Paragould Ar

[iron grip]

It's not just about duck hunting any more... how about some civil rights violations.

The fun begins:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339334

[RedEyed Duck]

Saw that a few days ago, this tuff will get even more crazy before it settles down.

[Imbred_Goldfish]

If I was unfortunate enough to live in Methagould I wouldn't mind them stopping me to ask what I was up to. I grew up in Jonesboro (~15-20 minutes away) and even 10 years ago I wouldn't have felt comfortable leaving my vehicle parked in that town.

[huntsober]

Clarksdale Ms. needs this everyday

[farmerc83]

I'm all for it and wish many other towns would do the same. As for the unlawful search and seizure, road blocks with cops checking licenses, insurance cards, inspection stickers and plates are no different. Its hard for me to understand how a law abiding citizen that wishes for a safer place to live could be against this.

[tombstone]

Clarksdale Ms. needs this everyday

ha, who you telling

that junk is childs play compared to this freakin combat zone. They are fussing about it and I would love it. Maybe they could cut down on the cockroaches at night. Cold weather deters them a bit, but as warm as it has been, these non swimmers roam in packs of 12-15 without fear or abandon. If they decide to grab something they grab it, chunk bricks, tear up l;ayground equipemnt at schools, break windows, holler and just generally act like the natives they are. I say don't question em, i say pepper spray em, beat them with an asp baton, and leave em flouncing in the street.

[southdeltan]

I'm all for it and wish many other towns would do the same. As for the unlawful search and seizure, road blocks with cops checking licenses, insurance cards, inspection stickers and plates are no different. Its hard for me to understand how a law abiding citizen that wishes for a safer place to live could be against this.

Licenses, insurance, inspection stickers and license plates are all reasonable requirements for driving. They verify that you have passed a test indicating you understand basic driving rules, that you've paid taxes, that your vehicle meets safety requirements (which are pretty lax, but I digress), and you have the ability to pay for any damages you may cause while driving.

A person who has done no wrong should not have to justify/explain where/why they are going somewhere.

I can't understand why any freedom loving American would want to give up their 4th amendment rights.

[huntsober]

Wasnt it just last month a 17 yo broke in on a 88 yo lady, beat her to death and set her on fire. If not Marshall Law.....then I say Clarksdale needs to call the Guardian Angles and have them walk the street.

[farmerc83]

I'm all for it and wish many other towns would do the same. As for the unlawful search and seizure, road blocks with cops checking licenses, insurance cards, inspection stickers and plates are no different. Its hard for me to understand how a law abiding citizen that wishes for a safer place to live could be against this.

Licenses, insurance, inspection stickers and license plates are all reasonable requirements for driving. They verify that you have passed a test indicating you understand basic driving rules, that you've paid taxes, that your vehicle meets safety requirements (which are pretty lax, but I digress), and you have the ability to pay for any damages you may cause while driving.

A person who has done no wrong should not have to justify/explain where/why they are going somewhere.

I can't understand why any freedom loving American would want to give up their 4th amendment rights.

So someone walking down a public road has no responsibility? I say they have several responsibilities. They should be a legal citizen that is not under the influence and not in possession of anything unlawful, be it a weapon or substance. Just like anything else, common sense and decency should be exercised by all parties involved, or it could be a bad situation. Sounds like this town is already in a pretty bad situation tho, and we know of many others just like it.

[southdeltan]

So someone walking down a public road has no responsibility? I say they have several responsibilities. They should be a legal citizen that is not under the influence and not in possession of anything unlawful, be it a weapon or substance. Just like anything else, common sense and decency should be exercised by all parties involved, or it could be a bad situation. Sounds like this town is already in a pretty bad situation tho, and we know of many others just like it.

I'm going to assume that the mayor meant walking on sidewalks. Walking on public road will likely get you a jaywalking citation. I should not have to explain why I am walking on a sidewalk. Period.

There was nothing in this article that stated they were going after people who were publicly under the influence - and even so, there already are laws against this. They stated they were going to ask everybody where they were going and if you don't tell you will go to jail.

That is illegal. It's none of their business where I am going. I endorse the 4th amendment just as I do the 2nd amendment.

I'd suppose you wouldn't mind them searching your home/property if there were known meth labs in your neighborhood? If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Perhaps you'd allow Obama to inventory your guns to make sure none of them are fully automatic, or stolen, etc. People do illegal things, we should all lose our right to privacy and personal freedoms for the safety of all.

[camlock]

So someone walking down a public road has no responsibility? I say they have several responsibilities. They should be a legal citizen that is not under the influence and not in possession of anything unlawful, be it a weapon or substance. Just like anything else, common sense and decency should be exercised by all parties involved, or it could be a bad situation. Sounds like this town is already in a pretty bad situation tho, and we know of many others just like it.

I'm going to assume that the mayor meant walking on sidewalks. Walking on public road will likely get you a jaywalking citation. I should not have to explain why I am walking on a sidewalk. Period.

There was nothing in this article that stated they were going after people who were publicly under the influence - and even so, there already are laws against this. They stated they were going to ask everybody where they were going and if you don't tell you will go to jail.

That is illegal. It's none of their business where I am going. I endorse the 4th amendment just as I do the 2nd amendment.

I'd suppose you wouldn't mind them searching your home/property if there were known meth labs in your neighborhood? If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Perhaps you'd allow Obama to inventory your guns to make sure none of them are fully automatic, or stolen, etc. People do illegal things, we should all lose our right to privacy and personal freedoms for the safety of all.

Since we are assuming, I am going to assume you don't have a real concept of the situations that exist in these places and how these measures might be necessary and helpful...I live in Baton Rouge, and for the safety of my wife and children I'd love to be stopped along with others to know anybody out roaming wasn't looking to harm me or my family or property and I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if anybody I've seen roaming around is gonna bust through my door in the middle of the night or steal from my property...and worse off do it while I'm not home and my wife is home alone with my little boys....and I'm sure in context, some places don't need this type policy and it would be a sort of violation...but this is the type intrusion of responsible concerned Americans we need to try and help a failing society in many areas.

[farmerc83]

So someone walking down a public road has no responsibility? I say they have several responsibilities. They should be a legal citizen that is not under the influence and not in possession of anything unlawful, be it a weapon or substance. Just like anything else, common sense and decency should be exercised by all parties involved, or it could be a bad situation. Sounds like this town is already in a pretty bad situation tho, and we know of many others just like it.

I'm going to assume that the mayor meant walking on sidewalks. Walking on public road will likely get you a jaywalking citation. I should not have to explain why I am walking on a sidewalk. Period.

There was nothing in this article that stated they were going after people who were publicly under the influence - and even so, there already are laws against this. They stated they were going to ask everybody where they were going and if you don't tell you will go to jail.

That is illegal. It's none of their business where I am going. I endorse the 4th amendment just as I do the 2nd amendment.

I'd suppose you wouldn't mind them searching your home/property if there were known meth labs in your neighborhood? If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Perhaps you'd allow Obama to inventory your guns to make sure none of them are fully automatic, or stolen, etc. People do illegal things, we should all lose our right to privacy and personal freedoms for the safety of all.

You raise some good points, and overall, I think we agree on personal rights and freedoms. Of course I don't think homes/property should be open to any type of search without the proper warrant. I agree that would be ridiculous.

However, on your comment about sidewalks, there are many situations where that is incorrect since sidewalks are generally public right of way. If they were not public right of way, then unless you are on a sidewalk just on your property, you'd be trespassing. In my opinion, your argument seems to be one of those "cut your nose off to spite your face" types. If the sidewalk/street/yellow brick road is too dangerous for law abiding citizens to use safely, then those individuals rights are already being infringed upon in a very immediate and tangible way. What good is an amendment that protects people from unlawful search and seizure when in public if they are too afraid to leave their homes?

[southdeltan]

Since we are assuming, I am going to assume you don't have a real concept of the situations that exist in these places and how these measures might be necessary and helpful...I live in Baton Rouge, and for the safety of my wife and children I'd love to be stopped along with others to know anybody out roaming wasn't looking to harm me or my family or property and I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if anybody I've seen roaming around is gonna bust through my door in the middle of the night or steal from my property...and worse off do it while I'm not home and my wife is home alone with my little boys....and I'm sure in context, some places don't need this type policy and it would be a sort of violation...but this is the type intrusion of responsible concerned Americans we need to try and help a failing society in many areas.

I'd say that my assumption would be a likely one, since if they were walking on the public road they could just arrest the person for jaywalking.

It's a violation no matter where you are. If I lived in a place that was unsafe I wouldn't depend on LEO to protect me when if they could handle their job the area wouldn't be unsafe. I'd move, but that's me.

If failures in society are what we are up against, the increase in random mass shootings could theoritically be lowered by bans on those weapons, confiscation of those firearms, or huge taxes on ammunition.

So, if there were people cooking meth, selling drugs, running a prostitution ring, etc - you would not mind the Obama administration having officers come to your door - ask to search your house, and arrest you if you refuse?

[southdeltan]

You raise some good points, and overall, I think we agree on personal rights and freedoms. Of course I don't think homes/property should be open to any type of search without the proper warrant. I agree that would be ridiculous.

However, on your comment about sidewalks, there are many situations where that is incorrect since sidewalks are generally public right of way. If they were not public right of way, then unless you are on a sidewalk just on your property, you'd be trespassing. In my opinion, your argument seems to be one of those "cut your nose off to spite your face" types. If the sidewalk/street/yellow brick road is too dangerous for law abiding citizens to use safely, then those individuals rights are already being infringed upon in a very immediate and tangible way. What good is an amendment that protects people from unlawful search and seizure when in public if they are too afraid to leave their homes?

I certainly understand the points you make about safety - but I'm not giving up my freedom because the police (either through their fault, the local government, or courts) cannot or will not do their job.

Randomly stopping people and demanding to know what they are doing without any reasonable suspicion that they're breaking the law seems like something Stalin or Hitler would do. "Show me your papers". I'd think Americans would be above this.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Benjamin Franklin

[camlock]

Since we are assuming, I am going to assume you don't have a real concept of the situations that exist in these places and how these measures might be necessary and helpful...I live in Baton Rouge, and for the safety of my wife and children I'd love to be stopped along with others to know anybody out roaming wasn't looking to harm me or my family or property and I don't have to lie awake at night wondering if anybody I've seen roaming around is gonna bust through my door in the middle of the night or steal from my property...and worse off do it while I'm not home and my wife is home alone with my little boys....and I'm sure in context, some places don't need this type policy and it would be a sort of violation...but this is the type intrusion of responsible concerned Americans we need to try and help a failing society in many areas.

I'd say that my assumption would be a likely one, since if they were walking on the public road they could just arrest the person for jaywalking.

It's a violation no matter where you are. If I lived in a place that was unsafe I wouldn't depend on LEO to protect me when if they could handle their job the area wouldn't be unsafe. I'd move, but that's me.

If failures in society are what we are up against, the increase in random mass shootings could theoritically be lowered by bans on those weapons, confiscation of those firearms, or huge taxes on ammunition.

So, if there were people cooking meth, selling drugs, running a prostitution ring, etc - you would not mind the Obama administration having officers come to your door - ask to search your house, and arrest you if you refuse?

how many places have you been where people are arrested for jaywalking??? Also, given the scenario at hand and the answer to my first question...how many times do you think people are going to bother you as opposed to those they are actually looking for? You say what you think you would do b/c you aren't faced with doing it. You would rely on LEO as you do now in a peaceful manner, and you wouldn't up and move if you didn't have means and had to take major risk to the future or you are yours to do so; nevertheless you would want societal protection for you contribution to said society. And gun control in any form WILL NOT help given a problem of an eroding or failing society.

It comes to simply this in my mind...when it gets to a point that is actually so bad that the "Obama administration" or whomever is ruling body does have to do what you are referring to a worst case and actually intrude on your rights moreso than just confirming you are acting right and abiding the law proactively, you will wish smaller groups, towns, communities, etc had policed themselves a bit and tried to help prevent further erosion of our country. Very much in line with the ideals of the gun owners taking a stand to police and moderate itself to prevent being given a heavier hand.