Worriedman

What happened in this case would not make one whit of difference in Mexico. Been down there working, it is the most corrupt environment possible, makes Chicago look honest. Their drug gangs kill civilians with impunity and without regard at all for the value of human life, whatever occurred regarding this incident would/will not have had any influence on how an American is treated there.

Reading the speeches of Franklin, Henry and Jefferson make me seem less a singular radical than my family and acquaintances imagine me to be. The difference in them and us, they KNEW that their rhetoric was going to require back-up. By putting pen to paper with their signatures on the Declaration of Independance, they knew the baddest Empire of the day was going to come and try to kill them. That took some spine.

This is soooo true!

There is no Constitutional "Freedom" from want. There is a promise to allow a pursuit of happiness, and that is up to each to perform, however well or poorly that is accomplished is up to the individual.

So Alexander and Corker both voted against our interest, I am not surprised in the least.

I am afraid that there is a move afoot to get someone to react to a perceived threat with gun fire, then we have DOJ with tools for suggesting the President sign another Executive Order which would attempt to limit the Right to keep and bear arms. None of this bodes well.

I have been using this system for several years, it is a little more work, but the brass is the cleanest you can get, inside and out, and primer pockets as well.

Teenage gang charged under lynching law after 'savage attack on 18-year-old student' | Mail Online Here is a recent mob attack in South Carolina.

Mobs Attack on City Buses: Police | NBC Chicago Chicago thugs rob bus riders. Teens Charged in Mob Attacks | NBC Chicago Groups of teens charged in 4 separate incidents. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/18/top-five-most-brazen-flash-mob-robberies/ Seems to be all over!

The troubling thing to me is that the MSM IS being rather tight lipped about this phenomenon, (social media actuated crime). In a period where youth unemployment is at historic levels, (of course unemployment levels for all demographics are up), I have a feeling it is going to be a long, hot and crime filled summer.

Suspected flash mob rips off Upper Darby Sears (With Video) - delcotimes.com Mob hits Philadelphia Sears and rips them off big time.

I would think that a more reasonable statistical analysis would include State and Local Prisons as well. Plus, I am hard pressed to think there are no Hispanics in Federal Prisons. Under a separate block on the page you quote from they have one set aside for "Ethnicity" that quotes "Hispanics" at 34%, but there are none listed in the 100% racial make-up, something skewed with that data.

Articles: Fast and Furious Fiasco: Time to Abolish the ATF Melson is not being allowed to testify, supposedly DOJ blocking his appearance before Issa's committee. From the article:

Please post the facts of your statement about the intent of the operation. And of course they would not shut down being armed, when they can buy fully automatic weapons from their neighbors to the south for much cheaper than they can get semis from U.S. Stores.

Makes me wonder if we should not petition congress to mandate warning labels on wominz like they are requiring on cigarettes?

It’s Time to Inspect D.C.’s Hack Inspectors | . . . . . TheFightBack - Reporting from the streets . . . . . . of the District of Columbia

Issa: DOJ Claims Are 'Outright Lie' DOJ is claiming they briefed Issa in 2010 on the "Fast and Furious" operation, Issa says they are lying.

All this "Can't film here" is starting to get out of hand. Reporters arrested for taking pictures at a public meeting. Why I Was Arrested Yesterday at a D.C. Taxi Commission Meeting - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Once again, no mens rea --> no crime. And you could be charged or attacked with a civil suit for anything.Au contraire, mon ami, the strategically placed "or"'s preclude the necessity for intent (if you can truly read and understand the English language) Several lawyers also agree with the ACLU's viewpoint on GA's new law regarding illegal immigrants, I guess that makes them right.... Follow the bouncing ball here: there is no requirement for intent by the placement of the "or", you can either be guilty by intent, or by reasonably having knowledge that someone who might be offended could stumble into a web site you post something in, say they Google "hunting" becasue they hate it so, and your post is on a "hunting" site. Should you know they can navigate to the location? That is all it takes to pin the medal on your chest, or at least put you in position to spend money to defend the fact that did not MEAN to afront their sensibilities.

Not really, I have made my points, you disagree on some ground, though I am not sure why. The changes to the wording ARE important, the addition of " or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim" changes the scope of 39-17-308 immensely from the original "Communicates with another person". It means if I have no clue that a post may reach an individual on a specific web site, I should have known, as this person that I did not know existed, and I was not trying to reach can now take something I say, or a picture I post and cost me a lot of money. To see it any other way I think, is living with rose colored glasses on. The whole of 39-17-1308 is vastly different from what it was, there had to be intent before. Yeah, on my dime, when I did not intend to insult or harass them. I post on a hunting web site, somebody with an agenda cruises in and cost me a bunch of money to defend my 1st Amendment Right. No thanks. Argue on, I have said my peace, I can promise there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I have spoken with several attorneys that agree with me, in fact I sought their advise prior to forming my complete opinion. We will just have to see where it goes challenge wise.

I have been trying to play Paul Revere on this issue since I became aware of it. Tried to call Alexander's office this morning, of course they are closed, not taking calls.

This piece of tyranny is up for consideration in the US Senate now. Our Senior Senator is a co-sponsor of the Bill. It will allow the President to appoint an additional 200+ important positions to everything from Homeland security to Dept. of Education and Agriculture without "Advise and Consent" of the Senate. One has to wonder what was promised to Alexander to get him to co-author this tripe with Schumer? S. 679: To Remove ?Advise and Consent? Function of Senate for Numerous Federal Appointments « The Greenroom

Good for PA!

A "similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities" is anybody that is on that web site that you posted to, you must be aware that anyone with a computer MIGHT access said site. A decent lawyer can make a fortune off this tripe!

From Article 1 Section 19 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights " 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." First, the "new" Public Chapter was unnecessary, the older version of TCA dealt with intentional Harassment, this new Public Chapter lays out the possibility that by posting a thought, image or picture, the individual doing so MIGHT cause distress, puts that individual at risk of being charged under the new law. Any individual who post a picture of a fish his grand child caught, a brace of birds taken on a hunt, a deer harvested, anywhere on the Internet, knowing that PETA has access to the Internet, can and (most likely will) be charged under this law, as any person should know that such posting would cause emotional distress to a PETA adherent. A text description of the actions required to achieve the possibility of such a picture might just as well be grounds for charges under this Act as well.Conviction under the Chapter might be difficult to achieve, but the threat (nuisance value) of reaction to what should be a Right is problematic. Will owners and operators of web sites be found complicit in such harassment? Should they police their forums as they are facilitating the display of an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim? I would challenge you kickstand, to lay out any benefit this new change to the harassment clause of the TCA will bring?