L.A. B.S. over flow and info

[JeffS77]

[tbarstow]

Baja was fun. No tire drama this year.

Ride Report Here

[KLRrob]

Looks like a good time. Thanks for sharing TIm.

[Entheogen]

Boy oh boy, been a few posts since I read some replies. I never said it was GOOD to drink and drive, but it *is* a reality. My biggest worry was having one of the "sober" people hit me while I was under the influence. I'm dead serious. You can hate on me all you want. As most have NEVER read the mother f'ing 4th amendment here it is:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


So now simply driving means I can be stopped for NOTHING and harassed, all in the name of "safety" in order to "save the children". Well fuck that, and fuck the people who back that, you are traitors to our own constitution, if you truly believe that nonsense, have them overturn the 4th amendment. Hypocrites. Fascists.




I can 100% guarantee it wasn't "idiots" like me tossing people into ovens during the last police state, it was "good, law abiding souls", who value laws more than God given free will. I know people are getting sleepy as brain power tends to take mental effort, but it is ok, you can go back to sleep now. Which fat person is dancing tonight or which singer is performing?

[Entheogen]

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary.

They understand it, and still voted to violate our rights, all because people are scared and fearful. Idiotd like myself are only trying to defend our Constitutional Freedoms, even for people I do not agree with.

[notmybikemodelname]

Originally Posted by Chillum

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary.

They understand it, and still voted to violate our rights, all because people are scared and fearful. Idiotd like myself are only trying to defend our Constitutional Freedoms, even for people I do not agree with.

Dale, this really just comes down to interpretation, not whether you are right and everyone else is wrong; "literal" reading, as you are doing vs "progressive", living, breathing, ever changing thing, as the forefathers meant it to be. If they had not, they would not have provided for it to be amended.

Not saying I don't agree with you in practice, regarding sobriety checkpoints, but since you are "literally" reading the Constitution, realize that when it was written, were a man to get drunk and leave a tavern on his horse, the worst that could happen was that he might get thrown from it, and further realize, that should a drunk pass out behind the reigns of a horse, the horse would just stop and eat grass, not mow down tens of people in a mini mall.

Times have a changed my son, and "progressive" readers of the constitution and its author realize that and made allowances for that.

Now, realizing that no one can sign away their constitutional rights for "necessary means", you must further realize that driving is not now and will never be a right. It's a privilege. And for that privilege, when you are "awarded" a drivers license, as long as you are not asked to surrender a constitutional right for "necessary means" the LEO has now, by your John Hancock that you pen to your drivers license been given the right to police you on roads and highways when under the control of a motorized vehicle, which include sobriety checkpoints. Not that I agree or disagree, just a fact.

Finally, you need to realize that when the constitution was written, towns all over our very small country were trying and prosecuting women as witches. People have become a lot smarter since then in their everlasting evolution of this great country and keeping it safe. Some times we miss, as in the case of invading foreign countries that pose no threat to us over falsified "facts" about WMDs. Sometimes we get it right.

As for my opinion on this, I defer to the Declaration of Independence and our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But even I, who definitely could be popped at a DUI checkpoint a few days a week, realize that this grandiose idea should not be reserved at the safety of others. Most importantly, the Constitution is written for the betterment of society in general to produce betterment for all, so we can seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without worry that some drunken moron is going to take that all away in a blink of an eye. Also, when quoting case history, be sure to not take it out of context. Brown vs Texas (search and seizure case law) is the litmus test for the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, the Michigan case is a carry through case and only cemented the constitutionality of Brown vs Texas whereby the ruling passed constitutional muster as it was a sufficient opinion that properly advanced public interest. Meaning that where an action protects the public from the acts of individuals that are breaking the law, whereby those not breaking the law have no fear of adverse actions, the action is just and within the confines of the Constitution.

[Team Longriders]

as a taxpayer and a husband to a legal immigrant, we had to jump through all the hoops and bs that goes with staying in this country legally, i wish they had checkpoints for immigration status.i dont want to pay welfare or education and medical for people who have to fly under the radar. they can take their skills and work ethic and go make a revolution in their own country.

[dunerat]

Originally Posted by notmybikemodelname

Dale, this really just comes down to interpretation, not whether you are right and everyone else is wrong; "literal" reading, as you are doing vs "progressive", living, breathing, ever changing thing, as the forefathers meant it to be. If they had not, they would not have provided for it to be amended.

Not saying I don't agree with you in practice, regarding sobriety checkpoints, but since you are "literally" reading the Constitution, realize that when it was written, were a man to get drunk and leave a tavern on his horse, the worst that could happen was that he might get thrown from it, and further realize, that should a drunk pass out behind the reigns of a horse, the horse would just stop and eat grass, not mow down tens of people in a mini mall.

Times have a changed my son, and "progressive" readers of the constitution and its author realize that and made allowances for that.

Now, realizing that no one can sign away their constitutional rights for "necessary means", you must further realize that driving is not now and will never be a right. It's a privilege. And for that privilege, when you are "awarded" a drivers license, as long as you are not asked to surrender a constitutional right for "necessary means" the LEO has now, by your John Hancock that you pen to your drivers license been given the right to police you on roads and highways when under the control of a motorized vehicle, which include sobriety checkpoints. Not that I agree or disagree, just a fact.

Finally, you need to realize that when the constitution was written, towns all over our very small country were trying and prosecuting women as witches. People have become a lot smarter since then in their everlasting evolution of this great country and keeping it safe. Some times we miss, as in the case of invading foreign countries that pose no threat to us over falsified "facts" about WMDs. Sometimes we get it right.

As for my opinion on this, I defer to the Declaration of Independence and our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But even I, who definitely could be popped at a DUI checkpoint a few days a week, realize that this grandiose idea should not be reserved at the safety of others. Most importantly, the Constitution is written for the betterment of society in general to produce betterment for all, so we can seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without worry that some drunken moron is going to take that all away in a blink of an eye. Also, when quoting case history, be sure to not take it out of context. Brown vs Texas (search and seizure case law) is the litmus test for the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, the Michigan case is a carry through case and only cemented the constitutionality of Brown vs Texas whereby the ruling passed constitutional muster as it was a sufficient opinion that properly advanced public interest. Meaning that where an action protects the public from the acts of individuals that are breaking the law, whereby those not breaking the law have no fear of adverse actions, the action is just and within the confines of the Constitution.

Too long , didnt read but my progressive thinking leads me to believe that u my friend are full of malarkey .i don't believe in alot but at this point I believe I'll have another beer

[luv2race]

Originally Posted by dunerat

I believe I'll have another beer

I'll see your one and raise you two

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL YOU FF'S

[rejetk]

thanks ..

رجيتك

[dzrtracin]

Nice write Rob, i would hope COMMON SENSE would prevail rather than OLD testament in TODAYS world. HAPPY NEW YEAR BOYS?

RIDE ON!

Originally Posted by notmybikemodelname

Dale, this really just comes down to interpretation, not whether you are right and everyone else is wrong; "literal" reading, as you are doing vs "progressive", living, breathing, ever changing thing, as the forefathers meant it to be. If they had not, they would not have provided for it to be amended.

Not saying I don't agree with you in practice, regarding sobriety checkpoints, but since you are "literally" reading the Constitution, realize that when it was written, were a man to get drunk and leave a tavern on his horse, the worst that could happen was that he might get thrown from it, and further realize, that should a drunk pass out behind the reigns of a horse, the horse would just stop and eat grass, not mow down tens of people in a mini mall.

Times have a changed my son, and "progressive" readers of the constitution and its author realize that and made allowances for that.

Now, realizing that no one can sign away their constitutional rights for "necessary means", you must further realize that driving is not now and will never be a right. It's a privilege. And for that privilege, when you are "awarded" a drivers license, as long as you are not asked to surrender a constitutional right for "necessary means" the LEO has now, by your John Hancock that you pen to your drivers license been given the right to police you on roads and highways when under the control of a motorized vehicle, which include sobriety checkpoints. Not that I agree or disagree, just a fact.

Finally, you need to realize that when the constitution was written, towns all over our very small country were trying and prosecuting women as witches. People have become a lot smarter since then in their everlasting evolution of this great country and keeping it safe. Some times we miss, as in the case of invading foreign countries that pose no threat to us over falsified "facts" about WMDs. Sometimes we get it right.

As for my opinion on this, I defer to the Declaration of Independence and our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But even I, who definitely could be popped at a DUI checkpoint a few days a week, realize that this grandiose idea should not be reserved at the safety of others. Most importantly, the Constitution is written for the betterment of society in general to produce betterment for all, so we can seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without worry that some drunken moron is going to take that all away in a blink of an eye. Also, when quoting case history, be sure to not take it out of context. Brown vs Texas (search and seizure case law) is the litmus test for the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints, the Michigan case is a carry through case and only cemented the constitutionality of Brown vs Texas whereby the ruling passed constitutional muster as it was a sufficient opinion that properly advanced public interest. Meaning that where an action protects the public from the acts of individuals that are breaking the law, whereby those not breaking the law have no fear of adverse actions, the action is just and within the confines of the Constitution.

[notmybikemodelname]

Originally Posted by dunerat

Too long , didnt read but my progressive thinking leads me to believe that u my friend are full of malarkey .i don't believe in alot but at this point I believe I'll have another beer

Hey Fuckwad, you don't think I've been drinking all day? You know better than that. It typically takes me at least a fifth to barf up this much crap. Isn't this the LA bullshit thread afterall?

Happy New Years to all you FFs.

[notmybikemodelname]

Originally Posted by dzrtracin

Nice write Rob, i would hope COMMON SENSE would prevail rather than OLD testament in TODAYS world. HAPPY NEW YEAR BOYS?

RIDE ON!

Thanks Sean. Unfortunately, two degrees in political science and a year in law school never leaves you, no matter how horrible the experience was.

[Lonestar2112]

Looks like I will be picking up a new, to me, HF tire changer this weekend!

[BrokenDownXR]

Awesome! I used the hell out of mine, and it lasted 4 years.