The war on terror isn't limited to abroad

[gregw45]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
raggie33 said:
i can deal with loseing fredoms if it makes us safer..

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel safer now?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34236
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32543
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30159
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29729
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26614



"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

 

[raggie33]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

all drug dealers deserve death peanlty

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

X... I really do believe that you deliberately mis-read things... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif ... I never said that I was against the death penalty. I never contradicted myself... however YOU did and I merely pointed that out. You want the death penalty but you don't want the laws to back it up... whereas, I have always said that I want both the laws and the penalty. Nowhere have I ever stated otherwise... which if I am to take your words as how you truly feel, that makes me less of a conservative than you... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Added for clarification... The opinion that "we don't need no stinkin' laws to support the death penalty" is an extremely right-wing philosophy. I don't even think you can call it ultra-conservatism because most conservatives that I know aren't even that far right. This is why I refer to your post as ultra-right wing... or else a contradiction.

 

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Az 13-3404.01 - Possession of chemical precursor chemicals II

A. A person shall not knowingly possess a precursor II or sell, transfer, or otherwise furnish a precursor chemical to unlawfully manufacture a dangerous drug or narcotic drug.

B. Class 2 Felony

Looking at the definitions of Precursor II I can't tell you what the brand name equivalent is.

The key word is knowingly....this is part of the "culpable mental state". If I can not demonstrate this then I can not arrest.

A lot is left to common sense. We also have the Rule of Construction which basically states that the provisions of the law must be construed to the fair provisions of their terms to promote justice.

An example is 13-1408 Adultery. In all my years I have never seen an arrest for this although we run across it in every day life, never seen it enforced.

Some laws are too expensive to remove from the books.

 

[Silviron]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

A very wise man once said:
He who trades freedom for security will soon have neither

 

[Bravo25]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
X-CalBR8 said:
Ok. I just tried to find my old links that I had collected back when I was researching the whole lithium battery/drug dealer laws,


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually this is common knowledge. Having worked in security for so long, we are repeatedly warned abut high sudifed, and lithium purchase/thefts for this very reason.

If you are suspected (not tried, not convicted) you can have you liberty, and your property taken from you.

Our founders gave there lives so that we wouldn't have to sacrafice liberty for security. What justice do we do them?

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
A very wise man once said:
He who trades freedom for security will soon have neither

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed 100%... and when we let these idiots run wild without any laws to stop them, we have neither freedom nor security... and it has nothing to do with the government. I'll take the laws... within reason.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Sasha said: "You want the death penalty but you don't want the laws to back it up."

I never said that I don't want laws against drug dealers. I just don't want laws that turn people such as myself into drug dealers just because of what we own, instead of what we actually *do* with what we own. I am also very upset to find out that my lithium batteries that I like so much, and keep large stock of, may one day send me to court, or worst case scenario, jail...

I also don't want laws that prohibit what I can own just because of what I *might* choose to do with it as well, such as restricting what kind of guns I can own or what kind of chemicals I can own in my own home. I don't need the government to tell me what it is safe or not safe for me to own. I am a grown man, supposedly a free man in a free country, and I should have the right to think and act for myself without the government doing my thinking for me.

If I want to buy a crate of TNT to blow up tree stumps, dirt clods or whatever the heck else of my own property that I want to blow up, I should be able to do so without being called a terrorist for merely what I own. This is the idea that I was trying to get across all along.

 

[Silviron]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Gee, I never realized that that could be taken two ways. Interesting.

I posted it in reply to Raggie's earlier post.

Of course I believe in the rule of law. And strict, rapid punishment of evil doers.

Vigilantism occasionally has some attraction too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/xyxgun.gif

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Bravo25... are your laws in Kansas different than here in Arizona? If not, then we "average" citizens actually DON'T have anything to fear. But I am curious... do you have copies of your laws?

RE: the bulk purchase of sudifed for allergies...

Most people that I know (myself included) who have such severe allergies go to a doctor and get prescription allergy meds. Even without insurance, it's cheaper than buying sudifed in such great quantities... even if it's on sale! In addition, sudifed comes in what? 12 packs? 24 packs? At one dose every 12 hours, that's a six or 12 day supply. The current limit here in Arizona is 2 boxes of 24. That's almost a month's worth... for allergies. Anything over that really isn't necessary, I would say unless of course your allergies are really that severe... in which case, I go back to my statement about going to a doctor and getting a prescription... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

@Bravo25: Well spoken.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

@Sasha: Concerning the allergy medicine, Sam's Club used to sell it very cheaply in very large quantities. That's where many people used to get them for a very low price, but now that we have all of these crazy laws, that is no longer an option.

Besides, from what I hear, the true drug dealers get around this very easily anyway because they will go to a large city and hit one drug store after the other buying the maximum that they will allow and they pay for the whole thing in cash so that it is 100% untraceable. So, again, we have stupid laws on the books that solve nothing, but make criminals out of innocent people and restrict our freedom needlessly.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

X... again... did you read what Chengiz posted?

"A person shall not knowingly possess a precursor II or sell, transfer, or otherwise furnish a precursor chemical to unlawfully manufacture a dangerous drug or narcotic drug."

There is a HUGE difference between that and what you are describing. If you don't see that, then that is on you but don't try to inflict YOUR misunderstanding of the law and paranoia on me. I understand it just fine... and as I've said numerous times in this thread, I have nothing to fear... and I enjoy all of my freedoms without restraint.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
Silviron said:
Vigilantism occasionally has some attraction too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/xyxgun.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me about it! You should meet my neighbors... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

@Sasha: That is that law, it is not the one that I was referring to. The ones that I'm referring to is simply having possession on your property of a certain quantity of these precursors, whether you even know that you can make drugs out of them or not. Besides, how can you prove in court that you *don't* know how to make drugs with the items that you posses anyway? It's simply impossible to prove what you don't know. I can definitely see people being railroaded into jail with such faulty laws.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Besides, just look at that law that was quoted: "A person shall not knowingly possess a precursor II or sell, transfer, or otherwise furnish a precursor chemical to unlawfully manufacture a dangerous drug or narcotic drug."

That says that you can't own a precursor II in order to unlawfully manufacture a dangerous drug. Well, I would like to know how anyone could ever be taken to jail the way that that law is written anyway because you have to *prove* what someone was going to do with their property in order for them to qualify as a drug dealer under that law and the last that I checked, you can't prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" what anybody is *going* to do in the future. You can strongly suspect them of it, but you could never *prove* it unless you actually caught them in the act and if you caught them in the act, then you wouldn't need this senseless law anyway because there are already laws against manufacturing meth and you would just charge them with that.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
The ones that I'm referring to is simply having possession on your property of a certain quantity of these precursors, whether you even know that you can make drugs out of them or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Show them to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I would like to know how anyone could ever be taken to jail the way that that law is written ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then I guess you have nothing to worry about, do you? My point proven... thank you... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[Silviron]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Gee Sasha. I'm surprised. If I were your (and Chengiz') neighbor, I'd be very well behaved. After all, he is PAID to carry a gun and enforce the laws, and you are .... well,...You are YOU. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

He is well behaved...........after we had a little discussion. I get to do my job. I don't do my job at home. If I do my job at home that means I invest more time than I normally would have on the job. More time = better case development. Better case development = long prison terms. He no longer does his "job" from his house.

Sadly he is a nice guy when he is sober. He would actually do well in society if he wasn't chasing a high all the time.

Back to X, yep they go store to store in numbers legally purchasing the appropriate amounts. Mostly they go to a couple of stores and steal large amounts. But it is usually not fruitful, they get reported and we get them on theft. While inventorying their vehicle we find the other precursors in large quantities. We write the warrant and get the lab.

Simple, not once have we jacked up a citizen. Have we let cooks go, yep. It is the way it is. If I had a regular life I would concerned as X and some of the others. But I see how this is implemented and have no problem with it. If you can ride with your local law enforcement and see how they do business. See how difficult it is to chase the bad guys. See how the average citizen can actually do more harm to chasing the bad guy than good. It is not intentional. The average person could not spot a tweeker if in the same room with one. But the average citizen knows that his neighbors leaves blowing into his yard is a crime and will demand enforcement. Go for a ride, enjoy the show. Then you will understand that sometimes we need legislative help.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Well, Sasha, the problem is the fact that people *do* go to jail under that law and face quite a long mandatory drug sentence, when convicted. I believe that I could defend myself against such a stupid law if I had to, but why should anybody *have* to go to court just to prove that they are innocent and what about all of the people out there that are just too stupid to properly defend themselves?

This is why the founding fathers set the country up as they originally did so that innocent people wouldn't have to prove themselves innocent in court. That's where the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing started, but I believe that there are very few out there that would see our judicial system as being anything other than guilty till proven innocent these days, once there is enough circumstantial evidence to go to trial in the first place.

This whole law seems to be nothing but a circumstantial evidence law in the first place, because you can never prove what somebody is or isn't going to do in the future, with what they currently own.

I (as well as most other here, I would speculate), for instance, probably have all of the necessary components to make meth right now in our possession, but I could never prove that I was *not* going to do so in the future. All that anyone could do is to argue the point. This would not qualify as justice, this is only the state's word against yours, which is nothing more than an argument, not justice.

I really do think that we are nearly on the same page here. We both seem to agree that something should be done with those that really are making meth out there and are helping to destroy weak willed people's lives, but we seem to be disagreeing on who actually qualifies as a drug manufacturer, apparently.