Comments: Since Uncle Asked

Hmmm ... the constitution says differently ... "The People" are those persons born in the US or living in the US after the constitution was ratified ... slaves born in the US were added by a later amendment.

Non-citizen rights are merely a matter of treaty, not constitutional law.

If you want to give non-citizens rights, you must amend the constitution.

Posted by Kristopher at August 31, 2006 10:58 AM

I'm on publicola's side here. I think that any decent look at the context of the framing will show all sorts of differing oppinions among the founding fathers, but the vast majority of them saw the bill of rights as a restraint on government action not a limited listing of liberties. There were framers, like Hamilton that argued against including the Bill of the Rights as it might accidentally enpower future governments to assume that only the enumerated rights were protected. (I'm pretty sure that Federalist Paper #84 touches on that.)

I would be very curious as to what historical evidence Kristopher has to suggest that the founnding fathers viewed the bill of rights/consitution as a limited collection of rights?


Additionally, I'm uncomfortable allowing the government to conduct illegal searches, or beat confessions out of foreign citizens in the U.S. simply because it seems like a bad plan to allow any police state momementum to develope. Since we don't make, oh, tourists from the UK wear badges on the street, it might be a bit difficult to remember which pedestrians can be tortured in the back of the squad car, and which ones get miranda warnings and consitutional protection.

Posted by Bob at August 31, 2006 12:55 PM

The civil rights were called such because it was believed that those were INHERENTLY YOURS as a human being, not as a citizen. If you are denying them to non-citizens, then you are implying that they are not rights, but privileges that have been GRANTED by the government. That is a slippery slope that has to be avoided.
Just my opinion.

Posted by BobG at August 31, 2006 04:09 PM

Hmmm ... the constitution says differently ... "The People" are those persons born in the US or living in the US after the constitution was ratified ... slaves born in the US were added by a later amendment.

Hmmm ... Which part of the Constitution says differently? The part about calculating enumeration for the purposes of representation and taxation? That has nothing to do with who is covered by the provisions of the Constitution.

So, what you are saying is that foreigners in this country, whether legal or illegal, have no Constitutional rights. They, therefore, can be detained without cause, tortured, their property seized without warrant etc. etc. etc. (unless we have a treaty with their country of origin preventing such treatment).

Sorry, gotta throw the BS flag on that one.

One of the favored refrains of the gun rights community (one with which I happen to agree by the way) is that rights are not granted by government. They are ours by birthright through the Grace of God as we understand Him. The bill of rights only enumerates SOME of our natural, God-given rights for the purposes of specifically delineating the limitations of governmental power. This is the entire basis of the "gun control laws are unconstitutional" argument.

With that in mind; if rights are granted by God and not government, then they are granted to ALL, not just to citizens of a particular Government.

We can't have it both ways. Either rights are granted to a person as a birthright and apply to every human being equally, or they are granted by a particular Government and only apply to citizens of that particular government.

I second the obviously true statement by the author of the original post: The concept of natural rights does not extend to demanding something from other citizens. Free Health care, Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Education etc. are not "Rights". None of these areas should be in the purview of the Federal Government at all, but since they are, they are priveleges of Citizenship, not rights.

Free Speech, Life, Liberty, Property, those are rights. Taking the fruits of another's labor for any reason...health, education, sustenance, shelter...is not a right under any realistic definition.

Posted by Sailorcurt at September 1, 2006 04:56 AM

Aside from the fact the 2A doesn't provide any constitutional right to firearms--the fact is the BoR applies to everyone, even illegal aliens.

It's settled law; just as it's settled law the 2A doesn't provide a constitutional right to a firearm.

Posted by JadeGold at September 1, 2006 12:54 PM

I agree that the BoR was added to help protect some non-enumerated rights ...

As for intent ... look at the text. It says exactly what a citizen is ... and then outlines how the State should be restricted in its dealings with citizens.

The SCOTUS has long held that people can have reduced rights ... specifically felons and non-citizens, as well as lesser rights for slaves pre-civil war.

This is what Naturalization was originally about ... making an immigrant equal to someone born here ... once you are naturalized, you are considered to be native-born by the federal government, have full rights, and cannot be deported.

States had held that non-naturalized immigrants did not have the same rights as citizens ... giving them these rights was a very recent federal court invention.

Posted by Kristopher at September 1, 2006 01:30 PM

Jade said:
"It's settled law; just as it's settled law the 2A doesn't provide a constitutional right to a firearm."

He who dislikes bad ideas says:
Hi Jade, I reside in PA and since you're the resident expert on the US Constitution, maybe you could explain the impact of the following statements from the document that constitutes the PA state government from September 28, 1776. Some guy named "Franklin" presided over it's...

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

On the other stuff such as Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants, I haven't read a whole lot about that. But I would add that if we're to ascribe Constitutional rights to all of them, they should be held responsible for the violation of laws such as "social security fraud", etc.

Posted by BadIdeaGuy at September 2, 2006 10:31 AM

Bad Idea Guy:

That you choose to ignore the fact the 2A's intent and meaning is settled law is fine. Let us address your deflection concerning the PA state legislature.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

I always wonder why the gun cult always includes this type of boilerplate language in defense of its views. After all, it's not true--the fact is at the time, these "inalienable" rights were only afforded to propertied, white, Christian males. Everyone else was excluded or enjoyed limited rights.

In fact, states--including PA--often imposed "character tests" upon its citizens to judge whether such citizens were 'worthy' of holding office or military service and the like.

That aside, it's just sloppy thinking.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The Founders eyed standing armies or militaries with suspicion. They believed the states should raise and maintain militias to handle peacekeeping chores and to support the nation in time of emergency.

In fact, the original 2A, as penned by Madison, read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The objections to this version didn't concern the military nature but the phrase "religiously scrupulous." The issue was that some could be excluded from military service on the basis of their religious views or beliefs.

Posted by J at September 3, 2006 02:24 PM

A gentlman by the name of Tench Coxe was in charge of the committee that wrote the second amendment.

His later writings made it very clear that they intended the amendment to guarantee that individual citizens had a right to own firearms.

Your contention that the second amendment deals only with the national guard, and that "the people" in only this one instance means "the state" is revisionist bullshit.

Even US vs. Miller makes it clear that citizens have a right to own military issue rifles. Miller lost for two reasons: his attorney didn't show up, and the prosecutor argued ( incorrectly, btw ) that the US military doesn't use short barrelled shotguns.

The SCOTUS held that if a short-barreked shotgun was military issue, then Miller would have had a right to own it. In fact, if you carry US vs MIller to its logical conclusion, we citizens should have a right to purchase burst-fire M-16s and full-auto M-240s and M-249s.

Heh.

Posted by Kristopher at September 5, 2006 11:31 AM

'It's settled law; just as it's settled law the 2A doesn't provide a constitutional right to a firearm.'

Settled where? IIRC, it's the official position of the US Justice Dept, the house, the senate, the fifth circuit that the amendment in fact does do that. It's also the offical position of both primary party platforms.

The other circuits are hit or miss but seem to come down on the side of the collective rights hooey. The supreme court, which has not ruled on the issue, has mentioned right to arms many times.

Posted by SayUncle at September 5, 2006 01:27 PM

Wow, plugging "JadeGold" and "troll" into a search engine is interesting. s/he(?) is a full-time troll with the special crusade of annoying gun owners. Hath thee no job?!

Posted by BadIdeaGuy at September 5, 2006 04:29 PM

JadeGold pops up in a lot of places as a troll. Personally, I have better things to do than spend all of my spare time trying to deliberately annoy people with sophomoric logic.

Posted by BobG at September 6, 2006 08:46 AM

I agree that the BoR was added to help protect some non-enumerated rights ...

No rights were enumerated outside of the bill of rights. The remainder of the Constitution outlines the basic structure of the government and identified its powers and specifically enumerated some of its limitations.

The bill of rights WAS added to help protect some rights, but was framed in terms of limitations on the government rather than on permissions to the people. The ninth and tenth Amendments specifically stated that the previous eight were never intended to be a comprehensive list of rights granted to the people, but a list of specific prohibitions on governmental action.

As for intent ... look at the text. It says exactly what a citizen is ... and then outlines how the State should be restricted in its dealings with citizens.

Actually, no definition of Citizen is encountered until Amendment 14 which was not ratified until after the Civil War. That definition is decidedly vague: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."

The basic idea was that persons who were previously considered non-citizens (i.e. slaves) WERE actually citizens, even if they were not born in the US. There, however, is NO definition of what constitutes a "Naturalized" citizen. Basically, it seems to me that if someone was a permanent resident, they were a naturalized citizen.

Note also the change in wording in Amendment 14: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added].

The authors of Amendment 14 specifically differentiated between citizens, who cannot be denied "privileges or immunities", and "any person", who cannot be denied the basic RIGHTS of life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law.

In other words, non-citizens MAY be denied "privileges or immunities" (such as welfare, driver's licenses, social security, SUBSIDIZED medical care etc.) but MAY NOT be denied basic human rights of life, liberty, property etc.

The SCOTUS has long held that people can have reduced rights ... specifically felons and non-citizens, as well as lesser rights for slaves pre-civil war.

I'm not conversant enough on SCOTUS rulings to comment either way on that point. I would say that as long as the reduction or denial of rights was the result of "due process of law" then that reduction or denial was specifically Constitutional under the terms of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This is what Naturalization was originally about ... making an immigrant equal to someone born here ... once you are naturalized, you are considered to be native-born by the federal government, have full rights, and cannot be deported.

I agree, but the details of what constitutes a "naturalized" citizen is spelled out in law, not in the Constitution or its Amendments and Amendment 14 specifically states that "any person" is entitled to basic rights of life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law, those rights are not reserved only to citizens.

States had held that non-naturalized immigrants did not have the same rights as citizens ... giving them these rights was a very recent federal court invention.

I can't speak to every State's laws, if States were actually denying RIGHTS to non-citizens, the federal courts correctly concluded that that action is unconstitutional; if, however, the States were denying PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES to non-citizens, then they were decidedly within the purview of their powers as spelled out in the Constitution and the Courts ruled incorrectly.

I am speaking strictly from MY interpretation of the US Constitution. I am not a legal or Constitutional Scholar and am not speaking in terms of case law or precedent, I am speaking solely from my reading of the actual Constitution and my interpretation of what it means. In other words, what I think doesn't really matter in the scheme of things...no one bothers to ask me. I put that caveat in because I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that I'm presenting myself as something that I'm not. I'm simply an average American of average Intelligence and average Education applying my own brand of common sense and logic to the text and context of the US Constitution.

Posted by Sailorcurt at September 7, 2006 11:28 AM

A gentlman by the name of Tench Coxe was in charge of the committee that wrote the second amendment.

Utter nonsense. Coxe did write an essay (under a pen name) which purportedly supportedthe notion of the 2A supporting an individual rights view but he had nothing to do with the drafting or writing of the 2A. Further, many historians dispute Coxe's essay (“Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution”) actually supports an individual right.

Settled where? IIRC, it's the official position of the US Justice Dept, the house, the senate, the fifth circuit that the amendment in fact does do that. It's also the offical position of both primary party platforms.

Settled where it matters--in the courts. What the DoJ is immaterial--it's a political position. Same goes for Congress; they can believe abortion, for example, is murder but it carries absolutly no weight in the courts.

This is why the NRA refuses to bring any case before the courts on the basis of 2A Constitutionality. They know they'd lose.

Posted by JadeGold at September 8, 2006 03:29 PM

Further, many historians dispute Coxe's essay (“Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution”) actually supports an individual right.

Just revisionists like Belisles and victim-disarmament supporters such as yourself. No mainstream US historian supports your novel interpretation.

As for court cases ... there are a half dozen advancing through the federal courts as we speak. For some reason, the federal judiciary seem afraid to judge a second amendment case.

Posted by Kristopher at September 11, 2006 02:29 PM

BTW ... I did a websearch for "jadegold troll".

Yep ... adhominum attacks, name calling, appeals to non-existant authority, and statements that are easily provable as false ... and a complete unwillingness to back up these false statements with relevent cites.

Since you feel that ad hominum attacks are a valid form of debate, I'll get started.


You are almost as dumb and annoying an asshat as Gunkid.

Posted by Kristopher at September 11, 2006 02:46 PM

If you want to see more moonbattyness from "JadeGold", do another websearch for "Mac Diva troll".

Same person ... a socialist moonbat and a racecard playing maoist.

Posted by Kristopher at September 11, 2006 03:25 PM

I partially agree with Pub on this. Illegals do have rights enumerated but, only under the fourth, fifth and sixth Amendments.

As for Jadegold, The BoR doesn't give us rights, it recognizes that we are born with them and declares them the rights of a free man. It further admonishes the gov't that these 'Enumerated-rights' along with other unenumerated rights must not be tampered with.

Settled law? Where the hell have you been for the last six or seven years!!!!!

Posted by Retmsgt. at September 12, 2006 08:06 AM

MSGT:

The BoR doesn't give us rights, it recognizes that we are born with them and declares them the rights of a free man. It further admonishes the gov't that these 'Enumerated-rights' along with other unenumerated rights must not be tampered with.

This is really sloppy thinking, MSGT. Who says we're born with these rights and who grants these rights? In essence, you're opining that I can choose to do whatever I please even if it infringes on the health, safety and well-being of others.

Let's remember that if we regard rights as human-generated rules--not some magic pixie dust sprinkled on us from Mt. Olympus--we can adjudicate the differing interpretations each of us have concerning rights. For example, do my 1A rights trump your right to privacy?

Your sentence about tampering with 'rights' is also misleading and contradictory. When the BoR was ratified--it was perfectly legal for one man to own another. It was acceptable to deny that slave any rights whatsoever. It was also permissible to deny US citizens the vote based on their gender, race, religion (or lack thereof), or financial status. Yet, you seem to be telling us it was wrong to tamper with these 'rights.'

Settled law? Where the hell have you been for the last six or seven years!!!!!

Settled law. The fact is Tim McVeigh's favorite organization has never challenged any law they oppose on the basis of its 2A constitutionality. Imagine--all those gun laws (the 20,000 laws the NRA misleads about) and the NRA can't find the wherewithal to challenge a single one.

They understand they'd lose.

Posted by JadeGold at September 13, 2006 03:29 PM

Just revisionists like Belisles and victim-disarmament supporters such as yourself. No mainstream US historian supports your novel interpretation.

In point of fact, Bellesiles doesn't mention Tench Coxe. Honesty and accuracy are not your strong suits, Kris.

The fact no mainstream historian supports your interpretation of Coxe. Had you performed an iota of research you'd have found the only ones advancing this ridiculous interpretation of Coxe are non-historians such as Halbrook, LaPierre, Kates and Kopel.

Obviously, you don't hold Garry Will in much regard despite being one of this nation's foremost historians. So allow me to point you in the direction of Saul Cornell, whose views on the 2A track far more closely with yours than mine.

. But analyzing Coxe’s “Remarks” in their historical context raises significant challenges to the idea that they support an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Posted by JadeGold at September 13, 2006 04:04 PM

FWIW:

It seems like it should be pretty clear to anyone who's even passingly familiar with what was going on when the BoR was being debated, and explained, at the time that there was no concept of citizenship -- not as we think of it now ... if you were a resident, and wished to lay claim to any or all of the benefits and/or responcibilities of citizenship, then it was up to others to show cause why that shouldn't be allowed. And yes, *at the time* gender and race would have been considered 'good cause'.
As for a person's religious faith ... the *overwhelming* majority of the Framers made it abundantly clear in their speeches and writings that an individual's religion (or lack thereof) should not be a factor in regards to their legal situation or allowed political activities. That is not to say that *society* didn't put-up restrictions for certain groups or individuals on those grounds ... which certainly resulted in *de-facto* legal and/or political restraints -- but it wasn't "the law of the land".

And FYI: various groups and individuals over the decades have attempted to get SCOTUS to find re 2ndA issues, and every time when they've taken a case and issued a decision they have ignored the 2ndA issue and pronounced only on the basis of other issues, and almost always in such away as to avoid, as much as possible, affecting any previous court-findings. The general concensus seems to be that the Justices feel that they would be forced to either find for the 'original-intent' viewpoint and invalidate almost all the gun-restictions now extant, *or* gut much of the under-pinnings of the BoR and go with the 'evolving-meaning' interpretation. Only the radicals (of either our stripe or theirs) seem to *not* have a problem with this 'dilemma'.

Posted by EMA at September 15, 2006 03:57 PM

EMA:

A fatal flaw in your reasoning is your apparent belief an individual rights view was the original intent vis a vis the 2A.

As I noted earlier, the original 2A as drafted by Madison read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

As can be seen, the thrust of this draft was plainly military in nature. We know what was debated by the Founders concerning this draft 2A and it wasn't the issue of individual vs collective rights--it was the issue of "religiously scrupulous." It was feared some states might use such a clause to exclude certain religious groups from military service.

Posted by JadeGold at September 17, 2006 09:36 AM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Recognize that Jade? It's from another Gov't document you know little about sir, the Declaration of Independence. In our Gov't(don't know about yours), this is the wellspring from whence our rights are derived. ...among these are... means life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness are only three of the rights we are endowed with and that the Constitution recognizes as individual many others and declares them ours.

Bill Clinton's been out for years, hyis cronies no long hold any sway. AAMOF, the 2nd. is mentioned many times in SCOTUS decisions as an example of an individual right.
Settled Law? I most certainly think not sir. Merely wishful thinking on your part.

Posted by Retmsgt. at September 22, 2006 11:18 AM

Retmsgt,

JadeGold isn't a 'sir', it passes itself for a very poor she.

She is just convinced of all the BS she has read regarding the revisionism that has been practiced in the last century, and is quite pleased with it.

She'll never know the truth, because she wants to see what she wants. End of story.

Posted by -B at September 22, 2006 01:50 PM

MSGT:

Hate to break it to you but the DoI has no standing in the law. It's a historical document; IOW, one doesn't march into a court proceeding and use the DoI to buttress one's case. Unless one is looking to be laughed out of court.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


As for rights being "self-evident"--that's just sloppy thinking (and not one of Jefferson's better moments). It is akin to arguing something is true by merely asserting it is true. In fact, Jefferson would have been more accurate to specifically demand what rights he and his countrymen were demanding.

Posted by JadeGold at September 24, 2006 01:36 PM

Jade,

So you are rejecting the idea that YOUR life, YOUR liberty and YOUR pursuit of happiness is not self-evident, and are not unto you?

You don't get it and you never will.

End of story.

Posted by -B at September 24, 2006 06:22 PM

-B:

Of course it's not self-evident. Terms such as 'life', 'liberty' and 'happiness' are completely subjective.

Ask 100 people what makes them 'happy' and you'll get close to 100 different responses. And many of those responses may well conflict or interfere with the responses of others.

But don't take my word for it--try it for yourself: next time you get a traffic ticket--contest it on the basis of your deep understanding of the Declaration of Independence. Tell the court that paying a fine would interfere with your pursuit of happiness.

Or try it at work. Take an unexcused day off and explain to your boss that you were merely exercising your liberties under the DoI.

Posted by JadeGold at September 25, 2006 03:28 PM

Yep Jade, you surely don't get it, and it shows.

I just wish you could make this big of an ass of yourself in front of more people. I'd substitute 'the entire nation' for 'more people' but that wouldn't get me very far, as most of them are as stupid, or even more so, than YOU, and THAT is saying something!

The terms by which you are arguing are not even in the same ballpark. My relationship with my boss is not at issue, and I dictate the terms of it as much as he does, dipshit. There isn't ANY kind of top-down power structure with it. We BOTH have terms that must be met, therefore we have reach a mutual understanding of what each other is willing to do. If I feel as though he is asking me to do something that violates my ethics or responsibilities, I will tell him, and tell him why while I'm at it.

The matter of the state is something entirely different, and you know it, so quit being an ass. Yes, there is a law about how I must conduct myself, and by extension, my vehicle, on the road. No, there were never any 'vehicle laws' that were enacted as part of the constitution. No, I'm not going to use any of those ridiculous tactics at avoidance of any traffic tickets. Why, because it IS minor in comparison to other items that are a foundation to the idea of liberty.

You should go look at David Codrea's site and read a post he wrote on a bill in Congress, sponsored by Geoff Davis, for more infringement of the 4th Amendment. Do it. Read it, and the link. Tell me, how do you feel about THAT? Is it OK for teachers to be frisking your kids in school, just because they can? Might that be a violation of someone's personal liberty? I DO think so. If you don't, I feel sorry for you. Honestly.

I am under the distinct impression that you are a 'picker and chooser' when it comes to the issue of rights. I am wondering if you feel the same way about that godawful piece of bullshit known as McCain-Feingold. Is THAT legal, disregarding what the fucking Supremes had to say about it? What is YOUR standard, Jade, and quit giving me some BS about all this legality crap. Should, or shouldn't you, be able to speak your mind, spread YOUR word, in whatever manner YOU decide, most notably regarding POLITICIANS and their actions in the 60 days prior to an election. The law gives specific ways in which you can, and can not 'contribute' to campaingns, and some of it is very clearly in violation of the First Amendment. "Sorry, but it's the law," just doesn't cut for me, as it isn't anything that the government can classify as 'political speech' because they haven't the authority. Do you see?

I don't care if the fucking Congress passes laws that clearly contravine ALL of the BOR, and the Supremes back them up with decisions DIRECTLY related to constitutionality (I have a BIG beef with you on this, BTW), IT IS STILL A VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. I really think that you know this, but are unwilling to commit to the idea that the government can do as they please.

It is HIGH time that the rascals, ALL OF THEM, get thrown out on their ear, that all laws passed since about 1916 get pulled from the Library of Congress and burned, publicly. Let's start over, shall we. We have professional politicians, mostly LAWYERS (I have a hammer, I see lots of nails!) who can't see any other reason for themselves to be there other than to create a whole bunch more laws. Surely we can fix it all with a few more, right?

It sickens me, much as your authoritarian BS sickens me. This incessant fiddle-fucking with things is about to piss off more than just a few people in this country and there is going to be Hell to pay for it.

Ah, fuck it. It's all wasted on you. You don't get it and you never will. It's all about totality and absolutes with you. Everything in it's precisely defined hole, right?

Posted by -B at September 25, 2006 06:09 PM

My relationship with my boss is not at issue, and I dictate the terms of it as much as he does, dipshit. There isn't ANY kind of top-down power structure with it.

Hmmm..then he's not your boss, right?

"Sorry, but it's the law," just doesn't cut for me, as it isn't anything that the government can classify as 'political speech' because they haven't the authority. Do you see?

Essentially, you want anarchy. You believe rules are for others. And you accuse me of poicking and choosing?

Posted by JadeGold at September 26, 2006 01:49 PM

Jade,

You haven't a clue what anarchy is, or at least what you think it is isn't necessarily all that it is. I suggest you go look it up. The book I'd recommend has "Webster's" written on the front.

Oh, and I liked this one, "Hmmm..then he's not your boss, right?" REAL original. If YOUR boss doesn't ask for your opinion, on work you are doing to keep his ass from getting in a sling, I'd leave my job if I were you. Sounds more like Hugo Chavez than a boss, so fuck off.

Rules are fine Jade, I'd just like for the Nanny-staters to stay away from shit that THEY KNOW ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. But then again, you've made perfectly clear that you don't believe in any of that, so I'm just wasting my time.

Hope those shackles are comfortable, because I'm not wearing them, bootlicker!

Posted by -B at September 26, 2006 02:44 PM