ChangoLanzao

yes yes... let's not re-hash jr-high... I was pointing out that you might want to re-think your 2nd amendment suggestion as then it would (by your thinking) limit 1st as well I know what you were trying to do I'm simply pointing out that in one thread you made note that you disagree with individual right to bear arms and that only state militias should have them. Yet in this thread you seem to think that cameras should be added to the 2nd amendment thus assuring that everyone could still carry and use one. You contradict yourself. Or seem to. you can dodge the explanation if you like. I don't ever expect one when I catch someone contradicting themselves. Take your time. Make up a good one. Or dont. The other thread was about guns. This one is about cameras

We can't let this happen! It's time for the second American Revolution!! CLICKY

I am sure that you would see it that way . . . BUT if Bush was the still the prez . . your tune would be a little different. Go ahead say it . . . If Bush was still president, Dick Cheney would have convinced him that Mexico blew the well up and we'd be at war with Mexico right now.

There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. So you are now on the side of armed peoople? Not unarmed people? Earlier you wanted only police to have weapons and control of weapons! Yes ... as long as they are armed with pens and recording devices! So, I get it, this is where you draw your line, 9yet seem to think ALL people shoudl draw the saem line.. Recording without permission, OK.. Protecting your family with a gun "Bad" Correct? You make it all sound so simple!

yes yes... let's not re-hash jr-high... I was pointing out that you might want to re-think your 2nd amendment suggestion as then it would (by your thinking) limit 1st as well I know what you were trying to do

There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. So you are now on the side of armed peoople? Not unarmed people? Earlier you wanted only police to have weapons and control of weapons! Yes ... as long as they are armed with pens and recording devices!

but then (by your own admission) only state militias should have cameras. You are very perceptive! Tell me what this means: "The pen is mightier than the sword"

Gonna be a long wait for the SC to completely ignore history and the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on it. Shame you have no clue what the militia is though. Such ignorance bodes poorly for your other constitutional thoughts. Nice personal attack. Thanks.

There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany.

Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. No. I will leave that as an exercise for our readers ah... the classic "no, you should think about it" argument. what, you're 13? Let's keep my age out of this, shall we? ... and Quade is right. This thread wasn't about the second amendment. I really don'tt give a damn what you think about the second amendment either

The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787 so you disagree with SCOTUS's ruling? That the 2nd DOES indicate an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That's correct. I think the second amendment does not apply to individuals. I feel that it should only apply to state militias. This supreme court disagrees with me but I'm hopeful that at some point in the future this will change.

Did you honestly just say that? It was a joke right? Which part of it don't you understand? Even our current supreme court has stated unequivocally that the government has the right to regulate gun rights.

***In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?" Blair could not be reached for comment Thursday. In audio archives of his radio show, Blair discusses the mural. He insists the controversy isn't about racism but says the mural is intended to create racial controversy where none existed before. "Personally, I think it's pathetic," he says. "You have changed the ambience of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that." CLICKY

Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. No. I will leave that as an exercise for our readers

Based on??????? Columbia vs. Heller CLICKY

The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster. history hasn't changed much. The bad things he did are still the same, and the debate over the good that occurred under his tenure continue. And later administrations have blown away his level of red ink. Yes the red ink was bad, but the real legacy he left that we are having to deal with now is the systematic destruction of vital parts of the "guvment". RR set out to destroy various agencies by stuffing them full of people who were either incompetent or dedicated to the task of making their agencies completely ineffective. RR managed to convince large numbers of Americans that their "guvment" was the problem. His philosophy has had lasting effects on the ability of the People to control damage to the environment, the economy, public education, the health care system, and even the political system by greedy corporate crooks. He also left us with Kennedy and Scalia to deal with for the rest of our lives.

History will show (is showing!) that the election of Ronald Reagan was a National Disaster.

Source: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/06/04/1956957/california-assembly-approves-bill.html And of course, when you inherit Dad's old shotgun after his death, and in your grief you don't think to register it, then the cops will show up to confiscate it. Or when you move to California with your gun collection, and because you're new to the state and don't realize there are registration requirements, then the cops will show up to take all your guns away from you. This is just another technicality that the gun prohibitionists will use to take guns away from citizens who haven't done anything to harm or threaten anyone. The government has the right to regulate guns.

In our country, suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Compelling a presumably innocent person to testify against himself is unconstitutional. If the police have done their job, they should be able to convict a suspect on the basis of the evidence. Good cops do this. Bad cops think it's stupid to treat a person as if they were innocent.

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason. The supreme court and every respectable, recognized legal authority disagree with you. If a suspect is so weak that simply asking a question a few times when they are under arrest qualifies as "compelling" them, that's their problem. You know what, it's not even worth explaining this to you because you have no idea how interogation actually works, have no idea what law enforcement actually does, and have no interest in hearing anything other than "cops are all evil." If that's the pathetic little world you live in, it's your problem. You are no different from thousands of other fanatics who have decided to hate something for no reason. Alrighty then.

The police officer should ask you if you wish to remain silent, rather than just telling you that you have the right. If you don't answer, the default should be for him to assume that you do and stop questioning you until you have a lawyer. If the officer has the evidence, he should not keep asking you in order to compel you to incriminate yourself.

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

and if he doesn't answer, what does it mean? How long do you give him? What if he doesn't answer, but then says that yes, he'd like a coffee. Wendy P. I'd say if he doesn't answer that question, he's probably very confused about what his rights are You should probably stop asking him questions and go back to your desk and make sure that all the evidence you've gathered is good so that you can prosecute him without the need to compel him to testify against himself.

Sounds just like the crooks that run wall street to me. ETA: Or perhaps you are referring to the "feds" who have spent a trilllion dollars in Iraq and Afganistan and who do stuff like THIS? So ... which feds are you talking about, really?