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

Thread: Vernon County Fair IS POSTED, NO GUNS

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Vernon County Fair IS POSTED, NO GUNS

    So tonight, woodchuck and I are at the table unarmed. We notice a Vernon County Sheriff deputy and he is carrying. Woodchuck goes to discuss the fact that the sign says, NO GUNS. There isn't an exception for LEO so woodchuck says he has to go.

    The response was something to the affect of, "But I'm certified LEO."

    After woodchuck left, I had opportunity to talk to two Viroqua officers. They too felt they were entitled to violate the sign. The Viroqua officers told me they don't want concealed or open carry.

  2. #2
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    So tonight, woodchuck and I are at the table unarmed. We notice a Vernon County Sheriff deputy and he is carrying. Woodchuck goes to discuss the fact that the sign says, NO GUNS. There isn't an exception for LEO so woodchuck says he has to go.

    The response was something to the affect of, "But I'm certified LEO."

    After woodchuck left, I had opportunity to talk to two Viroqua officers. They too felt they were entitled to violate the sign. The Viroqua officers told me they don't want concealed or open carry.
    IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive. There is age old saying that one should choose their battles wisely. Picking fights like that are too radical and hurt WCI's image

    This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323

    I wonder

    I wonder if these county fairs have the legal authority to ban a constitutionally protected behavior?
    Are the county fairs ban similar to this story? http://www.clickondetroit.com/commun...09/detail.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Max View Post
    I wonder if these county fairs have the legal authority to ban a constitutionally protected behavior?
    Are the county fairs ban similar to this story? http://www.clickondetroit.com/commun...09/detail.html
    If it is private property (not owned by the government) they do. Walworth County Fair, for example, is owned by a non-profit group called the Walworth County Fair Association.

    Reading the story in the link, that event was/is held on public streets.
    Last edited by paul@paul-fisher.com; 09-18-2010 at 08:13 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive. There is age old saying that one should choose their battles wisely. Picking fights like that are too radical and hurt WCI's image

    This is not even close to the situation wher veterans can carry in a parade thru a GFSZ and we cannot.
    Right on. LEO does not set the policy for the fair, the Vernon Co. ag. society does. It is my understanding the grounds are private and owned by the ag. society, they made it clear that they don't want anyone oc'ing. LEO's guns are welcome ours are not. We should not be challenging the local LEO, we should be having conversations with the ag. society to see if they are willing to change there policy. Just my opinion.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    A policy is a policy and should be equally applied

    Food for thought:

    There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.

    42 U.S.C. § 14141
    § 14141. Cause of action
    (a) Unlawful conduct
    It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    (b) Civil action by Attorney General
    Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
    In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."

    The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.

    A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.

    Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.

    If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.

    Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
    A: Yes.

    Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
    A: No, hadn't thought of that.

    Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
    A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...

    These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.

    A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.

    I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?

    Done with the personal soap box now....

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Food for thought:

    There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.



    In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."

    The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.

    A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.

    Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.

    If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.

    Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
    A: Yes.

    Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
    A: No, hadn't thought of that.

    Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
    A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...

    These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.

    A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.

    I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?

    Done with the personal soap box now....
    Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
    It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
    It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.
    Respectfully:

    Only "licensed" retired LEO, and there are only a FEW in WI that are licensed. Many I have talked to say their local departments where they worked won't license them for FEAR of liability.

    Also, http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ne-information

    From the email:

    (2.) This felony offense also applies to off-duty coppers per Wis. Stat.
    948.605 (2)(b)6 which requires that the copper is "acting in his or her official capacity;"

    If I go to watch my kid at the playground or for an athletic event on a school field, I cannot lawfully carry a firearm while doing so off duty because I am not really acting in my official capacity as a cop, only as a parent. This is something I have tried to change for several sessions of the legislature but to no avail. I am trying again in this session through the Waukesha County delegation.
    So it appears that Milwaukee PD are saying they cannot carry "off duty" in a school zone.

    My point was/is these "No Carry" zones DO AFFECT us all (LEO and non LEO).

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Respectfully:

    Only "licensed" retired LEO, and there are only a FEW in WI that are licensed. Many I have talked to say their local departments where they worked won't license them for FEAR of liability.

    Also, http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ne-information

    From the email:


    So it appears that Milwaukee PD are saying they cannot carry "off duty" in a school zone.

    My point was/is these "No Carry" zones DO AFFECT us all (LEO and non LEO).
    Those who are having issues with their former departments should contact the AG's office as all liability has been removed from the departments as per the AG.
    Federal law super cedes all state laws and therefore the unconstitutional GFSZ law in Wisconsin would not apply to officers under LEOSA.
    If you know someone who is having problems getting qualified let me know, I know an instructor who has helped other retired officers

    And I agree on your point, these zone do affect us all
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 09-18-2010 at 11:44 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Those who are having issues with their former departments should contact the AG's office as all liability has been removed from the departments as per the AG.
    Federal law super cedes all state laws and therefore the unconstitutional GFSZ law in Wisconsin would not apply to officers under LEOSA.
    If you know someone who is having problems getting qualified let me know, I know an instructor who has helped other retired officers

    And I agree on your point, these zone do affect us all
    Gleason, Have you received a 'permit'?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Gleason, Have you received a 'permit'?
    I am not retired, I only have to carry my Department ID with me. I do have friends that are retired and do have a permit though.

    The permits are to show that they have went through a qualification course at their own expense in order to meet the status of being a qualified retired officer.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Just to clarify, Off duty and retired officers can legally ccw in a GFSZ under the LEOSA. The only place that this law does not guarantee this right, which is granted by Congress, is on private property and in certain Federal buildings and grounds.
    It is a RIGHT granted by Congress. And any deprivation of that right is liable for a suit in equity.
    It is a privilege, the same as any other CCW permit. It requires annual training where many CCW permits only require it every 3 years, etc... It is forced national reciprocity. It does not have an enforcement clause should a State refuse to provide the training.
    `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
    d) The identification required by this subsection is--

    `(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

    `(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

    `(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I believe that the bill implementing LEOSA in Wisconsin failed. Just like the federal GFSZA must be implemented in state law, so must the LEOSA. They're common scofflaws.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    I believe that the bill implementing LEOSA in Wisconsin failed. Just like the federal GFSZA must be implemented in state law, so must the LEOSA. They're common scofflaws.
    Citation please...
    According to the text of HR 218, the laws of a State may restrict possession on School Property but not within the GFSZ.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 09-18-2010 at 09:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member grinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pewaukee, WI
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    IMO, to tell am on duty LEO, that he/she cannot carry because it is posted is WRONG and absolutely counterproductive.
    IMO, I don't think it's counterproductive. What if a private property owner posts "No Trespassing"? Does that mean it doesn't apply to cops? I need to do more research on this, but I'd like to know what rights cops have that are universal, despite the wishes of private property owners.

    For example, cops frequently "drop into" bars around here just to make sure the law is being followed (nobody underage, capacity, bartender licensing, etc.). Bar owners hate this because customers get uneasy. Is it legal for cops to drop-in on private property without a warrant?

  16. #16
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by grinner View Post
    IMO, I don't think it's counterproductive. What if a private property owner posts "No Trespassing"? Does that mean it doesn't apply to cops? I need to do more research on this, but I'd like to know what rights cops have that are universal, despite the wishes of private property owners.

    For example, cops frequently "drop into" bars around here just to make sure the law is being followed (nobody underage, capacity, bartender licensing, etc.). Bar owners hate this because customers get uneasy. Is it legal for cops to drop-in on private property without a warrant?
    Its open to the public. Solves that question. Secondly, many of these bars have agreements with the city for police to patrol. They do here in GB.

  17. #17
    Regular Member grinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pewaukee, WI
    Posts
    101
    The more I think about this, it's total BS. Why would a cop need to carry a gun in a no-carry area? It's not like anyone would be able to attack him with a gun there, right? So why would he need a gun for self defense?

    The same answers apply to why we should be allowed to carry everywhere. Because a no-carry sign doesn't guarantee that nobody will carry, and some of us rely on a firearm to even the odds against a stronger attacker.

    The only possible argument I can come up with is that the LEO is assigned to patrol there, and I can choose not to be there in the first place if I don't like the no-carry policy.

  18. #18
    Regular Member grinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pewaukee, WI
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Its open to the public. Solves that question.
    I'm not questioning whether police have the right to be there. I'm questioning whether they have the right to carry a gun if a sign is posted "No Firearms."

    That seems to be a condition under which the property owner is allowing people to be on the property. Like saying, "nobody under 18 after 10pm" or "members only" or any other legal criterion.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 09-18-2010 at 10:46 PM.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    COPS HAVE NO RIGHTS AS COPS, BUT ONLY THE POWERS THAT WE DELEGATE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS
    +1000

  21. #21
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    in your pants
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    COPS HAVE NO RIGHTS AS COPS, BUT ONLY THE POWERS THAT WE DELEGATE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS
    What it comes down to for me is this: the laws are the laws. we have to follow them and we're accountable if we break them even if we don't know them or misunderstand them. so do the police. more so, in my opinion, since they're the ones "enforcing" (i know that's debatable on several levels) them. and we, as citizens, have to hold them accountable when they break the law.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    It is a privilege, the same as any other CCW permit. It requires annual training where many CCW permits only require it every 3 years, etc... It is forced national reciprocity. It does not have an enforcement clause should a State refuse to provide the training.
    From the testimony at the Congressional Hearing for HR218:
    Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you
    in convening the hearing on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers
    Safety Act of 2003. The bill authorizes ‘‘qualified’’ active and
    retired Federal and State law enforcement officials to carry concealed
    weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws
    prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
    A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole,
    and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement
    officers who have had or who have statutory power over
    arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental
    entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision,
    prosecution, or incarceration of law violators.

    IT is a Right not a privilege:

    Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
    allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
    duty, even within their jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
    it would mandate.
    Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
    right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
    otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.

    there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.

    The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.

    Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post

    IT is a Right not a privilege:

    Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
    allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
    duty, even within their jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
    it would mandate.
    Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
    right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
    otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
    Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.
    A right isn't a right because someone calls it a right........ Rights aren't granted, privleges are.

    You don't get a right for being someone special, like a cop, you get a privlege. Furthermore, congress can repeal the bill if they'd like. Same as I can let you on my property one day and decide you can't be on there the next. You have no right to be on my property, I granted you the privlege.

    Should it be a right for ANYONE to carry wherever they want? I think so; but our government doesn't view it that way so they have gotten themselves a special privlege, no rights here.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 09-20-2010 at 12:55 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    A right isn't a right because someone calls it a right........ Rights aren't granted, privleges are.

    You don't get a right for being someone special, like a cop, you get a privlege. Furthermore, congress can repeal the bill if they'd like. Same as I can let you on my property one day and decide you can't be on there the next. You have no right to be on my property, I granted you the privlege.

    Should it be a right for ANYONE to carry wherever they want? I think so; but our government doesn't view it that way so they have gotten themselves a special privlege, no rights here.
    No point in arguing this with any of you. You have all the answers. So I will just go on doing what I have the "Right" to do. That "Right" granted to me by Congress.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    No point in arguing this with any of you. You have all the answers. So I will just go on doing what I have the "Right" to do. That "Right" granted to me by Congress.
    You don't have to be that way about it. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. It's just important to me, and should be to everyone, that "Right" is used in the proper context.

    My point is that if you are the only person to have it, or among a specific group of people that has it, but it's denied to everyone else, how can it be a right?

    You are born with all the rights you will ever have. Since this right is denied to some of us but given to others like you, it becomes a privlege. Doesn't that make sense?

    I think you are just looking at this through rose colored glasses because you are one of the privleged few.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

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
  •