If you don't want to go through the process, you can buy a pistol on the streets or buy a shotgun, saw off the barrel and carry it under a trench coat.Originally Posted by DomesticatedFeminist
Looks like JimO finally realized he had no idea what the right to free speech meant.
So, in summation, JimO (who taught the Constitution didn't know what the 1st Amendment said, and Alan Bedenko didn't know that Liberals and Democrats aren't the same thing.
That about wraps up this thread, no?
to bear: to bring forth; to show
hiding weapons on your person is not exactly bringing forth or showing them, now is it?
Again, this Amendment had nothing to do with someone carrying guns because it gives them a hard on and everything to do with every male pretty much de facto being in the local army.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
Thanks for the explanation, run, but we're talking about two completely different things here.
That is a typical "I'm going to quote the Constitution, even though I've only heard bits and pieces of it, and I don't know exactly what it means" reaction.
I don't mean to insult you, personally. Tons of people fall into that category.
I need to take jim o's class I think.
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
Yes, ask Jim of you have the right to "bare" arms.I need to take jim o's class I think.
DM, a few years the Buffalo News published my "right-wing rant" about the Second Amendment protecting an individual right to bear arms--because the people have the right to resist government tyrrany.
Then the Supreme Court held my way. It's now the law of the land.
(Well, always was.)
Now it turns out I had two such articles:
GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ENGAGE IN WISHFUL THINKING
Article 1 of 3 found.
Published on January 18, 2003
632{WORDCNT:-0} words
JAMES OSTROWSKI
Something happened in Buffalo recently that contradicts the propaganda of those who support gun control, which is the control of law-abiding people who wish to own a gun for protection against the nefarious elements in this world. A citizen used a shotgun to defend his home and his family against armed intruders. His gun was not taken from him and used against him. His gun was not stolen. He did not have time to wait for the police, though they did arrive moments later. He was able to get to
...Click here for the complete text of article 1 ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS A RIGHT OF DEFENSE
Article 2 of 3 found.
Published on August 3, 1999
266{WORDCNT:-0} words
I wish to congratulate James Ostrowski and give him a hearty "Well Done" for his "My View" column of July 25. His explanation of the meaning of the Second Amendment is right on.
Very few people know the true meaning of this amendment or the purpose for which it was written -- not only to protect the populace from enemies from without, but also to protect them from enemies from within. And because many people think "it
...Click here for the complete text of article 2 ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS DETERS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY
Article 3 of 3 found.
Published on July 25, 1999
615{WORDCNT:-0} words
JAMES OSTROWSKI
The April massacre in a Colorado public high school has been exploited in the press by opponents of private gun ownership to promote their panacea. At the same time, they have ignored the lesson of Kosovo, where a "gun cleansing" preceded an "ethnic cleansing."
The actual purpose of the Second Amendment -- rarely acknowledged -- is to protect private gun ownership as a deterrent to federal government tyranny. James Madison made this very
...Click here for the complete text of article 3 ...
Where's your article on your complete lack of understanding regarding the 1st Amendment? Do you have the link to Mad Magazine?
There's a best selling book out there called "Liberty & Tyranny" , I suggest all peruse through it on the 'net or actually read it (sorry to the few who want pictures , they are none !!)
And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
"Where's your article on your complete lack of understanding regarding the 1st Amendment?"
Sorry, just four or five 1983 cases won against the big firms and this little essay, that I wrote pretty quick but three or four colleges have used it, including Brown.
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/first5.html
"Liberty & Tyranny"
The author writes of the greatness of "ordered liberty."
Liberty doesn't need an adjective.
He's a neocon.
Stick with the libertarians.
So Jim-O...nice little essay. Much of it quite agreeable. But your essay speaks of inalienable rights (namely free speech) upon which governments may not impinge. Again, explain what in the world the government impinging on free speech has to do with individual and private citizens using their voices and dollars to protest the paranoid delusional rantings of another private citizen.
On its own your essay/speech is, while at many points arguable, quite well put together.. When you so disingenuously cry "free speech" over a scenario that clearly has nothing to do with the political doctrine at all, you besmirch the good work you put together so many years ago. Basically, it looks like a once-bright libertarian thinker has turned into a sophistic partisan hack for his buddies.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
ok... now were have an interesting debate to follow.....
Ostrowski vs. Run4it...... lets get ready to rumble!
"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." As they pertain to the issue of free speech, we may narrow the words down to the following: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."
There it is, right at the very top of your essay, yet you have no idea what it means? Did you just cut and paste it, and fail to read and comprehend it?
Did you notice the word "Congress"? It's in that little paragraph twice. Kind of hard to miss, right? So, that being said, tell me who specifically in congress (or any branch of government) is interfering in TB's affairs.
If you can't, why not just admit what is plainly obvious to everyone else, that this isn't a free speech issue, Mr Constitutional Scholar?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote