Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

Vermont is
1.) a rather liberal state which, to me, means it would be a safer, friendlier and more peaceful state;

OmSigDAVID wrote:

parados wrote:

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what POM said since she was clearly talking about amendment.

Nonsense; I am pointing out that there is a right way and a rong way.

But, your points as to a right way and wrong way are illogical!

OmSigDAVID wrote:

My point is that altho it is possible to amend the Constitution legitimately,
it can also de facto be amended by judicial cheating; toward that end, deception is employed
by judges who wish to deviate, substituting their desires for the Constitutional law established by the Founders.
That is what liberal judges DO; if thay don 't deviate, then thay r not liberal.

For someone who claims to honor the Constitution and who represents himself as an attorney,
you have a strange view of the judiciary.

You use words to describe government and the Constitution that should be reserved for discussions of religion and morals!

Your views of liberals are inaccurate. What is worse, they are demeaning!

It is not strange for those who honor the Constitution to complain when the judiciary thwarts the Constitution.

And while not all liberals share this mindset, there are in fact a lot of liberals who do think it is OK to thwart the Constitution by misinterpreting it. I have no idea how to quantify "a lot". Maybe they are a vocal minority. (They're certainly vocal.) But whatever their numbers, they do spew an endless stream of nonsense trying to justify violating the Constitution in the name of liberalism.

Being liberal means you devote your life to fixing the mess made by conservatives, like the economy, ruined two years ago in the same way it was ruined in 1929 by the lack of government regulations.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

What earlier judges were conservative judges erasing in Bush v Gore?
Do you really think that states should not be able to decide the rules to their elections?

The Florida Supreme Court kept changing the recount rules as Gore continued to come up a little short in the count. (If Gore had ever managed to pull ahead in the count, I have no doubt that the Florida Supreme Court would have decided that no further changes were needed.) All the US Supreme Court did was prevent the Florida Supreme Court from stealing the election.

Besides, it was a bit unlikely that the Florida Supreme Court's last gambit (the statewide handcount) could have been completed by the December 12 deadline where Bush would win by default. If they had managed to finagle a Gore win after the December 12 deadline, all they would have achieved is making Bush appear illegitimate during his time in the White House.

I don 't see where there was any problem:
Bush won EVERY RE-re-re-re-count,
including the one done by left-leaning newspapers, in the end.

If the USSC did anything rong, I 'd like to know what it was.

Funny how conservatives are all for states rights until they're not.

I don't pretend to understand all legal jumbo, but apparently the USSC didn't think the FSC had constitutional bases for extending the deadline for recounts to be counted.

AP) OAKLAND, Calif. -- A convicted felon armed with three guns and wearing a bulletproof vest opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers for several minutes during a traffic stop on an Oakland freeway Sunday before he was shot several times and wounded, authorities said.

Byron Christopher Williams, 45, of Groveland was in serious but stable condition Sunday night at Highland Hospital and was expected to survive despite being shot in the arm, side, leg and foot, said CHP Sgt. Trent Cross. Cross described Williams' condition as serious but stable.

Cross said Williams had an "extensive criminal history," and another conviction would mean a third strike under California law.

Williams was armed with a high-powered rifle, a shotgun, a handgun and body armor, Cross said. Officers also discovered a suspicious device they could not identify, and a bomb squad was called to the freeway to detonate it, Cross said.

"He was bold enough to take shots at the police, and he was in possession of bullet proof vests and guns," Cross said. "There is no doubt he was on his way to do something pretty serious."

Williams' mother Janice Williams told the San Francisco Chronicle that her son, who lives next door to her, was angry that as an ex-felon he could not get a job, and upset at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."

"He hasn't been able to get a job because he's an ex-felon and nobody will hire him," his mother also told the Chronicle, saying that he was unhappy with his continued unemployment and "what's happening to our country."

Janice Williams said she had legally purchased guns she kept in a safe, and learned they were missing Sunday.

The woman said she kept the guns because she someday expected some sort of revolution." But said she had told her son "he didn't have to be on the front lines."

"Something snapped," she said. "His life is over. He will go back to prison for the rest of his life. Our lives are over."

There should be some kind of restraints and checks on people who carry guns. Unlike churches you can use a gun to kill someone; you can't get away from that fact. Take a look at this guy convicted of a felony as an example of an extremist right winger upset with the left wing agenda run amuk.

Quote:

AP) OAKLAND, Calif. -- A convicted felon armed with three guns and wearing a bulletproof vest opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers for several minutes during a traffic stop on an Oakland freeway Sunday before he was shot several times and wounded, authorities said.

Byron Christopher Williams, 45, of Groveland was in serious but stable condition Sunday night at Highland Hospital and was expected to survive despite being shot in the arm, side, leg and foot, said CHP Sgt. Trent Cross. Cross described Williams' condition as serious but stable.

Cross said Williams had an "extensive criminal history," and another conviction would mean a third strike under California law.

Williams was armed with a high-powered rifle, a shotgun, a handgun and body armor, Cross said. Officers also discovered a suspicious device they could not identify, and a bomb squad was called to the freeway to detonate it, Cross said.

"He was bold enough to take shots at the police, and he was in possession of bullet proof vests and guns," Cross said. "There is no doubt he was on his way to do something pretty serious."

Williams' mother Janice Williams told the San Francisco Chronicle that her son, who lives next door to her, was angry that as an ex-felon he could not get a job, and upset at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."

"He hasn't been able to get a job because he's an ex-felon and nobody will hire him," his mother also told the Chronicle, saying that he was unhappy with his continued unemployment and "what's happening to our country."

Janice Williams said she had legally purchased guns she kept in a safe, and learned they were missing Sunday.

The woman said she kept the guns because she someday expected some sort of revolution." But said she had told her son "he didn't have to be on the front lines."

"Something snapped," she said. "His life is over. He will go back to prison for the rest of his life. Our lives are over."

So you think anyone should be allowed to just go out and buy a gun without background checks and a license: even criminals or those who have mental issues?





source

What do u mean "allowed" Revelette ??
HOW can u stop them??
The same way that u stop them from getting marijuana?

If this guy was willing to shoot at the police at close range,
during a traffic stop, then how do u expect to convince him to obay anti-gun laws ??

What do u mean "allowed" Revelette ??
HOW can u stop them??
The same way that u stop them from getting marijuana?

If this guy was willing to shoot at the police at close range,
during a traffic stop, then how do u expect to convince him to obay anti-gun laws ??

You are using a bogus ]argument.

Criminals are always going to try and commit crimes.
Kind of what makes them criminals in the first place.

What are we going to do, just allow them to commit crimes
without any kind of laws and punishment in the place because
we know they are going to commit crimes anyway?

Sure that guy was going to get a hold of a weapon somehow even though he was a felon
and it was against the law for him to get a weapon. But that is no reason not to have laws in place
to catch and punish him to the extent of his crimes he committed.

And sure, we won’t catch everybody who commits crimes,
whether it is smoking marijuana or selling meth (which is prevalent
in my neck of the woods and much more dangerous than smoking pot)
but that is no reason not catch and punish those who break the laws.

Yours is boguser.

U are promoting an exercise in FUTILITY,
at the expense of future victims, whom u choose to harrass n disarm.

Government was permitted to exist, on condition that it NOT
interfere with the citizens' rights to bear arms in their own defense from predatory violence.

I have long advocated that recidivistically violent criminals
be permanently ISOLATED from the decent people
(preferably NOT on the North American Continent).

Yours is boguser.

Yours is boguser?

You just trying to be cute?

In any event, mine is not bogus, it is exactly on point.

U are promoting an exercise in FUTILITY,
at the expense of future victims, whom u choose to harrass n disarm.

It is not an exercise in futility to make laws and try and punish
those found guilty even though people are going to break laws.

I don't choose to disarm, the law does.

I think it is good if the committed a crime which involved some sort of violence or threat of violence.
It might be a little extreme in other cases. I am not really up on all that and I don't know what felony
that guy which started this discussion committed. He seems like a
nut case in which case he shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

I do know after doing a quick search that some felons can get gun rights restored
by a state in which they committed the felony in.

Government was permitted to exist, on condition that it NOT
interfere with the citizens' rights to bear arms in their own defense from predatory violence.

There is reasonable debate on exactly what rights the 2nd amendment protects.

I agree with the school of thought that it protects states in their right to have militias or other public force.

I know you and others agree that it protects individuals’ rights to bear arms.
I am willing to agree to disagree as I know this debate is much like the abortion debate
and it never gets resolved between those arguing it.

Just because the FFs made a huge mistake does not mean we are stuck with it.
Our FFs wrote laws against miscegenation and in favor of owning
other humans and we overthrew those. It is time we overthrow gun toting.

Just because the FFs made a huge mistake does not mean we are stuck with it.

Just because the FFs made a huge mistake does not mean we are stuck with it.

Only freedom haters think that freedom was a huge mistake.

Freedom haters need to be dragged down to Guantanamo so the rest of us can live in peace.