Sunday January 22, 2017
Jump to content
I received an email through the Roundup from Mr. Rose also. The only information he provided me with was to confirm that his reference to the "Declaration" was the Declaration of Independence, which I suspected but didn't want to assume without confirmation. He says he was speaking of our "rights" from that document.
I invited him to respond to us here, and asked him a few questions I won't go into unless he responds. I get the feeling he is as ignorant of our form of government and the reasons why it was set up that way as the kids I challenged in my original letter. And just as willing to raise a ruckus about something he knows little about.
Thank you for your service, Greg.
I wonder ... can you point to any word, sentence, or paragraph in either of my letters that address any "Declaration," or in particular, the Declaration of Independence, if that is what you are talking about?
Your letter seems confused, as though you didn't understand what I was saying, or perhaps don't understand what you are trying to say.
I do know what those kids are saying; they've been marching carrying signs advocating against the electoral system our nation uses to elect our President. Since I never questioned their understanding of any "Declaration," I don't understand what you are saying and I have to wonder if you do.
But again, thanks for your service, Greg.
At least you have done 9 of them. The kids shooting their mouths off haven't done any beyond, maybe, changing a diaper. Fifty percent was pulled out of the air, but the point is that the biggest problem we have today in our marketplace of ideas is people exercising their RIGHT to "peaceably assemble to redress grievances against the government" without having a clue what they are talking about. I'm not saying they should not be allowed to speak or protest. I'm saying they have a responsibility to have some idea of what they are protesting about, and -- frankly -- kids in high school don't. And they certainly should not be ditching school for a day to do it.
Exactly what happened when Tea Partiers were elected to the school board, Deb? Did they block rulemaking or regulations robbing everyone at the point of a gun to feed students that were quite capable of either feeding themselves or partaking of charity? Why is it you and your husband both seem to think you have the right to rob others of their property and pretend that the result is charity?
"I'll never give up on our current form of government, ..."
You just did. And you have done so with every letter I have seen published in the Roundup over your signature. You have never expressed the slightest interest in upholding and defending the United States Constitution or the Arizona State Constitution, and you are therefore as responsible for the deterioration of our republican form of government as the men and women you excoriate.
We are incredibly blessed in this area to be represented at the State level by Sylvia Allen, Bob Thorpe, and Brenda Barton, and in the House of Representatives by Dr. Paul Gosar. We are incredibly cursed in Arizona to be represented in the Senate by Jeff Flake and John McCain, neither one of which has ever supported the U.S. Constitution any more than you have unless they were campaigning.
"For Obama to demand removal of guns from law abiding Americans when determined Islamic terrorists have, and will likely continue to attack Americans, demonstrates complete disconnect from reality on his part."
I believe it demonstrates giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the definition of Treason most foul.
Good letter, Gary; thanks.
While I agree with your thesis, like many people I worry about what might come out of an Article V convention. I am not yet convinced there are adequate protections to prevent the 2nd Amendment from being damaged, rather than enhanced, especially given the lack of integrity shown by the proponents of a disarmed population of serfs.
I doubt there can be any improvement to any law that would prevent a thug of a law-giver to say "Well, the First Amendment does not apply to the right of a baker to refuse service to a gay couple, and the Second Amendment does not apply to this gun or that gun, or this place or that place, or outside your home, or yada yada yada." See what I mean?
On the other hand, there is a simple clarification that makes a risky modification to the 2nd Amendment unnecessary: Legal, statutory recognition that the definition of "Militia" is all the citizens of a State between the ages of 18 and 45 years and anyone else who wants to be, and "well-regulated" means "well-trained," both of which are clearly the case from both existing law and the Founder's writings.
Other than that, statutory recognition that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means what it says would help, although since both the federal and State Constitutions are today routinely ignored by both the State and the federal government, I'm not sure what form that "help" would take.
Exactly right. Unfortunately, while your thesis seems fully justified, the problem is we don't know what came out at the trial or what prior police record either one of them had, if any. We don't know what elements of either was present that justified (or didn't justify) either verdict. I do believe the appearance of unequal justice is as damaging as unequal justice. Thank you for your letter.
I had no clue what you were talking about in your letter above, and I had no idea you were a wild-eyed flaming liberal. I still have no idea what you are talking about in your letter above, but now I know you are a wild-eyed flaming liberal because that is EXACTLY how smarmy, smug, self-important little liberal twerps response to legitimate discussion and criticism. I have never seen it fail.
In the future you might try responding in substance instead of being a smart-ass.
"Citizen's United" is one of the most ill-advised, anti-liberty, outrageous rulings to ever emanate from the Supreme Court. It is right up there with Wickard v. Filburn. But there is a reason for it of which most people are unaware: It is a force-multiplier favoring the advancement of the Marxist ideology. (It could be a force-multiplier favoring the advancement of a fascist ideology, but at the street level there is little difference between a Marxist regime and a fascist regime, and these days the ignorant suckers are buying Cultural Marxism.)
"Citizens United" was a ruling in favor of unrestrained oligarchy, pure and simple. We can waste all kinds of time arguing over whether it is a left-wing plot or a right-wing plot, but it is worth noting that most major corporate CEOs and high-level management vote left-wing whether registered as a Democrat or Republican.
But such labels in this case matters little: There is no fascism quite as vicious and oppressive as left-wing fascism at the street level.
Last login: Tuesday, December 20, 2016