Students defend RKBA in Colorado

[Lady Di]

Here's a link to an article written by an uneducated student at the University of Denver. While the article is extremely outrageous, I was encouraged by the several responses from other students. Take a peek and add your own comments. This student needs a history lesson as well as a reality check.

http://media.www.duclarion.com/media/storage/paper481/news/2007/10/23/Editorials/Guns-Dangerous.In.Schools.Homes-3049295.shtml

[Bill of Rights]

Take a peek and add your own comments. This student needs a history lesson as well as a reality check.

http://media.www.duclarion.com/media/storage/paper481/news/2007/10/23/Editorials/Guns-Dangerous.In.Schools.Homes-3049295.shtml

As requested, the "check" is not in the mail, but rather delivered. Somehow, I doubt his claim of past ownership, but there's no law against being stupid, I guess.

Several EMTs and paramedics I know call such people "job security".

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I posted my 2 bits worth.

[Lady Di]

Those are excellent comments, St. Michael and VegasGeorge! But of course, that doesn't surprise me, because you're excellent guys. Thanks for standing up for the cause. :D

[Bill of Rights]

There are 26 comments to Mr. Thomas' drivel at the time of this writing. Not one single comment supports his view.

I am quite encouraged. :)

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

I just read the 26 comments. Some of them are outstanding. With views like those and sites like this one, gun owners and freedom lovers will multiply like rabbits. My goal is for any politician with anti-gun views to be run out of public office by the masses. :D

[Bill of Rights]

My goal is for any politician with anti-gun views to be run out of public office by the masses. :D

Nothing wrong with this statement or the goal behind it. Odd, however, how our standards have changed. There was a time when such people were either tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail, or.........http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/swingin.gif

[Lady Di]

There was a time when such people were either tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail...

That's funny you should mention running people out on a rail, because those are the words that I used before editing. I didn't think it was a nice thing for a lady to say so I softened it up a little. I guess great minds think alike, St. Michael. :D

[VegasGeorge]

St. Michael, you have touched upon one of my pet peeves. So, you are sentenced to read my rant.

Consequences. That's what's missing from contemporary society. There are no consequences for bad behavior. Yes, it used to be that a child molester would be unceremoniously shot, that a horse thief would be unceremoniously hung, and that a man who insulted women or committed a fraud, would be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. No more. There are no consequences at all for insulting, rude, and obnoxious behavior. No more duels, no more whacking up the side of the head with a brick bat. Children are not to be spanked, and if you actually punch an A-Hole in the nose, you get arrested. Polite society is a thing of the past, because no one will enforce standards of good behavior. We've become so civilized that the barbarians have taken over. Odd, that. For every wrong, there's a telephone number and a waiting list. Entire populations are strolling around sporting prison gang tattoos and thumbing their noses at authority. The media rates its programing on how shocking and inappropriate it is. The more it offends, the better its deemed to be. I don't know how much uglier society can become. There must be a limit.

[Bill of Rights]

George,

That is not a sentence, that was a pleasure to read. You are quite correct, and I'm not sure how to "turn the tide" and bring back decency without tromping upon the rights of people to watch or read what they want. I do not believe that it is appropriate, correct, or even a good idea to limit, ban, etc. programming or action that does not interfere with the rights of others. (Although, as has been repeated numerous times, no one has the right to never be offended) The "religious right", aka the "moral majority" (which was neither) was big on banning, and never got the idea that the channel can be changed or the television turned off. They were not content to simply not watch something themselves, they felt it their duty to ensure that NO ONE was able to watch those programs with which they disagreed.
The nose-thumbing populations to whom you refer, in wearing tattoos and in mocking authority do not commit any crimes, but when they do commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder, assault, etc., they should be made to pay for those crimes. That is, if Frank the Felon robs Mrs. Green, stealing her purse, and is caught, he should have to pay for the purse and all it's contents, plus a sum in recompense for the fear he caused her-if he doesn't find himself on the wrong end of Mrs. (or Mr!) Green's gun.
I dislike pointing out problems and not having solutions to offer, but in this case, I'm not sure how to make that change begin. We discussed once before that my right to stand and swing my arm in a circle ends at the tip of your nose. I can take any action I wish so long as it interferes with no one's rights. Whoever comes up with the answer will never again want for anything in his or her life, but I fear I'm not smart enough to find a solution to that problem. So, in the meantime:

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Well, St. Michael, I proudly considered myself part of the "religious right" and "moral majority" back in the day, but I never advocated banning anyone else's constitutional rights. I advocated banning things like child porn, because it is not protected speech. There were many in the groups that you refer to who strongly supported the RKBA and other constitutional rights. You just stepped on my toes. I'm still smiling though. Ouch! :wink: :lol: :D

[Bill of Rights]

Well, St. Michael, I proudly considered myself part of the "religious right" and "moral majority" back in the day, but I never advocated banning anyone else's constitutional rights. I advocated banning things like child porn, because it is not protected speech. There were many in the groups that you refer to who strongly supported the RKBA and other constitutional rights. You just stepped on my toes. I'm still smiling though. Ouch! :wink: :lol: :D

No offense meant to you, Lady Di, and though I'm sure you know this, I'm saying it anyway. You advocated banning child porn, on the grounds that it is not protected speech, per SCOTUS. Rather than ban the product, why do we not ban the criminal? Simply put, we will never eradicate something for which there is a demand.
That there were pro-RKBA/pro-rights people in the MM group is not in question. It's commendable that they supported those things. It is appalling, however, that they also supported banning television programs and radio broadcasts and various books from libraries on the grounds that those materials and programs disagreed with what they wanted.

There was an episode of WKRP in Cincinnatti about that time wherein a local preacher (who bore a striking resemblance to Jerry Falwell)threatened to remove sponsors, picket the station, campaign against it... if certain songs with which the group disagreed were not pulled from the playlist. Here is the transcript of that exchange between the station manager, Mr. Arthur Carlson and "Dr. Bob", the preacher:

Mr Carlson: I had one of my disc jockeys, Dr Johnny Fever, give me the lyrics to a song. He wants to know if you'd let him play that song on the air.

Dr Bob, reading: "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine no possessions? Imagine all the people sharing all the world?" That sounds like communism to me, if there's no heaven, no religion and, I assume, no God.
Mr Carlson: There's not an obscene word in here.

Dr Bob: Not the way I see it.

Mr Carlson: Does it go on your list?

Dr Bob: Arthur, this is typical of the kind of secular, liberal humanist point of view that gluts our airwaves.

Mr Carlson: Yeah, but we're not talking obscenities here anymore, Bob, we're talking about ideas - political, philosophical ideas! First you censor a word, and then you censor the ideas.

Dr Bob: The idea is man-centered, not God-centered. Man is an animal. The Bible tells us to put our reliance in God, not in our fellow mortals. Arthur, this song says there's no heaven.

Mr Carlson: Ah. No it doesn't, it just says imagine there's no heaven.

Dr Bob: That's blasphemy.

Mr Carlson: On the list or not?

Dr Bob: I have no choice but to say on.

Mr Carlson: That decision was made by one man.

There are issues on which I am vocal with which those groups would and have disagreed with me. There are issues on which I am vocal with which those groups would agree with me as well. No two people anywhere on the planet will agree totally on all issues. On this one, I disagree with them and say, "If you don't like it, turn it off or change the station/go check out a different book. You do not have the right to decide what I'm allowed to watch or read."

I didn't mean to step on your or anyone's toes. You have my apology. That's more than the MM ever gave me or anyone for all the toes they stepped on back then. My argument is not with individuals, but with the organization's leadership.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Just because something is constitutionally permissible, doesn't mean that someone should do it. For example, you might step in front of me on the sidewalk, and shout epithets at me impugning the character of my mother. That is within your constitutionally protected right of free speech. The problem is that no matter how offended I may be, or how outrageous your behavior, I have no lawful right to do anything about it. Time was when I could deck you with impunity, or even challenge you to a duel. But today, there simply are no consequences for such behavior.

The rights expressed in our Bill of Rights were never intended to be a license to extend behavior to such extremes as to test the limits of morality and common decency. I'm sure that it never occurred to the framers of our constitution that homosexuals would ride naked through town on bicycles as an expression of their 1st Amendment rights, and that decent citizens would be powerless to stop them.

At some point, the rights of law abiding, God fearing, patriotic, morally sound citizens are going to have to be recognized as more important than the rights of the criminal, atheist, traitorous, and corrupt elements in our society. If we can't reach that point, we are doomed.

[VegasGeorge]

This highly relevant news story is just out:

Father: Funeral protest made him sick
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 10/25/2007 10:24:57 AM EDT

BALTIMORE -- The father of a Marine killed in Iraq took the stand in his invasion of privacy suit against a fundamentalist church that pickets soldiers' funerals, saying protesters carrying signs at his son's burial made him sick to his stomach.

Asked Wednesday about a sign that read "Thank God for dead soldiers," Snyder said he thinks about it daily. "I see that sign when I lay in bed," Snyder said. The case tests the limits of the First Amendment right to free speech.

U.S. District Richard Bennett instructed jurors at the start of testimony Tuesday that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements. Bennett said the jurors must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous, and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."

Here is a prime example of persons using the constitution as a "license to extend behavior to such extremes as to test the limits of morality and common decency." I hope Mr. Snyder wins his case, but I doubt it. And, even if he does win in the trial court, an appeals court will probably reverse it. In the past, those jerks wouldn't have dared to disrupt a dead Marine's funeral. But today, with no consequences for bad behavior, they feel free to do anything they want.

[Bill of Rights]

At some point, the rights of law abiding, God fearing, patriotic, morally sound citizens are going to have to be recognized as more important than the rights of the criminal, atheist, traitorous, and corrupt elements in our society. If we can't reach that point, we are doomed.

There are several problems with the above, George. Let me be clear in saying that I do not disagree with your points in principle.
The problems I see are:

"Law-abiding": As Lady Di pointed out elsewhere, our Founders would not have met this definition. Some laws do not deserve to be upheld, such as DC's gun ban, and the Parker challenge is long, LONG overdue.

"God-fearing": Do we really want this to be a point of law? More to the point, is there any way we could Constitutionally do so?

"Morally sound": According to whom? Some of the values I've expressed here would paint me as "immoral" according to some people, but I am not. I have different values from them.

"Criminal": See "Law abiding", above. This is easily differentiated, but are the laws Constitutional? If we allow the criminalization of that which is Constitutional, what likely results is the exact situation you describe, re: being unable to deliver the consequential pop in the nose.

"Atheist": I respect that you are, to use the term you did in another thread, a "committed Christian". Sadly, however, there are some who would define that as the mandate, that all must be so. This cannot be, for reasons you understand as well as if not better than everyone else here.

"Traitorous": To give aid and/or comfort to the enemy. Is a guy you want to pop in the nose really a traitor? I suspect by this you mean those elements who truly wish to see the downfall of America. You know... liberals. :wink:

Let me also be clear in the fact that I have NO intention in this or any post to lecture you. I am nowhere near qualified to do so, even if I had a desire to try. The terms you used struck me as being fraught with possibilities of misuse and abuse, and while I know that your intentions are pure, so were those of the men who wrote the "interstate commerce clause" that is so often the justification by which the federal government steps in to abuse the lives and rights of the citizens.

I have a favorite Biblical quote. I don't put much stock in the Bible as we see it today, but some phrases and quotes ring true to me as being unadulterated from the way that God gave them to us. The quote I'm going to use is the one often seen in the offices of attorneys across the nation; possibly even across the world.

That quote is: Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue (Deuteronomy 16:20). I fully agree with the active pursuit of that which is just and the attempt to return that justice to our society. Where I think we must use caution is in ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not become the persecution of others simply because they are different from ourselves.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

St. Michael - Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

Words are so troublesome. After reading your post I realized that I was using terms that require some explanation if my intended meanings are to be understood. A mistake an old lawyer like me shouldn't make! Here is what I had in mind:

"Law abiding." - My meaning here is best seen in contrast with its opposite. We are a country over run by law breakers. Gangs are an obvious example. They are nothing more than criminal conspiracies, involved in all kinds of illegal activities. But, they swagger around wearing their "colors," sporting their tattoos, and generally publicizing their criminal intentions. They are scofflaws, and proud of it. In contrast, "law abiding" citizens maintain a respect for the law, and a willingness to comply. The occasional violation of a law viewed as unjust or unconstitutional does not alter their character. They are still acting in a manner they consider to be consistent with the true spirit of the law. In my meaning, "law abiding" has less to do with compliance, and more to do with an attitude of respect.

"God fearing," and "Atheist." - My intended meanings here have nothing to do with any particular religion. Secular humanism has reduced large segments of our population to moral and ethical depravity. They are adrift in a sea of choices and possibilities without a compass or star to guide them. Traditionally, the great religions of the world have provided direction in peoples lives, instilled in them a sense of right and wrong, and given them a connection to the greater good. Religion may not be the only way, but it is the only way that has worked so far in human history. I just don't see Earth First, or MoveOn.org as any kind of substitute for spiritual faith.

"Morally sound." - I'm not pointing at any particular moral point of view. What makes something "moral" is its conformance with a set standard. Sure, some of us have different standards. That's OK. What is not OK are those folks going through life with no standards, or who choose to ignore their standards. They simply get up each day and do whatever they want, without regard to anyone or anything. They are loose cannons, and highly destructive to society. The opposite of "morally sound," might be "unprincipled."

"Traitorous." - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands ....." Allegiance to the Republic is what matters. We have a constitution, and the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as specified in that constitution. Taken together, that is the "Republic." Any person, or group who advocates changing that system, peacefully or otherwise, is acting traitorously. Any person or group who advocates changing our constitution in a way that denigrates its original meaning and purpose is acting traitorously. Any person or group who advocates the compromise of our national sovereignty is acting traitorously. And, any person or group who aids or supports our enemies or detractors is acting traitorously.

St Michael, thanks again for giving me this opportunity to clarify my thoughts.