I’m glad you knew what I was talking about, but also disappointed that explanation was necessary.
It’s a truly sad state that so many people are so ignorant of history that they claim America is a Christian nation founded on Christian law, when in fact it was founded in part to escape government forcing any single religion (or religion in general) on citizens, and was founded on English common law which is Pagan, as it existed long before anyone in England had heard of Christ or Romans.

Just as incorrect as always, at least you're consistent.

1) All those things aren't rights, voting is. To remove a constitutional right should take more that a racist whim or the lack of a document. That should end your argument right there, but rationality and understanding my country's constitution isn't your strong suit.

2) buying smokes or liquor....not if you're over 25 or know a place.

3) getting a job....nope, only to get non cash job or benefits

4) getting a gun....not if it's a private sale

5)renting a house....nope, not true at all

6)getting married....not common law or religious marriage

7) I doubt you have an honest clue what's required to receive public assistance, but it's not a driver's license

Poor people don't do much of the rest of what you mention, they use cash, don't own a car, and don't travel.

These false excuses for violating the constitution and placing targeted obstacles in the path of mostly minorities to keep them from voting are brought to you by the anti voting rights party, Republicans, every election since voter protection was lifted and they could legally go after minorities voting rights again.
Odd, they weren't an issue before the court removed the coverage formula, making it nigh impossible to enforce voting rights.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

...the reason being, had the right implied this was their plan, or even a concern of theirs, the supreme court would have ruled that the protections are still needed and not removed said "coverage formula", which would bar most states from enacting any voting requirements, as they had historically proven and been ruled to be blatantly racially motivated.

Since that decision, republican led legislatures have tried everything but reinstating literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. Voter id laws and voter purges based on minor clerical errors (errors made by the same people who then decide the error makes the registration invalid, errors that happen 3/4 of the time to minorities in areas with less than 30% minority populations, while whites in the same areas are 1/4 the errors caught, but almost 3/4 the population) these purely Republican sponsored laws are blatantly targeting minorities because Republicans don't represent minorities so don't expect their votes.

Just so you know - I don't advocate shooting people - I really don't - but what is the actual protocol. because I'm feeling like you're saying it's okay to run anytime a police stops someone.

Edit: It's okay to say you don't know.


"At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight."

"...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/can-police-use-lethal-force-fleeing-suspect

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Trippoli-ratified unanimously and signed by then President John Adams. Clear enough for me.

The constitution is actually based on English common law, which existed there for centuries before they ever heard of that Jesus guy. If you want to worship based on the religion the constitution reinforces, burn that cross and beg Odin or a pagan tree god for forgiveness.

Funny that he doesn't offer any specific examples, huh?

Genesis 3 - The Fall

Now the Caterpie was more crafty than any other Pokemon of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Caterpie, Caterpie, Caterpie, Caterpie” And the woman said to the Caterpie, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you DIE.’”

But the Caterpie said to the woman, “Caterpie, Caterpie.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her common law husband who was with her, and he ate.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves thongs. But the woman was a feminist so she did NOT wear a bra. And Caterpie evolved into Metapod and Metapod thusly evolved into Butterfree and said to them, "Butterfree, Butterfree, Butterfree."

For most of our "civilized history", homosexuals have been attacked and murdered by people like him, not loved and encouraged. For most of our "civilized history" men have had the option to rape women with impunity.
If only, for most of our "civilized history", people like this were shunned when they could not be educated, we would be far more civilized.

Actually, Gohmert, what the founders said clearly was....."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" This statement was ratified unanimously by congress in 1797. The constitution was based on English Common Law, which existed in England long before the Romans brought Christianity, so if we are founded on a religious doctrine, it's PAGANISM, you fucking moron.

*promote the *fail

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.

It's correct that they are not legally married but they live together which makes them common-law married. At least where I come from.

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

English common law (and therefore law in the British Commonwealth and the US) originally was of the sort you describe; the victim petitioned his local magistrate for justice to be done and if a victim did not seek justice there was no action by those with legal jurisdiction

Over time, a larger bureaucracy developed and positions were created to enforce the local 'peace' on behalf of the local power (who could be anyone from a town magistrate to the king).

Eventually the jurisdiction of the king's court was universal and so criminal acts were considered 'breaking the king's peace' (which is different from the modern legal meaning of that phrase) and were dealt with by the courts.

To this day, criminal acts are considered offences against the whole community so the victim's feelings have no control over their prosecution.

In all 50 states a crime is against the state and can be tried by the local justice system, but the system routinely chooses not to pursue charges for various reasons. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Lithic Interesting, I guess at heart, I have a slight problem with prosecutions with the victim being "society". I find the idea of justice being between people, with perhaps minor exceptions. That case of child abuse, where the victim is unable to press charges on their own it makes sense, but in adult on adult crimes, seems to make less sense. In my way of thinking, it would also make laws like drug laws unable to be enforced, because there would be no person to take up charges. Just surface thinking atm, haven't really fleshed out the idea. They had something like what I am talking about in "the moon is a harsh mistress", where by any trial that happened had to be fronted by your own cash. Now, I don't supposed that exactly, but that for a trial to happen, there has to be an interested party that isn't the state.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it's about rights. She did absolutely nothing wrong by recording them from her yard. I'm just saying that she did participate in the pissing contest, then starting yelling in the street when she was getting arrested. She had the whole thing on tape, so didn't need to start yelling. Basically I think she's a 'tard. BUT, I think the cops are even BIGGER retards! It could have been handled better by both sides.

Just being devil's advocate here.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^pierrekrahn:
My 2 cents: Everyone involved in these videos are completely retarded!!
The cops are retarded for sending 3 cop cars to issue tickets for minor infractions.
Emily Rose is retarded for playing the victim card too often.
Even though that one car was 12.5" from the curb, it's still technically illegally parked! 99.9999% of cops would have let that one slide (you know, using common sense and all) but this cop was being a retard for issuing a ticket (although he wasn't in the wrong). Notice one cop pointed out one car for her to film, but she conveniently edited it out? Perhaps it was 18-24" from the curb!?
In the first video, why did she feel that she needed to stand in her yard filming the cops? Nothing unusual was going on. Yes, she wasn't doing anything illegal by filming them. But the situation turning into a grade school pissing match. Both sides were harassing each other. Everyone involved is retarded!

It's about rights, you either have them or you don't. Rights are constantly being shifted in one way or another depending on federal law, common law and where you live. Common law often relies upon the definition of what an 'ordinary person' should be allowed to do, or how that person would think, or act.
Many people (as evidenced by the comments above) think that holding a video camera in one's own yard should be within their rights. Many people are also aware that the government uses various excuses to try to erode the rights and privacy of citizens - the 'war on terror', and the 'war on drugs' are a couple of examples. These same people wish to push back, and without people like this, the laws that protect your individual rights (that you take for granted) will erode.
So I guess my point is that whether or not you take your personal liberties seriously, some people do, and the effort these people go to benefits everyone.

>> ^pierrekrahn:

My 2 cents: Everyone involved in these videos are completely retarded!!
The cops are retarded for sending 3 cop cars to issue tickets for minor infractions.
Emily Rose is retarded for playing the victim card too often.
Even though that one car was 12.5" from the curb, it's still technically illegally parked! 99.9999% of cops would have let that one slide (you know, using common sense and all) but this cop was being a retard for issuing a ticket (although he wasn't in the wrong). Notice one cop pointed out one car for her to film, but she conveniently edited it out? Perhaps it was 18-24" from the curb!?
In the first video, why did she feel that she needed to stand in her yard filming the cops? Nothing unusual was going on. Yes, she wasn't doing anything illegal by filming them. But the situation turning into a grade school pissing match. Both sides were harassing each other. Everyone involved is retarded!


It's about rights, you either have them or you don't. Rights are constantly being shifted in one way or another depending on federal law, common law and where you live. Common law often relies upon the definition of what an 'ordinary person' should be allowed to do, or how that person would think, or act.

Many people (as evidenced by the comments above) think that holding a video camera in one's own yard should be within their rights. Many people are also aware that the government uses various excuses to try to erode the rights and privacy of citizens - the 'war on terror', and the 'war on drugs' are a couple of examples. These same people wish to push back, and without people like this, the laws that protect your individual rights (that you take for granted) will erode.

So I guess my point is that whether or not you take your personal liberties seriously, some people do, and the effort these people go to benefits everyone.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Look up the freeman movement and the distinction between common law and admiralty law

@Psychologic, I think if there's substantial and provable and reasonable risk involved on private property where human life is threatened, and creating a nuclear bomb would pose such a risk, then restrictions to personal freedom are reasonable.

I think the large distinction here is what the article above points out: that these restrictions should be "set by the consensus of juries, not legislatures, whose job in common law is to set guidelines."

I think what's important about the article above, which I haven't done any leg work to ensure any of it is accurate, is that creation of nuclear weapons currently is not illegal. And you don't see the what Libertarians term the "crazy evil Bill Gates" building an army of nukes or any nukes for that matter.

@Psychologic, I did touch on that here.

But here's a more thought out Libertarian position on nuclear weapon ownership:
http://www.bestsyndication.com/2005/A-H/DAVIS-Mike/112505_nuclear_weapons.htm

An excerpt from that article: "Libertarianism implies simply that nuclear weapons, along with all weapons, should be privately owned, and kept in a safe place according to common practice (set by the consensus of juries, not legislatures, whose job in common law is to set guidelines) , actual possession likely being in e.g. community armories. Such ownership serves as a valuable check against central ownership by tyrants and all that implies e.g. Chernobyl."