Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Pedantic.
You give it way to much credit.
Don't you understand that the whole point of his case is to recieve STANDING so he can take his case throgh the courts? Jezzzzzzz, some folks are so dense.
weaponeer
Don't you understand that the whole point of his case is to recieve STANDING so he can take his case throgh the courts? Jezzzzzzz, some folks are so dense.
Roscoe feigns ignorance when it suits him. Everyone else knows his ignorance is all consuming and suits him 100% of the time.
Roscoe, I had the courtesy to flag you so you would have a chance to defend your ignorance.
The jury found him guilty. Hey, the idiot confessed!
OK, I'm not a newbie here but I feel like I must have missed something. What is a JBT?
Paul Grant, a civil rights attorney who will be representing both men is optimistic about their chances in court. On Saturday Grant stated, "There's absolutely no way a judge should be able to uphold Denver's ordinance in light of the state constitution". Public support and attention would be an essential part of the case, said Grant who has argued cases on several different occasions before the Supreme Court. He urged all supporters to attend these men's court dates and to speak out publicly on this issue explaining that; "Jurors must realize how important this case is". -- Rick Stanley's news release, December 17, 2001
Spin time!
It's an insult that some posters like to use when they violate the forum rule against personal attacks. It means "Jack Booted Thug."
I am continually appalled at how many so-called conservatives here readily align themselves with big government when they have a common enemy (namely libertarians).
I dare say these are the same kind of dangerous people who lined up behind Hitler because he told them "there is your enemy" and they obediently followed orders. And I say that in the most somber sincerity, not as some overblown hyperbole. I say this as the son of a Nazi Germany survivor. It's really frightening.
No, he was just looking for a little cheap publicity. Guilty as charged.
Your opinion here is worthless, roscoe, as you are an avowed foe of the 2nd amendment RKBA. -- In your demented eyes, he is guilty of defying your beloved all powerful state. - Bizarro. -618
The jury found him guilty. Hey, the idiot confessed!
We know that roscoe. See #596 right above, on why.
You do love to repeat yourself, don't you? Are you even aware that you do so? Constantly? Over & over?
See to your mental health, roscoe me boyo. - Really.
It's an insult that some posters like to use when they violate the forum rule against personal attacks. It means "Jack Booted Thug."
Your good buddy and best pal VA Advogado openly admitted he is a Jack-booted thug and proud of it. That's not an insult or a personal attack, it's a fact. That you can't handle being exposed for your true colors is a small but important difference where Advogado shines over you.
Batten down the hatches men! -- When roscoe starts talking of 'insults', his personal protector, one of the anono-mods, is usually not far behind.
Paul Grant, a civil rights attorney who will be representing both men is optimistic about their chances in court. On Saturday Grant stated, "There's absolutely no way a judge should be able to uphold Denver's ordinance in light of the state constitution". Public support and attention would be an essential part of the case, said Grant who has argued cases on several different occasions before the Supreme Court. He urged all supporters to attend these men's court dates and to speak out publicly on this issue explaining that; "Jurors must realize how important this case is". -- Rick Stanley's news release, December 17, 2001
Looks like the tune has changed since the conviction.
"The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States." -- U.S. Supreme Court BARTKUS v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.