between the ideals of liberty and slave ownership, were irreconcilable. The civil war did not end them, it transformed these ideals into different mechanisms.It was set up as a contest from the beginning, from which only one could prevail. We will have to create some new structures and we are going to have to figure out how to live in peace with one another. This is not going to be a top-down process but something that has to evolve between small groups of people, and then as we come together we discuss and agree. We are doing it here, and in many places. The old structure will have less relevance to us, and will cease to bother us when we no longer need it. But it will take time, and it will take one more thing.Free cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 17:05:33 PT
Comes From Eternal
and this realityhides in shamethe brutal disgrace
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 16:55:39 PT
have you that label
that mark on your head?Justuce that flows freelyFrom God
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 16:36:12 PT
Whig
I realize that he wasn't alone in his decision. His remark, "''knock and announce'' amounts to little more than the right ''not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes.'' is an added insult to the American people.People are going to die BECAUSE of this awful decision! The ideas that our forefathers put forth in the form of government and it's rules that they tried to give us were golden. They were beautiful. They weren't perfect by any means, but better than what a lot of the world had. It made us great.Scalia and others like him have managed to turn that particular "gold" to lead.I've come to think in recent years that our losing all our rights and freedoms is the elitest's effort at slowing immigration. If they become appalled at our lack of freedom and rights...they won't want to come here. Of course this doesn't effect the elitest one way or another. They are above the laws and they know it. If you've got the money and the right lawyer you can fight for justice...if you don't...you're made a "criminal" and you have no rights whatsoever when they stick that label on you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 16:34:14 PT
gw
Do not tell me that there has been violence and bloodshed throughout human history, I know it well. There must be an end to it, a firm resolve that it is an unacceptable way of life. Once there were human sacrifices, and cannabalism was not unheard of. Wars of conquest were commoner, and it was normal for soldiers to rape and pillage. Well, they are doing this again, but most people at least are now against it, and even most of those who support the war practice a kind of denial to prevent themselves from acknowledging what is really going on. The bloodthirsty idiots who are carrying this out are to be condemned by anyone and everyone, as Adolf Hitler is by most everyone (except perhaps for the same bloodthirsty idiots who are running his playbook again).These are behaviors we must not excuse, and we should not allow it to continue ever more.Cannabis must heal our spirit and awaken us to our deeper connection. We are all one. What you do to the least of us, you do to all of us and to God.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 16:21:56 PT
hey
whiggerthere have been timeswhen violence and the shedding of human blood,have marked humans footpaths
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 16:12:23 PT
re: he fits in
Kind of getting home,feels good,Lord, fill the minds of these good people,With Grace and Understanding,From Sea to Shining Sea,Everlasting Peace and Understanding,Is Eternally Our Brotherhood,Forever and Ever
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by whig on June 26, 2006 at 16:11:33 PT
Hope/Museman
This was an opinion by Scalia, but if you think it is just his opinion you miss the larger point. Five of the nine members of the supreme court signed on to this.If you're talking about impeachment, you'd have to impeach all five.What tilted the balance in favor of Scalia's jurisprudence was the appointment of Alito, replacing O'Connor.Museman, I am not in favor of violent revolution and I expect that you are speaking figuratively yourself. I don't like using the kind of language that implies we would engage in or support the use of weapons to overturn the state.In any case, I would not support this or participate in anything but peaceful social change.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by billos on June 26, 2006 at 15:53:18 PT
AND
I ALWAYS thought Scalia was mentally ill.......but he fits right in I guess.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by billos on June 26, 2006 at 15:51:34 PT
Museman
DITTO
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 15:14:16 PT
I had an odd thought
it has been voiced,what if the the "money" were taken away,what if, every good user of Cannabis,simply stopped buying Cannabis,Say for one special day,In the worldly economics that drive this world of passion,I know this idea is going to piss of old John Walters,and his tribe, if the the truth be known,that so many liars and hippocriteswho measure their worldly existenceby the "money" they are making in this prohibition,on the backs of so many good people,
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by global_warming on June 26, 2006 at 14:43:54 PT
re: comment #1
WOW, and very powerful museman, good luck at the jamboree, did not realize that there so many people still gathering, good luck and watch your back.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 14:08:28 PT
Thanks, Had Enough
But I hope you corrected my spelling error! "if they could here", should have been "if they could hear".I'm too quick to not proofread well.I meant what I said, but I do regret letting that error get by.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 14:00:01 PT
Will prohibitionists never stop lying?
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n827/a11.html?397
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by Had Enough on June 26, 2006 at 12:54:30 PT
Cool Copy Cat
This article and these 2 comments have been printed, ready to be circulated.museman: OutstandingHope: Right to the point.Thank You
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 12:25:04 PT
Grounds for Scalia's impeachment!
"Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan discounted the privacy interest involved, sneering that ''knock and announce'' amounts to little more than the right ''not to be intruded upon in one's nightclothes.''"That man's ability to "judge" anything is obviously signifigantly impeded.How can someone who is supposed to protect the Constitution even utter such an idiotic phrase? What happened to the Citizen of these United States being "Secure in his home"? He needs impeaching. Perhaps, some sort of age related dementia is interfering with his judging skills.Either that or he's part of those who would overthrow what this government was supposed to have been.People who died for our freedoms would surely be rolling over in their graves if they could here this man's trivialization of our rights as humans and Americans. Maybe they should just visit Scalia regularly in his dreams. He deserves it, looks to me like.God help us!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by museman on June 26, 2006 at 11:44:39 PT
"supreme court"
What a blatant lie in itself. The ONLY SUPREME COURT THAT IS REAL, with REAL AUTHORITY, is that of God. Who are these pretenders that claim such authority? They are the trumped up favorite puppets of the RULING CLASS. Who are the ruling class? Well I can't name too many names, but you can rest assured their annual rake-in is bigger than a nine figure number.If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be shopping for an AK47.If Sam Adams were alive, he would be handing them out.If George Washington were alive he would be raising an army to depose a corrupt King named George again.If Nathan Hale were alive he would be smoking a joint on the front steps of the courthouse.If Benjamin Franklin were alive, he would be putting our fearful mouse-like 'journalists' to shame.If John Hancock were alive he would be shot in the streets.If Patrick Henry were alive, he would be on the run from the modern redcoats (who wear blue).If Thomas Paine were alive, he would be being deported from Canada right now for writing and distributing seditious material about liberty and justice.As a nation we have failed our first cause which is liberty. As a people we have grown fat and lazy, to allow such base and evil men into such positions of power.As human beings the wake up call is already upon us, the storm approaches, and some few may call upon the rocks to hide them from the wrath that they have provoked by their arrogance and hatred of care, and their flippant twitter at those who do not embrace wealth at the expense of all else.The property of the rich shall be taken in an instant, lives of the self-assumed mighty are faggots for the fire that will consume their corruption and all their works of evil and destruction. You pretenders of authority better start running now if you hope to get ahead of the momentum of destruction you have set in place. Better run, better take cover. Better make sure there's room inside the Cheyenne facilty, because in a few years that'll be your only sanctuary. And we all know where it is.And all you 'enforcers' who carry out the whims of your masters like well trained dogs, wait till you see your destiny of humiliation and eternal ridicule because you so casually treated the peaceful, innocent children of God like the decaying slime you actually are yourselves.The best thing you all could do for yourselves and this country, the entire world, would be to have a Roman party and slit each others throats. You will not be missed, and this time you won't rewrite the history books.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment