Not likely!
Posted on 07/26/2002 5:12:23 PM PDT by christine
From what I hear, there are about 10,000 or so people spending a long, long time in prison for basically techincal firearms violations. Care to go to them and explain that they haven't had their right taken away?
Jury trials are a rigged game. ... One can no more get justice in the courts ...
Blacks used to say that in the south back in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's. Then their attitude begin to change in the 60's. Guess what?? Ever hear of the civil rights movement? Success leaves cluse which others can use. Argue for your limitations and they are yours!
Personally, I would rather lose my life than my freedom, and I suspect Rick feels the same way. Reality is relative, in the sense that it each person pereives it and interprets it uniquely. Rick's and my perception of freedom and reality may be very different than yours.
You are apparently a frustrated psychiatrist wannabe, since you can't stop yourself from dispensing advice. If you're ever going to be in Austin, Texas, let me know. I'll give you the opportunity to straighten me out.
They did not have their Rights taken away. They only had their ability to exercise their Rights taken away. For example, the government can take my life, but it can't take my Right to life. My Rights come from my Creator, not the government, and the government cannot take them.
Not likely!
My view of reality: No one can stop you from doing anything you want to do.
My view of freedom: No one tries to stop you from doing anything you want to do as long as it doesn't cause actual (or probable) harm to anyone.
Freedom is self controll. Liberty is no restraint.
Sorry about so many posts. I seem to have too much time on my hands today.
Go Stanley!!!!
Who the hell is that?
Don't forget, this train wreck is allegedly running for the U.S. Senate. If nothing else, this little charade has demonstrated his unworthiness for dog catcher, let alone Senator.
Nope -- nothing like a foam-at-the-mouth lunatic to make the LP look more stupid than it already does.
Beyond that, Stanley's probably done more damage to the RKBA than any Denver politician could possibly have dreamed of -- and he's dragged responsible advocates of gun rights into the sewer alongside him. Now the gun-grabbers can point to little ricky and give fence sitters a choice between "responsible gun control" and "fruitcakes like Rick Stanley."
IMHO he should have been sentenced to an additional 10 years for being a useful idiot.
They have Mark Shurtleff, and we're stuck with little Ricky. Sigh.
I disagree, the 14th may have been used or misinterpretted (deliberately methinks) to do those things, but originally it's purpose was to protect rights of the people, not infringe upon them, and this is how it was understood when passed. One of the chief rights, if not THE chief right, it was to protect from state and local infringement was the right to keep and bear arms. The sponsers and supporters of it said just that during debates. They allowed that it was also to protect the other rights protected by the first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights, from infringement by state and local governments. If properly understood and implemented, it would have the federal government going up against the cities of Denver and Chicago, as well as New York City and others which infringe on the peoples RKBA.
Under the system set up by the Constitution, both the federal governments and those of the states are sovereign, each in it's own realm. Since the people, the real sovereigns in both cases, are part of both levels of government, the concept of being a citizen of your own state and of the United States is not so very strange.
Activist judges have been able to twist most any part of the Constitution for the United States, and those of the several states, to mean what they wanted it to mean. In this respect the 14th is no different.
Stanley sounds more like the Constitution Party than the LP, but that's just my humble opinion.
So, you can't carry a gun, non-concealed, until you need one to defend yourself? When it's needed, how are you to get it from where it's stored to where it's needed, transporter maybe? You can't challenge a law until you break it, usually and especially a gun law, and if you do that, are you not "making a political statement"?
I agree about the sovereign citzen/ucc smoke and mirrors stuff though. IMHO, the government, at any level, doesn't feel the need to be that devious, nor are most in government intellectually capable of such efforts if they did.
Only if you are a resident of Denver. If you live outside of Denver and are travelling into or through the city you can carry a gun, either openly or concealed, in you vehicle.
If you are a resident of Denver you can not legally carry a gun openly in your vehicle or on your person if you are off of your own property, but you have the out of several affirmative defenses to avoid criminal penalties if you are constitutionally compliant in reasons.
see the recent appellate court decision Trinen v. City and County of Denver, No. 00CA2126 (Colo.App. 02/14/2002).
Pay attention to the way they get around a broad application of the constitution to Denver by using affirmative defense as a constitutional out. Also study the dissenting opinion.
Understanding this decision should keep you out of serious trouble when in Denver. Most people who get in trouble have said and done the wrong thing when arrested or questioned. By your words are you justified and by your words are you condemned.
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.