With that logic, the first amendment only applies to movable type printing presses, thus this publication would not be protected... Hmmmm, may want to rethink this letter.
March 23, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
@KSUgrad. Firstly, I remember 9/11 perfectly fine, and I don't appreciate your condescension torwards me due to age. Secondly, as I pointed out, IMMINENT THREAT, that was an imminent threat and is universally considered to be such. So I have no problem with that. But I'm not sure you are understanding the point I'm trying to make here. I'm not saying that no one at any time, regardless if they pose an imminent threat can not be killed. I am saying that unless a citizen is posing an IMMINENT THREAT, they must be given due process.
March 12, 2013 at 12:35 p.m.
@KSUgrad The Presidential oath of office does not stipulate that the President is to uphold the Constitution when it is convenient. When an American is not presenting an imminent threat, they are guaranteed due process outlined in the US Constitution. Now, that being said if there is an imminent threat being posed, as in someone being held at gun point, then neither I, or Senator Paul, or anyone, have a problem with that.
March 11, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.