screw the constitution, screw the 2nd admendment

[yokinazu]

welcome to the socialist states of america

Totalitarianism in One City: Shreveportâ??s Gun-Grabbing Mayor
by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
Recently by William Norman Grigg: An American 'Yezhovschina'?




Any time a motorist is stopped by a police officer, insists Shreveport, Louisiana Mayor Cedric Glover, "Your rights ... have been suspended." This includes not only the freedom of movement, but also, in the event the officer inquires as to whether the driver is carrying a weapon, "Your right to be able to hold on to your weapon and say whether [you] have a weapon or not" â?? as well as the right to retain possession of that weapon, should the officer decide to confiscate it from you.

Should you choose not to answer the question, or answer it in the negative, the officer could still choose, "in the interest of officer safety, to secure you in a safe position" â?? this most likely means outside the car with your hands cuffed behind your back â?? "and then do an appropriate inspection of your vehicle."

The phrase "appropriate inspection" is more honestly rendered "Unconstitutional warrantless search."

Should the police officer then turn up a firearm or other weapon in the car, the driver "would be guilty or potentially guilty of even a more severe offense" than whatever he had allegedly done to precipitate the traffic stop, according to Mayor Glover. Police officers, according to Glover, are invested with "a power that the President of the United States does not have ... and that is the ability to be able to suspend your rights."

This is "one of the things that I say to each and every one of the police officers who graduates from the Shreveport Police Academy since I've been mayor." Fortunately for the public, one supposes, Mr. Glover remembers the lesson that Peter Parker learned from his kindly and sagacious uncle Ben â?? that is, with great power comes great responsibility. "You have to understand there is a great deal of power that is vested within ... the law enforcement personnel of this country," Glover insists. "It's why there is a great deal of responsibility that has to go along with it."

Glover offered those remarkable observations, and many others like them, in a recorded phone call with Shreveport resident Robert Baillio.


Mr. Baillio had called to complain about a recent traffic stop in which an SPD officer, who â?? before dealing with any other matter of business â?? asked if Baillio had a firearm, then temporarily seized it from him.

Louisiana law recognizes the right of the state's residents to carry loaded weapons in their vehicles, and Baillio has a state-issued concealed carry permit â?? that is, a piece of paper in which the state generously recognizes one facet of Baillio's innate right to bear arms.

According to Baillio's account, he was cordial and polite when he was stopped after supposedly neglecting to use a turn signal. That this was almost certainly a pretext stop is illustrated by the fact that Baillio never received a ticket. Supplemental evidence is offered by the fact that the conversation between the officer and Baillio focused entirely on the issue of gun ownership, including a question about Baillio's membership in the National Rifle Association.

Baillio doesn't conceal his NRA membership; it's advertised by a sticker on the rear windshield of his truck, as are his very passionate views of the right to armed self-defense. "Armed We Are Citizens! Un-Armed We Are Subjects!" exclaims another bumper sticker, expressing a core truth of our republican heritage. Yet another sticker displays various kinds and grades of ammunition captioned by the directive, "Celebrate Diversity."

It's the safest of bets that what triggered the stop, as it were, was not a traffic infraction by Baillio, but rather the police officer's conditioned reflex to treat the public expression of pro-gun ownership sentiments as innately suspicious.


In brief, Baillio was a victim of political profiling of the sort being encouraged by the Department of Homeland Security and the totalitarian "watchdog" groups who have spent decades indoctrinating the police.

In his telephone chat with Glover, Baillio â?? who was persistent but unfailingly polite â?? pointed out that he "answered the [officer's] question honestly and he disarmed me."

"Which would be appropriate and proper action, sir," replied Glover. "The fact that you gave the correct answer â?? it simply means that you did what you were supposed to do and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would be no threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public."

"Well, you know, he still had a gun," observed Baillio, hoping to underscore the fact that guns â?? as objects, rather than actors â?? do not pose a "threat" in and of themselves. "How is he â?? "

"Because he's a police officer," interjected Baillio before he could finish the question. "As I've just related to you, that police officer has powers, sir, that you do not have."

Let's unpack that reply, shall we?

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

Glover, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, clearly believes that any firearms in civilian hands should be considered illicit. This is, in both a cultural and constitutional sense, entirely un-American.

Interestingly, it is in harmony with the UN's position, however, as summarized in the world body's 2000 agitprop film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms. That film insists that the only "legal" weapons are those "used by armies and police forces to protect us" â?? as if the word "protection" describes the uses to which weapons are put by the enforcement organs of the criminal states that compose the UN.

It is his attitudes toward civilian firearms ownership and the plenary power of police, not his ethnicity or any similar accident of birth, that would make Glover a very suitable ruler of any of the scores of squalid Third World thugocracies represented in the UN.

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun â?? willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question. This is because police officers, as numinous beings anointed by the Holy State, exude the essence of pure goodness and would never commit acts of criminal violence against disarmed civilians.



the artcle goes on to talk of other civil rights cases brought up against the shreveport PD.

but this is what prompted this: friday i saw the whole whole thing, including the telephone call that was recorded. the mayor said " screw the constitution and screw the 2nd admendment." i unfortunitly cannot find the phone call to post.

if anyone else could find more info and post it please do so.

yokinazu Reviewed by yokinazu on 07-06-2009. screw the constitution, screw the 2nd admendment welcome to the socialist states of america Totalitarianism in One City: Shreveportâ??s Gun-Grabbing Mayor by William Norman Grigg by William Norman Grigg Recently by William Norman Grigg: An American 'Yezhovschina'? Rating: 5

[killerweed420]

This also falls under the 4th Amendment protections. You don not have to say a word to a cop other than to identify yourself.

[headshake]

not to mention, the cop either has to tell you that you are or are not receiving a citation and for what. if he says no, then you are free to be on your way, if yes, then you obviously have to wait, but as soon as you have the citation you are free to go.

as far as the mayor, he's scum and should be executed! the voters of that city need to know about this so this type of a$$hole doesn't get elected again.

as for the police, what a joke. they have no judicial authority, there job is to uphold the law, not to try to interpret the law. harrasment is not upholding the law. this makes me angry. anyone in public service that in any way does something that's not for the people should be executed.

as far as our country, what a lost soul she is. barack is even getting harrassed by his own party because he's too much of a "rockstar" and not enough of a president. he's too busy worrying about getting on tv and being popular. i mean hell, in the polls people still like barack the person more than they like barack the president.

not to mention, this shows capitalism at it's finest. the guns are for police and military. where do they suppose these people come from? oh wait, the ordinary citizens! but as soon as these gun companies sell their product to the general public the system doesn't work. these same companies that lobby millions of dollars to politicians legally.

sorry for the rant, but this type of thing really gets under my skin. exactly why this country is going to have a revolution soon rather than later!


-shake

[JD1stTimer]

If only this problem were not pervasive at all levels of our government. The worst part of it is that only a tiny fraction of the people seem to care about freedoms which they personally don't have an interest in indulging. "I don't shoot, so what if you can't have a gun. I don't toke, so what if you can't have weed. I like sports and I don't like arts, I'm glad you have to give up your money to build stadiums, just don't make my tax money pay for an auditorium."

I was thinking Saturday about the birth of a nation which is no more. Once there was a nation called The United States of America, founded on the principle that each person is the sole arbiter of his own choices and morality, and the only functions of the state were to protect the citizens against foreign and domestic enemies, provide postal roads, maintain a common currency and standards of weights and measures and enforce contracts. This was to be paid for by tariffs. They pre-emptively nullified all laws the Congress might make which would impede your peaceful activities, movement, commerce, association, assembly, speech, printing (and by logical extension reading), religion, rights to lawfully gained property, and self-protection.

Our nation is still called The United States of America. The Constitution still exists in the National Archives. This is the only vestige of what was once a free nation.

I suppose all the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution are read very literally as referring to the actual paper on which it is written, rather than it's use as a test of the validity of law. So I suppose as long as they keep it displayed upright instead of put in a shelf and it doesn't actually get physically damaged then they have fulfilled their oath.

Of course, since most people are not targets of government coercion then obviously it isn't really happening. It's never anything but the ranting of kooks until either rebellions break out, people are taxed so heavily they can't buy new flatscreens or pogroms are succesfully carried out and discovered by human rights watchdogs in foreign countries.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.....this shows capitalism at it's finest. the guns are for police and military.....

i'm not quite sure how you can see this as a product of a capitalistic society. though a capitalistic economy may be subverted by a totalitarian regime, such an economy is essentially egalitarian in nature. it is only human nature that consolidates power under such a system, the forced centralization of power does not exist as it does under a socialist system, the power of the economy is held in the hands of the people instead of just those with political power.

The worst part of it is that only a tiny fraction of the people seem to care about freedoms which they personally don't have an interest in indulging.

such is always the case before the rise of a totalitarian regime from a free nation. it is our own selfish natures that allows our freedoms to be slowly stripped away from us, each part of society concerning itself only with the furthering of its own agenda at the cost of the freedoms of all others.

[headshake]

i'm not referring to our economy per se, i'm referrering to the fact capitalism is our government. if you believe our econonmy is egalitarian then you are sadly mistaken. there might be the false pretense of egalitarinism, but that's not the way it is.

america is controlled by the large corporations. the large corporations are the ones the make the laws of our contry. lobbying is legal vote buying.

the supreme court already decided that people have the right to bear arms. (there was an argument that this was meant for state militias as opposed to everyday citizens.) so harrassing people over rights which they have, that are "inalienable" is purely capitalistic. it might only be an underlying tone here, but it's there. where do you think the money comes from to pay the mayor of shreveport? why else would this be an issue?

in what country do you live in where we have a choice how money is spent? i didn't vote to give GM money, but the governemnt did it anyway. now they own 60% of GM.

is the federal reserve bank a public institution? no it's private. the whole backbone of our economy is held in check by the private sector.

i do agree that people have the ability to use the economy to make statements, but most people in this country are too lazy, too stupid or just don't care.

does our government care about us? HELL NO! they want us to be sheep. to pay our taxes and be good little soldiers. to not question the system. it's the same reason that the government is scared of art. art has the ability to cross boundries and unify people. putting labels on people, no matter how honest they may be, only creates rifts, which leads to seperation, which, in turn leads to keeping people under the boot of "the man".

our country does use every chance they get to take our rights away. usually with kneejerk reactions. they don't think long term. they don't care. hell, they knew social security would fail when they started it.

it's only human nature to consolidate what power?

i'm not trying to get in a pissing match with you. the bottom line is that everything that happens in this country happens over money. so the very problem with the system is capitalism. that's the reason our founding fathers wrote in such an open ended way. they knew something would go awry. they just never dreamed in a thousand years that it would be our economy, or capitalism, that would be our downfall.


-shake

[yokinazu]

capitalism is not evil. socialism is not evil. no form of gov't in itself is evil. but all forms of goverment eventually fail and usally fail because of greed.


any way the reason i started this was because i heard that this mayor actyally said screw the constitution, screw the second admendtment. i listened to a radio interveiw with mr baillio and not once did he mention it. so im starting to think the quote was made up. but that still does not excuse his ignorance of americans ,or hell anyone in the US, rights. rumor here in baton rouge is that he was only elected thru the good ol boy network i.e.: he knows everyone in town with money.

[the image reaper]

corruption ?, in Louisiana politics ? ... tell me, it's not so ! :wtf: (I lived in Bossier City for awhile, back in the mid-70's, no corruption, there) :S2:

[Markass]

This also falls under the 4th Amendment protections. You don not have to say a word to a cop other than to identify yourself.

actually the fourth is unreasonable search and seizure, you're thinking of the fifth which pretains to no self incrimination

[crabbyback]

There is an entire population in our country that thinks the government should do "everything" for the people, including keep them safe from themselves and every possible mishap. So, they are willing to give away all of our freedoms for their safety.

Case in point, sometime ago I was on a popular web site dedicated to missing children. The prevailing view of posters on that site seemed to be that the government (be it local, state, fed, whatever) should have the absolute right to remove children from any home deemed "unfit" at any time. Who gets to decide "unfit"? This entire attitude scared me to no end and I left that site because my own beliefs are so different. Anyone who reads history knows that totalitarian government always wants to indoctrinate the young. These people truly cannot see where it ultimately leads.

A while back, in a less enlightened time in my life, I thought gun control was a good thing. Then I read a book called, "Unintended Consequences" and I've never looked at things the same.

I'm ready for the revolution.