No Subject

["Bart Chambers" <bartonc@annap.infi.net>]

Howdy Anton, Other fine Q-heads.  Is there an open seat at the table here?  Yes?
OK boys, deal me in.  BTW, there isn't a 3-rant limit here, is there...?

> My police officer buddy might disagree with you. He fears that these
> kinds of rulings make it a) more likely to instill hostility in the
> public causing more problems and b) hurting his efforts to bring back
> natural, unenforced respect for the department. 

Your buddy sounds like his head is properly assembled!  I might add, you sound 
thataway yerself!  You might enjoy the climate over on the Firearms list, where 
a couple of us Q-heads also reside...

>  These are major infringements on our liberty and freedom. These acts
> directly oppose the work of Thomas Jefferson who, in a moment of
> brilliance(regardless of his own shortcomings) brought us the Bill of
> Rights. Government was never met to infringe on our political freedom,
> spiritual freedom, personal freedom or economic freedom. As a people,
> these rulings, over time add up to a major risk to these freedoms. Do
> not misunderstand, many laws are helpful nor would it be possible with
> 260 million people, to have no government involvement.
>  Ben Franklin once said Those who would give up liberty for security
> deserve neither. At what point do we say "We are as safe as we can get.
> Lets except the risks involved with living life." No one made a cop
> become a cop. He/she who choses this path must except the risk or get a
> new line of work.
> My 2 cent soapbox speech

(the sound of thunderous applause for a speech that would make Mr. Jefferson 
beam with pride!)

(followed by loud groaning, as q-heads all over the world see Yer Kindly Ol' 
Unka Bart bring out the jar of "Mother Fletcher's patented Group-Tightener and 
all-purpose anti-foaming-about-the-mouth-parts Cream; shlosh on a healthy 
slathering, and proceed to put it to good use...)  By the way, my apologies to 
all our non-US brethern and sisters for this US-centric rant...

Our Brother, Dan Masi (not wanting to point any personal fingers here, just 
wouldn't want folks to think that this was Brother Anton's opinion) spoke:

> >This latest ruling is entirely apropriate, IMO.  If an officer
> >doesn't feel comfortable with a situation, he should have the right
> >to exercise some control.
> >
> >I can't believe that I'm defending traffic cops, after being
> >somewhat unfairly treated recently.  However, every time a cop
> >makes a traffic stop, there *is* some real risk to his person.
> >Asking people to step out of the car if he feels threatened isn't 
> >a whole lot to ask.

Well, no offense, Dan, but that's one opinion we don't share.  Asking for 
license and registration is not much to ask; asking one to forgo the protections
of the Constitution is *quite* another.

> >> (MY opinion - I think Reno is a jack-booted-thug and the justices
> >> have failed to uphold the constitution.)

(the chorus, in perfect Harmony sings AAAAAAahhhhh...mennnnnnn!)

> >[warning: rant mode ON]
> >My opinion: reading, interpreting, and living by the Constitution 
> >in a completely literal way is about as useful as doing the same
> >with the Bible.

Dan, if I may ever so politely observe, Horsefeathers!  When Sister 
Mary-Margaret reads *this*, she and the bishop are going to be ever so 
disappointed in you, especially in light of the promises you made the last time 
you fell asleep in her civics 101 course...but we won't go into that now...


There is not the slightest resemblance between the two documents.  The Bible is 
a religious work by authors unknown but who are believed by many to have been 
inspired by God, and who lived in times and societies so far removed from our 
own that the comparison boggles the mind. (the sound of a whole bunch of 
bogglin' goin' down...) (no, I don't know what bogglin sounds like either, use 
your imagination, for heaven's sake...)

The constitution is a secular document, written by men who were inspired by the 
excesses of one form of authoritarian government for the express purposes of 
providing the legal underpinnings for a government while simultaneously placing 
clear limits upon the *powers* of that government and ensuring that certain 
rights of the people would remain forever inviolate.

To do that, it enumerates limited, specific powers for the government, and 
recognizes certain specific rights of the people while at the same time, 
pointing out to all (especially the government) in the 9th Amendment, that ("The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to 
deny or disparage others retained by the people.") unlike the list of powers (of
the gov), the list of rights (of the People) is *not* limited to those expressly
recognized.

It is my humble view that it is the duty of every American citizen to know this.
And to read and understand the Constitution.  But you know me...what do I know?

I really don't want to offend you, but the philosophy you espouse is the first 
step towards a police state.  Having lived in one, I rather prefer not to repeat
the experience, thank you very much all the same!

Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart