Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Attorney's view

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    Both state and federal constitutions protect the separate rights to keep (possess)and bear (carry) arms. Neither source specifically protects a right tobear open, or tobear concealed. A natural argument could be made that a government entity that allows one form of carry but not the other is in accord with the constitutional guarantees. In other words, we cannot say with legal certainty that we have aright toOPEN carry.

    Pragmatically, I don't think pushing the open carry envelope achieves anything positive. I don't think one's ability to defend self or others is significantly enhanced by open versus concealed carry. Perhaps even the opposite: an observant armed bad guy will seek to neutralize known threats. If you carry open, you are a known threat to the criminal. Concealed carry has the obvious added benefit of not inflaming anti-gunners. And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns! Whether the opinion is justified or not, people with strongly held beliefs and opinions very rarely change their minds.

    To summarize, no clear right to open carry, and no productive reason to do so.
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Really? Bad guys are gonna automatically get rid of the open carrier first? Where's the evidence?

    Oh wait, there IS none! He's just blathering on with more unfounded nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  3. #3
    69Charger
    Guest

    Post imported post

    A bit off from the real world. We all do what makes seance in our own minds. What matters most is that we retain the right to protect ourselves with our 2nd amendment right to own arms.
    Dave
    The IWB and Open carry guy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns!
    Who says in any discussion anywhere on this board that we are trying to change the minds of anti-gunners?

    What we are clearly stated as doing is showing the average citizen (who is by no means anti-gun, that ordinary citizens carry guns regularly and that it isn't a problem. Once the average joe realizes that, he or she is more likely to dismiss the ravings of the anti-gun crowd as the idiocy that it is.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    I guess the Right to Keep and Bare Arms doesn't really much matter because this guy says so. I think its obvious that you can't make anyone feel comfortable around guns. But the 2nd ammendment isn't about comfort. Its about freedom. Cheers

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    Simple observation:

    His tactical competency is in question and is in no way representative of real life engagements as a blanket.

    Criminals do NOT as a practice seek out ANY sort of situation wherein a patron of a bank or other establishment they are about to rob, may put up any sort of fight.

    Much like the waffle-house where this actually occurred, often criminals who are staking a place out will observe the individuals in the establishment, and if armed individuals are present, simply wait for the patrons to leave. It reduces complication in the planned out scenario.

    The alternative, is to engage the individual immediately, bringing what could otherwise be a smooth operation, into an immediate clusterfu...thing.

    Interestingly enough, the same thing rings true for combat engagements.

    Major infantry elements were avoided during the initial invasion, while following supply units were ambushed.

    This is tactical thinking in action, and in fact, the way it primarily occurs.

    No criminal wants an equitable conflict with armed patrons. They want firepower superiority and tactical surprise. Either element is useless without the other.

    Now as to which adds or detracts immediately from the equation:

    OC immediately informs the would-be criminals that tactical superiority will be the only edge they may have. it also instills nervousness into their plans, by clearly and visibly being able to see, that a patron of a given establishment is armed.

    CC leads the criminal to believe that there are indeed no armed patrons. It however, has no deterrence factor to crime on it's face. In fact, the conflict may come to a head typically, and only, once a dangerous situation has already been reached.

    In a world where the majority are armed, only the unarmed, or perceived unarmed, are prey.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  7. #7
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns! Whether the opinion is justified or not, people with strongly held beliefs and opinions very rarely change their minds.
    Who's pretending?

    I'm not on a mission to change anyone's mind concerning OC as I OC nearly each day in Tucson.

    We see LOT'S of tourists from anti-gun states visiting Arizona. Now, the anti's among them may not like seeing us locals OC, but they ****, then they go home.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

    Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

    As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

    Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

    To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    A natural argument could be made that a government entity that allows one form of carry but not the other is in accord with the constitutional guarantees.
    If that is the case, you would have to make a CPL free. Can you imagine being charged for a constitutional right? "Here is your speech license. that will be$100 and if you want to pay in full we will throw in your freedom of religion license at half cost".IMO concealed carry is the privilege ( you have to pay and pass a background check) open carry is the right (no license no cost no check).

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    sempercarry wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    A natural argument could be made that a government entity that allows one form of carry but not the other is in accord with the constitutional guarantees.
    If that is the case, you would have to make a CPL free. Can you imagine being charged for a constitutional right? "Here is your speech license. that will be$100 and if you want to pay in full we will throw in your freedom of religion license at half cost".IMO concealed carry is the privilege ( you have to pay and pass a background check) open carry is the right (no license no cost no check).
    That is one of the reasons Newspapers are exempt from Washington Sales Tax. The state cannot tax free speech. Why margazines are taxed I do not know... perhaps because they allow newspapers to not be taxed they can argue there is a legal venue that is not taxed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I completely disagree with Bob. I think no one should take his view on gun rights as an attorney seriously anyway. He has shown to not have a decent grasp on gun rights in my opinion. Besides that fact we, in Wa. do have a clear and concise right to OC because there is not a law that makes it unlawful and the productive reasons for doing so were apparent in the Wright-Rossi report, of which he has apparently no read.

    Bob, I would like to know where, in either constitution, it states that the government has the ability to restrict how I bear arms? I can't seem to find it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns!
    Who says in any discussion anywhere on this board that we are trying to change the minds of anti-gunners?

    What we are clearly stated as doing is showing the average citizen (who is by no means anti-gun, that ordinary citizens carry guns regularly and that it isn't a problem. Once the average joe realizes that, he or she is more likely to dismiss the ravings of the anti-gun crowd as the idiocy that it is.
    +1 I have seen this happen.

    Oh and I also have changed the mind of an anti by simply carrying. She even agreed to go to the range and shoot and now has worked her way up to the point of considering a .22 for personal carry.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    [quote]heresolong wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:*
    And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns!
    Oh and I also have changed the mind of an anti by simply carrying. She even agreed to go to the range and shoot and now has worked her way up to the point of considering a .22 for personal carry.
    I call BS. Bob said you can't change their minds. Therefore you must be lying.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    I'm supposed to know who Bob Warden is?

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    I'm supposed to know who Bob Warden is?
    He is the attorney from Kent who filed suit against the Seattle City Parks gun ban and lost based on Constitutional grounds.
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    In other words, we cannot say with legal certainty that we have a right to OPEN carry.
    Based on the argument proceeding that statement, it follows that we cannot say with legal certainty that we have a right to ride a bicycle on a public street.

    Absurd on it's face.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    In our system of law for something to be illegal there must be a law prohibiting the action or item. I'm not even a lawyer and I know that.

    Since there is no law (in Washington) prohibiting open carry, it must then be considered legal.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    The Washington Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't state whether OC or CC is protected. However it does guarantee the right. The state government guaranteed the right of open carry when they established a charge for a CPL because rights can't be charged for. Therefore the state itself is guaranteeing the the right to OC.

    MD



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    People on this forum know that Warden and I have tangled on a lot of different issues involving the whole Seattle parks debacle. He is at least *partially* correct. There are some things that are left out so that he can prove a point.

    We need to differentiate two different constitutional questions: The 2nd via the 14th amendment, and A1S24 of our state constitution.

    First is the fact that as of right now, the current federal lawsuits challenging carry bans and "may-issue" are focusing currently on the very existence of whether "right to carry for personal protection" even exists outside of one's home. They are not, at this point, focusing on methods of carry, fees, CPZ's, and other associated stuff. The reason for this is to get as many cases in front of the Federal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS to get the floor for carry, and not be bogged down on other issues, and it specifically reserves those arguments for those other issues for a later case.

    Second is the existence of Article 1, Section 24. The case law on the whole "open versus concealed" situation is rather thin. The reason for this is because for the last 50 years, in order to carry loaded in one's car, you needed to get a CPL, which is relatively cheap, doesn't require training or hassle. No one wants to sue when the license is so easy to get. It's not a situation like with someone who would be traveling to Denver (CO) and they can't get a reciprocal license recognized nor can they open carry in Denver, so they must sue the county of Denver to issue a license which they refuse to issue.

    Is it unconstitutional to ban all loaded carry in one's car without a CPL? I think so. The question, of course, is whether a state or federal judge will agree with my point of view. Unfortunately, going after things in federal court for most of the issues in this state is a non-starter. Justice Richard Sanders wrote an excellent opinion for the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Sieyes which will allow us to go after some of the contoured issues of carry (CPL/LOC at 18) first in the state courts. The opinion is very strong, with the provisions of the opinion directly stating "We keep our powder dry for another day". Go after CPL18/LOC for 18-21 for a legitimate law abiding type rather than a criminal like Sieyes was. Then go after the fees since they charge a fee for exercising a constitutional right to carry in one's car.

    If they rule in our favor, and strike down the fee, you think the state is going to continue the mandatory licensing system? No, they won't. They'll repeal RCW 9.41.050 and leave the licensing system in place and recharge a fee, but since it's optional, it would not be unconstitutional.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    I'm supposed to know who Bob Warden is?
    He is the attorney from Kent who filed suit against the Seattle City Parks gun ban and lost based on Constitutional grounds.
    He also called ahead and informed the police he would be carrying? .

    LOL.....


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    Both state and federal constitutions protect the separate rights to keep (possess)and bear (carry) arms.We agree on this first point.
    Neither source specifically protects a right tobear open, or tobear concealed.Therefore they are both pre-existing and both protected.
    A natural argument could be made that a government entity that allows one form of carry but not the other is in accord with the constitutional guarantees. Absolutely incorrect, as the arms are not specified long gun or hand gun they include the natural guarantee of both. The government does not guarantee rights, they can only infringe upon them.
    In other words, we cannot say with legal certainty that we have aright toOPEN carry. Only an attorney would come to this false conclusion. A natural pre-existing right from the Supreme Ruler of the Universe does not require legal permission.
    Pragmatically, I don't think pushing the open carry envelope achieves anything positive.Ask Arizonans who had 'Chris' open carry a pistol and AR to an Obama healthcare event last August and now have Constitutional Carry, both Open and Concealed. Didn't have a negative effect now did it?
    I don't think one's ability to defend self or others is significantly enhanced by open versus concealed carry. Although it is far easier to carry a larger caliber, eliminate unecesary clothing in the heat, draw faster and overcome physical handicaps that some people have.
    Perhaps even the opposite: an observant armed bad guy will seek to neutralize known threats. This has never happend, never, this is a poor argument.
    If you carry open, you are a known threat to the criminal. And they will leave, how many criminals commit crimes when cops are around?
    Concealed carry has the obvious added benefit of not inflaming anti-gunners. Political correctness run amok. Only irrational anti gunners are inflamed, most are just curious.
    And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns! No one has ever said that Bob, stop projecting.
    Whether the opinion is justified or not, people with strongly held beliefs and opinions very rarely change their minds. We end in agreement again.

    To summarize, no clear right to open carry, and no productive reason to do so. Proven incorrect.
    Bob, when you first came on this web site I supported your efforts. After watching your methods I am much more tepid in that support. Many here do not support your engagement of this issue. I am still optomistic. With that being said, quickly my background. My college degree is related to Revolutionary and Constitutional Law History and Politics. While I am just a hack, there is ample evidence in primary documents supporting open and/or concealed carry without infringement.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    My post that inspired this thread was taken from the thread below, where you will find more info and my responses:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/43535-4.html
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    My post that inspired this thread was taken from the thread below, where you will find more info and my responses:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/43535-4.html
    Bob, I've "put up" instead of being one to "shut up." Care to respond?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

    Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

    As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

    Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

    To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.
    I appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on this. I don't think we disagree on much! Thanks for not being insulting like too manyin this forum.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

    Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

    As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

    Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

    To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.
    I appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on this. I don't think we disagree on much! Thanks for not being insulting like too manyin this forum.
    Odd, I took almost the exact opposite stance to your post. I said the right to open carry is the one that is generally regarded as constitutionally protected, that open carry is better for self defense, and that it is a means to change hearts and minds. What part of that do you agree with (that is, what part of your initial post are you changing your opinion about?)
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •