Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Screw the 10th amendment.  Watch out Arizona, Daddy is watching you. >

Screw the 10th amendment. Watch out Arizona, Daddy is watching you.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Screw the 10th amendment. Watch out Arizona, Daddy is watching you.

Old 04-27-2010, 04:56 PM
  #41  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Thanks for your version of history Lem, but the facts remain the same. AZ is taking steps to rectify a problem the Fed. gov't has let go for way too long, and bho is going to try every backhanded trick he can to make it look like the state's fault for enforcing the law.
LBR is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:32 PM
  #42  
Nontypical Buck
 
emptyquiver2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 1,204
Default

Do not paint with such a broard brush that which incorporates the rank of Citizenship with that of a resident, esspecially when that resident has not abided by that which are the Laws of Citizenship. The contempt by those that have been here for years yet still have not started the process of becoming a Citizen illustrates their irresponsibility and disregard for the Country and the Law in general.
emptyquiver2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2010, 08:08 AM
  #43  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

Dunno if this has been brought up, but unless i misunderstand the law, inquiry about citizenship status can only be done after a lawful conduct has been made. For example, stopping someone for speeding, making an arrest for a crime like shoplifting, etc. By my understanding the law specifically forbids random stops of people to check citizenship.

Not gonna re-fight the Civil War here, but will point out a couple things:

1. The South initially did well in the conflict because the Union had totally inept military leadership. There were several battles where the Union had the ability to pretty much break the back of the Confederacy, but the Union generals failed to capitalize. At the same time, I think that even the Southern leadership realized that they could not compete with the North in terms of war machine industrial capacity or in terms of manpower in the longterm. So, even a stalemate that resulted in negotiations favorable for the South when have been a victory in some ways.

2. Both sides generally do bad things in a war. However, given the South's conduct in matters such as Andersonville Prison and General Forrests execution of black soldiers and their white officers, I don't know that the South has any particular claim on the moral high ground in this regard. Nor does the North....
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 04-29-2010, 09:52 AM
  #44  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
burniegoeasily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
Default

Originally Posted by Lemaitre View Post
Some of the worst violators of civil rights in the South were the county sheriffs, remember Bull Conner? The southern states have no one to blame but themselves for the activist role that the Federal Government took in the 1960s in the southern states. A hundred years earlier the 13'th, 14'th and 15'th Amendments to the Constitution were adopted that not only freed the slaves but affirmed their U.S citizenship and guaranteed the right to vote to all people regardless of race. For a hundred years the southern states ignored the Constitution and enacted laws that denied Blacks their Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. By the 1960s a point had been reached where the Federal Government could no longer tolerate southern defiance on this issue and the threat of force had to be used to bring these states into compliance with the Constitution.

States Rights do not mean that states are free to abuse certain classes of residents of their state. No matter what state one lived in the Founding Fathers intended that all citizens were to enjoy the rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. When these Constitutional rights were extended to former slaves in the wake of the Civil War the southern states were obligated to respect them. When they did not, the Federal Government had not only the right but an obligation to ignore so-called states rights claims and insure that all Americans received the protections granted by the Constitution.

I assume you never read the bill. Because if you had, you would realilze it mirrors the Federal law. So, are you saying it is ok for the Feds to pass laws and not enforce them???
burniegoeasily is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 04:24 AM
  #45  
Giant Nontypical
 
vc1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 9,626
Default

Will, youW finally bring up a legit point, but I will point out where that is already going on with no problems. If you carry a gun, you have to prove you have a CCL. Random check points on the highway check I.Ds all the time. Cops always pull people over for very minimal probable cause. Plus, anytime you get pulled over, what is the first thing the cop askes for? I.D. in the form of a drivers license. When you buy a gun, you have to go through a back ground check. I have never felt that was an infringement? Besides, what Az did was insist that the law is enforced and nothing more.
1. No one normally stops or detains you purely to see if you are carrying a gun unless there is suspicion that you are illegally carrying a gun or about to do something illegal.

2. "Checkpoints" on the highways are arguably a grotesque violation of the rights of legally traveling US citizens. I wholeheartedly take exception to being stopped and temporarily detained for NOTHING. Don't you? This is the same stupidity now taking place at airports...therein lies the entire problem...and the stickiness of the question. We know who might be a bomber/terrorist, but we stop ANYONE AND EVERYONE.

3. Define "minimal probable cause" as opposed to probable cause. It is either probable cause or it is not. What you most likely mean is smaller criminal offenses versus larger criminal offenses...but there is still PROBABLE cause. There is a big difference between stopping someone for possibly having broken a given law and stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin.

4. Asking for ID is probably the key to this question...this is perhaps the stickiest question surrounding all of this. How far do we go in acting against US citizens in the name of "security?"

5. Having a background check to purchase a firearm, which can be used in violent crimes, was and is still controversial, at least to certain degrees. How far can we go in an "background check?" What can and cannot be used to deny the right to bear arms. Note the word "right" in that question. What info can be secured, divulged, and then used against you in your quest to bear arms? What health reasons can be cited and used as leverage to deny the purchase? Define what grounds can be used to repeal your "right." Define how many times your "background" can be examined, once you've been "allowed" to exercise your "right." Does attempting to exercise your RIGHTS grant others unlimited access to your 'records?' Which others should be allowed access to what records? For how long? How often? Do rights have time limits? Are they inalienable? Or not?

I could go on with number 5. You make all of this sound so simple. Would that is should be, but it ain't, bernie, and I hope we all remember the incidents in the US that took place only within the last half century or so to demonstrate how abusive "government" can be in its quest for "order."

In can all spiral out of control and with great dispatch. Do a google search on "May 4th, 1970. See what you get. Those government "officials" thought they were "keeping order" too.
vc1111 is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 04:56 AM
  #46  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

1. I don't think (admittedly I don't know for sure) that the AZ law allows LEO's to stop someone just on suspicion of being an illegal. If that's not the case, it should be.

2. I can't speak for everywhere, but in my neck of the woods they are set up at strategic locations for a specific purpose--usually to catch drunk drivers. 'Course some folks get caught with various other violations--and often are let go with just a warning. Sure it's an inconvenience, but not nearly as inconvenient as having a drunk or dopehead smash into your car at 75 mph and killing you and your family. Just my opinion of course.

3. Minimal, to me, is an infraction that's not going to cause anyone any harm, but could garner you a ticket. Something the LEO could just as easily wave on through if he/she had more important things to worry about. Say you have an inspection sticker that expired a week ago--nobody's going to the hospital over that.

4 & 5 can get very complicated, or you can keep them very simple. You need an I.D. for pretty much anything and everything in every-day life, unless you are Amish. Want to use a credit card? Want to write a check? Want to buy liquor, tobacco, firearms or ammunition?

Actually it is simple, at least the way I see it. Driving/riding on a public road isn't a right, it's a priveledge--one you pay for in taxes, and having to show an I.D. when asked by an LEO. Just like having to show your wristband to get on a ride at the fair--you are showing you paid for the priveledge. Owning a firearm is a right that is infringed upon, but I don't see how that ties into illegals being asked for I.D. on a public road. Different topic to me.
LBR is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 05:29 AM
  #47  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,862
Default

Originally Posted by The Rev View Post
I don't think no one is taking anything away from them as far as work ethics and talent. 25 years ago illegals were doing work that most of us didn't want to do. Today, they are doing jobs that many unemployed Americans would like to have.
I manage several multi million dollar construction jobs at a time, most of the trades today incorporate at least 60 percent Hispanic, I'm not saying they are all illegals, however I wonder just how many are and are taking way from Americans.
Send back the illegals and our unemployment goes away!

It's not like illegal aliens are putting guns to American workers heads and taking their jobs away. What would make American unemployment go away even faster than sending the illegals back is to have American employers NOT hire illegals. It's just hilarious to see people pointing the finger at illegals when it's American business who is hiring them and thus keeping the flood gates open for them to keep coming in. It's the great American profit motive that prefers to pay the illegals less, and give them no fringe benefits in comparison to hiring Americans where it would cost them more and give them lower profits. If American business did not hire them we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem in this country, period.
Steve863 is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 05:37 AM
  #48  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

Recent development in terms of clarifying contexts in which people's citizenship status can be questioned.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-92495249.html
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 06:30 AM
  #49  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Business is not the only offender. They get hired by individuals for all sorts of things, for the same reason--to save money.

Either way you look at it, both are breaking the law. Is one lawbreaker better or worse than the other?
LBR is offline  
Old 04-30-2010, 06:55 AM
  #50  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,862
Default

Originally Posted by LBR View Post
Business is not the only offender. They get hired by individuals for all sorts of things, for the same reason--to save money.

Either way you look at it, both are breaking the law. Is one lawbreaker better or worse than the other?

Isn't the individual hiring them a business as well? He may be a one or two man operation, but by LAW he needs to report his earnings just like a business with 1000 employees needs to. If there were penalties put on anyone hiring or harboring illegals like the laws already stipulates, then you wouldn't have people coming to this country in nearly the numbers that they are if they knew they had a slim chance of finding any work here. Currently we have a law on the books that NO one does jack to enforce and thus the flood gates remain open. So YES, I think the American lawbreaker is worse in this case. Since they are the ones who encourage such illegal activity in the first place on our soil.
Steve863 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.