HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $34,502
39%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 39% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by hadit2here

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Picture: Hardee’s Restaurant Installs “Self Order Stations”

    04/21/2016 9:57:40 AM PDT · 132 of 160
    hadit2here to unixfox

    Actually, it’s already there. All they have to do is just turn the screens around so they face the customer. They already had to make the terminals idjit proof, so just eliminate one idjit and let the idjit customers press the touch screen. Orders will probably be more correct than having the counter idjit have to translate/understand the customer’s order, then press the touch screen. Just eliminating the middle man/idjit.

  • Commuters Outraged at Match.com Ads Calling Freckles 'Imperfections'

    04/14/2016 4:14:53 PM PDT · 30 of 30
    hadit2here to TigerClaws

    Match.com’s “apology” should read:

    We all at match.com have called for the sacking of the president of our ad agency, that he be publicly hanged, the whole agency disbanded, all employees sacked, their office building demolished and the earth beneath it salted. We hope this will make up in some infinitesimal amount for the gigantic offence that has been caused by the unforgivable, intemperate and mistaken use of the term “imperfection” in reference to the slight brown skin discolouration known as “freckles” in our ad campaign.

    NOT!

    You pansy little UK snowflakes who constantly make fun of and disparage the work of two royals, William and Harry, for putting their lives on the line representing their country in active military combat, yet you would be grievously “inconvenienced” if you had to forego your daily latte or wait a few minutes in line at the local Boots. Put on your big boy pants and buckle up. Not everything is about YOU. If an innocuous word in an advert will get your panties in a wad, then you are not deserving of benefits of those lives who were lost defending the Kingdom through the terrible destruction in World War Two and you certainly can’t hold a candle to the men and women who suffered and died so you can today have your little tantrum. Save your self-righteous indignation and just be happy that today you still speak English - or at least try to - instead of German, from their efforts. And if you are so emotionally fragile, don’t bother joining match.com, as we have no desire to have such sub-moronic IQ’s and pathological mentalities polluting and inflicted upon our strong, emotionally stable client base. Thank you.”

  • New Dubai skyscraper to surpass the world's tallest

    04/12/2016 12:49:10 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    hadit2here to RoosterRedux

    And they’re planning on being profitable from increasing tourism. It will be interesting to see how that happens after the first idjit muslim terrorist attack on any of the purty looking phallic symbols. Who’s gonna want to be at 1000+ feet in one when some crazed muslim from some splinter muslim group decides to blow it up as their “statement”.

    Yeah, I can see a tremendous increase in tourism in their future. Ha! You betcha. Looks like Egypt’s tourism industry isn’t doing as well as it has in the past. Nobody’s gonna want to take their chances of dying by going somewhere. Staying home is at least marginally safer. And less costly.

  • New Dubai skyscraper to surpass the world's tallest

    04/12/2016 12:41:07 PM PDT · 19 of 20
    hadit2here to StormEye

    Do you notice that these great Arab/Muslim oil money men use foreign and/or non-muslim firms, experience and technology to built all these wonderful pie in the sky phallic dreams that they have? If muslims are so great and have contributed so much to civilization, wouldn’t you think they may have muslim architectural and construction firms who could handle these projects? (do I need an irony alert here?)

    And from what I have heard, most of the construction is done by foreign or imported labor, since the inbred muslim morons really only know how to tear things down, not build them up.

    But as long as it make them think they look great to the rest of the world. LOL For the most part, I think the civilized world giggles politely behind their hands at the muslim pretentiousness and actual lack of any constructive abilities. Having money pumped out of the ground by non-muslim oil companies (using non-muslim technologies) isn’t really much of an indication of ability or intelligence.

  • SCO Again Returns From Dead, Plans Appeal

    03/31/2016 1:40:31 PM PDT · 25 of 28
    hadit2here to zeugma

    I’ve searched for it and can’t find it. I’d really like to have it as it worked nicely. Do you have it or can you point me to some place online I can DL it again? There are really a few posters that I’d like to just never see - ever!

  • SCO Again Returns From Dead, Plans Appeal

    03/31/2016 11:22:57 AM PDT · 21 of 28
    hadit2here to catnipman

    At least I could still read the synopses of the articles. Or go and actually read the linked articles. Oh wait, that’s against the FR guidelines isn’t it. Must NEVER read the article. Or is that just before posting? I can never get it right.

  • SCO Again Returns From Dead, Plans Appeal

    03/31/2016 8:51:22 AM PDT · 14 of 28
    hadit2here to ShadowAce

    I had a greasemonkey script back in the heyday of GoldenEagle that would block all his posts on FR for me. Have considered digging it up again for all the Cruzbots/Trumpeters posters, just so I can get back to reading FR again. ;^)

  • Apple's Involuntary Servitude

    02/25/2016 11:00:37 AM PST · 9 of 42
    hadit2here to DugwayDuke

    Sorry, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You obviously have either little understanding of technology or you’re abysmally illiterate.

    The FBI HAD the password. They (or the gov dept who owned the phone, under FBI direction) changed it. NOW they claim they can’t get into the phone and must have Apple “unlock” it. Sorry Wrong!

    If Apple can create a wholly new operating system that doesn’t have the delays or the erasing feature that the phone’s O/S has, AND could install it on that specific phone [which *may* be possible], this would still NOT UNLOCK that phone. It would still be locked because the FBI claims it doesn’t have the password.

    So by defeating the delay or erasure on multiple errors feature, the FBI would have to try to brute force cracking the phone, which would take longer than the heat death of the universe to attempt - even if they only had to try 1/2 the possible combinations and doing so didn’t fry the phone’s circuits in the attempt.

    So Apple CAN NOT “unlock” this one phone. Because of the encryption, that is basically not physically possible. Plus, if the FBI were given that phone with the security defeats O/S installed on it, they could conceivably copy that code and then apply it to ANY phone they want to crack. Yours, if they want to.

    If Apple retained possession of the phone after the installation of the defeated security O/S installation, then Apple would have to attempt to crack the password. Which again, would be physically (cryptologically) impossible.

    You should read about and learn the rule of holes. And about when people think you an idiot. Read, learn. This has NOTHING whatever to do with Apple “unlocking” this particular phone and everything to do with the FBI using this case to gain access to virtually any iPhone they wish to inspect or compromise.

    Apple is totally correct. They would have to build a new O/S that didn’t have the security delay features and then install it on the specific phone. And this still would not give the FBI an “unlocked” phone- only allow them to try to crack it, which is, again, virtually impossible. But then the FBI would have that digital copy of the compromised O/S to use on any other phone they wanted to.

    If you had any tech knowledge beyond your basic inability to read media headlines, you’d be dangerous. Please, stop providing everyone with proof of your idiocy.

  • Iowa Supreme Court labels all stun guns as ‘dangerous weapons’ (deem permit is needed)

    02/20/2016 1:32:49 PM PST · 27 of 33
    hadit2here to Red in Blue PA

    I certainly would like to see one of the 2nd Amend orgs take her case and appeal it based on the fact that the stun gun is an “arm” and is covered by the 2nd amendment. Proof that it is an “arm” is that police are issued them. They may not be a lethal “FIREARM” but the 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify “Firearms” it specifically says “arms”. Such that a knife can be considered an “arm” if it is carried for that purpose.

    Instead of constantly harping on and whining for more donations, the NRA and similar groups should spend a little of that donated money on cases such as this, which will set precedent and REALLY make a difference. Argue it under the existing USSC decisions that have already been made regarding the “keep and bear arms” part.

    Spending huge sums of money on glossy flyers and requests for donations, or even “newsletters”, while not being a waste, could be used for pressing the legal fight in courts against restrictions on arms of any kind. You know, that “infringement” thingie the 2nd talks about.

    Why leave the fight to the few pro bono attorneys to do all the heavy lifting? Hire one of the cut throat white shoe firms to make a good case. Poor Gura can’t carry it all.

  • Four-year-old sentenced to life in prison for murder in Egypt

    02/20/2016 11:52:12 AM PST · 21 of 21
    hadit2here to SMGFan

    “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
    — Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle

    I’m betting on the latter. And that’s just in the “civilized” world. Muslim countries we know are so inbred they’re mostly all left bell curve morons, sliding down the left side.

  • "I Guess It's Food Stamps": 400,000 Jeopardized As Giant State Pension Fund Plans 50% Benefit Cuts

    02/19/2016 11:05:22 AM PST · 110 of 126
    hadit2here to SeekAndFind

    Some bright people have made comments throughout history about this sort of thing:

    “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
    — George Bernard Shaw (1944)

    “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”
    —Plutarch

    “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
    — Winston Churchill

    And I guess I’m not the first to wonder about the mental capacity of those who “govern” us:

    “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
    — Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle

    I’ve really decided, from the evidence, that it’s the latter.

  • Suit Filed Challenging Move to Require Voter Proof Of Citizenship In 3 States

    02/13/2016 12:10:38 PM PST · 14 of 14
    hadit2here to Citizen Zed

    It’s really amazing to me that the “right” to vote is nowhere discussed or specified in the Constitution, yet the Dem/libs will fight to the death to give every potential Dem/lib “voter” that right.

    The 2nd Amendment spells out the right to own and bear arms and specifies that it shall NOT be infringed upon, yet the same Dem/libs that scream and howl when some sort of ID is required to prove eligibility to vote will scream and howl for required background checks, trigger locks, gun safes, fees, extensive training classes, special permits and any other thing they can conceive of to limit, eliminate, restrict or “infringe on” that right to keep and bear arms.

    Funny init?

  • Venezuela’s Collapse Brings ‘Savage Suffering’

    02/13/2016 11:54:46 AM PST · 77 of 92
    hadit2here to grimalkin

    The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    —Robert A. Heinlein

    “Freedom is fragile and elusive, for rarely does the appreciation of it exceed the pleasure of being able to tell others what to do.”
    -Terry Rossio, screenwriter

    “There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
    —Will Rogers

  • Hamas doctors blame Gaza mental health problems on blockade

    02/07/2016 2:52:59 PM PST · 3 of 27
    hadit2here to Eleutheria5

    Then according to the US gov’t, they would/should be banned from ever using or owning any firearms. Or weapons of any kind. At least that’s what the gov’t plans for all white Christian males.

    Oh, wait! They’re non-white Muslims. Doesn’t apply. Nevermind. /s

  • 10 things my White friends BETTER NOT ruin during Black History Month

    02/01/2016 9:30:46 AM PST · 104 of 163
    hadit2here to datura

    Charlize Theron is a true African American. All the rest of the pigmented racists are just ghetto rats and thugs.

    If ya can’t be just a plain American, then go back to the country ya gotta hyphen with. We don’t want ya with yer fro’s, droopy pants and inability to speak articulable English. Our crime rate and general IQ will all benefit.

  • STANDING: What It Is And Why It Matters To The Supreme Court And To Us

    01/30/2016 1:28:33 PM PST · 6 of 9
    hadit2here to Elderberry

    Then I’d really like someone to explain to me why all the various “environmental non-profit” organizations have standing to sue and receive huge benefits/payouts. Where is the “concrete damages” to them for what they are suing about. If a citizen who is economically damaged or disadvantaged by the environmental law doesn’t have standing to sue, why should a non existent political entity like Friends of the Erf have standing? How can they show any “concrete damages”?

  • Appendixes Might Actually Be Useful, According To New Studies

    01/20/2016 11:10:55 AM PST · 29 of 35
    hadit2here to PAR35

    >>The doctor probably did a rebound test as well as just looking. Press on the abdomen. Quickly release. If they scream in pain upon the release, suspect the appendix.<<

    In EMS, that’s called a positive chandelier sign. Scream and reach for the chandelier. LOL You know it when you see it.

  • Texas governor challenges Obama to 'come and take' the Lone Star state's guns

    01/03/2016 2:36:09 PM PST · 98 of 169
    hadit2here to DaveA37

    “Did we ever expect to see the day, when, breathing nothing but sentiments of love to our country and its freedom and happiness, our correspondence must be as secret as if we were hatching its destruction!”
    —Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

  • ISIS plotting 'to slaughter THOUSANDS' in 2016 in bid to spark huge FINAL BATTLE with West

    12/30/2015 1:17:37 PM PST · 83 of 100
    hadit2here to b4its2late

    Are we ready to start playing “cowboys and muslims” yet?

  • “Don’t Be a Puppet”: New FBI CVE Tool Targets Young People

    12/11/2015 3:59:03 PM PST · 1 of 3
    hadit2here
  • Don’t Punish the Families of Terrorists Who Knew About Impending Attacks?

    12/01/2015 2:19:13 PM PST · 19 of 20
    hadit2here to chuckee

    << “Noblesse Oblige >> Unless I misread your statement, I don’t think that means what you think it means.

    “It is the concept that nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person with such status to fulfill social responsibilities, particularly in leadership roles.”

    “1. Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.

    2.(Figuratively) One must act in a fashion that conforms to one’s position, and with the reputation that one has earned.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige

    These leftist Jews are pure traitors and have know nothing about any leadership responsibilities. They are nothing but “useful idiots”.

  • Allan Tweddle: Gun control versus car control

    11/29/2015 1:27:58 PM PST · 54 of 61
    hadit2here to Cringing Negativism Network

    >> Driving a car is a privilege. It is one, for which one must get and maintain a number of things for. Valid insurance, a current drivers license.<<

    Sorry, you are completely and erroneously wrong.

    I posted this on another thread to a FReeper who is similarly misinformed or just plain ignorant, like you:


    Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

    It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court several times and every time it has been ruled that “driving” is a right guaranteed under the US Constitution to freely travel wherever you want to. Driving is only a method of travel and free travel, whether on foot, bicycle or car, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Driving a vehicle for pay or hire or commercially is a privilege and can be - and is - regulated by states, and probably unconstitutionally, by the feds. But driving a conveyance of any kind for personal travel is a right, not a privilege. Do some research.

    Just because the “drivers license” scam has been perpetuated by all gov’t entities, and people have fallen for it (accepted the scam of it being a “privilege” as you have) doesn’t mean that you are required to have a drivers license to travel in an automobile on public roads, except that by voluntarily applying for and accepting a drivers license contract with the state gov’t, you have subjected yourself to that scam. But it is still a voluntary contract by you and doesn’t change the fact that driving/travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even in a vehicle of any kind (other than commercial).

    From Wikipedia (I know):
    Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    Additionally:
    “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”

    >> I don’t care a bit what the SCOTUS says about that, <<

    You may not care but that has little import on how the world functions. I don’t care for a lot of things, but so far, I’m not emperor of the world and I don’t get my way. Neither are you or do you.

    >> they have had little respect for the plain meaning of that “Supreme Law of the Land.” <<

    On that, I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, there are many rulings detailing the constitutional basis for them, including lower court rulings. Then there is this:

    ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”

    >> The Federal government does have Constitutional jurisdiction over “postal roads” but try and find me one that they bought and built for that expressed purpose other than perhaps the Interstate Highways, which were instead justified as a means of national defense. <<

    Again, from wiki:
    “As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.”

    What don’t you understand about “so fundamental... as not needing explicit enumeration”?

    While you may not care what the courts have ruled, your opinion matters little. The facts are strongly against you.

    “...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
    Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

    “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
    Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.”

    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
    Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.”

    “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.”

    “...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion...” - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

    Again, do some research. Although your intellect seems stunted by your lack of care about how the real world works. Childishly stamping your feet and claiming that the court rulings don’t matter doesn’t hold much water in adult discussions.

    “There are none so blind as one who will not see.”


    “May your chains...”

  • America could use more concealed carry gun permit holders

    11/29/2015 12:00:21 PM PST · 21 of 29
    hadit2here to servantboy777

    “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    -Samuel Adams

    Enjoy your chains...

    Last time I looked, the 2nd didn’t say “shall not be infringed... except for felons - or whomever the gov’t might not approve of.”

    You may not like it but the 2nd is absolute and ANY kind of “permit” is an infringement, like it or not.

    Just like the “poor”, the idiots will always be with you. You can educate them but then all you get are educated idiots. Sort of like yourself, it seems.

  • Over A Thousand Years Ago, The Sun Exploded — And Changed Life On Earth Forever

    11/16/2015 1:33:55 PM PST · 31 of 35
    hadit2here to hattend

    >> How come it didn’t kill Mohammed before his cult really started taking off? <<

    Kinda hard to affect a stone age cult whose most modern utility is fire and using stones to kill people.

    At most, even now they’ve only stolen anything from other more advanced civilizations which they are trying to eliminate and go back to their stone age killing ways.

  • CNN Analyst: European Countries Pretend Gun Control Works, But ‘It Just Doesn’t’

    11/14/2015 6:21:35 PM PST · 7 of 36
    hadit2here to E. Pluribus Unum

    Well, you can be sure that Tom Fuentes is going to be looking for an analyst position at a new company very soon. Probably right before he receives his audit notice from the IRS. And a detailed rectal examination by the DOJ.

  • ‘Fake pot’ varieties are being created faster than we can ban them

    11/06/2015 12:36:40 PM PST · 14 of 24
    hadit2here to GodAndCountryFirst

    This whole article reads more like a DEA press release than anything else.

  • How to Use Split View in Full Screen with OS X El Capitan

    10/01/2015 11:35:20 PM PDT · 3 of 12
    hadit2here to Swordmaker

    On Linux Mint 17, I have 8 desktops or workspaces [you can have however many you want, I just find 8 comfortable]. I usually have one or several apps running in at least half of them. Switching between workspaces is just a mouse click.

    I can run Windows XP with a couple of pgms running in it in VirtualBox in one workspace. Any app/prgm can be sent/moved to any of the workspaces desired at any time.

    I’ve gotten to have even more of a passionate hatred of even having to boot into Winblows for *any* reason. It’s just so limiting. Does OS X have multiple workspaces? Why would you need split screen with any number of workspaces/desktops? Seems limiting to me. Clutters up the screen real estate.

    Obviously, I’ve never operated a Mac of any kind before. So just wondering...

  • MEGYN KELLY: THE FIRST CASUALTY IN DONALD TRUMP’S ‘ASYMMETRIC’ WAR ON FOX NEWS

    08/28/2015 4:29:26 PM PDT · 146 of 160
    hadit2here to RoosterRedux

    From what I’ve seen, her rating haven’t gone down. I think that, while she and Faux have lost a huge number of conservative viewers, they have picked up at least an equal number of other (liberal, independent, low info viewers) and her audience numbers have stayed the same or picked up slightly.

    Once those new viewers have watched for a while, I think they’ll go back to the ABCBSCNNBC shows and MeGyn’s ratings will drop then. It could take some time though.

    Probably by that time, she’ll head to another outlet where her liberal marxist views will fit in better. Like MSNBC, although they might not want to be made to look conservative by comparison with her, let alone their manly women won’t like being compared to her on looks (which seems to be all she’s got to differentiate).

    Guess it depends on which host/executive she sleeps with in the future.

  • Caller: Trump's Immigration Plan Is Un-American

    08/19/2015 11:25:21 AM PDT · 66 of 67
    hadit2here to Carry_Okie

    >> not on private property <<

    I never said it applied to private property, but to the public roads. I specifically said, “to travel in an automobile on public roads,” Don’t misconstrue what I said or put up straw man arguments.

    >> the Supreme Court has no Constitutional jurisdiction over public roads within the States because the Federal government has no such power enumerated in Article I <<

    From Wikipedia (I know):
    Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Additionally:
    “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”

    >> I don’t care a bit what the SCOTUS says about that, <<

    You may not care but that has little import on how the world functions. I don’t care for a lot of things, but so far, I’m not emperor of the world and I don’t get my way. Neither are you or do you.

    >> they have had little respect for the plain meaning of that “Supreme Law of the Land.” <<

    On that, I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, there are many rulings detailing the constitutional basis for them, including lower court rulings. Then there is this:

    ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”

    >> The Federal government does have Constitutional jurisdiction over “postal roads” but try and find me one that they bought and built for that expressed purpose other than perhaps the Interstate Highways, which were instead justified as a means of national defense. <<

    Again, from wiki:
    “As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.”

    What don’t you understand about “so fundamental... as not needing explicit enumeration” ?

    While you may not care what the courts have ruled, your opinion matters little. The facts are strongly against you.

    “...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

    “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.”

    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.”

    “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.”

    “...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion...” - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

    Again, do some research. Although your intellect seems stunted by your lack of care about how the real world works. Childishly stamping your feet and claiming that the court rulings don’t matter doesn’t hold much water in adult discussions.

    “There are none so blind as one who will not see.”

  • Caller: Trump's Immigration Plan Is Un-American

    08/18/2015 1:03:55 PM PDT · 64 of 67
    hadit2here to Carry_Okie

    >> Driving is a privilege under the States <<

    Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

    It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court several times and every time it has been ruled that “driving” is a right guaranteed under the US Constitution to freely travel wherever you want to. Driving is only a method of travel and free travel, whether on foot, bicycle or car, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Driving a vehicle for pay or hire or commercially is a privilege and can be - and is - regulated by states, and probably unconstitutionally, by the feds. But driving a conveyance of any kind for personal travel is a right, not a privilege. Do some research.

    Just because the “drivers license” scam has been perpetuated by all gov’t entities, and people have fallen for it (accepted the scam of it being a “privilege” as you have) doesn’t mean that you are required to have a drivers license to travel in an automobile on public roads, except that by voluntarily applying for and accepting a drivers license contract with the state gov’t, you have subjected yourself to that scam. But it is still a voluntary contract by you and doesn’t change the fact that driving/travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even in a vehicle of any kind (other than commercial).

  • What’s More Dangerous: Religious Freedom or Anti-Discrimination Laws Shoved Down Your Throat?

    03/30/2015 12:37:35 PM PDT · 23 of 26
    hadit2here to FrdmLvr

    I have yet to understand why I (or any business owner) doesn’t have the right to say, “I don’t like the looks of you, so I’m not serving you.” Gov’t doesn’t have the authority to countermand my God-given rights to associate, sell to or service anyone I want to or don’t want to. It’s basic freedom of association.

    Forcing me to do something I don’t want to or that is against my principles or better judgement is slavery. There is no other word for it. Well, except “oppression”.

  • Ted Cruz SCHOOLS journalist on CLIMATE CHANGE

    03/26/2015 8:25:23 PM PDT · 57 of 68
    hadit2here to Kevin in California

    I’m really waiting for some conservative, like Cruz who could do it, say to the interviewer:
    “Jim, are you just naturally stupid or did you have to work hard to get this way? You know, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Let me explain a few facts for you. Number one, take ‘carbon footprint’. Do you realize that you’d be dead, along with everything else on this earth if there wasn’t carbon dioxide here? And do you also realize that carbon dioxide, which is about 400 parts per million right now - that’s zero point zero four percent, four hundreds of one percent - it’s minuscule.

    Here’s another fact for you. It has been as high as 4000 parts per million in the past. That’s when there were lush jungles and plants that covered most of the earth. If you bring carbon dioxide down to about 200 parts per million, one half of what we have now, most all plant on earth will die. As you will. We’re really close that edge right now.

    Number two, you talk about climate change. Jim, the climate has been changing since there was an atmosphere here. It will always change. I don’t deny that climate changes. There have been several periods in history that have been warmer, much warmer, than it is now. The Roman warm period, often called the Roman climatic optimum, for obvious reasons. The Medieval warm period. And, again, if you look at the facts, humanity thrived during those times. It’s only during the cold periods that humanity has had a hard time continuing. Glaciers miles thick covered most of North America. Do you want us to go back to freezing or do you want us to have a thriving and beneficial warm period again?

    Number three, again the facts show that the temperature is not rising as the climate models predicted. In fact, NOT ONE of the global climate models even comes close to what has been measured in reality. Again, you can have your own opinion about most anything, and the climate modellers do, but you have to look at the facts. And the facts show you, and they, are wrong. There has been no significant warming for more than 17 years, almost two decades, and the models didn’t and haven’t predicted any of it, and the global climate modellers cannot explain it. I can explain it. Their models are wrong.

    Now don’t interrupt me with your gotcha questions while I’m trying to explain the facts to you and answer the question you asked. I didn’t interrupt you when you were meandering around trying to formulate one of your almost incomprehensible gotcha journalism questions

    You can try to catch me with your gotcha questions, but I believe in the facts and the facts just don’t support your views. Now, when you learn to face and recognize objective facts, we’ll talk about them. If you’re going to parrot some political propagandist’s line and try interrupt me with your objections and play gotcha journalism, which you really aren’t doing that well at, then I really think we’re through here.”

    Again, where is and when are the conservatives like Cruz going to come out and call these people the propagandists and liars to their faces? It’s not like all the progs/libs aren’t going to like him so they won’t vote for him. They never will anyway, so why not call them out to their face? No beating around the bush, no being PC or polite. Call them liars to their face. Out loud. Say what a large part of the population are actually thinking.

    Cruz could do it and beat them to death with the truth. Hope he’ll realize it. Or hope there’s someone who will. What’s gonna happen. They won’t call him back again for another interview? Wah!!! Boo Hoo.

  • Florida student told no 'God bless America' in morning announcements

    02/13/2015 2:32:44 PM PST · 11 of 12
    hadit2here to Kartographer

    “And on a PERSONAL note: God Bless America.”

  • What Racially Biased Policing Looks Like

    11/27/2014 3:40:00 PM PST · 33 of 78
    hadit2here to A_Former_Democrat
    Ask and thou shalt receive:
    colorofcrime
    Somewhat dated but it's not gotten better at all since Obola's tenure started.
  • Arrest in robbery of S.F. girl who was selling candy

    07/19/2014 9:14:02 AM PDT · 13 of 13
    hadit2here to artichokegrower

    Not very Christian of her!

    I’m surprised the SF police didn’t ticket and arrest the 8 year old girl for not having a vendor’s license and obstructing the sidewalk.

  • This One Map Shows The Largest Employer In Every State

    05/27/2014 3:17:53 PM PDT · 49 of 49
    hadit2here to SeekAndFind
    From wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_largest_employers_in_washington_state

    As of July 2013, the companies with the largest amount of employees in the US state of Washington are:

    1) Boeing 85,000
    2) Joint Base Lewis-McChord 56,000
    3) Navy Region Northwest 43,000
    4) Microsoft Corp. 41,664
    5) University of Washington 29,800

    From July, 2013 Puget Sound Business Journal:

    This latest list of employers is topped by Chicago-based Boeing, with 85,000 employees working at its Commercial Airplanes division and other manufacturing operations in Everett, Renton and elsewhere in the state. That's almost half of the aerospace company's 172,000 total employees.

    Unless Micro$haft has grown a lot in less than a year, yeah, this guy needs to do some better research than acinet. Their 2014 listing doesn't even list Boeing until #18, which is 'Boeing Training and Flight Svc', which is really a small division of Boeing based in Renton.

    This is why I take these "charts" with a huge bag of salt. They're almost always wrong, made up by ill-informed idiots who don't have even the simplest internet research skills.

  • Seattle Set To Destroy Economy With Highest Minimum Wage Increase In The World

    05/21/2014 9:15:39 AM PDT · 91 of 93
    hadit2here to CSM

    Don’t worry. They will. Just give ‘em time.

  • Walgreens urged to leave US to gain tax benefit

    04/14/2014 3:26:34 PM PDT · 34 of 36
    hadit2here to Cringing Negativism Network

    Jeez, guit sounding like a broken record. I doubt seriously that you have ever started or run a business yourself “with American capital” or not. All you ever do is whine about “Capital is not apolitical” or “American capital is badly in need, of coming home.”

    As some have pointed out but you seem to never get into your thick head, “Capital goes where it is respected and well-treated.” as posted by Ruffian.

    American companies and their capital are dumped on and sabotaged by the laws passed, unmanageable regulatory burdens, light years of red tape and everything else that a business owner has to put up with. And that goes for the huge corps also. When they have to spend their capital on whole departments just to *try* to comply with the laws, regs and penny ante rules, forms and red tape that change on a bureaucrats whim, they have no choice but to either go out of business or leave for somewhere else.

    Businesses, large and small are leaving states like California and Illinois for states with better business atmosphere. Large businesses and corps are beholden to their owners/stockholders to make a profit and stay in business. When they can’t do that, they leave for someplace better.

    The problem is NOT American businesses who don’t want to hire Americans or their American capital. It’s the anti-business, anti-capitalist environment created by the gov’t in the US that is making them flee. They and their capital would come home in a nanosecond if the business and regulatory environment changed for the positive and they could at least survive here.

    You’re really grinding on that one last nerve with yer broken record postings of the same d@mn thing over and over without any mental effort behind it to understand why Americans and American business can’t survive here in the US.

    Give it a break already. It’s not American business and its capital that’s to blame for going ‘overseas’. It’s totally the fault of the gov’t regulation and oppression of all business- except their political crony capitalists with their hands in each other’s and the taxpayers’ pockets.

    If you ain’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem and whiny @$$holes who cry about American business trying to stay alive by going overseas doesn’t provide much of a solution.

    Just my 2/100th of a George.

  • WATCH THIS: Secret video footage proves cop lied about horrific accident

    04/14/2014 11:19:13 AM PDT · 53 of 90
    hadit2here to Half Vast Conspiracy

    Having spent more than a few years driving emergency vehicles and also researching the actual state laws, Mr BP Officer is totally in the wrong as far as the Uniform Traffic Codes go, which are basically incorporated in most state laws.

    Any legally authorized person may use flashing lights and/or audible warning/siren and deviate from the normal traffic patterns, directions, indicators and signals, but in doing so they “must exercise due care and caution” at all times. In practice, this means basically if you get into any kind of accident when your emergency warning equipment is in use, you’re at fault. Automatically. Doesn’t matter what you or anyone else was doing. No excuses. It’s the way the law is written as worded.

    I’ve had state troopers, deputy sheriff’s, etc., tell me that they would rather run without lights and siren to an emergency scene, because if *anything* happens, they will be considered at fault, automatically. And their departments won’t or can’t back them up in that case. So they felt safer, both physically and legally, by just running silent, even if it meant exceeding the speed limit or other “violations”.

    Although, in court when it comes down to taking the “word” of the officer or the citizen, naturally the black robe tyrant will often side with the officer contrary to evidence or other things. So the cop has no ‘downside’ to making up whatever will save his ass... unless someone has a recording that totally contraverts his story.

    It’s also interesting to note that most people who have ever run equipment with lights and sirens agree that those things only make you more of a *target* for idjit drivers. Once you light up, you have to assume that *everyone* is aiming for you.

    So this BP officer was immediately at fault because he got into an accident while running with lights/siren. Not using ‘due care and caution’. But unless some witnesses at the accident said otherwise or, as in this case, it was recorded, the BP officer’s “story” could probably win out in court. But he was at fault according to the UTC, and he was at fault in actuality, and it was recorded.

    Then he lied about it. Fry him.

  • TX: Firefighter fatally shot by woman outside Montgomery County

    03/22/2014 12:34:10 PM PDT · 5 of 31
    hadit2here to marktwain

    Can someone please explain why the headline has to identify him as a “firefighter”? He wasn’t acting in any capacity of a firefighter nor representing the fire dept at the time. His occupation should have nothing to do with it.

    He was a drunk intruder who was shot while trying to break into someone else’s house.

    The “firefighter” part should be a minor description, if even that, at the bottom of the story. NOT the headline. “He was employed by the XYZ Fire Dept.”

    If he was a “massage therapist” or a “grocery clerk” or a myriad other non-descript professions, would the headline of the story be written the same way?

    Sheesh! Today’s urinalism.

  • Will you get these 20 jokes meant for really brainy people?

    03/12/2014 3:27:49 PM PDT · 149 of 163
    hadit2here to The Looking Spoon

    I took a philosophy class in high school and we were given an essay test with about 10 questions. Tuff test. One brainy guy finished the test, then wrote one sentence or one word answers to each of the questions - for fun (!!). The only one I can remember was:

    “How does Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason fit into his philosophical system?”

    Answer: “Nicely”

  • Sunday Stories: “99 Red Balloons” [aka life as a car salesman]

    03/09/2014 10:15:51 PM PDT · 25 of 30
    hadit2here to nascarnation

    I did a few months stint working on a used car lot for a friend of mine who had been one of the top salesmen at several of the local dealerships for years. He opened a small used car lot and I went to work for him.

    One of the first things he told me to remember was “buyers are liars”. Explained about the “be back bus” as in “we’ll be back”. Then pointed out that one of the first lies out of the buyer’s mouth would be “this is the first place we’ve looked at”. Amazing how he predicted exactly how my first customers acted. LOL

    He also told me that I could bodily throw anyone off the lot that I wanted to and he’d back me up. Said he’d done that at one lot. Almost felt like doing it many times.

    Then there was the classic “Yeah but I can get it for X$ down at *dealer name*”. He gave me the response and I used it once. “Hey, go ahead and buy one for me too at that price”. Then I turned and walked away. The “customer” called after me, “Don’t you want to sell it?” I turned and said, “Yeah, but not to you” and walked off.

    Believe me, as bad as people think car salesmen are - and there are definitely some that are totally sleazebags - the buyers are worse. I found out quickly that a lot of it is just a defensive reaction to the “buyers are liars” that they end up with every day, all day.

  • Members of mom anti-gun violence group urge posting of ‘No Guns’ signs

    02/27/2014 9:51:43 AM PST · 35 of 36
    hadit2here to cork

    And your effort is thus wasted. When you see such a sign on any business establishment, you need to spend a few minutes to make a worthwhile effort that WILL change the situation.

    Go inside, ask for the manager. Talk only to the top manager that is on duty. Politely explain how much money you normally spend or would have spent in their establishment but since they have decided that YOUR and their other customer’s safety is of no importance because they are disarming law abiding citizens who could/would help and stop a crazed shooter, you will no longer patronize their store.

    Be polite and don’t rant, just point out the facts: They’re not only losing YOUR money but many others who will not say anything but will not patronize them.

    Then tell them to talk to their legal counsel and insurance carrier to find out how much it will cost them if some batshit crazy assh0le disregards the sign and shoots any of their defenseless customers, who *could* have carried or used their weapons to stop the shooter or to defend themselves. Point out, nicely, that by EXPLICITLY removing any defense from their customers puts the liability for that defense on their business.

    Ask them to evaluate the costs of 1) lost business from legitimate, law abiding citizen customers who carry and 2) the lawsuits after such a shooting where the customers were required to be defenseless because of their little sign.

    And you can point out that making their establishment PC feelgood “gun free” only means that they have actually made it not only a target rich environment for any crazy ass shooter who won’t obey either the laws or their little sign, but also a magnet for such crazies. Virtually all of the major mass murder shootings have been in “gun free” zones. So they are *attracting* such liability by posting their little PC gun free zone sign.

    Don’t argue with them. Just explain the above, and then leave. Does no good to argue or get steamed. But once the facts have been pointed out to them, it may take a while for them to sink in, but at least a rational person who has been propagandized by the anti-gun, PC crowd will have something to make a better decision on.

    If the store is a huge chain, sit down and write the above in a letter and send it directly to the chain headquarters. No email or phone calls- they cost nothing and are of no value. A hard copy, written letter (especially sent certified/return receipt) shows your effort and conviction put into it.

    Silently walking away does nothing to let the business know their mistake in kowtowing to the minority but very vocal anti-gun PC crowd and what the actual *costs* to the business are of putting up those little signs. And *costs* to the business are what talks and decisions are based on. They erroneously think, unless it’s pointed out to them, that there’s no cost to just post that little sign. When they see the costs - loss of YOUR $$$ - there is business based incentive to remove the PC signs.

    It takes an effort, but look at the effort that the anti-gunners are putting into their cause. If we don’t put out a similar effort, they win by default. Walking away when you see the sign doesn’t provide the business with the feedback that the Mad Moms have given them.

    And it might be quite entertaining if you keep the right mindset and try to smile and enjoy the experience/encounter. And enlightening for the business management who may have never heard the other side of the argument. Think of it as taking the manager/owner out to the range.

    If you want to keep it short and sweet and not spend a lot of YOUR time, just write up a message such as above, print it out and walk in and hand it to the manager, then leave. (They can’t argue with you if you leave, but they have something tangible showing your effort, just as the Mad Moms have done. Which do you think will be more effective- a play on their emotions or definite evidence of loss of $$?)

    Think about it.

  • NOT being "allowed" to drop a class?

    01/29/2014 2:26:11 PM PST · 65 of 80
    hadit2here to MacMattico

    Lots of really good advice here, but most all turn on the facts concerning learning, etc. At this point, it has nothing to do with the girl, learning or her capabilities... it’s all about the school policy/rules and following them.

    Sit down and plan out exactly what the girl wants to do and what her mother wants. Work it out on paper and get a hard copy of the school rules and policies that apply to go with your plan. You might do a little research online regarding the laws governing schools and school districts, and have them printed out to take with you just so you’ll have them (As a prop to refer to, if nothing else. But definitely let them know you have the printed laws with you. It shows them that you’ve done your homework, along with the presence of the atty.)

    By all means, schedule the meeting with the school admin and teacher, but go find either a super bad ass, junk yard dog, ambulance chasing lawyer or a really hungry one- The bad ass who has sued the school/county or local gov’t and has won is the best possible.

    The lawyer just goes with you all to the meeting. He doesn’t have to do anything and you don’t have to refer to him or introduce him at all. Just let him introduce himself at the beginning by saying, “I’m attorney xxx, and I’m here representing Miss Y.” Then he sits down and doesn’t have to say a word further. Also make a big deal of taking the biggest recording machine with you to the meeting. Make a show of putting it on the table or some central focal point and turning it on, while saying “This is just a recording to memorialize everything for everyone’s benefit.”

    Then go over your step by step plan for the girl and her argument that she should be allowed to drop the course (according to THEIR OWN school policy, which you HAVE a copy of) and take it next year after the tutoring during the summer. At any point when any of the school personnel object to what you want, make a very pointed look towards the attorney, have him nod his head or shake his head “no” or whatever, then reiterate your demand/request and don’t back down.

    It’s all theater of the absurd, but the second the school authorities hear the lawyer introduce himself, the whole game reverses and now they’re on the defensive and have to sweat to justify EVERY tiny detail they bring up - or be sued by the nasty looking atty sitting there taking it all in.

    I know this sounds like way too much overkill, but the school admins today MUST be stood up to and shown that they are not the power holders, that the students and parents are. At no time are you threatening a lawsuit, you’ve only brought the attorney into the room with you. But it will work wonders as an attitude adjustment for the admin, who are completely used to totally getting their way and lording their “power” over both the students and their parents and the taxpayers. When you play the “supplicant” to their Lordship Powers, it only energizes them to lord it over you. Walking in being on the offense changes their game and you and the student are no longer their “supplicant”, begging for scraps of their good will.

    If you think of this more as doing it for the rest of the students and parents who would just be steamrolled over by the school admin bullies, it makes it more worth the efforts. If you know an attorney friend who can go with you and just play the role, that will do. He doesn’t have to say anything or give any legal advice at all. Just introduce himself and then sit there, looking sour and ready to tear some new @$$holes if need be.

    Or you can just let the student (a worthy one from the sounds of it) and her mother get steamrolled by the asinine bureaucrats with their petty power plays and strutting shows of authority.

    I’ve actually done things like this and it is really an entertaining thing. It’s fun watching the so-called “powerful” bullies start stuttering and measuring their words very carefully so they won’t be listed on the ‘defendant’ side of a lawsuit— even if the lawsuit threat is only in their own mind. But it is fun to watch them. No matter what, make a big deal about recording the whole session, “so it can be transcribed for ‘legal purposes, if needed’”. And DON’T BACK DOWN!

  • WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

    12/09/2013 8:17:13 AM PST · 16 of 20
    hadit2here to colderwater

    I’d sure LOVE to have you show me the part of the US Constitution which gives the federal gov’t that power. I’m not talking rules, regulations, state laws, etc. I’m talking about the explicit power designated to the Federal Government to do such things. In the actual words of the Constitution. ‘Cuz if it ain’t there, it ain’t anywhere.

    The US Constitution was written to give the Federal Gov. only certain specified powers. All the rest are kept at the state level or retained by “the people”.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
    —Thomas Jefferson

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
    —James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

    “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”
    —Edmund A. Opitz

    Again, show me the words. State’s may have that power, but I find nothing within the four corners of the Constitution giving the Federal Gov’t. those powers.

    I could be wrong.......... NAW!

  • WV Leads 27 States,Territories in Supreme Court Brief Supporting Citizens’ Rights to Buy, Sell Guns

    12/07/2013 11:16:21 PM PST · 3 of 20
    hadit2here to marktwain

    This is in addition to the FACT that the fed gov has never been given the legal power or ability to legally regulate any type of “gun”. Not only from proscription of the 2nd Amendment, but the Constitution gives the fed gov no powers to do anything like it. Unfortunately, the fed gov has total disregard for the “chains” of the Constitution that were enacted expressly to hold down the gov’t., not the citizens.

  • (Dick) Metcalf Responds (Guns & Ammo)

    11/08/2013 7:52:53 PM PST · 36 of 51
    hadit2here to Red in Blue PA

    Just sent this to the editor at The Outdoor Wire:

    To Dick Metcalf

    >When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following “clarification and elaboration” on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all.<

    You should probably learn and take to heart the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

    >Then, after Paul Erhardt’s column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday, IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.

    How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?<

    Apparently you’re hanging your hat on that First Amendment thingie... you know, Freedom of Speech- that you’ve got the right to write or say anything controversial you want without anyone being able to take you to task or there being any consequences for you. Number one, the Constitution affirms our God-given rights and enchains the GOVERNMENT from violating them. The First Amendment guarantees us that the government has not been granted the power to violate that right.

    You can, of course, write or say anything you wish, however if you have any kind of mental faculties at all, you should realize that there can be consequences. While the First Amendment may try to keep the government from doing something because of what you wrote or said, all of the general public and businesses are not constrained by those limitations. If “two major firearms industry manufacturers” contacted your employer as a result of what you wrote, they have every right to do so. They can explain to your employer the amount of revenue and business your employer will lose from them if you are continued to be employed. Nothing about the First Amendment at all. Just common business practices. If I don’t like something a business or one of their employees does or says, and I contact that business, explaining that I will take MY business elsewhere, that is totally within my rights to do so. If that business fires the employee because of the loss of MY business, that again is totally within their rights to do so. It’s called survival in the business world and has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Freedom of Speech.

    That’s apparently another simple concept from the Constitution that you just haven’t got a grasp on, in addition to the “well-regulated” thing.

    >From its inception as “Cooper’s Corner” in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded—some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).<

    Again, there you go with the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the First Amendment. I doubt you’ll find anything anywhere in the Constitution or all of the Bill of Rights that has anything to do with “not inciting a riot”. And again you show that your abject ignorance of all of that with the phrase “illegal under the laws ***regulating*** the 1st Amendment”. Laws passed by Congress don’t REGULATE anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, i.e., the first ten amendments to it. The Constitution and the Amendments REGULATE all of the laws. You may have heard something (or not, apparently) about the U.S. Constitution being the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Maybe you should ponder on those words just a little bit before opening your mouth or pounding your fingers on the keyboard.

    In the words of some old white guy from about 235 years ago:

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
    —Thomas Jefferson

    >In today’s political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute “NO!” And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term “well-regulated,” and how they are used and misused.<

    Dick, maybe you should try to grasp the concept that “rights” are not to be “regulated”. Rights that are regulated are “privileges” and no longer “rights”. And apparently you really ARE NOT aware of what “well-regulated” means. Maybe that and the concept of “rights” is where your basic misunderstandings spring from.

    >I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?<

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
    — Daniel Webster

    Dick, Dick, Dick. Again with the “regulation of rights”. When will you get the concept of “rights” into your head? To reiterate again, the Constitution enumerates the God-given rights with which we are born and enjoins the government from abrogating, violating or revoking those God-given rights. And if you actually believe that owning or driving a vehicle is NOT a constitutional right, then I can give you quite a few legal citations that show that none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, and many lesser courts, have declared that it indeed IS a right. You do NOT need to have a government permit to “own” a vehicle, and you are not required to have a “license” to travel with your private automobile. Only when you do so for the purpose of commerce may the government “regulate” and require a “license”. Get some facts and get educated.

    And don’t even bring up the ridiculous point of it being “illegal” to shout Fire! in a crowded theater. Again, read the words of the Amendments.

    >Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.<

    If you stopped right there, that would be recognized as stopping digging when you’re in a hole. But no, you’ve gotta continue digging.

    >At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court’s widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.<

    “But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
    —George Washington, Farewell Address

    Again, Dick, your abject ignorance is on display. And again, innumerable federal, state and local statutes DO NOT regulate the 2nd Amendment. They cannot. While they may violate the 2nd Amendment prohibitions against “shall not be infringed”, they CANNOT regulate that Amendment. Can’t you get this through your thick head? Apparently not, as you continue on with the same misapprehensions regarding “regulating”. Yes, many laws and court rulings DO infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, but they DO NOT regulate it. They attempt to regulate rights, actions and activities of U.S. citizens, not the Amendment itself. And even if the King, the Congress or whatever potentate there is establishes laws that violate the U.S. Constitution, those laws are at their inception, null and void. Look it up.

    >Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?<

    “The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.”
    —Montesquieu, 1748

    When some far off King in England made “laws” for the colonists in the New World, there were a few guys who looked at those laws and the violations of the God-given rights they engendered and pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in holding those laws as unjust... or as we may consider them today, unconstitutional, as they were then establishing our U.S. Constitution and writing the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should read some of those documents.

    I’m sorry to relate this to you, Dick, but laws are not part of the “organic fabric of the Constitution”. All the laws enacted by Congress are subject to and under the Constitution. They do not constitute the fabric of it.

    >All 50 states now have individual statutes or constitutional provisions regulating concealed firearms carry. The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence? Should we obtain concealed-carry licenses anyway? Are we violating the Constitution ourselves if we do? On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ (although you wouldn’t know it from what erupted on the Guns & Ammo website, G&A Facebook pages, and many other firearms forums following the appearance of the December Backstop column).<

    The states may have statutes regulating firearms, but they do not have constitutional provisions regulating them. The constitutions are proscriptions and inhibitions against the government, describing the constraints upon such government. Thus they confirm or assert the rights of the state citizens. While the federal and other governments may “require” state-issued “permits” or training requirements, that does not negate the basic Constitutionally affirmed rights of the citizens.

    According to your logic, if the Congress makes a law that violates the Constitution, then the sheer fact of the existence of that “law” proves the lack of violation of the Constitution by it. Circular logic. Irrational.

    Are all those laws infringements? YES. Should we oppose their existence? YES. Should we obtain licenses? If you want to bow down, go ahead. Are we violating the Constitution if we do? Again, Dick, a citizen cannot “violate” the Constitution. Again, the Constitution is a prohibition against government, not the citizens. Learn that while you’re researching the law of holes. Please.

    You say, “On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ” and they may. But the Constitution and its wording of the 2nd Amendment does NOT differ; it remains unchanged since its origination. It states VERY PLAINLY that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t state, like the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law...” You may differ in your opinion with others, but the words are quite plain: “the right... shall not be infringed”. A permit by the government is an infringement. A law “regulating” the keeping and bearing of arms is an infringement, whether it requires a citizen to own or obtain an arm or proscribes against it and “requires” a permit.

    >Myself, I would rather carry legally, than carry illegally and risk prison. Given the fact an Illinois concealed carry law now does exist, I have no problem spending 16 hours of my life under its training requirement. And I will. I am glad Illinois finally passed a concealed carry law. Do I believe training is a good thing? Of course I do. Do I believe the onerous fees and procedures imposed by Illinois’ anti-gun legislators to reduce the number of applicants are an “infringement?” Of course I do. I’m applying for a license anyway. But that’s just me.

    “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    -Samuel Adams

    Go ahead, Dick, and get that “permit”. Take that training. May your chains set lightly upon you.

    >Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

    1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?<

    Strawman argument. Dick, I can’t for the life of me find any wording in the whole of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, nor the Declaration of Independence that even intimates that the government has been given the power to prohibit ANYONE from keeping and bearing arms. Just the opposite. So the Federal government DOES NOT have that right or power delegated to it. May it usurp that power? Sure. That still doesn’t make it Constitutional nor the usurpations “legal”.

    >2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?<

    What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Licenses, permits or government approvals ARE infringements on the 2nd Amendment and ARE, prima facie, unConstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the government given the power to establish concealed-carry licenses. If you can find that wording for me, please let me know.

    >3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?<

    I personally don’t. Had one many years ago before I understood what the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution provided me.

    >4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?<

    No, you are voluntarily entering into a “contract” with the government to allow their rules to apply to you. Again, Dick, a citizen cannot violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is a set of prohibitions upon government, not the citizens. In fact, the Bill of Rights sets out for the government a list of the God-given rights that it shall NOT violate or infringe upon.

    >I would hope this discussion could continue.<

    It probably will. But you should do some reading and research before opening your mouth again, because you only seem to be able to exhibit your own lack of education and understanding of how this country was setup and is supposed to operate.

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    —Thomas Jefferson.

    “The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
    —Albert Gallatin (1789)

    “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves and to sustain ourselves.”
    James Madison,1778

    And lastly, Dick, I’m really trying hard to determine which applies to you: “IGNORANCE CAN BE ELIMINATED WITH KNOWLEDGE, IT’S STUPIDITY THAT REMAINS FOREVER” So far, from reading what you’ve written, I’m tending toward the latter.

  • Top Scientist: “Fukushima is the most terrifying"

    11/08/2013 3:59:53 PM PST · 16 of 63
    hadit2here to Carbonsteel

    I started reading the article and it started sounding like one of the “top global warming scientist’s” total doom and gloom type of bullchit. So I looked at the so called “scientist” whose claims they are - David Suzuki is the equivalent of Paul Ehrlich. You know, the one that said that the human population of the earth would be extinct by 2000 from starvation... among many other “globull warming/cooling/freezing” diatribes that have all been proven to be total... ummm, being charitable- hocum.

    If David Suzuki, the “top scientist” said that the sky was blue or that the sun would rise in the morning, I’d go outside and double check because there is probably close to 99% chance he’d be wrong about both things.

    So, consider the source. If David Suzuki says Fukushima is a disaster, I’m pretty well convinced that it’s probably OK and not much at all is wrong, so I can put it on my list of vacation destination spots. Remind me again how many people have died from the nuclear reactor “disaster” at Fukushima, as opposed to the number of people who have died due to medical malpractice and mis-prescribing or pharmaceutical side effects. Or even freezing weather since the globull warming alarmists have made heating costs skyrocket with their “green energy” scams.

    [By the way, what *was* the population of the world when Paul Ehrlich was ranting and raving back in the 70’s about human extinction and what’s the population now? Quod erat demonstrandum.]

  • Los Angeles Sheriff's Dogs Bite Only Blacks and Latinos?

    10/11/2013 7:27:10 PM PDT · 15 of 69
    hadit2here to nickcarraway
  • Mexico's planned telecoms shake-up threatens Slim, Televisa

    03/20/2013 7:56:14 PM PDT · 3 of 4
    hadit2here to JerseyanExile

    I wonder who Slim pissed off or didn’t contribute enough to in the last election? Nieto?