Changes to Constitution not needed
The Court’s reasons for making constitution changes is that it doesn’t apply to today’s standards or conditions, or what they meant to say was... NOT SO...
The words are very clear as they stand.
Amendment I 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. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says... Freedom to express your opinion, anytime, any place. Webster’s 10th Edition goes even further when it says Freedom: The absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action... Coercion is exactly what happened when Congress condemned Move On for speaking out.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. No right to keep and bear arms unless you’re part of a well ordered militia... What could be plainer?
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Obviously intended to prevent soldiers to take over houses by force, but the fact that it says ANY house applies to taking over houses in Iraq or any other place in the world.
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. “The people” means what it says, ALL People, including people in Iraq and the rest of the world. So when we knock down doors without due process on suspician alone, especially since we aren’t at war with Iraq, we are violating the amendment.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. There are NO indictments by Grand Juries for capital crimes these days, only one judge.
This letter has not been edited.
IDIOT
Posted by on November 8, 2007 02:53 PMDitto!
Posted by on November 8, 2007 02:58 PMUm, one minor FACT here... No Court can change the constitution. That requires two thirds approval by both congress and the senate AND three fourths approval by the states, ie. 38 states.
So sorry mister letter poster, your letter is full of holes.
Courts do however interpret the Constitution, rarely to everyone's satisfaction.
Posted by on November 8, 2007 03:07 PMLet's see how you feel about this when Hilary is in office. Most of you will do a 180.
Posted by Karl Cheney on November 8, 2007 04:33 PMBoy, this guy's a real rocket scientist, eh?
Lets see....if the second amendment only applies to a government controlled militia, then the first amendment must only apply to government run media outlets, right?
I wonder what John Temple would think if the letter writer suggested the government had to approve what went out in the RMN?
Same as this clown trying to take my second amendment rights away; NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
Bozo letter writer probably thinks the concealed carry law has to go, as well, since it's been such a problem for Colorado...such a problem, there's been ZERO instances of misuse of a concealed carry permit. ZERO, but the gun-grabbers will offer up ANY lie that wafts through their feeble minds and hope the sheeple
lap it up.
Richard, let's see if I take the gospel according to Richard and see what we get.
I guess you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
A well order militia meant at the time of the adoption of the Constitution every able bodied man. Therefore men can bear arms, but women and crippled men are out of luck.
The third amendment, you missed a big part. You focused on ANY while you completely ignore the preamble of the Constitution. We the people of the United States .....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Now you are a stickler for words, and I'm looking for the word Iraq and can't find it.
The fourth Amendment is just more of your idiocy that the Constitution gives everyone around the world the same rights as Citizens. Again the people, which you added the words ALL people are not part of the United States. Hmmm, I think you are missing something.
With the fifth amendment according to Richard, Geo Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Harry Truman are major war criminals since they tried and executed people without grand juries.
The tenth amendment must be a problem for someone like yourself, since it says anything not covered in the Constitution is reserved for the states. Say goodbye to abortion, the FDA, SCC, FEC, FAA, etc. They are no where to be found in the Constitution which you take so literally.
Richard, I have to agree with the others. You are an idiot.
Posted by on November 8, 2007 05:07 PM"Richard, I have to agree with the others. You are an idiot."
You don't give the guy enough credit -- he's the King of Idiots.
I'm a strong member of MoveOn. Congress didn't restrict our speech -- they just exercised their right to disagree with what we did...it's called free speech, a two way street.
The rest of his analysis of the courts and the constitution are just as flawed...a truly idiotic interpretation of fact.
Posted by on November 8, 2007 06:19 PMLooks like we finally found someone who's a more flagrant leftist than Old Grouch (aka Old Crotch). Now that's a rare find indeed.
Next, if the guy's going for the trifecta, he can attempt to be more atheistic than Charles B, and more "nutso' than An American (aka the Unhinged One)... do you sleep with an AK47?
Posted by on November 8, 2007 06:57 PM06:57 PM -- don't forget that he's almost equal to johnny boy 2 in using faulty and shifting facts and logic to assert specious and hair brained ideas of what is right or wrong in this country. While ol' johnny boy 2 attempts to come off as an intellectual conservative, this fool of a letter writer attempts to come off as an intellectual progressive -- they both have brown eyes due to the level of fecal matter rising in their frames and brain...
Posted by annymous coward on November 8, 2007 07:21 PMWe can get rid of the whole constitutuiion and burn the Bill of Rights as well. All I care about is the Second Amendmenet. Give me my guns you can keep the rest.
Posted by on November 9, 2007 07:07 AMThe words "friggin' moron" come to mind for the author of this letter. So the US Constitution applies to foreign nationals under Richard's interpretation? There are no words to adequately say how stupid this idea is.
Posted by Michael on November 9, 2007 07:10 AM"So the US Constitution applies to foreign nationals under Richard's interpretation..."
Not only does he extend constitutional protections to foreign nationals, this moron extrapolates those protection to cover them outside of US Territory...in other words, our esteemed "intellectual author" seems to think that the US Constitution has world wide, universal application.
Posted by on November 9, 2007 07:17 AMI think we should consider amending the constitution in these two ways:
1. Eliminate or reduce the disparity in the power of small states compared to large ones. For example, the two senators from Nevada who represent about two and a half million people have the same power as the two two from California who represent some thirty-six million people.
NOTE: at this point we will take a breather to give the brainless posters a chance to vent their feelings about California. I do ask that you remember that Reagan was from California.
Now, moving on.
2. Provide a way to get rid of the president prior to the end of his term without impeaching him, for example, by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote of both houses.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 07:30 AM"For example, the two senators from Nevada who represent about two and a half million people have the same power as the two two from California who represent some thirty-six million people."
Yes, Truth, that is because the Senate represents the states.
The House represents the people.
Wow.
Truth,
"1. Eliminate or reduce the disparity in the power of small states compared to large ones. For example, the two senators from Nevada who represent about two and a half million people have the same power as the two two from California who represent some thirty-six million people"
That is the reason we have two separate houses in Congress, One house (Senate) gives equal representation to each state and the other house (House of Representatives) in an equal share based on population. Are you suggesting we have two House of Representatives.
. "Provide a way to get rid of the president prior to the end of his term without impeaching him, for example, by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote of both houses."
Why not just have a recall election, let the people decide.
Let me guess you moved to Colorado from the People Republic of California.
Reagan lived in California before the Far left lunatics took control. California has become an asylum ruled by the inmates.
Posted by jgd777 on November 9, 2007 08:45 AMYou can tell letter writer Richard Stover is a stupid Democrat!! He claims that you have no Right to Keep and Bear Arms unless you are a part of "a well ordered militia".First the Second Amendment does not even say "well ordered" it says "well regulated".He can't even read the words right in front of him.Well regulated ment trained to arms.There were two parts of the militia the organized and the unorganized.The unorganized part was the "whole body of the people" all the citizens.If they wanted just the people of the organized militia to be armed the term they would have used was "select militia" which would be like the national guard of today.They rejected this term.Not to mention that the Bill of Rights were individual rights not state rights.That is why it says the the"right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not the states.This is what Democrats do make up the rights they "feel" they should have and throw away the rest.If Jay is reading this74% of the people say we have a RIGHT to own guns.Jay lives by polls!!
Posted by An American on November 9, 2007 08:56 AMMike: 'Yes, Truth, that is because the Senate represents the states. The House represents the people.
Wow."
Very funny, Mike. This idea of yours that the states and the people are separate entities. And your other idea that the senate is not supposed to represent the people. Try to get some senator to say that.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 09:09 AMTruth,
You can't possibly be serious.
The members of the House are apportioned based on population.
As districts grow in population- they gain representatives.
As districts shrink in population- they lose representatives.
The Senate represents the states, regardless of population. This was set up to give an equal voice to even the smallest of states in Senate votes. This is because we are a confederation of states with a representative government. It's the same principle that is employed when we elect a president. We don't have a popular vote for president, we have 50 separate state elections and 1 for Washington D.C.
Although, I'm sure you would rather change that.
Posted by Mike on November 9, 2007 09:21 AMTruth,
Are you trying to say there is no difference between "state rights" and "individual rights"?
Senators have not represented the people for years, Then again neither have the Representatives in the the House. Would any of them actually admit they're more concerned about getting reelected then they are about the people. The vast majority of them are for sale to the highest bidder.
Posted by jgd777 on November 9, 2007 09:28 AMjgd: ""Provide a way to get rid of the president prior to the end of his term without impeaching him, for example, by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote of both houses."
"Why not just have a recall election, let the people decide."
That would be one way to do it. Do you propose a constitutional amendment to provide for that?
I'd prefer a method more like I mentioned, that is, a way for Congress to unseat the president but a way which would be difficult to achieve, a way which would have to arise out of an overwhelming support for getting rid of a sitting president. But I'm glad you agree with the principle involved.
jgd: "That is the reason we have two separate houses in Congress, One house (Senate) gives equal representation to each state and the other house (House of Representatives) in an equal share based on population. Are you suggesting we have two House of Representatives."
One possibility would be to have just one Congressional body rather than two.
Another would be, for example, to provide that the votes in the Senate would be proportional to the population represented. Or perhaps some kind of hybrid system in which a senator's vote would be divided into two parts, one based solely on the present system and the other based on population.
But the idea of pretending that the states are separate from the people in that state seems to be to be quite disconnected from reality. Whatever either the state or federal government does is for the benefit of the people which the entity represents.
Changes in the constitution should be seldom and hard to come by, as is shown by the Colorado constitution. But the world and the United States we live in is dramatically different from what it was in the 1785. Our founders were wise enough to recognize that the system they provided for would likely need to be amended, and they of course were right. My suggestion is that it is time for such a change to at least be considered and discussed.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 09:35 AMRich, Regarding amendment 2, when the Constitution was written, all able bodied men between 15 and 65 were required to have weapons and be ready for service.
To me that means every able bodied man, or, today woman too.
Anyone who says we the people have no right to own guns unless we are in a militia is wrong.
By the way, the FEDS do designate practically every volunteer organized militia in the USA as a "homegrown terrorist" organization, even though militias are called for in the Constitution.
The real homegrown terrorists are the FEDS
Read up on HR1195.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7242
Posted by RP McMurphy on November 9, 2007 09:36 AMjkg, you may be wondering why I posted this:
"NOTE: at this point we will take a breather to give the brainless posters a chance to vent their feelings about California. I do ask that you remember that Reagan was from California."
Not to wonder. I was referring to brainless posters like you.
jgd: "Let me guess you moved to Colorado from the People Republic of California. Reagan lived in California before the Far left lunatics took control. California has become an asylum ruled by the inmates."
Hint: my proposal has nothing at all to do with the quality of Californians, or the lack of it.
While we're amending the constitution, let's make sure birthright citizenship only applies
to children of LEGAL residents of the United States.
("truth" or his cronies will whine about whan a big meanie I am for realizing the U.S. cannot possibly help every single poor person in the whole wide world...sniff, sniff)
Posted by RickyLee on November 9, 2007 09:57 AMRicky, you big meany you. I'm going to tell your mother what you said.
Another thing, quit sniffing the coke when you are posting, or at least don't tell us about it.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 10:03 AMTruth,
Would you be willing to accept the display of Religions symbols on Government property?
The majority is this country are Christians.
And how about the closing of the southern borders? That is what the majority wants.
If ;your plan were to take affect, that is what would happen if you listen to the majority of the people.
And how about the abortion issue?
Freedom of speech for the porn industry?
Hell we would probably still have slavery based on your ideas.
And what would be the chances of the women's right to vote under you system.
There are reasons for the separation of the two houses of Congress. It is so the majority can not unduly effect the minorities rights.
States have different needs and responsibilities. The city dwellers could seriously damage the rural areas of this country. Based on the current greed level, this would not be out of the question.
Posted by jgd777 on November 9, 2007 10:04 AMRicky Lee,
For your information, Congress has never amended the Constitution to include children of illegal immigration's right to citizenship. They did amend it to include children of persons in this country legally but have not received citizenship.
Posted by jgd777 on November 9, 2007 10:11 AMFrom the sniping Stover's letter generates it can be assumed that a Constitutional Convention would wrack more havoc on America than W. Bush's bushwhacking of America. One post is correct: The Constitution is changed by Amendment and the Supremes.
Bush and his dad keep saying what a brutal dictator Saddam was whereas they don't recognize that the brutality now evident in Iraq exceeds by far Saddam's reign.
Worse: The Republican aspirants except for Ron Paul would continue Bush's policy with Ron Paul continuing Bush's faith initiatives of giving tax dollars to the "jew" from the "loins of David. Mind you: the $billions given to god, the spoke in the wheel of excrement, are borrowed from China, et al.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo Can't be blamed for being a misanthrope on November 9, 2007 10:58 AMCome see Damn Yankees at The Longmont Theatre Company, running next two weekends. Tickets $17.00
Call 303.772.5200
See the review in today's Boulder Camera.
Directed by yours truly....
RickyLee Jim Bob looking under every bed for Messicans again. I'm sure 'ol RLJB must be joined at the hip to Tom Tancredo. I also suspect RLJB would rather go see Damn Messicans at the theatre than Damn Yankees.
Posted by drew on November 9, 2007 11:55 AMdrewl,
you show your infinite intelligence with every post...by all means let's hear some more!
I am very pleased that so many of you support my proposal for amending the constitution. See you at the convention.
Posted by Truth on November 9, 2007 06:37 PMNow if we can only elect a president who can actually read the constitution, let alone follow it, we will be doing good.
The Constitution only means something if it is followed by all.
Posted by The common man on November 9, 2007 09:08 PM"A well regulated militia..."
From the American Heritage Dictionary, circa 1969:
Regulate - To adjust to a standard; to make operate accurately or efficiently.
While todays online dictionaries no longer include these older definitions, the word regulate was not used soley as it is in todays society. When the founding fathers used this word it also included definitions such as "to outfit or equip."
And since the "militia" that is being refered to was comprised of every able bodied citizen who owned a gun, you can hardly argue the founders were refering to todays armed forces, especially since such forces didn't even exist when this amendment was written.
The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the individual right of each and every citizen to keep and bear arms.
Posted by KW on November 10, 2007 10:10 AMI agree with KW. However, that does nothing toward answering the question of what limitations can be imposed on the right to bear arms. No sensible person would argue that no limitations can be imposed.
Posted by Truth on November 11, 2007 07:57 AMTruth,
"No sensible person would argue that no limitations can be imposed."
Most anti-gun zealots do not want limitations they want a total ban on guns. And here is where the problem comes in. The NRA has offered limitations and every time they compromise the zealots take those limitation and then start pushing for more. That is the MO of all of these anti-anything. zealots.
Look at what happened with smoking, started innocently enough, but piece by piece they cut away the smokers rights and even the individual business owners rights. We are now just short of a total ban on smoking. It didn't happen overnight it took place a little at a time.
Guns owners have compromised on many issues and the attack on their rights to own a gun continues. We are now digging in our heels and stating, prosecute the people using guns for illegal purposes, but allow us the right to defend ourselves and our families.
The police's hands have been tied and can not longer protect us, the only thing they do now is draw the chalk lines around the dead bodies.
jdg: "Most anti-gun zealots do not want limitations they want a total ban on guns."
I do not consider that the above statement has any truth to it. jdg, can you come up with any support at all for your statement? I don't think so.
Both sides, including jdg, employ hyperbole, to use an euphemistic term.
On the one hand, those generally opposed to gun control measures sometimes way that those supporting such measures want a total ban. I haven't been able to find any evidence to support or even suggest that.
On the other hand, the gun control people sometimes say that their opponents want no controls. I haven't been able to find any evidence to support or even suggest that.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, says:
"In their view, unfettered access to firearms is the key ingredient to protecting individual rights from overreaching by government."
I think that is a false statement.
The Cato Institute says:
"A total ban on the private possession of handguns is the ultimate goal of a Washington lobby called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Unlike some other gun control measures, a ban lacks popular support; only one-sixth to one-third of the citizenry favors such a measure."
I think that is a false statement.
I do not find anything in the website for the Coalition to support that statement. What the Coalition does support is reflected in this statement:
"Yet efforts of national and local advocates to persuade policymakers to close the gun show loophole, pass licensing and registration, and
institute universal background checks have been hindered by wellfunded special interest groups that oppose any and all regulations on guns."
Another statement exaggerated beyond all common sense is this one by jgd:
"The police's hands have been tied and can not longer protect us, the only thing they do now is draw the chalk lines around the dead bodies."
What I think is present is a bias so strong that it interferes with rationality.
Posted by Truth on November 11, 2007 11:12 AMIs not a zealousness wrong interpretation of a constitutional amendment effectively a changing of that amendment, for all intents and purposes.
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 11, 2007 11:39 AMTruth - What jgd states about the police not being able to protect us is 100% spot on. When was the last time you heard of the police responding to a rape or murder and actually preventing the crime?
Apprehending criminals is their job, not safeguarding us from them.
Posted by KW on November 11, 2007 01:02 PMLet's see...Colorado's shall-issue concealed carry law has been in effect for over four and a half years. Thousands upon thousands of permits have been issued, and there's been NOT A SINGLE instance of misuse of one of those permits. So, why does Tom Mauser continue to scream about concealed carry?
(see his letter to the Post on Saturday, 10 Nov.)
Interesting thing about that letter is; he cites several recent shootings, then goes on to complain about concealed weapons, even though NONE of the shootings had ANYTHING to do with a concealed carry permit holder. These tactics are why law-abiding gun owners are digging their heels in.
The gun-grabbers can't stand the fact that there's NO PROBLEM AT ALL with this law, and they continue to spout lies and hope the sheeple will lap them up.
Posted by RickyLee on November 11, 2007 05:58 PMTruth,
"National Coalition to Ban Handguns" is not out to ban handguns and you tell me I am crazy because I believe they are. Yes I know they changed their name, but find it hard to believe they haven't their stance. This is a very common tactic used by the liberals, they wouldn't come right out and say what they intend on doing. Just like the amnesty bill, it was turned down by Congress, but they are still trying to get it piece by piece. Dream act, drivers license for illegals, SCHIP, piece by piece that is how they will do it.
Banning gun ownership is the same thing, they will slowly exempt this group and then another group, keep adding a few more restrictions, before you know you no one will have the right to own a gun. It will still be legal, but if you get caught with one that will be against the law. Kind of like smoking, first it was banned in the office, and schools. then government business, next came the restaurants (smoking and non smoking sections) followed by no smoking in any restaurant and we will include the bars. Now it is the casinos, next will be DIA.. Add smoking in your own car if you have a minor in the car, and in your own condo. It is still legal but they is no place to do it.
I am not discussing whether it is right or wrong I am simply showing you how the liberals work. Piece by Piece. Keep an eye out for how they will try to get their amnesty through, piece by piece.
We should not allow them to do the same thing with banning guns. Not even the first piece.
As far as the police goes, I respect them for the job they do. However their hands have been tied by the legislature and our courts. Even when they do arrest someone, the courts just let them right out again. How can people have 15 or 20 arrest and still be walking the streets? They are unable to protect me or my family. As I have always said "getting into my house may not be that difficult, but I will guarantee you getting out is going to be a bitch" Lock and Load
Posted by jgd777 on November 11, 2007 07:29 PMjgd: ""National Coalition to Ban Handguns" is not out to ban handguns and you tell me I am crazy because I believe they are. "
Care to point out where I tell you that you are crazy? Not crazy, but also inclined to make up "facts" that are not true.
Posted by Truth on November 11, 2007 07:41 PMTruth,
Like the fact that the "National Coalition to ban Handguns" is out to ban handguns. Silly of me to assume that their objective is to ban handguns. What do you believe is their objective?
And what other "facts" do you feel I am inclined to make up? I have watched the liberals push their agenda through the back door for years. If the far left would ever present to the public their true agenda, the people would shut them down in a heart beat. They know that and it is why all of the double talk and sneaking in the back door.
Don't believe me, ask the public how they feel about amnesty. Maybe you could contact Jay, I am sure he has a poll that has asked that question
Am I the only one that can see that the group"National Coalition to Ban Handguns" is out to ban handguns.It says it in their title"Coalition to Ban Handguns".The reason they changed their name was they found out that a total ban over night would not work.So their new idea was to Ban Handguns one step at a time,in other words take 20 or 30 years to ban them.I have been fighting this battle since about 1989 when they banned guns in California and I can tell you for SURE that the anti-gun people and groups want to ban every gun we own.Just think what Truth and other liberals would say if all the laws we have controlling guns were put on Freedom of Speech.Truth wants to know what standard we should use when making gun laws.All he has to do is read the Second Amendment "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".Even Truth and other Democrats can understand these words.He says all the anti-gun groups want is a little "licensing and registration" of gunowners and guns.If he has read history he will see these things have always lead to confiscation of firearms.In fact in New York city in 1962 people were told to register their "semi auto firearms" by 1992 they were told to turn their guns in or go to jail.Because they had a registration list of guns they were kicking down the doors of citizens that did not obey the NEW law.The only thing that I do not know for sure is if Democrats like Truth are as dumb as they sound or are they just trying to trick the public into thinking they mean no harm to gun owners.It my be a little of each!! I do urge every person that cares about your gun rights to join the NRA.Call 1-877-NRA-2000.They have done a great job of defending our rights.
Posted by An American on November 12, 2007 06:17 AMThe Democrats may very well control the House,Senate and White House in 2008.The reason they are not talking about gun control is because the NRA has kicked the Democrats butts in elections for about the last 12 or 14 years.The NRA now has about 4 million members.If the NRA has 5 or 6 million members you can bet the Democrats will not even think of touching our guns.If you are a member of the NRA sign your friends,wife,son,daughter and everybody you can up to the NRA.Call-1-877-NRA-2000.It is only 10$ to sign your wife up if you are already a member.It is only 35$ to become a member.Do it now!!!
Posted by An American on November 12, 2007 06:33 AMDoes anyone know of any Republican, including those who are NRA members, who thinks a person should be able to carry a gun into the house or senate chambers? Or into the White House? Or into the Supreme Court? Or onto a commercial airplane? Or into the Westminster Recreational Center?
Posted by Truth on November 12, 2007 08:11 AMDoes anyone disagree when I say Colorado's concealed carry law has been NO PROBLEM AT ALL?
Four and a half years, thousands of permits and ZERO trouble. Yet, gun-grabbers like Tom Mauser continue to spread lies. Why is that?
Posted by RickyLee on November 12, 2007 10:03 AMTruth,
Once you have gone through the process of qualifying and being issued a concealed weapons permit, they should be allowed to carry it into the House, Senate, White house, Supreme court, on a commercial airline, in the school. recreation center or any other place.
The moment you designate an area " Gun free" you do nothing more than create a save area for any crazy gunman. It might even help in assisting the House, Senate, White house and Supreme court in doing their job.
Posted by jgd777 on November 12, 2007 10:22 AMTruth are you saying that Democrats do not trust the armed citizen in certain places?I pushed to allow all citizens the right to carry open in city council meetings in my city.4 out of 9 council members voted to allow the right.All the ones that voted to allow it were Republicans.At least one that voted against it was a Democrat.He admitted to me that he was a "coward" and that is why he voted against open carry.He now works in Senator Salazar's office.
Posted by An American on November 12, 2007 01:21 PMI am sure you will not find any senator or representative of either party who would want to allow people to bring guns into their chambers. Same with the people in the White House and the Supreme Court. They would be absolutely crazy to do that.
What city council are you talking about and what Democrat who is now working for Salazar? I'd like to check on the veracity of your claim.
Posted by Truth on November 12, 2007 07:35 PMI forgot that we can see how accurate Truth's information is by looking up the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" website.Truth claims that this group is not for banning handguns.There is a case going to the Supreme Court where Washington DC says they have the right to ban citizens from owning handguns.I will bet that this group is backing the DC gun ban and backing their argument that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right but is a state right to form a milita.Look up their website and you will see I am right.It will prove that Truths information on all issues is false at best.
Posted by An American on November 12, 2007 11:12 PMOnce again....ZERO problems with concealed carry, ZERO.
THis is one FACT the gun-grabbers cannot deny.
Posted by RickyLee on November 13, 2007 06:06 AMIn one of Truth's postings he stated that "the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" did not want to ban handguns.He was half right.They want to ban ALL guns because on their website they make the case that there is no individual right to own firearms in the Second Amendment.The articles that show this fact are"Parker V. District of Columbia"and "Dr. Saul Cornell-US V Miller".I want to point out the fact that if Democrat Truth could be so wrong about the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence how wrong is he about the war in Iraq?If you want to truth on the Second Amendment go to nraila.com or call 1877-NRA-2000.
Posted by An American on November 13, 2007 08:28 AM