How do we protect kids in school?

Jan 8, 2013 Full story: Ruidoso News 6,103

During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.

Full Story
factologist

Farmington, NM

#721 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
I would say the AR15 is exactly the type weapon they are talking about..."in common use at the time"...and the exact weapon you would want to have show up in the militia...and that would include the high capacity magazines.
And I say you would be wrong. The AR15 is not protected by the 2nd, nor is the M16.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#722 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
No argument there. It protects the right to "use the weapon within the home" but not the right of self defense.But I might be splitting hairs. I'm no lawyer so I'm on veery unsteady ground.
"...It protects the right to "bear arms". It doesn't mention the term and it doesn't say "bear loaded arms" either."
Just as it does not mention "unloaded". There is no mention at all of the manner in which to "bear arms". Within Heller, the court stated in explaining "bearing" arms..."...of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person." Armed and ready for offense or defense...would tell me that a firearm would be loaded in order to be "ready" for confrontation.
"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly,“[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989)(hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment ... indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’”
Same answer as above.

I do know in Heller, Scalia recognized "... concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment [2nd] or ...".(Page 2 2.)So I would assume a law that says CC is only allowed if the gun is not loaded would not be unconst. under the 2nd.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#723 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
Nowhere, did anyone in Heller say that the Miller court "got it wrong"...in fact they support and expand upon it.
This is what I was referring to.
"The ruling in Heller represented a radical departure from the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia. In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law."
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#724 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>And I say you would be wrong. The AR15 is not protected by the 2nd, nor is the M16.
See...?...It wasn't silly when I told you it would be futile to argue Constitutionality of a law with you. Even after you said;

"Now that's a silly thing to say. Of course I accept the 2nd, not as it is written, but as it is interpreted by the courts, in order of succession. I don't interpret any const. amendments. Not my job."

You said, YOU don't accept the 2nd Amendment as it was written...YOU don't accept the court's interpretation (even thou you say you do)...and that YOU don't even interpret ANY Constitutional Amendment...so I guess you just rely on the Gov't to tell you what your rights are..if any at all.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#725 Mar 4, 2013
List of Feinstein's proposed ban:

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#726 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
See...?...It wasn't silly when I told you it would be futile to argue Constitutionality of a law with you. Even after you said;
"Now that's a silly thing to say. Of course I accept the 2nd, not as it is written, but as it is interpreted by the courts, in order of succession. I don't interpret any const. amendments. Not my job."
You said, YOU don't accept the 2nd Amendment as it was written...YOU don't accept the court's interpretation (even thou you say you do)...and that YOU don't even interpret ANY Constitutional Amendment...so I guess you just rely on the Gov't to tell you what your rights are..if any at all.
Of course I rely on the Gov. to tell me the law. Don't you? How do you go about finding out the laws that are enforce? Or do you care in AK?
Who is "the gov. anyway?
Is the SC part of the gov to you? Is it the final say- to you- regarding the constitutionality of a law or is it you?
I must be doing something right; I've never been arrested or even ticketed. I am very proud to say.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#727 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I was referring to.
"The ruling in Heller represented a radical departure from the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia. In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law."
What is your source, as initially you stated it was Scalia as below;

"This is what Scalia was referring to when he brought up the M16 example. He is saying that just because it is the weapon that is used in the military today, it doesn't mean it's protected by the 2nd.
Again, what he is saying is that Miller got it wrong."

Here is what the court did say about Miller;

"The Government’s brief spent two pages discussing English legal sources, concluding “that at least the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion or excuse was always a crime” and that (because of the class-based restrictions and the prohibition on terrorizing people with dangerous or unusual weapons)“the early English law did not guarantee an unrestricted right to bear arms.” Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 9–11. It then went on to rely primarily on the discussion of the English right to bear arms in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, for the proposition that the only uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that relate to the militia, not self-defense. See Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 12–18. The final section of the brief recognized that “some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property,” and launched an alternative argument that “weapons which are commonly used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. See id., at 18–21. The Government’s Miller brief thus provided scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment—and the Court was presented with no counter discussion. As for the text of the Court’s opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307
U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178–182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.24"

"24As for the “hundreds of judges,” post, at 2, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller: If so, they overread Miller. And their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. In any event, it should not be thought that the cases decided by these judges would necessarily have come out differently under a proper interpretation of the right."
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#728 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>No argument there. It protects the right to "use the weapon within the home" but not the right of self defense.But I might be splitting hairs. I'm no lawyer so I'm on veery unsteady ground.
<quoted text>Same answer as above.
I do know in Heller, Scalia recognized "... concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment [2nd] or ...".(Page 2 2.)So I would assume a law that says CC is only allowed if the gun is not loaded would not be unconst. under the 2nd.
What is the purpose for CC...?

"So I would assume a law that says CC is only allowed if the gun is not loaded would not be unconst. under the 2nd."

Why would you assume that...? Your Right to "bear arms" is being infringed according to the following from Heller;

"JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment ... indicate[s]:‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’"

If you are doing CC...then to serve your purpose, I would expect to be "ready" for confrontation...wouldn't you...? What would being "ready" mean to you...? To me, that means your weapon is loaded and YOU are "ready" for offensive or defensive action in case of confrontation.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#729 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I rely on the Gov. to tell me the law. Don't you? How do you go about finding out the laws that are enforce? Or do you care in AK?
Who is "the gov. anyway?
Is the SC part of the gov to you? Is it the final say- to you- regarding the constitutionality of a law or is it you?
I must be doing something right; I've never been arrested or even ticketed. I am very proud to say.
Well with that type of attitude, there would be no challenges to the Constitutionality of ANY laws the gov't passes. You would just roll over and accept anything they tell you.

The point is for YOU to read AND comprehend what rights you do have...then you can weigh the laws against your rights.

"I must be doing something right; I've never been arrested or even ticketed. I am very proud to say."

Well of course when you don't rock the boat...comply with everything the gov't tells you...and never questions anything. You're falling into that slave role very well.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#730 Mar 4, 2013
Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".

Sort of the same issue tho. I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense. When it comes to a specific or legal sense, I leave that up to to our system of courts.(Like Scalia said in Heller "Like most rights,...is not unlimited". And I don't get to decide what those limits are. Courts do.)
Normally, when a law is passed-fed.,st,local, I generally don't even know it unless and until it impacts me.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#731 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
List of Feinstein's proposed ban:
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
Wow, even .22 rimfires(Armalite M15 22LR Carbine). Next she will be trying to ban slingshots. Too bad for her all that effort is for naught. There is no way the ban will pass.

Feinstein's Assault weapon Ban

The Senate arithmetic is in the Republicans' favour. The Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to overturn a Republican filibuster. Republicans have already delayed progress on the bill by a week and will delay it further.

The hearing is a chance for opponents of assault weapons in civilian hands to voice their case. But for all the emotion displayed in the committee, the reality is that this bill has no chance. The Senate is holding this hearing not to help frame legislation but primarily as a courtesy to Feinstein.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/27/a...
factologist

Farmington, NM

#732 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your source, as initially you stated it was Scalia as below;
This is what Scalia was referring to when he brought up the M16 example. He is saying that just because it is the weapon that is used in the military today, it doesn't mean it's protected by the 2nd.
http://smartgunlaws.org
"24As for the “hundreds of judges,” post, at 2, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller: If so, they overread Miller. And their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. In any event, it should not be thought that the cases decided by these judges would necessarily have come out differently under a proper interpretation of the right."
What do you say about these comments by Scalia?
-If so, they overread Miller
-their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case [ie Miller]
-cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms [Scalia's meaning not "the “hundreds of judges, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller"].

Sounds to me like Scalia is saying Miller got it wrong or at least the interpretation of Miller was wrong for many years.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#733 Mar 4, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, even .22 rimfires(Armalite M15 22LR Carbine). Next she will be trying to ban slingshots.
So you wouldn't mind taking a .22LR in the face. WOW!
Too bad for her all that effort is for naught. There is no way the ban will pass.
Thanks for your concern. But at least she's trying.
Assault weapon Ban
The Senate arithmetic is in the Republicans' favour. The Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to overturn a Republican filibuster. Republicans have already delayed progress on the bill by a week and will delay it further.
The hearing is a chance for opponents of assault weapons in civilian hands to voice their case. But for all the emotion displayed in the committee, the reality is that this bill has no chance. The Senate is holding this hearing not to help frame legislation but primarily as a courtesy to Feinstein.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/27/a...
I see. But the "ban" is only part of the bill.
Even so, the bill probably,won't even make it to the floor in the Senate and for sure, as long as the Reps control the House, it will never make it to the floor. 2014 could change that and the look in the Senate as well.

But why, I wonder wasn't the M16 on Feinstein's list?
factologist

Farmington, NM

#734 Mar 4, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
Did you pick this up from your link?
"The original federal assault weapons ban was challenged repeatedly in federal court," Feinstein says. "Each and every time, these challenges were rejected, and the ban was upheld."
factologist

Farmington, NM

#735 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well with that type of attitude, there would be no challenges to the Constitutionality of ANY laws the gov't passes. You would just roll over and accept anything they tell you.
Obeying a law doesn't mean not challenging the law.
The point is for YOU to read AND comprehend what rights you do have...then you can weigh the laws against your rights.
And what if in your opinion the law goes against your rights. What do you do?
Well of course when you don't rock the boat...comply with everything the gov't tells you...and never questions anything. You're falling into that slave role very well.
So far, it's not been a problem since I have never felt like a slave. If a law becomes a problem to me, I'll ask you for advice, I'm sure. I assume you're a lawyer. Cause that's what lawyers are for, aren't they?
But it sounds to me like you're trying to tell people to violate the laws they don't like. Surely you don't mean to do that. Do you?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#736 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".
Sort of the same issue tho. I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense. When it comes to a specific or legal sense, I leave that up to to our system of courts.(Like Scalia said in Heller "Like most rights,...is not unlimited". And I don't get to decide what those limits are. Courts do.)
Normally, when a law is passed-fed.,st,local, I generally don't even know it unless and until it impacts me.
"Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".

Ok...>chuckle<

"I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense."

So how do you balance this with your comment;

"...I accept the 2nd, not as it is written..."...?...is that because you read the 2nd Amendment as the restriction that it is on the Federal and now State and local gov'ts..."shall not be infringed"...?

Do you have some difficulty in stating the Bill of Rights protects the "RIGHTS" of the people...? I found it interesting that you said it "guarantees...a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power, and reserves some powers to the states and the public." No mention of "RIGHTS" at all on your part...why is that...?

You do realize that the Bill of Rights covers more people than just "US citizens"...?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#737 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
http://smartgunlaws.org
<quoted text>What do you say about these comments by Scalia?
-If so, they overread Miller
-their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case [ie Miller]
-cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms [Scalia's meaning not "the “hundreds of judges, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller"].
Sounds to me like Scalia is saying Miller got it wrong or at least the interpretation of Miller was wrong for many years.
That portion numbered "24" is the footnote under the portion above it in my other post. It is the explanation for their decision regarding the Miller decision.

"Sounds to me like Scalia is saying Miller got it wrong or at least the interpretation of Miller was wrong for many years."

He's NOT saying it was wrong...it was a limited case for a specific purpose and NOT a full examination of the 2nd Amendment. He is saying that it was as you stated above...overread...erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case

"[Scalia's meaning not "the “hundreds of judges, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller"]."

WRONG...it was the majorities meaning...and it refutes the position of the “Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence”...a biased, anti-gun organization.
factologist

Farmington, NM

#738 Mar 4, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".
Ok...>chuckle<
"I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense."
So how do you balance this with your comment;
"...I accept the 2nd, not as it is written..."...?...is that because you read the 2nd Amendment as the restriction that it is on the Federal and now State and local gov'ts..."shall not be infringed"...?
Do you have some difficulty in stating the Bill of Rights protects the "RIGHTS" of the people...? I found it interesting that you said it "guarantees...a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power, and reserves some powers to the states and the public." No mention of "RIGHTS" at all on your part...why is that...?
You do realize that the Bill of Rights covers more people than just "US citizens"...?
Why don' you just tell me what you're driving at instead of this gaming?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#739 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>So you wouldn't mind taking a .22LR in the face. WOW!
<quoted text>Thanks for your concern. But at least she's trying.
<quoted text>I see. But the "ban" is only part of the bill.
Even so, the bill probably,won't even make it to the floor in the Senate and for sure, as long as the Reps control the House, it will never make it to the floor. 2014 could change that and the look in the Senate as well.
But why, I wonder wasn't the M16 on Feinstein's list?
"But why, I wonder wasn't the M16 on Feinstein's list?"

Really...you're asking that question...?

The same reason the M14 isn't on that list.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#740 Mar 4, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Obeying a law doesn't mean not challenging the law.
<quoted text>And what if in your opinion the law goes against your rights. What do you do?
<quoted text>So far, it's not been a problem since I have never felt like a slave. If a law becomes a problem to me, I'll ask you for advice, I'm sure. I assume you're a lawyer. Cause that's what lawyers are for, aren't they?
But it sounds to me like you're trying to tell people to violate the laws they don't like. Surely you don't mean to do that. Do you?
"If a law becomes a problem to me, I'll ask you for advice, I'm sure. I assume you're a lawyer. Cause that's what lawyers are for, aren't they?"

Sure...no problem...you can put me on speed dial.

"But it sounds to me like you're trying to tell people to violate the laws they don't like. Surely you don't mean to do that. Do you?"

Wow...really...maybe I need to be more careful in the words I choose...but please show me...where did I say or infer anything of that nature...?

But then again, maybe it's just you...after all you did read "LAWS" when I actually wrote "RIGHTS"...hhhmmmmm.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-Bush bus rolls into Farmington; Republican... (Aug '08) 2 hr XandO 55
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) 16 hr XandO 285
FPD Lt popped for unlawful hunting' Sat ODUSMC 4
Farmington commission: Restaurant did not discr... (Sep '10) Fri XandO 192
Random Acts of Kindness (Jun '09) Dec 17 JUST_NOBODY 4,929
Trainers aim to prevent spring sports injuries (Mar '11) Dec 15 kurtcooksalot16 4
Good Luck America Dec 12 Can it get worse 7
Farmington Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Farmington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Farmington News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Farmington

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:15 pm PST

NBC Sports12:15PM
Ten with Tafoya: Kerwynn Williams
NBC Sports12:48 PM
Richard Sherman says Patrick Peterson would be benched in Seattle
Yahoo! Sports 1:28 PM
Steelers beat Chiefs, return to playoffs
Bleacher Report 2:00 PM
Seattle Seahawks vs. Arizona Cardinals: Live Score and Analysis for Arizona
Bleacher Report 2:06 PM
Seattle Seahawks vs. Arizona Cardinals: Live Score and Analysis for Seattle