Sorry Sassy, your second link (nbc) did not work. However I DID listen to about 4 minutes of the drivel on youtube. There is no conspiracy in effect with this. Yes, I personally (as a veteran myself) think it is high handed of the government to charge a veteran if they decide to have their ID marked as such, but it is no different than having your license plates marked as Veterans Plates. It is considered a VANITY license and thus you pay for the privilege.

As far as the suggestions that it is a means for the government to track soldiers and veterans who are more likely to won guns? nonsense. I joined the Army back in 1993, long before everything went digital. I left the Army in 1999, STILL long before everything went digital. However, the government still has my DNA on file, as well as all my medical information, my family information, where I lived prior to and during my enlistment (as well as for several years after I left the Army since I married another soldier) who staid in until 2003. If the government wants to find me, they can do so within about 5 minutes, if not sooner. And they can (and will) do so without resorting to checking ID cards or Drivers Licenses for veteran status; they already know I am a Veteran.

I am not sure why you mentioned "double jeopardy" (yes, I understand the term), however you are correct in the soldier being tried more than once; and technically he can be tried THREE times (and found guilty) for the same crime: Once by the state; once in civil court by the family for wrongful death and again by the military.

In the case of the military, they will wait until they see what happens in the civilian court. If he is found innocent, they probably wont do anything serious. If it is mis-tried or thrown out for misconduct of some sort, the military MIGHT prosecute him in order to put a good eye on public relations, all depends on the public's behavior over it. If he is found guilty and punished in civilian court, the military will wait until he has been released from prison (unless it is a life sentence), then reinstate him against his will in order to face court martial for the very same crime. He will be found guilty again and then made to serve prison time in a military prison, after which he will receive a dishonorable discharge.

Last I knew, military personnel cannot use JAG attorneys for non military court hearings. When I was ordered into court back in 1997 I had to represent myself, or hire a civilian attorney. Maybe that has changed since then, but I doubt it.

"The Bill Of Rights Enumerates them,NOT bestowing them!"


Close, but still wrong. The bill of rights states what the constitution recognizes as individual rights. As soon as an amendment is made declaring something to no longer be a right, guess what? It is no longer recognized as a right by our constitution. Case in point: prohibition. Prior to prohibition it was recognized that once you achieved a certain age, you had the right to drink if you so choose. HOWEVER, along came a spider, that after sat down beside her, and made an amendment to the constitution that prohibit consumption of all alcohol by all citizens regardless of age, status, or whatever. Then, after so long, a different spider came along and amended the constitution again, reinstating the recognition of an adults right to drink (under normal circumstances).

THUS, as I have said from the beginning, it is the government that decides which rights an individual person does or does not have come the end of the day ;-)

Yes, one of the reasons for the constitution is limitation of the government. HOWEVER, with that said, the constitution itself has written in it, the very means in which our current government may change it. Any idea how many times this has happened? Look at all the amendmants; each one is literally a change to the original constitution, either an addition, a limitation or even a removal.

There are not any "privacy issues" involved in this at all. What many people fail to realize is the "Chief of Police" is actually the ASSISTANT Chief of Police, because the Mayor is the full Chief. Do not argue this please, because it is basic truth.

The Mayor is an elected position. The Mayor APPOINTS (in most cases) the Chief of Police and has the authority to remove / replace them at any time for any reason; thus the Mayor is the actual Chief of Police. The Mayor is legally responsible to ensure there is someone int he position of Chief of Police, fullfilling the job in all appropriate manners, and has the final say on what matter is pushed and what matter is ignored.

So your proposal is anarchy? yes, what you suggest is nothing other than anarchy. Without a government there would be NO central law that everyone had to follow (it would literally be nothing more than the old west all over again in regards to authority).
As far as "using the Sheriff" is concerned, the "Sheriff" IS the police department, along with their deputies.

I am sorry but I will not EVER support anarchy or chaos under any circumstances.

lol, let me ask yuo this since you believe the government has no authority over personal "rights"...

1. who wrote the constitution?
2. who wrote the amendments to the constitution?
3. who continues to decide what the constitution means and what is "garunteed"
under personal rights?
4. Who decides what amendments to pass today, and which ones do not get amended?
5. What happens when the government decides to strip the second amendment from
the constitution or simply rewrite it?


For anyone who actually doesn't know (and sadly that's 95% of our children in today's country), the answer to the first four questions is the same: Our government.
To respond to my final question, what will happen when...? There will be Civil War again; you and I both know this. But what you seem to be delusional about is the fact that when all is said and done,the Government is the one who decides what rights you have when the day is said and done. You may fight it when they take one away, but that doesn't mean it was not taken away. nor does it mean that you are not violating the law if you do what they claim is no longer a right.

When we refused to pay taxes to the British prior to the Revolutionary War, we broke British law. When we fired upon British soldiers and authority figures, we became treasons. Just because you do not agree with it, just because you do not like it, does not mean the law is not valid. You had best hope that it never comes to a show of force, because you WILL hang at the end of it as will many thousands of other Americans who fight the govenrment for their rights.

personal opinion here, but the only people that should have the right to speak to the press in this situation, are the Mayor, the Police Chief, and if they have one, the Public relations Officer.

These people are generally the ones who are allowed to in the first place no matter where you go and for very good reason.

Don't try mincing words. you know as well as I do that requiring certification is not infringing upon OR denying a person their rights.

You have the right to breathe (a GOD given right that nobody can deny); however, you do NOT have the right to breathe the air inside the center of a naval base unless you have the proper security and authority to be there.

You have the right to feed yourself enough food to survive; you do NOT have the right to dine on shrimp, lobster and steak.

You have the right to defend yourself; but inmost states you do not have the right to use lethal force unless there is absolutely NO other possible option, and even then there are some states that you are still going to prison for manslaughter if you kill someone in justifiable self defense.



YES, the second amendment assures every FULL CITIZEN the right to bear arms in defense of himself or his country. But what you are failing to grasp is the adjective used prior to the word citizen: "full". The constitution makes it very clear that not all citizens are considered to be full citizens; meaning that they do not have 100% of the rights afforded to a full citizen. Take children for example (and any adult that has been deemed incapable for caring for themself)...

until you turn age 18, or a court of law recognizes you as an adult (emancipation), you ONLY have the right to basic human rights. Those are:

1. The right to be heard (not the same as free speech); meaning if you have a problem, you have the right to address it.

2. The right to basic shelter from the elements.

3. the right to a basic education

4. the right to adequate food and medical care

5. the right to a safe environment to live (this does not mean you can not
be living int he ghetto as a child).

6. the right to basic respect and protection by those who are responsible for
you.

7. You have the same miranda rights as an adult if you come into conflict
with the law, with the addition that you have the right to have your
parent with you for all questioning.


As a non adult, you do NOT have the right to free speech; freedom to assemble; freedom to bear arms (with limited exceptions), or any number of other freedoms and rights that a full citizen has. This is because a child is considered a partial citizen until they reach the age of majority.

The same thing goes with the second amendment. You have the right to bear arms; but it is not denying you that right if you have to show competency, both mental and professional. if you are a convicted felon, more likely than not, you will never be a full citizen again for the rest of your life, and one of the rights you lose is the second amendment. Another right is the right to vote (which Idont happen to agree with but that's the way it is).

You beat me to it lol. Everything you said is what i was thinking as i was reading through the op's response to my request.

To ad a couple other things though in regards to the Mayor "wanting access to ALL incoming and outgoing emails", "She even said she wants TWO weeks notice prior to them speaking or making ANY public appearances, etc.", "wants to censor all statements and information"...

1. As Mayor, not only does she have a right to all departmental emails AND COMMUNICATIONS, she has a vested interest. Yes, she has a VESTED INTEREST int his information. It is her responsibility to ensure the police chief is doing his utmost to perform his duties and to protect the citizens of their town. It is her responsibility to oversee him and his department to ensure they are not embezzling money, or making back alley agreements (so to speak). She has the legal right as the Chief of Polices immediate supervisor (for that IS what she is) to ALL of his professional and business correspondance.

2. In regards to requiring two weeks notice prior to any public speaking... I am surprised they are allowed to speak publicly in the first place, without her direct permission. That is the NORM in every single state, county, city, town I have ever seen or visited. Most government employees are bound by a gag order in their contracts, preventing them (legally) from speaking to the public about certain things. And those who have authority to speak to the public on behalf of a government office (usually press personnel) still have to get permission before releasing specific information.

3. refer back to number two. She has the legal authority and ability to censure what is released tot he public (as long as it does not fall under the freedom of information act; and you would be surprised at what all does NOT fall under it in regards to police matters).


Now, I agree she sounds like she is looking more for revenue than anything. I do not agree with the blanket statement of tripling (?) the number of tickets written. But insofar as what you have posted in regards to her supposedly trying to block the first amendment? She has done no such thin from what I can see

Howdy new,. nice to meetcha :D

make that buckshot rocksalt and I agree completely

I have not followed up with the links you provided yet (and I certainly do not agree with her style of leadership), but I fail to understand how she is "throwing the constitution and bill of rights out the window..." Would you explain please?

The biggest problem with this belief (and I happen to agree with it IF, and ONLY IF stricter gun laws were implemented (see below)) is the fact that 99% of people carrying concealed do not have any experience, practice, etc with their weapon. Very few states require anything more than a criminal background check and maybe a few hours in the classroom learning about gun safety. Texas is one example of where you are required to show proficiency, but like it was mentioned above, that is a one time shot (pun not intended) and you are allowed, what I consider, to be an extremely large margin of error. Tennessee has the best laws I have seen regarding firearms, so far and they pretty much mimic (and more) what I am going to write next...

As a military Veteran, who has hands on experience with various weapons of differing caliber, we had to show proof of ability at a minimum of once a year; failure to qualify on the range could result in you being discharged from the military under general conditions. With this being the case, ANYONE wanting a license to carry (concealed or not) should have to follow the following steps, NO MATTER WHAT:

1. FEDERAL AND STATE criminal background checks
2. Physical from your doctor, stating that you are BOTH,
physically capable of handling the weapon without accident AS
WELL AS MENTALLY responsible and capable. If you have certain
mental health diagnoses, that should be a mandatory 10 year
minimum ban on owning a firearm.
3. 80+ hours classroom training on when and how to use your
firearm, as well as safety, storage, marksmanship, etc. You
should be required to qualify on the range both in a standing
position AND in a prone position (laying on the ground), with no
more than a 10% miss rate.
4. Mandatory annual range qualifications equal to your initial,
meaning that at least once a year, you have to go to the range
and requalify with your weapon; YOUR weapon, not a range weapon.
Your results are notated in a Federal database; if you failed,
you have to take a refresher course on the range and qualify
again, within say, one month. Failure to do so, or second fail
on the range, means the range instructor confiscates your
weapon.
5. Finally (and again, these are just MINIMAL standards), by
applying for and receiving your carry permit, you are tacitly
agreeing to use your weapon for Civil Defense, if the need
should arise, up to and including agreeing to being temporarily
deputized in a given situation.

Yes, we have a right under the second amendment to own AND CARRY firearms (within reason). but with this right, comes responsibility, and you need to accept that responsibility, or choose to not exercise your right to own and carry.


edit: I forgot to mention that you should also be required to go through the classroom training every so often as well (I personally think it should be every four or five years, minimum)

single parent, I am looking to meet others in the Tulsa area. Anyone here?

I am not one to even think about the possibility of sex on the first date (or even the fiftieth). To me, sex is so much more than just the physical. Yes the physical is an enjoyable; however, when you also have an emotional bond it becomes oh so much more.

For me to even consider having sex with a girl, the following needs must be met:

1. mutual want: In other words, BOTH people must want it to happen, withOUT reservation or hesitancy.

2. Friendship: I need to be able to be friends with her and to know that she IS my friend in return, regardless of anything else.

3. TRUST: Yes, I put the biggest, baddest four letter word in the dictionary out there, lol. There has to be TRUST, on BOTH sides. I can not just let a lady in, take her to my bedroom, then say good bye to her when all is said and done. As I said above, there is so much more than just the physical. When all is said and done, I need her to be not only willing, but wanting, to go to sleep next to me, with my arms and legs wrapped around her. I want to wake up and have her beautiful face and smile, be the first things I see. I want to occasionally slip outta bed without waking her, go make breakfast and bring it in to her as she wakes up for the day.

Sex, just is not enough for me. I want it all, and it can not possibly happen on the first date.