Free choice from the wrong end of a gun aint free choice.

Remember, from HER perspective, the ATF are trigger happy thugs who don’t mind killing innocent (e.g, Waco). I’m not endorsing her view, but its not way out there, and IS kinda supported by the treatment she was receiving.

Don’t forget that they had no qualms violating other constitutional rights, and appear to have no problems making stuff up. The could have jailed her for a period of time. They could have impounded her van for more thorough searching, and gotten it back all ripped up looking for contraband, with no realistic prospect of reimbursement. All to determine if she was a “risk,” you see.

I think in this situation I would probably have done exactly the same that she did. I’m not a wuss, but I’m also not an idiot.

Should be addressed to “T-Dawg” not “T-Bone.” Mea culpa.

In theory, individuals, as the only beings capable of action, are the possessors of inalienable rights.

In practice, once the State exists, individuals are subordinated to the State’s dictates of force.

Re: truthtellers — “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” M.K. Gandhi

“That’s how “God-given” rights are determined.”

Your argument is a non-sequitur, Brandon.

The supporting text for your argument, as you and I and everyone here knows, comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally-binding document in any sense of the term (not that the Constitution is legally-binding either, but it at least has the appearance of being legally-binding).

The Dec. of Ind. is beautiful, seductive, forked-tongued poetry of the highest order. It is a religious sermon. as beloved and immune to scrutiny as the Sermon on the Mount.

You yourself are living proof of its seductive capacity.

The fact remains that you as an individual possess no rights for which you personally are unwilling to fight and die for. or to live forever as an outcast. If you live in society, you play by society’s rules or not at all, and it is the State that creates, interprets and enforces those rules — with an eye toward its own preservation first and above all.

“First comes food, then comes morality.” Bertoldt Brecht

T-Bone, though your snark might garner negative karma, it is your failure to establish a relevant premise that causes your quip to fall flat.

The phrase “we still have rights” presumes there was a time when individuals actually possessed rights. While conceivably true before the advent of the State, since that fateful day when man first understood that his fellow man was part of the environment to be controlled, rights have not existed.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re harking back to the glory days of the founding of the American Republic, no?

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” J.W. Von Goethe

I guess citizens must respect the government’s right to privacy, but to hell with ours. Well, apparently the judge didn’t feel the same way, thank God. Now if we could just get similar rulings for the many thousands of people who’ve had their rights to privacy trampled by government goons in drug raids and asset forfeitures, we’d get a little closer to cowing our out-of-control federal government.

125 W Romana St Ste 202, Pensacola, FL 32502-5848

Owner of said building:
ONE PENSACOLA PLAZA LLC
125 W ROMANA ST STE 720
PENSACOLA, FL 32501

It IS private property.

#28 | Boyd Durkin | October 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

How are “god-given” rights determined? Does the flying spaghetti monster know about this?

And this is why I stay away from that term.

Actually Rights of individuals as negative rights are essentially inalienable. So the government can decide what rights it wants to enforce/or not, but that doesn’t mean those rights cease to exist.

Your problem is that Boyd just justified the holocaust, Stalin’s forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. If the government gets to decide rights, then the government gets to decide WHO has what rights, and WHO doesn’t. Really sucks for all those Polish Jews. But hey, government decided that they didn’t have rights anymore, so I guess they didn’t.

That’s how “God-given” rights are determined. It’s pretty weak to ridicule the semantics of an argument instead of addressing the argument. Very ONDCP of you. Whatever you believe, these are the rights we have in this country, further defined in the Constitution, and the government does not have the authority to take them away. Pretending they do just makes them, as Radley puts it, thugs.

Google “Tony Creed task force raid,” We have no rights. I read about stuff like this all the time. An hour is not a detention, it is an arrest. In Karens case my opinion is it’s a false one. I’m really surprised the ACLU took it. On the left coast I haven’t noticed them paying any attention to people with last names like Kilpatrick.

Example: As the deposed king of Canada, I claim a right to all maple syrup. (Doesn’t pass the test)
Example: I have a right to not get eaten by a bear after smearing my body in bacon fat and hugging it’s cub. (Doesn’t pass the test)

The universe (cold and unyeilding as it is) still refuses to establish rights in any press statement I’ve seen. So…as stated…“Rights” in practice are what the government decides you have.

If the USG states you have a right to freedom of speech, but USG shoots anyone critical of USG then they really didn’t grant you that right. It’d be a good idea if they did, and they are lying, but it ain’t a right you actually are getting from them.

Finally, because I fear them, please support your local ATF, FBI, CIA, etc.

If she was in the parking lot during non-business hours, I can understand getting confronted. Back in the days when cops didn’t have to have a minimum amount of testosterone to qualify for being on the force, they would ask if you were lost or having car trouble, etc. But this whole thing smacks of retaliation for anti-authority bumperstickers. Would have been the same or maybe worse if she had a “legalize weed” bumpersticker.

Here’s a silly idea about being in a federal parking lot: unless it has restricted access (whether via security or posted signs), a person can drive around all they want. Unusual? Yes. Illegal? No. Being different doesn’t make one guilty … I argue the opposite that being the same as everyone else is a sign of something being wrong.