America, Do We have Rights or Privileges?

America, Do We have Rights or Privileges?

America, Do We have Rights or Privileges?

Americans have the greatest freedoms on the face of the earth that are guaranteed by our countries founding fathers foresight in writing a bill of rights to protect every citizen’s rights from any man or government.

I ask every one of my readers today, “would you give up your right to free speech?” If your answer is no, I challenge you to ask one other person if they would be willing to give up their right to free speech.

Why is this question so relevant to the issue of gun control facing our nation at this present time?

It is legal to voice your opinion on any issue you may feel you need to. This right allows you to criticize political leaders, employers, teachers, neighbors, friends, total strangers, and yes even our government as a whole. In other countries, both past and present, you could face jail, prison, and even death if you embarked on this path of fee speech.

The right to free speech does have some limits. For example, a person could be criminally prosecuted for yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater if some one was injured or died as a result of the crowd stampeding out the exits. A person who does this should be held criminally responsible for using their first amendment right of free speech to cause injuries or deaths. Imagine the amount of news coverage this incident would receive if it sparked a cycle of repeat crimes across the nation. The survivors’ families of the dead and injured would form a special interest group to prevent such events from happening again. In their efforts they would want to put limits and bans in place on every citizen’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech. These groups would justify the bans and limits put in place by saying “if they only saved one life it would be worth it.”

What is “it”? My fellow citizens of America, “it” is our loss of liberty. Our rights were not granted to us by anyone but God and ours at birth. Luckily in our country it is reinforced by The Bill of Rights.

These groups would continue with little or no resistance. Eventually they would push their agenda to the halls of Washington DC finding sympathetic politician(s) in positions of great power who take up their cause. When these politicians take up their cause to limit and ban Free Speech, they would be met with opposition. These politician(s) then threaten to use executive powers and privileges’ of their political office to circumvent other branches of government to expedite the process to restrict our rights and create the laws to enforce this.

Is it realistic an American Politician(s) could be sympathetic to this cause? Why would they threaten to use executive power and privilege of their office if facing opposition to the cause? Should we expect our leaders to create laws by circumventing the normal legal process? Until this week I would have told you these questions are the stuff of monstrous dictators of the history, novels, and movies. This week, I saw a very powerful politician go on the news and do just that. Not about the freedom of speech I have been writing about, although it could have been. Politician(s) or political parties who are willing to openly say they would violate the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, once this point is reached how fare are they willing to go? How many rights will they pick and choose to remove and leave for us? Weren’t these rights guaranteed to us by our founding fathers through the bill of rights? Why do these politicians feel so threatened by some of our freedoms? Do these leaders consider the Constitutions Bill of Rights as rights or as privileges? Privileges are what children are given, and can be modified by parents with or with out a good reason.

As an American citizen I should not have a reason to suspect our leaders would attempt to take away our rights granted to us under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No American should suspect our leaders would create laws that single out anyone or groups of citizens that violate our rights as American Citizens. However, one of my favorite subjects in high school was history. Some figures come to mind. They disarmed their citizens after coming to power and they continued to take away rights at a rate that did not alarm their citizens. Eventually these leaders and their political parties committed some of the greatest atrocities known to history. History will remember Turkey’s Dictators – Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal and the genocide of the Armenians, Germany’s Adolf Hitler and the genocide of the Jews.

Sources:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

, ,

  • Christopher Embardino

    Well stated. if you can’t get behind the cause because you may not agree with the 2nd amendment, then get behind it for precedent. Once you start to lose liberty and rights, then it’s a downhill slide. What is keeping freedom of speech there? because it’s in the bill of rights? nope, sorry we already did away with one – what’s to keep it from happening.

    • Daisy Hawk

      “Once you start to lose liberty and rights…”? I am a year shy of 70; you can’t imagine the rights we have lost in my lifetime.

      • Christopher Embardino

        They have never amended the constitution to remove anything in the bill of rights. That is the issue here.

  • John Garcia

    Very well stated,

  • Teh_Babyarm

    Get real. Nobody’s moving to outlaw guns. And, nobody except the military (no, not even the police outside of SWAT) need assault rifles, hi-cap magazines, or armor piercing ammo.
    I’m a gun owner, but people who think like you are in the minority now.

    Tell you what: if you attended the funerals for all 20 of the kids killed at Sandy Hook and STILL have these opinions, I’ll listen. Until then, get ready to have the 2nd Amendment clarified for the modern age.

    • I feel sorry for the children at Sandy Hook. It’s a tragedy that children were used to lash out at the world by a crazy kid. But you’re impassioned statement is unfounded. The 2A is not dependent on tragedy for its definition. You don’t get to modify or amend the amendment because 20 kids got brutally slaughtered. A million-plus kids a year in the US are murdered thanks to abortion. Where’s your outcry for them?? Should we rethink our moral outrage? Where’s our Constitutional Amendment for protecting the lives of the INNOCENT??
      It is irrelevant to point at the mechanism of violence. Would a 10-round magazine or less solve the problem?? Two 10-round magazines = 20 rounds. And what about “assault rifles”?? The shooter did NOT have an automatic rifle- his semi-auto Bushmaster had the same fire rate as any other semi-auto firearm. Why can’t we get past the tools and get to the finger that pulls the trigger? I was sickened to see the POTUS parading the children for the media. For God’s sake, what a grandstanding gesture! Those 20 children could have been protected by at least one armed LEO or CCW teacher – but no! Schools are supposed to be gun-free!
      Please understand- the reduction of any of the mentioned mechanisms for violence makes absolutely ZERO impact on outcome. ZERO!
      “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun (regardless of type, caliber, capacity) is a GOOD GUY with a gun.”

    • cojo

      “…nobody except the military (no, not even the police outside of SWAT) need assault rifles, hi-cap magazines, or armor piercing ammo…”

      Great point. When the gov’t controlled military comes after its citizens, you can rest assured you can fight back with your Kentucky Rifle, Brown Bess and all your muzzle loading pistols. :-/

      • Teh_Babyarm

        When the gov’t controlled military comes after its citizens, they’ll drone strike our asses to oblivion.

        • Chaz208

          Ya mean like the nearly 200 kids and 1000 civilians already killed by drone strikes? Haven’t heard much outrage from the usual suspects and hypocrites about that….. I’ll keep my AR and take my chances if or when the time comes. Would rather have a fighting chance than none at all. The Bill of Rights guarantees me that option.

        • BenAround

          So you must have been reading some history books and at least admit the possibility now. The problem is not with government “drones” (and I use that in both senses of the word). The problem is with the “Imperial Presidency” who ignores congress, stacks the Supreme Court with socialist stooges, cranks out royal decrees, er, executive orders almost as fast as the Fed prints unbacked currency (an anaesthetized bleeding of the dollar’s value that will cost you more than your taxes in the very near term). After enough power has been consolidated through weakening our assets and usurping congressional authority, what makes you think that this president or his likely successor (given the number of people nursing the federal nipple) will hesitate to declare martial law to quell the public unrest (mostly from the government-addicted entitlement class that he so assiduously cultivates)? It has only ever been Republicans who have had the honor to support impeachment and removal their own lying President. Democratic sycophants and lying liberal demagogues have shown that they will circle the wagons around a would be lying dictator. Only two things will stop the imperial president from rounding up all the dissidents into a gulag: 1. Our own ability to create a credible resistance and defend our property from the violent among those resentful entitlement addicts who, like the grasshopper among the ants, will be starving. 2. The (we can only hope) unwillingness on the part of our military to carry out unconstitutional orders to fire on their own people–even under martial law.
          But don’t even think it isn’t possible. Germany, Italy, and Russia were relatively advanced societies when they committed their atrocities against their own people. Mussolini (Il Duce) was so charming and revered by his people that the women donated their wedding rings when he claimed a national need. Hitler was a compelling orator and crowds cheered him by the tens of thousands. Fascism starts as a benign socialistic movement and it always wears a kind and generous face–before it shows a grinning skull. What’s Obama’s new organization that is now eclipsing the campaign infrastructure of the DNC and consolidating an unprecedented political propaganda machine? Oh, yeah, it’s called “Organizing for Action.” Hmmm….can you say, “Cult of Personality?” Our Organizer in Chief isn’t going quietly into retirement at the end of his term. He is using his presidential power to consolidate and perpetuate political power for the forseeable future. We are living in the shadow of the greatest constitutional threat we have seen in our lifetimes. With nearly 50% of the population nursing from the national nipple, no signs of doing anything about runaway spending, and the ignorant masses standing around awestruck by Obama’s lying charm, the tipping point isn’t nearly as far away as you think. Never forget that Obama drank in with his mother’s milk and cut his teeth on the ideal of crashing the American capitalist system and replacing it with a “benign” collective–even before he sat at the feet of communist professors and collaborated with radically violent and unrepentent anti-American leftists. If he had found their politics repugnant, he would not have voluntarily drank their Kool-Aid. We background check people for carrying a little old pistol. But, Heaven forbid we background check the commander in chief of the biggest guns in the world. Go figure! What a country! And that scenario of Federal tyranny in the form of an Imperial President who ignores Congress and the courts, my friend, is exactly why the colonies insisted on the second amendment. A German, Italian, Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Cambodian scenario is exactly what the second amendment was designed to provide us with a backstop for. Not hunting. Not target shooting. And, certainly not because someone “needs” a 30 round magazine simply to deter the occasional burglar or rapist (although it might be necessary for that, too). It is there so that “We, the People” can reign in an arrogant, presumptuous, condescending, smooth-talking, idealogically collectivist, would be dictator (because a libertarian will never be “that guy”). Not saying we have a wannabe dictator…yet. But we are close.

          • Our “Imperial President” also passed a law awhile back….enabling you to carry concealed in National Parks. You’re welcome.

          • BenAround

            So not true! Congress passed the law–which is their job and not that of our would be Imperial President–much to his eternal chagrin. Amazingly (at least amazing to you) enough the concealed carry change was part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. Republicans added the totally unrelated Amendment on Guns in National Parks. Obama signed it-probably without even reading it since it had a super-majority in the Senate and he could not have blocked it. So, you are a perfect example of how liberals lie and take credit even for things they were against whenever it serves their purpose. Read the following which outlines how Obama’s secret puppets in the Republican party (according to your thesis) carried out his pro-gun policies by introducing this liberal amendment:

            Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.[4][5] The Senate passed the amendment 67-29 (a super-majority).

            Kind of makes you proud of your Imperial President to force people to get this done for him without having his fingerprints anywhere on it, doesn’t it? And he can tell the Brady Bunch that it was beyond his power to stop. Brilliant! In any case, last month on my vacation to Yellowstone, I carried concealed into the Old Faithful Geyser Basin thanks to Mr Coburn and company–no thanks to your Imperial President. You, my ill-informed liberal sycophantic friend, are welcome for the free education. Now, aren’t you going to thank me?

      • In what fantastic dream do you imagine citizens taking arms against government sponsored troops in the USA? We are a constitutional republic, with representational government (i.e. you pick ’em)…..it ain’t gonna happen. And, in your seditious fantasy of freelance revolution, do you imagine you could ever prevail against our technologically advanced weaponry? What you are suggesting is known as treason, and is illegal. We solve our problems through the political system nowadays, in case you haven’t heard…

        • BenAround

          Not such a fantastic dream. It happened once already. They called it the American Revolution. From your comments, I infer that your ancestors were probably loyalists, though (or came later to occupy this land that my ancestors purchased with their blood), so they would certainly have called it treason. Revolution is what happens when government gets out of control in their usurpation of the people’s rights. And, advanced weapons technology only goes as far as the willingness of the people who operate the advanced weaponry to fire on their friends and families–fellow citizens. Which they might not be so anxious to do when their assignment is to violate rights granted by a constitution they swore to defend. However, you are correct that there is a difference between King George and our current pretender to the throne. We don’t have a valid excuse to have a violent confrontation as long as we can hopefully vote for another worthless and incompetent loser next term. If a majority of citizens are willing to trade their birthright for a free meal, then they will take the rest of us down with them and we can’t legitimately react with violence against the will of the majority. What we could legally do is throw ourselves on the welfare system, outslack the slackers, and show the irresponsible takers what they are doing to us all until people become so miserable that they are finally willing to take back some meager responsibility for their own lives.

        • jamesrader

          back in the day ( i mean 1770’s the government was taking away guns and ammo from the citizens you might have heard about this it was called the SHOT HEAR AROUND THE WORLD,,,, we have the second amendment because of this

    • BenAround

      Get a sense of history! That is the first step in “getting real.” You people who feed off the emotional energy of the latest news story have no sense of the continuum of reality. First: While we are talking about this, there are children who are dying from U.S. drone strikes in the borders of Pakistan. But those casualties are accepted because they are considered politically necessary deaths by this administration’s hypocritical and largely impotent foreign policy. So, Biden’s emotional declamation that our rights are less important than one child’s preventable death is sheer demogogery. He doesn’t care about children. He cares only about an excuse to increasee the power that he wields as a political hack. That is reality. Second: Every time you vote for a law, you are voting to point a government gun at anyone who disagrees with you in order to enforce that law. If they disobey, they will be killed, imprisoned, or otherwise harmed and disenfranchised. Third: How much firepower is enough? Nobody who doesn’t have a class III federal license has an actual assault rifle or a submachine gun. Autoloaders without selector switches for burst and full automatic operation are not capable of laying down effective suppressive fire in a military assault. For personal defense, how often do you want to switch magazines? The woman in Atlanta fired 6 shots, hit her attacker with 5, and, although he was subdued, she still stood over him and threatened him with an empty pistol to cover her escape with her children. He didn’t know she was out of ammo. Then he got to his vehicle and drove several blocks before he was completely incapacitated. What if he had brought a friend? And that is just a common criminal. What if it had been more organized? What if it was a riot of looters like those in New Orleans recently and in Los Angeles and other cities in decades not too far past? What if it was a mob of anti-gun fanatics intent on taking her firearms? What if it was a runaway government like the leftist regimes who have killed more than a hundred million of their own people in the last century? Why is it always the collectivist governments that kill millions while anarchists and libertarians–even random madmen–seem to be capable of killing only a small number. What is the greatest number ever killed by a single gunman? Now compare that to the greatest number ever caused to be killed by a gun-grabbing political regime. So, don’t give me any of your liberal fertilizer about attending the funerals of the kids in Newtown until you’ve watched the bulldozers pushing piles of emaciated Jewish bodies into trenches, until you seen men, women, and children liined up at the edge of mass graves and shot backward into them to save their government executioners the trouble of lifting their dead bodies, until you’ve been marched into the desert to starve or put in a labor camp to work yourself to death–all after the government took away your “dangerous weapons” so you wouldn’t hurt yourselves and lied to you time after time about their benign intentions with each step of stripping you of your self-defense, your rights, and, finally, your homes and your clothes. The framers of the Constitution put freedom of speech and right to bear arms in place to ensure two things: 1. You can speak out against government misbehaviior without reprisals and 2. You, the people, are the final check and balance against a government (particularly an executive branch) that has overreached its lawful powers and is disregarding the constitution through the use of executive decrees and his military authority as commander in chief.
      That is keeping it real. And our first and second amendment rights ARE worth the lives of a few randomly killed Americans (even, sadly, children), if necessary because we have lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States of America to make it this far as a country that is the envy of all the world because of the rights of its citizens. The true delusional madness is to disarm sane and the law-abiding citizens in a completely ineffectual “feel good” emotional response to the actions of a few criminals and crazies. It can only be interpreted as an excuse to apply one more turn of the screw that is screwing us out of our liberties. Take off your TV blinders and read a historical book or two. Something besides Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and the Communist Manifesto.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2

        Nice response, very nice : ) thank you!

    • 2ThinkN_Do2

      No one but the Military has Assault Rifles, oh and the terrorists aka rebels in nations that our government has outfitted; so they can overthrow the current government.

      I really doubt that the majority of gun owners have changed their mind about all you and BO & Joe are trying to sell; because it isn’t the issue. It’s just a way to make more citizens criminals and then deny their right to bear arms; as they find us in violation of laws that violate our constitutional right.

      • Regulating your right to own guns is not violating it.

        • BenAround

          You really do need to learn to read. This amendment is really short and very clear.. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say, “well regulated arms, being necessary….” It says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary…” “Well regulated” applies to the organization and actions of the militia–not to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms–which “shall not be infringed” by regulation or any other means. Any third grader who can distinguish which noun an adjective modifies knows that “regulated” doesn’t apply to the arms but, rather, to the militia. You can punish someone for abusing their rights but, according to the constitution, not for exercising them. Check out freedom of speech for similar broad latitude in what you can say, print, and paint. Pretty much any expression that is not made as part of the commission of another crime is allowable.

    • annonn

      Sorry, sir but the simple fact is making law abiding gun owners responsible for the actoons of criminals are wrong when the current gun laws are not enforced and people who are mentally unstable are allowed to have firearms.they should stiffen sentences on gun crime, reform the mental health system, and make back ground checks more accessable for private transfers at no cost. These types of changes will help, but ultimatly criminals will not follow the laws hence we call them criminals

    • “Shall NOT be infringed.” Whats to clarify?

      • “well regulated”. there is your clarification.

        • BenAround

          Since a militia is an organized body of citizens, any mayor or chief of police or sheriff may deputize or commission citizens within their community to defend the community against enemies. A local militia was quite common in early states and cities to defend against mobs, thieves, and other factions who might conduct raids and land usurpations. A militia was reserved to states and communities (as distinct from the federally chartered National Guard) and was insisted on by the early colonies for the very reason of keeping a balance of power and ability for individual and community defense with the people as opposed to having all military power centralized in the federal government. And, to serve that purpose, they were expected to carry “military style” weapons. The states were justifiably afraid of having all military power concentrated in the central government. Until a local militia is called to assemble, the citizens who may be called (any citizen) were to remain armed and ready. And, there is your clarification. Well regulated does not mean federally regulated. It just means that it is composed of law-abiding citizens and has a legitimate local authority in control of any concerted action–as opposed to individual or mob violence such as the Klan (a political action branch of the democratic party created to keep blacks from voting republican) and other racist or anti-religious mobs intent on carrying out campaigns of suppression and persecution against citizens of certain “undesirable” ethnic and religious backgrounds.

    • BenAround

      So, in your mind, if you don’t need it, you don’t have a right to it? Cogent argument you have there So, I guess nobody needs the “F” word, either. So, let’s take away your right to say it and off to jail you go next time it comes out of your mouth. In fact, let’s outlaw all high capacity rapid fire vulgarity producing mouths. Nobody needs those. They should be put in jail. Oh, wait. Rights and needs are different, you say. You finally come to your senses? OK, then. Go ahead and swear all you want. Just not on forums where it is prohibited by the owner. See how that works.

    • Jay

      That’s the beautiful thing about rights…they belong to you regardless of whether or not someone else believes you “need” them.

  • Lance from MN

    Along with the ‘fire’ analogy, nobody takes away my RIGHT to say it because if there really is a fire, I not only can yell “fire” but in fact I might be held criminally liable if I do not yell “fire”. People always look shocked when they give that line about “you can’t yell ‘fire'” and you tell them that in fact you can if such exists.

  • Great article!

  • Mike T

    Something that we need to do, and I hope you put this idea into a future article, we need to keep fighting this battle, long after it has faded from the news. We need to not only get our way with Congress this time, but we need to change all these uninformed ignorant Americans’ minds and educate them about what gun control really is. We need to take an unprecedented number of new shooters to the range every day, every week, every year, until 99% of Americans are against all gun control. Only then will our rights really be safe.

    • But why is ALL gun control bad? You certainly don’t want convicted felons getting guns, right? As it is right now, most americans support the right of citizens to own guns, and most also believe we need regulations. Do you really believe citizens should be able to own fully-automatic AK-47s? Your position is extreme, and that is why you see extremists on the other side who want to ban ALL guns.

      • BenAround

        Convicted felons have lost some of their rights as citizens through something called “due process.” That is provided for by the constitution, as you may recall, and is the only means whereby a citizen is allowed to be deprived of rights. Not, as many believe, through legislation. And, yes, an AK-47 would come in very handy in a well regulated militia. Every citizen who feels the responsibility to defend his or her community should have a weapon just as capable as the ones your President’s buddy Eric Holder sold to the felons in Mexico. Why should those murdering criminals be better armed than our law-abiding citizens? Such liberal hypocrisy knows no shame. And, I don’t call people who want to ban all guns “extremists.” They are just naive and ignorant of history, human nature, basic reality, and the consequences of reducing the firepower of law-abiding citizens below that of criminals.. They somehow think that, if they wish something to be true, it can be legislated to be so. In their childish fantasyland, they think they will be safer if we pass another unconstitutional law. “Make the bad guns go away, Mama Feinstein and Daddy Obama!” But how will you actually get the guns to go away without illegal searches and seizures? And, if you are willing to go that far, why not just start now and search the houses of all convicted felons, gang members, and druggies, and put them up against the squad car and pat them down anywhere you find them on the streets? Jail them or execute them. Whatever. To quote our illustrious VP, “if it would save just one child’s life..[the unspoken end to that thought is: it would be worth violating their constitutional rights]” One child’s life for all of our rights. A bad bargain in my book. And I love my children and grandchildren. However, I guarantee you that unconstitutional searches and seizures of suspected bad guys would save a lot more than one child. But we don’t do it because we value our right against searches and seizures that lack immediate probable cause–another right that was insisted on by the framers to protect against government tyranny. Yup, those same out of touch old men whose political safeguards are no longer relevant in the minds of modern liberals… But, since you have agreed to “some” rights infringement, then why not go through the houses of all known gun owners and ensure that they have adequate gun safety to keep guns out of the hands of their mentally disturbed dependents and their children and grandchildren. That would save a few more children’s lives each year. And so on…
        When we trade in our rights for our imagined needs (security, a mess of pottage, food stamps, etc.), we become slaves to our fears and appetites. And that is not freedom. I would rather keep my rights and take my chances on the support of my family friends and community over the federal government. Any day.

  • TUGBOAT

    If the Second amendment goes what will protect the others?

  • Thanks Ben!!! One of the best letters I’ve seen!

  • xenonmstr

    We must ever keep in mind that The Bill of Rights enumerates some inherent rights, rights that are ours by virtue of our humanity, not rights that are bestowed upon us by a government. When we cease to see this distinction we lose ourselves to tyranny.

  • Marry Root

    If you think Richard`s story is something,, 2 weaks-ago my brother in-law basically earned $7241 working a thirteen hour week an their house and their best friend’s mother-in-law`s neighbour has done this for seven months and got paid over $7241 part time on their pc. the steps at this website… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • rev. dave

    That business about not shouting fire in a theater is NOT – as we are always told it is – a limit on free speech. To even suggest that it is merely means somebody doesn’t understand grammar and vocabulary – and yes, it did come from the SCOTUS, but we’ve all seen recently that they are often as stupid as anybody else. It’s an unfortunate use of an explanatory statement, which has been distorted in meaning by nearly everyone in the legal profession.

    What it really is, is a limit on the USE of free speech. It does not forbid certain words, and does NOT limit you to using a word with 10 letters or less. It also does not require you to register your vocabulary with the federal government, nor to use only ‘approved’ words. In short, it has NOTHING to do with any limit on Free Speech itself – if you’re limited, its only because you did not develop a big enough vocabulary. The word ‘Fire’ is not restricted, only how you use that word – or more precisely how you use that word in certain places.

    NOW, apply what I just said to the Second Amendment and the idea of gun control. Replace the words in my second paragraph with the appropriate gun / cartridge / magazine word. You should be able to immediately see that we already have ALL the ‘bad’ uses of a gun covered as illegal under existing laws. Anything else is in fact an attempt to limit our Second Amendment protection, period. Let’s call a spade a spade, folks.

    • BenAround

      Exactly right. And I would add one point of clarification that was implied in the SCOTUS example but so obvious as to not merit clarification except for the totally ignorant: It is not illegal to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre if there really is a fire and people need to get out to escape it. It is only illegal if there is not a fire. Dishonest speech intended to do harm is frequently held to be illegal. Just as is doing unjustifiable harm using a gun.

  • dean800

    If you think Lori`s story is unimaginable…, last pay-check my sis basically also brought home $4994 working a 10 hour week an their house and there classmate’s step-aunt`s neighbour has done this for 4 months and got more than $4994 in there spare time On their laptop. applie the tips available here, jump15.comCHECK IT
    OUT

  • Marlene Wilkes

    If you think Stanley`s story is cool,, last week my boy frends mom basically also got paid $5729 grafting a fourty hour month from home and there roomate’s mother-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for 8-months and made more than $5729 part-time on there mac. follow the advice here… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • Olga Peluso

    If you think Jean`s story is terrific,, 2 weeks ago my sisters girlfriend basically got paid $5455 workin eighteen hours a week an their house and they’re buddy’s sister-in-law`s neighbour was doing this for four months and easily made more than $5455 part time from there pc. follow the guidelines at this address, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • Emily Boyd

    Ryder. I can see what your saying… Sarah`s storry is amazing… last wednesday I got themselves a Ford from earning $5767 this past 5 weeks and-more than, ten k last month. it’s realy the easiest-job I’ve had. I actually started 5 months ago and pretty much immediately began to earn at least $74 p/h. I use the details on this website,, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • elnoraboari5

    upto I looked at the draft which was of $6207, I didn’t believe …that…my mom in-law was like they say really bringing home money in there spare time at their laptop.. there sisters neighbour has done this for less than 13 months and a short time ago cleard the debts on their apartment and purchased a new Chevrolet Corvette. we looked here, — Buzz80.ℂOℳ

  • jamesrader

    The links to both websites don’t work.. lol i lost my 2nd amend rights since i cannot balance a checkbook anymore i am a disabled vet and under the brady bill what advice do you have to re instate my rights

Quantcast
[index]
[index]