Fairweather

It's better defined as someone who likes to equate the relatively benign actions of an evangelical Christian population with the daily Muslim carnage strewn across front pages of the world's newspapers.

Not on internal communications between American citizens. I never said that. Has this been an issue with the Bush Administration?

I think it is you that has a reading comprehension problem, Matt. Here is what I said: "The constitutional case for privacy is not nearly as clear as the second amendment case for citizen gun ownership." Exactly how does that statement render me inconsistent? You are one who has stated your disdain for the second amendment in past posts. Like you stated above; it says what it says--and, frankly, private gun ownership is pretty much settled law at this point. You have a peculiar way of turning the world on its head when you argue--and not just with me. I'm not sure if this is a muddy the water strategy you like to employ, or if it is simply something that has served you well over the course of your many, many days. No matter, it's weak, transparent, and, yes, annoying. Good day.

Say WHAT? With tidbits like these thrown in:

Anyone who disagrees with a liberal is usually tagged as 'divisive'. "Can't we all just get along...on my terms?"

?? I think you need to lay off the Celebrex for a while.

Yes, Matt, I'm talking about you.

"The vast right-wing conspiracy." Do you realize how you sound? Is it just possible that Democrat-party social(ist) leanings and programs (along with being apologists for communist regimes around the globe in the 1980's and early 90's) during their 30+ year reign of congress up to 1994 created a backlash?

Neither our esteemed Mr. Fairweather nor any other Conservative has ever tried to be "consistent" around here except that, in his interpretations espoused here, he is consistent in ignoring the Constitutional language he doesn't like. Strict Constructionists? Huh? They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism." That has to be one of the worst cases of Pot/Kettle/Black I've ever heard on this site. Weren't you the one who wanted to ban talk radio and imprison ABC-TV execs? Gimme a break.

yes, after reading your shit i must admit your are most definitely one of them...... Fortunately for American citizens, your green card won't get you a permit, tool.

Have you looked at the Bill of Rights lately? Or are you just listening to Limbaugh? Apparently, you wish to ignore the part about the well-regulated militia in the second amendment and the bit about the right of the people to be secure in their homes and warrants only issuing upon probable cause doesn't really matter in the fourth amendment. Consistency. Not. Archie can make a case for hunting in the Parks, but worrying about murderers or arguing the right of any citizen wacko to carry a pistol while ignoring their right to not to be searched and spied upon in their home cannot be justified on Constitutional grounds unless you are really heavily into "interpretation." Sounds to me like you're the one into "re-interpretation", Matt.

The constitutional case for privacy is not nearly as clear as the second amendment case for citizen gun ownership. Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and chose which inalienable rights we want to deny our fellow law-abiding citizens. I think its ironic that I hear those on the left side of life calling for restrictions on talk radio and media, and, sometimes, the outright banning of firearms--but they cling dearly to this concept of "privacy" which may or may not exist at all, and are horrified that big bro may be listening to an overseas phone call. Priorities. Consistency. Not. "The Founding Fuckers"? I'm surprised to hear a history teacher talk like that. No big deal--some of them had some pretty goofy ideas.

You going to get permission from The Yakima Indian Nation, or just do it?

Are you sure? Show me some numbers and you may persuade me, but, for the most part, criminals will be criminals no matter what economic conditions prevail. Want to know why crime decreased under Reagan, Bush, Clinton? We locked more criminals up. I heard a report today that a full 1% of the American population is behind bars. Spare me the small-time drug user anecdote - or show me the numbers - but the violent criminals and drug dealers belong out of society. It's interesting that no one is willing to address the question of 2nd amendment protections in national parks. The question isn't about need, it's about constitutionally protected rights, IMO.

Like that comedian on TV says: "you caint fix stupid." Oh well; another perfectly legitimate opportunity for discussion flushed down the toilet by cc.com's own cancer: Tvashtarketena.

Ok... Guns in National Parks. Good idea?

I've had your chunky, braggarts ass on "ignore user" for over a month now and thought, just maybe, you would avail yourself to civility if I resumed engaging you. Guess I was wrong. You're a punk with a serious personality defect. The ring? I doubt I could keep myself from hurting you badly.

Rumor has it, you couldn't even get out of the tent at Colchuck Lake you were so "exhausted" from the approach, so, no, I don't think you would last long in the ring with me. I hear you didn't care much for taking point in Liloowet either. Get any nice (uninvited) girlie shots while you were up there, perv?

Maybe you should spend some time in the ring or on the mat before you go callin' people pussies, my not-so-little dunce. It's creeps like you--taking uninvited pictures of other people's wives and daughters--that make me want to to carry a gun...not to mention take a shower. Fuck off, chubby little follower.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/13538377.html http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/female-hikers-murdered/ http://www.kirotv.com/news/9506178/detail.html?subid=22105247&qs=1;bp=t http://www.newser.com/story/15990.html?rss=y http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200205/ai_n9033669 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060627/news_1m27goff.html

I've never felt threatened by any wildlife here in Washington State. The gun, if I carry it, is for trail head idiots of the human kind.

Yes.

I'm willing to deal. If groups like The Wilderness Society, ALPS, MTSGW, NCCC, and WTA stop lobbying for the permanent closure of traditional recreation access roads, I'll start writing letters supporting Roadless Rule implementation.

Guns are legal to carry on virtually all USFS land, including wilderness areas--at least in this state. (Not sure about National Monuments) Can you demonstrate where problems have arisen? Do a citizen's constitutionally protected rights end at the gate to a national park? Does free speech end there too? A clear case can be made, in rare instances, for the banning of open or concealed carry weapons--like courthouses, aircraft, even taverns, but there is no compelling case to be made for suspending a law-abiding citizen's rights on open public property. It's just possible that this "rule" is being flaunted even as we speak. Hell, an NPS ranger at Wrangell-St Elias even offered my group the use of a shotgun during my last visit. When I confessed that we were already armed, he simply gave me a thumbs-up.

Think biofuels and corn prices.