[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I find it interesting that this young piece of shit picked a car with a white house frau at the wheel.

He'd have been very sorry the day he wailed on my car like that.

There'd be one less homeboy holdin' down th' block. Y'stanwhatI'msayin'?

[cripplecreek]

Good argument. So what was that all about?

[Dallas59]

The freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to destroy property.

[dagoofyfoot]

WTF?!?!?

[m87339]

I would have run him over too. Twice. Three times. Flat as a pancake.

Clearly, people didn't learn from Reginald Denny.

[Army Air Corps]

Short burst from an MP40 would have changed his tune...

[Rokke]

I really thought the guy had some good points. Especially when he mentioned the ramifications of Plessy vs. Ferguson on the secondary school education curriculum.

[Honest Abe Lincoln]

Dam! Seriously, if you shot him then they come after you because he didn't threaten you just setting in your car.

The District Attorney would say, "You were in your car and safe. You had a gun. Why did you have to shoot? You could have just sat in your car and done nothing and waited for him to leave. You really weren't in fear for your life because you were safe in your car. Right?" etc. etc.

I wonder if anybody turned this video over to John Walsh so he could track this guy down and have him put behind bars.

[vannrox]

...Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.