decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
the Gun Debate ... should be www.ssri.stories.com FACTS | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
An unarmed perspective on the Gun Debate
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 05 2013 @ 08:08 AM EDT
Again, each time I read the "right to bear arms" thing, I
think of a carrying the arms of a bear ;)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An unarmed perspective on the Gun Debate
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 05 2013 @ 08:27 AM EDT
I find it very interesting that no one has pointed out that
the key part of the oath all military inductees take states
that they will uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States. Not the United States itself, but the
Constitution of the United States. The President takse a
similar oath. The oath for US citizenship read as follows:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and
abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States
when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed
Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; so help me God.[1]


I assume that being a natural citizen of the US, one would
be required to adhear to the same standards.

So, to me that means two things:

1) Citizens who seek to disarm US citizens show a clear and
intentional disrepect to the the President, those in the
military, and all other citizens as well.

2) Citizens who seek to disarm US citizens are clearly
violating their duty as citizens. No different than if
they were actively seeking to remove free speech, which
most would consider to be a traitorous action.

Of course people are free to discuss such things and look
for solutions to current problems, but individuals actively
seeking to go against the US Constitution by trying to pass
legislation at the federal level, state level, or local
level are cleary forgetting their responsibilities as
citizens.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

the Gun Debate ... should be www.ssri.stories.com FACTS
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 06 2013 @ 08:32 PM EDT
there is more to this than the media is reporting.


also. www.whilesciencesleeps.com


methanol taken by mothers causing methylation due to ADH creating formaldehyde
hydrate in cells that then merges with proteins (DNA) in body of developing
featus... leading to autistic children .... who then are given ssri drugs.

where is the real crime in this story?



if you don't think so, then read the '
"while science sleeps" book (20 hours to read it all)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )