Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution

[CityOfChicago]

I wanted to take a moment to first thank the new members of our social group for finding us and adding your names to ours. In just a few weeks, the group has grown from 4 members to 15. This thread represents the first "public" announcement of our group. So far, word has been spread via mouth and the links posted beneath many members signatures - a practice I like and encourage.

For those of you who have yet to learn of us or visit our group, I'd like to encourage you to do so. We are an informal group of LEO's, future LEO's, and LEO supporters who believe that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme document of our country and are committed to ensuring it's protection. Through reading and understanding of this document, and through intelligent discussion, we seek to protect it, as well as educate all LEO's about the liberties and securities it guarantees. Read who we are and what we have to say and, if you feel so compelled, please join you name to ours.

Though the name of this group is LEO's for the Constitution, membership is open for all RP members. Many RPers are spouses of LEO's, retired LEO's, and future LEO's - college students and Explorers. The discussion of the Constitution should be open to view and comment by these people, as it serves to both enrich the dialogue and increase communication between sworn LEO's and "civilians". Additionally, it is my hope that such discussion will ensure that LEO's recognize the importance of the Constitution, and more importantly recognize threats to it - be those threats individual actions or policy actions.

Again, thanks to all you who have already added your names to the list of those dedicated to preserving the Constitution, and thank you to all who have taken the time to read this and check us out.

[CityOfChicago]

Update for members

[Creeker]

I'm not a huge Gorilla fan, although I was a fan of Magilla once upon a time :D

[CityOfChicago]

:eek:

They are my favorite. I'm a member of the DFGFI and "adopt" a gorilla every year.

[mpd145]

This is actually a pretty cool group. I never knew of it until you posted a thread about it, very cool. +1

[tomtom83]

I'm new here and exploring the site and...WOW. I'd like to learn more about this group.

Upholding the Constitution AND saving gorillas? I'm afraid that the latter will prove to be much easier than the former. :eek:

Where is the connection though? Do you have plans to replace certain unwanted subjects with gorillas? That might actually work...

[CityOfChicago]

I wouldn't do that to the gorillas.

[Creeker]

I'm telling you, we could save more gorillas if we farmed them.

Its worked for many endangered species, especially outside of any Government action.

[CityOfChicago]

Or if we killed the people who kill them.

But this thread has diverged. Find our group. Read. Join. Post. Constitution is good - protect it.

Start a new thread for Gorillas and other endangered species.

[CityOfChicago]

Members please take a look at the group and the last couple comments. Please add your thoughts. Thanks.

[CityOfChicago]

This link is posted here, as it seems most appropriate. If you haven't tread it yet please do. Particularly the portion regarding the purpose of this group. I'd like to create a statement on what the group stands for, then create a mission statement/purpose. Comments are welcome.

There has been expressed interest in taking this group out of RP and into its own on the net in an attempt to gather a larger membership. We have been discussing a logo for the group. Please look at them and weigh in.

If you haven't checked us out, please do so, And please consider joining. This group exists for the betterment of LE and the protection of our liberty.

Arlington TX employee told US Flag is offensive

[HankB]

Well. Gorillas are good, but I got honked into a Save the Antelope group. I went for training on how to do it, and unbeknown to me, my first time out was filmed for training purposes. That's tough work! Anyway, after the first day, I realized that although it was worth it, at my age (68) I'm only good for one rescue per day.

I can't post links yet, but maybe this will fly.

[LittlePinky82]

My question: is it about ALL of the Constitution or just the second amendment? There are other amendments that are just as important. I wish people were as passionate about the fourth, fifth, sixth, fourteenth etc. as much as the second. :rolleyes:

[CityOfChicago]

It's about much more than the 2nd Amend. read what the group is about - It's about protecting the liberties of all Americans - including the rights of offenders we arrest.

Why you see so much posting about the 2nd Amend is because it's the oe with the least support from the judiciary. You constantly see rulings that strengthen the power of the 4th Amend. You never hear "The courts ruled today that such-and-such is free from protections against searches and seizures". For the other Amends, the courts increase their applicable powers. But the 2nd is the only one where you see rulings actually diminish its power or scope.

The second amendment was #2 on the founders list for a reason - and it wasn't for hunting. What does it say about the government if they a) feel free to limit any right to the point of practical elimination, and b) the one amendment they choose to do so on is the one that gives the people the ability to prevent an abusive gov? Just a thought.

[LittlePinky82]

It's about much more than the 2nd Amend. read what the group is about - It's about protecting the liberties of all Americans - including the rights of offenders we arrest.

Why you see so much posting about the 2nd Amend is because it's the oe with the least support from the judiciary. You constantly see rulings that strengthen the power of the 4th Amend. You never hear "The courts ruled today that such-and-such is free from protections against searches and seizures". For the other Amends, the courts increase their applicable powers. But the 2nd is the only one where you see rulings actually diminish its power or scope.

The second amendment was #2 on the founders list for a reason - and it wasn't for hunting. What does it say about the government if they a) feel free to limit any right to the point of practical elimination, and b) the one amendment they choose to do so on is the one that gives the people the ability to prevent an abusive gov? Just a thought.

No offense but I think you need to pay a little more attention to judicial and civil news. Wasn't it recently a law that was made and upheld where people can take guns into national park's? National park's for Christ's sake? And here in TN I know there was talk recently on a local news affiliate talking about people taking guns into bars. In Texas can't you take your gun into church? What the hell do you need a gun in church for? Good grief people!
It also seems people who are so gung ho on the second amendment don't really know too much about it and only pay attention to the part about owning gun's. There's much more to the amendment then just being able to own gun's. You also have to remember the historical context in which it was written.

LOL yes you do hear about such things like that. What about Guantanamo Bay and all the abuses with that? What about the illegal wiretapping with not needed a warrant even after the seventy-two hour protection is up?

Oh and there's a HUGE difference between having gun regulation's and having gun bannings. With regulations and background checks it's important because anyone can have a gun and not know how to use it and go and just shoot anyone they feel like it. Adults who aren't responsible can leave their guns out and children can play around with it and kill themselves. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous to have a gun in a bar with a bunch of people who are drunk. Or have a gun in a national park or a church where there are children around who can get that gun. We live in a society that has private property with it. With that private property people can and are allowed to make rules in dealing with issues such as whether or not guns can be allowed on that property. If a bar owner says no guns allowed that person is not taking away your rights but they're exercising their rights.

The founding father's weren't moron's. They knew the Constitution would be changed as society changed and grew and progressed or even went the other direction. There are rules on how to change the Constitution and they knew this. They knew someday more people would be able to vote besides white men who owned land and someday women and other races would be able to vote. The founding father's also came to the U.S. to get away from the Church and State from being together as in the first amendment but you don't see many people caring about that too much. It's just all hypocritical and when you only focus solely on one amendment more than the other's it, to me anyways, takes away credibility as a Constitutional group. I also saw something about the Minutemen on the group's page. I'm sorry but if they are in any way involved with the group I would have to respectfully decline. I just don't want anything to do with them.