Urgent! Contact the Governor!

[Siobhra]

I wish I could remember where I heard this so I could give proper credit.



We are all born with the right to do anything we feel like doing.

I have the God-given right to steal from you.
I have the God-given right to kill you and/or your family.
You have the same rights.


Society is the giving up of rights.

We can't have much of a life if we have to live in fear of our lives and the welfare of our property. So to have some sort of life I will give up my right to kill you if you give up your right to kill me. Do we have a deal?
If so I am willing to expand that and give up my right to steal from you if you will give up your rights to steal from me. Deal?

This was his idea of the base of civilization. And it does have some merit. God does not come down and slap us for every infraction. We know, or should know how to play nicely. Life is a test of sorts and we must be free to fail. The test are not really that hard even if they seem that way sometimes.

I know I will not get an 'A' or even a 'B'. But I hope to pass.

[deepcharge41]

Yes, respect is what some people needed to exercise, respect to one another unless you are an enemy. Regardless of anyones religeon or if that some one have no religion at all that is fine because that is what you believed but let us set aside about the religion in a time of grief by some people, no matter who or what they are should not be bothered during that moment of their lives if you understand the meaning of humans and respect?
If you want to be respected like a human being, then, you must learn how to respect others too! (no question mark ???).

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

Ok.. wasn't really arguing with anyone here.. and there's no reason to get picky about semantics.. you got the point.

All due respect, Buck, I didn't point it out to nitpick on symantics, or to pick on you either. There is a distinct and very important difference between the two interpretations. As citizens of a free society, we must all be aware of the difference between a govt. which gives us rights and a govt. which upholds undeniable rights that are the essence of being alive and free.

Originally Posted by Buckmark.35

I guess I didn't really clearly make my point. I wasn't saying.. Go and fight these people.. I was saying the only way that the government could have legally stopped the protest is if it turned violent. Not endorsing it as a tool to stop this protest that didn't even happen... Just an observation.

Fair enough. However, note that this protest did NOT happen, partially because of a negotiation, and partially due to the negative publicity the group was receiving (see earlier posts). There were a lot of people not endorsing it, and it did make an impact.

As for stopping a protest, you're right; if a group is legally protesting, it can't be stopped short of using force. However, if they had tried to protest illegally (as in the case of private property), police could have asked them to disperse or arrest them. When this has happened in the past is hasn't always ended in violence.

[doug]

The protest didn't happen because they were Given Free Airtime on a Talk Show if they would back down. Perhaps they were also concerned about the new PA laws aimed at their group's activities, and they were afraid of the civil penalties which go with it.

-douglas

[phillyd2]

First, I respect all member's passion on the subject and I applaud every member for their civil and mature posts. Bravo to all.

US Constitution Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

PA Constitution Section 7. Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceeding of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

I thought the above should be posted for all to read. As some others have posted (hats off to Archiver) when it comes to our liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution we all should be absolutists, without fail. This is especially true for us gun owners.

Do we all agree that these protesters are scum? Of course we do. The question is what are we to do about it. I for one pick any possible solution (including running them over with a truck) except government action to limit the freedoms of any party because I know that once we start down the slippery slope of first muzzling speech of those we agree should be muzzled, my freedoms are next. We protect disgusting free speech not because we agree with them. We protect all free speech to protect our own.

It's not easy being against a law or government action restricting such hateful speech at the funeral of innocent children. Not easy at all. Hell, if we could be 100% sure that this would be the one and only speech that would be banned then I too would support it. However, have we learned nothing from history? Have we not learned the evil governments can do when allowed? Not only can we be not 100% sure that only this kind of speech would effected but I dare say that we can be 100% sure that more speech in the future would also be banned. Slippery Slope.

What I find most interesting is that this debate is happening on a gun forum. We have all seen example after example after example of the slippery slope. Give a little bit of liberty and the door is wide open. Restrict Full Auto Machine Guns? Sure, you can make a good case for it. But once it was done the 2nd. Amendment was dead. Lets read together:

US Constitution Amendment I
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

PA Constitution Right to Bear Arms Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

How is "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be questioned" working out for us so far?

Once we allowed Full Auto Machine Guns to be restricted the door was wide open, why not rifles with shorter than 16" barrels? why not ban AP bullets? Why not have a background check? Why not ban rifles that hold more than 10 rounds (why not 2 round?) Why not ban rifles that look mean? Why not rifles with less than 5 US made parts? Why not just ban all guns and or bullets? why not indeed! You guys know the list as well as I do. Remember too fellow Republicans, the last AWB was signed by Bush I and rougher times are coming if the polls are right.

Sorry for the length of my post but I dread the tyranny of the majority as much as I dread the tyranny of government.

Like I said before (without rage!) Freedom is a Bitch, but I do love her so.

[silverspoon220]

wow peole like this make me sick because of their individual agendas and such. I think that they shouldant even allow this is was a guy who had a grudge and took out poor innocent school girls then like a coward shot himself. Its not like he dident plan this and was sick or something he delibratly shot those girls and borded up the school then shot them this is just sick.

[TASCAR]

I meant no disrespect to philly or any others , in respect to the "RAGE" remark it wasn't directed towards the protesting of a funeral , which I find deplorable , but as to the comments bout contacting the Gov . Again hope I didn't ruffle any feathers , I'm a lover , not a hater
TAS

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by TASCAR

I meant no disrespect to philly ...

TAS, we are kool - no worries

[TASCAR]

Thanx Mate , It means a lot
TAS

[klpolk3]

Wow! When I started this thread, I didn't expect to start a controversial debate on the first amendment. I was just taken back by the news of this church group protesting the funerals of innocent little girls who have done nothing.
My main reason for urging people to contact the governor was not to silence someone's right to protest or their freedom of speech. It was first and foremost to protect those grieving families. Even if I, alone, went to Lancaster, there's no way I could do anything to shield the families. But as governor, Rendell could at least make sure that the protestors abided by state law, by providing a police presence.
I'm all for the first amendment! It's just a shame that it has to include idiots that want to inflict mental anquish on another. But I do understand that "freedom of speech" is for all, not just for some.