- Jeffco ballot issue lets schools off the hook
- Objections cited to Dougco Ballot Issue 1B
- Prostitution should be a legal activity
- A suspect switch
- Wasteful searches
- A higher law
- 100 percent unsafe
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Denver bond measures should pass as a package
- Ongoing war funding is killing U.S. troops
- Paul Campos & Mitt Romney
Learn your rights
How many citizens realize there is a
In layman’s terms,the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the government,
Space limitations won’t allow me to grieve the unjust powers given to the police in the “War on Drugs Thank you Robert. I wish more people understood what their rights are, and weren't so willing to give them up without a fight. When they give up theirs, they give up mine. Sorry - but "any restrictions" is wrong. For instance, the classic example of banning someone from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater (when no fire exists) is prohibited as it could cause serious bodily injury from the stampede to the exit. In addition, speech inciting to riot or violence is banned, which seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, if Dick or Jane goes to a publicly paid-for 'pep rally' for a politician & is barred from entry because someone saw a bumper sticker that they disagreed with... The whole point is use of common sense - something our current breed of politicians & their entourages have completely forgotten. What "special" powers are given to the police in the war against drugs? Last time I checked, police still needed a search warrant to conduct searches of private property. I wonder if Robert got caught with a meth lab in his basement and is now a little upset. 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Sorry Mary but the 1st Amendment does not allow Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech. The example you gave of shouting "fire: What we now call "hate speech" - what a quaint and sterile term - used to be called "fighting words" in the "old days. If anyone were to throw such vile and insulting words towards you or a loved one or friend, you were within your rights to hit him, fight him, maybe shoot him, or challenge him to a duel to defend your honor and that of your name and heritage. challenge him to a duel to defend your honor and that of your name and heritage. Seriously, you think we should still have duels? Who was that goof at the convention a few years ago challenging Chris Matthews? He must be in an insane hospital now. If the powers that be had their way, the Constitution would already be abolished, all people would be chipped, and all rights would be given, and taken away, at the whims of the Federal Government. The restrictions on government contained in the bill of rights are limited by two things: 1. No right is absolute. Any of these rights may be limited by the existence of a "compelling state interest." The Supreme Court, which has the final word on the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, has said this over and over. 2. My personal view is that ultimately, any right which is so abused that the nation suffers great harm by that abuse, is bound to be resticted or even lost, in the long run. For example, I believe that our precious freedom of speech will finally be lost on account of its abuse by media and pornographers. We've given away our right to grow a weed and smoke it. Why? Common sense is a collection of your bias and prejudices. Hitler had common sense. All the popes have commons sense and as new popes are created their common sense supersedes their predecessor's common sense. I enjoy perusal of Mary's contribution to this forum; however, whose common sense will prevail? That of the final arbiter and that is what the law is. The conclusion uttered by the final arbiter is his bias and prejudice. Bush thinks he is the final arbiter calling himself the decider. Must America abide by Bush's common sense? When I was at DU Law School, Justice Kirshbaum told his class: "Tell the judge the topic and he will tell you how it will turn out and evidence has nothing to do with it." The judge's common sense will prevail unless he is reversed. Strike "common sense" from your vocabulary. Now I feel better. r22037yahoo Doug - If you read the Constitution Section on the Supreme Court you will not find anything that states that the job of the Supreme Court is to be the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The Court assumed that role on its own in the early 1800s. They have been challenged on that in the past. Most famously by President Jackson who was quoted as saying (paraphrased) "When the Supreme Court gets an Army then they can enforce their ruling." Frank, they have . . . an army of self-interested lawyers! To the anonymous person who states that law enforcement must have a search warrent to search private property, I must tell you that the right to privacy has been suspended by your (I assume you are a Republican) Executive Branch thru the Patriot Act, which allows government law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens, search their houses, and allows access to all of your records, public and private thru National Security Letters, all without a warrent, even bypassing the FISA courts. Scott's right about the Patriot Act, but doesn't go far enough. I was on the USA Patriot Act compliance task force of a large national bank. What it requires is so far beyond reasonable or acceptable, it's scary. Big Brother is here and they are watching you, now (fade in X-files theme song). Yep. I knew a posting like this wouldn't take long to bring up that old scare word, "pornography". (Whatever it means to the one who uses it.) Well, Bob, I guess you haven't studied history much. Now, have you? Well, if you have, I'm sure you know about the Comstock Law, which empowers Postal Inspectors to open the mail - ALL MAIL - suspected of containing "pornography", and then goes on to empower U.S. Attorneys to bring criminal charges against both the sender and receiver, WHEREVER THE U.S. SHYSTER CHOOSES. (The cases supposedly to be "decided" on the basis of "community standards.) The Bush bunch gave this a boost recently, with Bush announcing a "War on Pornography", to go along with his failed mess in Iraq. Gotta keep 'em stirred up someplace; and if you're losing a big one here, call for a 'win" there. Oh! By the way! that just sort of goes along with the Patriot Act bit, that allows the political police to kick down your door if you are "suspected" of "terrorism" - whatever that is made to mean by whoever wants to use it. Go back to spanking your monkey, Old Grouch, you wanker. Read all the porn you want. I don't care about porn, but I do care about what the Patriot Act is doing. Today. So go wring out your mousepad and get a clue. Another preamble talks about the source of our rights. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that it is self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The part of the people that denies the authority of our Creator has no basis for claiming rights except those that can be wrested from others. When the rule of might is the order of the day, only the worst of men can hold their rights and only at the cost of others rights. May God have mercy on our nation. My apologies, Bob, I was trying to edit by scrolling and reading two different size type styles at the same time. It was DOUG who brought up "pornography", when talking about losing the right to freedom of speech. Something we started to lose back before the turn of the 20th Century; and to which the Patriot Act is just a modern addition to the list of ways in which it is still being chipped away. The point being, simply, a vigorous opposition to something such as the Comstock Act to begin with might - just MIGHT - have had an effect on those who now see any and all of our Constitutional rights as nothing more than ephemeral "wishes". And the question being, simply, is it already too late to put things back on the right track? Or, have we come to the point at which "suspicion" also means "guilt until prove yourself innocent"? As with "terrorism" and Gitmo? I think I have a "clue" Bob. What's your answer to the questions? Well, John, that's an interesting thought. That Declaration also goes on to say: "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." And the Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT hold that they originate from the "authority of our Creator". Indeed the First Amendment is rather specific about that notion. And the body of the Constitution itself tells us that: "there shall be NO RELIGIOUS TEST for voting or holding ofice in the United States." But of course, the Founding Fathers didn't have the modern fax connection to Heaven of such as Pat Robertson, or the claims of a Roman "Vicar of God on Earth", to enlighten them in who would have "basis for claiming rights". And just who is "wresting them (rights) from others"? Those of us who hold to what Mr. Justice Hugo Black wrote back about 80 years or so ago: "Where it says, 'Congress shall pass no law (last 2 words in italic), it means, NO LAW (last 2 words in heavy bold face).'" Or, according to your theory, those who insist that only "belivers" have rights to begin with? Ok Old Grouch. Apology accepted. And sorry myself if my humor was too ascerbic. Made me laugh though :) I agree with your point, if I captured it correctly, that the powers that be will inevitably chip away at our freedoms unless we stay vigilent in preventing it from happening. And things like terrorism (or porn) may sound like a good reasons to empower the government, but that empowerment comes at a great cost to freedom. And freedom is easier to give up than regain. Everytime we make a law to prevent a bad thing from happening again, we give something of ourselves away. I say, punishment is deserved for the most part only when a bad thing actually happens, or to prevent a bad thing that will happen, not to prevent a bad thing that we fear might happen. That's OK Bob. At my age, and with my blood pressure medicine, I'm way past the "benefits" of Viagra, Chialis, or "porn". And, you said it well in that last paragraph. We have far too many laws attempting to "prevent" what we fear might happen. All of which have been - and are - bad laws, because they infringe on the basic rights of those who do not have the same fears, and/or are based upon superstitions assumptions of what "bad things" are. Sorry all. The name slot didn't show type in that last one, But, I'm the same Grouch Every day the congress is in session we lose more of rights...just about every law that is passed is a restriction of our rights in some way... While you are complaining about dope and porn, don't forget the right that protects all the others: The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of defending themselves and the state, as enumerated in the Second Ammendment. especially from stoned, gay, illegal alien perverts who are driving stolen cars without insurance and wearing baggy pants! Actually multiple supreme court rulings in the 19th and early 20th century have affirmed that the pesky first sentence about a "WELL REGULATED" militia, meant the national government could not prevent the individual states from keeping and bearing arms (state police/national guard). The individual right to keep and bear arms is a myth. Gun control was sometimes attempted in the old west, and the first president to institute gun control was George Washington. Edmond, you are such a disappointment. Right Edmond. The founding fathers had enough foresight to know that we would someday have a national guard so they added it to the 2nd amendment. Those guys were true prophets! What's your argument for the words peoples right considering it means individual right EVERYWHERE else it's used in the Bill of Rights. If they didn't mean individual right for guns, wouldn't they have used different wording??? Use your head my friend. Normally I do not type more than one statement per topic, but since KW is so uneducated he did not realize that before the national guard each state had it's own militia, and so stupid he did not realize I was illustrating the modern equivalent when I said (state police/national guard). As for my point in the first place, I quote the United States Supreme Court in 1840-- "the Second Amendment's words 'right of the people' mean 'a right of the state' maybe you should actually study some history rather than just accept the NRA boiler plate. Bob: "especially from stoned, gay, illegal alien perverts who are driving stolen cars without insurance and wearing baggy pants!" Uh, Bob, we need you to come back in. It seems we let you out a little early. wanna here something pathetic? i've tried to post my comments here and they are up for review by the "owner of this blog". free speech in this country? i think not! thanks rocky for cementing my point. for all of you out there who don't understand what i mean i'll post my letter on another website and update with its location. unless, the rocky "decides" to post it. will keep you informed. can't believe this garbage! [editor: I cannot connect this post with any specific "letter submitted to the rocky" but if the poster would be so kind as to notify "letters@rockymountainnews.com" as to which submission he is referring to, with "letters question" in the subject line, I would be happy to tell him where his letter/speakout is in consideration for publication. We receive several times as many publishable Speakouts as we have room for in print, and we generally do not post submissions on the Web until we're sure they won't appear in print.] a vet, If I had a buck for every letter sent that the Rocky and the Post didn't print, I could probably buy one of them there wall size HD TV's. In the past, both papers used to have almost a full page of Letters to the Editor. Nowadays, it's down to 3 or 4 letters, squeezed onto whatever space seems to be left over. And, as they say: "Short letters are considered first". And seems reasonable to me that if they decide to use the letter in the paper itself, they wouldn't want to see it first on the Internet. Lots of folks who read the paper don't have computers; or, if they have then, they don't go to the web all that much; and any media tries for the most exposure first anyway. That's just the nature of the business. The website is a secondary part of the Rocky's business - and a very nice one for all of us who don't wind up in print, since we can have instant posting here. But for them to want to prioritize the way in which they publish something isn't all that "Orwellian", nor is it something unusual everywhere else with newspapers today. Stick around. If what you wrote doesn't get in the paper, post it here yourself, if the Rocky doesn't post it as a web feature. Editors have deadlines, and as your second posting says, piles of submissions as well. Even the paid columnists don't always make the daily with every word, or every topic. Well, I thought it was funny . . . Edmond is so wrong.The word "milita" meant the whole body of the people,all the citizens.If they wanted to talk about a National Guard type body they used the term "Select Milita".Also the Bill of Rights are individual rights not State Rights.Even 44 states have a "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" of the person not the State.The idea that the Second Amendment was not the right of a citizen was invented in the 19th century and unheard of before that.Also the first gun control laws were invented to stop freed Slaves from owning guns.If Edmond reads the quotes of the Founding Father about the Second Amendment he will see what they ment.the Courts have lied about this issue. Lets see what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment.Noah Webster"Before a standing army can rule,the people must be disarmed;as they are in every Kingdom of Europe.The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;because the whole body of the people are armed ,and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops".George Mason"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"James Madison"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afriad to trust the people with arms"George Washington"A free people ought to be armed" RIGHT ON, RON! The Founding Fathers said what they meant; and they meant what they said. Something the current crop of those who would undermine - or take away entirely - the whole of the Constituion if possible will never come to either adknowledge, or understand. They call it the "Patriot Act"; but I'd be willing to bet - were I a betting man, that is - that there isn't a one of them who's ever read what H. L Mencken had to say about "Patriotism". And he was a staunch, genuine Conservative Republican! (Before the days of "unindicted criminal co-conspirators", Hollywood has-been hams, and such like drove true Conservatives out, in favor of personality cults and "Voodo economics", that is.) The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper with words written on it. The government has no obligation to follow it if they so decide, and they have decided so. We the people are no more than were the citizens of the Soviet Union. We have no power or ability to effect change as long as we are run by the oligarchical administration which steals elections and ignores the will of the people. Art, in which case you might find Chris Hedges interesting. Art, Ben Franklin replied, when asked what the Founding Fathers had given: "A Republic, if you can keep it". Sad to say, we may not have not kept it very well. But, we can still go to the polls and try to take (or get) it back. The demagogues and oligarchs will always try to hang on, and divert us from essentials to their own self-exalting "issue". But, that's exactly what we need to overcome. If the people stop voting for those for whom Office is merely a matter of grabbing power, and holding on to it by any means, and begin to make political candidates deal with the real problems at home first, there could be a return to that time when the Constitution was the foundation stone of our whole system. But . . . ? How many today - or in the past - take the time to write their Senator and demand that appointments be made - and then consented to by the Senate - according to the principle of the one best qualified for the appointment? And/or write to oppose appointments of those who are so obviously mere clients, hangers-on, and sycophants that their future behavior in any position is predictably that of a bought and paid for lackey? And, perhaps more to the point, how many actively work FOR Representatives, Senators, and other elected parties in Government, while also actively working, speaking, and finally voting AGAINST the current - or contending - "Emperor/entourage", regardless of the claims to "new clothes"? All I hear is a bunch of bitching about lost rights. Restating the case may serve to make you feel better but, accomplishes nothing. No my fellow Americans, all the quotes, citations, legal opinions etc, etc, you offer are meaningless if you do not take action to reverse the taking away of your rights. And, this requires that you are willing to indure any and all ridicule and much worse, destruction of livelihood, business loss and the undoing of everything you have worked for to insure you and your families wellbeing. The most important thing people need to remember is that if you refuse to defend anothers rights, you invite the demise of your own. The constitution needs defending but, it is the common sense that it contains that needs to be applied. Only then will the special interests, avocates of personal preferences and all likekind zealots be shown in the public forum as the usurpers of freedom that they, in truth, really are. When such interests, be they mercantile, religious, political or philosophical become the reason for goverment to pass laws favoring these causes, then the government has ceased to be of and for the people and therefor has stepped outside the bounds of it's legitimate purpose. Such violations of trust must not be put off until they might be corrected by elections. Those elected to public office to represent we the people, who indulge in such insidious and illegal actions, should be removed from office immediately before they enact even more laws which serve to further undermine what freedoms we have left. Mr. Campbell, But that would actually mean work. And taking enough interest in public affairs to be active in promoting civil responsibility. But, I rambled on about that already. Thought of a place to start, though. I served as an Election Judge back in November. Our County had some problems, and some lines as well, that extended over time beyond closing hour. But, I counted less than 20 of those who came in who left before voting. I'll not rehearse Denver's experience. But, I read in the Rocky that now the Denver Election Commission proposes to "clear the books" of those who didn't vote. (Oh, yeah! They did agree to send out a second letter of notification. Big deal!) Instead of using the upcoming Municipal Election to throw out the Hick, and the whole shebang, everyone just seems to be "rolling over with paws in the air", and going on from there. (And heaven forbid that anyone mentions a recall, back when the mess happened.) But then, the Hick's a nice guy. Has a good smile. And . . . . I remember when a Mayor - or two - got tossed out the door for the way he handled the blizzard conditions.. But the Hick's a nice guy. He has a good smile. And . . . . Guess we're sorta all alone together on the same page, Mr. Campbell. But, it's nice to have you here, sir. BELLEVUE, Wash., March 9 /PRNewswire-"USNewswire/ -- A ruling Friday by And as I was saying Edmond, the previous court decisions were rather convenient and selfserving (and liberal) for the powers that be, and are now being overturned. Maybe YOU should do some research next time before going off half cocked, so to speak. The Bush administration went to court and said that the Second Amendment was a Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.the Clinton administration said is was a State right and not a right of the People.Which Administration would you trust.I would trust the one that trusts the People to own guns. Also the Democrat party in general does not think that the People have a right to keep and bear arms but the Republicans do.In Washington DC the Republicans are fighting to give the people back their Right to own firearms.The Democrats are fighting to stop the People from having that right.Which Party do you trust? Ron - After seeing posts here from peple that back Iran and say they had a right to take the British sailors hostage tells me most liberals in Colorado would prefer to give up our 2nd amendment rights. I say "our" because liberals don't want that right and figure you and I don't need it. One more thing.Most large cities have large Black populations and are controled by Democrats.In these cities people are not allowed to own firearms for defense but in Vermont which has a very small Black population and is controled by Democrats they have more gun rights than most States.You can carry concealed there without a premit.The Democrats do not trust Blacks with firearms that is why they are trying to stop DC citizens from having gun rights. KW-You are right the democrats want to disarm the US so we will lose the War.They consider us the enemy.the Dems. fear the Armed Citizen. My, my, my! " . . . the democrats want to disarm the US so we will lose the War". That's a stretch, if there ever was one. It'd be sorta interesting to learn how gun control in the US. "disarms" troops in Iraq; but I guess them @#%$& Democrats must have just got a whole set of new magick wands - sorta like them WMD's over there - that'll do the job. No wonder the so called "conservatives" want to take the Harry Potter books off the library shelves! People might even start to see that fiction and fantasy are fun for everyone to read, but NOT very good arguments in the real world for all the messes Bush, and others of that ilk, have got us into. Folks might even start thinking that "winning at Quiditch" belongs in a children's story, rather than being something actually achievable. And, " . . . the Dems fear the Armed Citizen". Boy, Ron, you shore do have a creative streak in your writing. We haven't quite come down to the time when the armed citizen will be the final defense of our Constitutional Rights. But, in the meantime, as a Dem myself, I have a great deal more fear of the armed political police - Republican armed goons under the Patriot Act - kicking down the door and whisking me - or someone I know - off to Gitmo on "SUSPICION of terrorist activity, or sympathy". And don't tell me it hasn't happened. It has. Right here in Cowlorado, where a young American born citizen (black man, of course,) who converted to Islam was taken out of his home, and wasn't allowed to have a lawyer for nearly 2 years, much less have contact with his family, or other "suspect" people. And even now, after a "confession" - how extracted, is certainly pretty well knowable, given the current Administration's record - the whereabouts of the man remain a mystery. U.S. BORN CITIZEN, RON! From a family of U.S. born citizens for several generations. As you notice the "Old Grouch" did not adderess the issue of his party wanting to take our guns away!! These Democrats do not thrust the people.At least the republicans want us to keep our arms.Which party do you think wants to kick your door down? The one that wants you to have an "assault rifle" or the Democrats that want to take all your guns away.It is common sense that the government that wants to kick your door down it the one that disarms the people first.The Nazis,Communist and The Democrats. Also Old Grouch did not adderess the Racism of the gun control policies of the Democrats.Could it be that "Old Grouch" is a Racist and all he cares about is the Free stuff the Democrats promise him?Many Democrats sell their Rights out for "Zuzus and Whams Whams".Need I say more. Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896): Upheld segregation and the constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine. So, Edmond, is the Supreme Sourt always correct? I suppose the fourth ammendment really means: The right of the STATES to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... Ron, It certainly wasn't the Democratic Party who originated the Patriot Act. And IT WAS and IS the Democrats who continue to seek to limit its application, , force its expiration, and make those in "Homeland Security" accountable to the DUE PROCESS, which the Republicans tell us is "no longer necessary". No one in his right mind expects a Democratic Administration to even think of kicking the door down on mere "suspicion", as current Republicans tell us is just a part of "National Security". Has someone refused to sell you a gun, Ron? Are you among those who are denied ownership of a gun, after investigation? Have you been refused a "concealed carry" permit? Just how is the Democratic Party trying to "take away" YOUR gun? The other posting makes no sense at all; so I see no reason to waste time trying to decipher it. "" They call it the "Patriot Act"; but I'd be willing to bet - were I a betting man, that is - that there isn't a one of them who's ever read what H. L Mencken had to say about "Patriotism". And he was a staunch, genuine Conservative Republican! "" HL Mencken was anything but a staunch, genuine Conservative Republican...that is just silly... Grouch, look up HR1022 to learn exactly which perfectly legal firearms the demonrats wish to keep law abiding citizens to acquire. And that is just for this bill. It will continue until all firearms are banned, at which time only criminals will be armed, and we will all be subjects of the government instead of citizens of this nation. Old Grouch,The Democrats under Bill Clinton banned many semi-auto pistols and rifles.The Republicans when they took the House and Senate did not renew the law.It was called the Assault Weapons ban.The Democrats picked the ugly guns and banned them.This would have led to banning all semi-auto firearms.We have owned semi-auto guns in this country for 100.They are used for self defense and hunting.Loco mentions HR1022.It is being introduced and co-sponsered by 26 democrats to ban more guns right now.You keep complaining about the Patriot Act.Has your door been kicked down?My wife and I were made into criminals in California by Democrats banning guns that function like guns we have owned for 100 years.Right now there is a bill that passed the senate and pushed by the Dems in Colorado that will give paroled murders,rapist and robbers the right to vote.At the same time the Dems. are trying to limit our ability to carry concealed. PS Our neighbor in California who works for the police department can not even sell her deceased husbands guns in California.She wrote and told me this.California has been controled by Dems. for years and the people are losing all their gun rights.Most states controled by Dems. are losing their gun rights.Check it out Old Grouch you will find it to be true.The Patriot Act is not even a small threat to the people of this country compared to the Dems. and there push to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country and state. Well Ron, I won't make any assumptions about your age; but since I grew up in the Depression, in business, I think I know who was regarded as Republican in those days. Indeed, I do know that I myself was a Republican, and walked some shoe leather off over time when campaigning for the Party's candidates. Back then, of course, the Republican Party hadn't been taken over by the religious-nut-cult gurus, and the Hollywood has been hams. But today of course, Statesmen, such as Mr. Justice Thurogood Marshall, and the late Senator Taft, for instance, wouldn't even be allowed in the door; much less be seen as shining lights of the Party, as they were for many years. Nixon's Dirty Tricks manager is today's Republican. Along with the likes of Rove - not to mention Haldeman, Erlichman, et. al. , who did their best to drive REAL Republicans as far away as possible. But that's OK, Ron, there still is a political party that knows, and understands, the value of good legislation; and doesn't have to spend all its time reminiscing about how the past President couldn't keep his zipper up, in order to cover up its own corruption. By the way, do you know how many Republican Presidents had their Mistresses rather openly attend White House functions? Or how many actually fathered bastards during their term of office? Or how many were drunkards even during their term of office? Read history some time, Ron. Just for funzies, of course. Don't expect you to actually learn anything from it. But it beats having to listen to Rush Limbaugh all to h***. Oh, Yes! Before I forget. Which Democrat was named "an unindicted criminal co-conspirator" while still in office? And saw the 4th highest ranking Member of his cabinet convicted of felonies, and go to jail, along with more than half of his own personal advisors, including his Presidential Counsel, etc., etc., Huh! I'll just go on recognizing true Conservatives for what they are; and all the single-issue fanatics who run today's Republican Party do not change the designation when applied to those for whom it used to be the Grand Old Party. Ron - California: Most anti-gun laws of any state, most gun crime of any state. And they want to pass even more laws? Go figure? bhvun cfkdtaemg ravwehgz esknrgbp tsawqh aiykjr vpxlk
" was a creation of the Courts. The laws about hate speech fly directly in the face of the Constitution and the Courts have elected to stand with Congress on this issue. It still does not mean that is not unconstitutional because the Courts say so. Words mean things and the wording of the 1st Amendment has not been changed!
We can't do that anymore - sadly - without being arrested or sued. So I guess since we took away the "right" to defend one's honor we also had to take a way the right to incite it.
We can't do that anymore - sadly - without being arrested or sued...posted by Mike
Oh, wait, we are already knocking on that door.
Is it worth it to take a person because they did and strip them of their dignity and their ability to make a decent living? And then place them in an institution that is horrifically violent where they are beaten, stabbed, raped or murdered? Only then to be let out as a hardened criminal?
The war on drugs is a trajedy, a travesty and a ruse. It's big business and a designed system of invasive control. Follow the money and the power.
I guess Bill O'Reilly didn't tell you that part, did he?
Maybe you should try not being a condescending **s***e when you really don't know the facts.
Career Polititians have nothing else to do besides make up new ways to restrict your rights and to empower their ilk...
well, folks you have been not allowed to see my letter submitted to the rocky and i do believe it is time to cancel my subscription from the rocky with their current demonstration to omit my oped from these pages. and i do not expect to ever by published here again so, ta ta for now. we'll see if those in power decide tomorrow choose to post my letter. until then, to those of you who read these posts daily, i'm beginning to think that all news media is controlled. at one point in time i thought that only the fox noise channel was the only one who controlled their “fair and balanced” reporting but, much like the book 1984 the editors of the rocky are showing their true colors in an Orwellian exercise! wow! never thought i'd see it in my own country! or better yet, in the pages of my own local newspaper. be advised, i am not making this up as you will see in my post. that is if the editors of the rocky “decide” to post it.
"American Fascists: The Radical Christian Right "
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down
the District's 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is "a landmark for
liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct... In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, "In sum, the phrase 'the right of
the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court
precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."
Not an "alien", somehow here on a Visa. Oh, yeah. The family were - if memory serves correctly - Democrats.
he was closer, if he had to be labeled, to being a libertarian if anything...