Letter to the editor which ran on 4/15/11
I want to thank Bev Mattison for her 3/3/11 response to my letter where she appears amused by my “overactive imagination”.
I may be hoping for too much in overcoming Ms. Mattison’s blind allegiance to a corrupt and violent system and her role as doting sycophant, but let’s compare overactive imaginations.
There is no justification for men to lay a hand on other men, especially when the charges and reports are fabricated and unsupported by evidence. An overactive imagination is one where police “perceive a violent threat” and draw guns on unarmed, passive people before beating them. It does not take an overactive imagination to perceive a man dropping on someone’s neck as being a possible attempt at death or serious bodily harm. I have no doubt that if I were meant to be killed I would be, but there are more subtle ways of inflicting death or injury that give police the appearance of acting “within policy”.
Tell me Ms. Mattison, what does it mean to be “mostly free”? Spoken like a true slave. You take your lesser freedoms and have a nice day. Comparing the tyranny of this government, loosely speaking, with other forms of tyranny does not make this government just. I have natural, unalienable rights that are beyond the scope and authority of government. You apparently prefer men to define your rights.
Please limit your comments to what you know. You parrot conventional wisdom and hearsay. You are another voice in support of violence and corruption.
MarcMkKoy.com 
Bev Mattison responds via her letter:
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/06/1698926/letters-56.html
Laws must be followed
I am so pleased that letter writer Mark McCoy is thankful for my last letter. Usually very few people are.I don’t know where McCoy’s displeasure with the government in general and law enforcement in particular stems from and quite frankly I don’t care.
His description of his encounter with police officers is two paragraphs of attempting to convince people that he is a passive person who somehow provokes physical aggression from police officers for no reason. Really?
He claims my statement of being “mostly free” means I’m a slave. On that I would ask, to whom or what? McCoy should know that every civilized society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them. Oh, I’m sure McCoy would if he felt compelled, but then he shouldn’t be surprised if he finds himself standing before a judge.
Of course, that situation would afford him the perfect opportunity to convey his philosophy to the judge and I quote from his letter, “I have natural unalienable rights that are beyond the scope and authority of government,” upon which the judge would reply: “Not today you don’t.”
It is not productive to claim the government has no authority over me as an excuse to disregard laws. The alternative would be to locate on an island away from man-made laws and the people that enforce them. Happy hunting.
Bev Mattison
Fairview Heights
Thanks to letter writer Charles Sullivan for his retort to doting sycophant, Bev Mattison on 5/31/11
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/31/1729432/letters-531.html
Some laws need to be broken
In a rebuttal to a letter by Mark McCoy, Bev Mattison (May 6) naively states: “McCoy should know — society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them.”
Mattison is wrong. We are free to break them and some laws should be intentionally broken. Openly breaking an unconstitutional law is the best way to challenge an asinine law by being arrested. Rights are worth the possible consequence for failing in a challenge.
Recently, the proposed Illinois concealed carry law was defeated. Good. With this law, a law-abiding resident could be denied this right if he has poor marksmanship.
We do not need this law when we already have a law (Second Amendment) for concealed carry that mandates our right to protect our lives and property within or without the confines of our homes. A right cannot be denied, taxed, registered, licensed or infringed upon.
Limits to the concealed carrying of a firearm should only be a posted sign on property where concealed carry is inappropriate and prohibited. Criminals and the mentally unstable should be prohibited from owning or carrying guns by law.
Gov. Pat Quinn deserves to be tarred and feathered and run out of town for denying the residents of Illinois their Second Amendment right.
Charles D. Sullivan
Waterloo
Finally, the Belleville News Democrat saw it fit to publish my letter in response to Mattison’s ramblings.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html
Government and freedom
Letter writer Bev Mattison, again, parrots the ignorance of those who believe law is what the guys with gavels and guns say it is.
Government is not something that springs forth from nature. It is not real. It has no authority or legitimacy over those who do not consent. If Mattison would invest in reading some history, philosophy and real law, she would understand this.
Government has nothing to do with society. People freely associate without centralized authority and manage fine. There are generally accepted rules that bind all reasonable people. Look around and tell me just how civilized our society is, even as the number of laws increase.
It is government that creates most of the problems by criminalizing non-violent, private actions of people and creating dependency and exploiting ignorance and fear.
Neither I nor anyone has an obligation to honor, recognize, or obey what conflicts with his conscience. Government, as it is today, is a violent, thieving, exploitive, fraudulent, and abusive Leviathan. It does little good and brings harm and suffering to otherwise peaceful people.
I do what I do not because a law commands it, but because I command me.
Mattison is free — as long as she obeys. I suggest she read a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude on my site at http://markmccoy.com/wp/2010/ 10/ 29/discourse-on-voluntary- servitude/. Be careful, it’s not government approved.
Mark McCoy
Collinsville
Thanks to letter writer Charles Sullivan for his retort to doting sycophant, Bev Mattison on 5/31/11
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/31/1729432/letters-531.html
Some laws need to be broken
In a rebuttal to a letter by Mark McCoy, Bev Mattison (May 6) naively states: “McCoy should know — society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them.”
Mattison is wrong. We are free to break them and some laws should be intentionally broken. Openly breaking an unconstitutional law is the best way to challenge an asinine law by being arrested. Rights are worth the possible consequence for failing in a challenge.
Recently, the proposed Illinois concealed carry law was defeated. Good. With this law, a law-abiding resident could be denied this right if he has poor marksmanship.We do not need this law when we already have a law (Second Amendment) for concealed carry that mandates our right to protect our lives and property within or without the confines of our homes. A right cannot be denied, taxed, registered, licensed or infringed upon.
Limits to the concealed carrying of a firearm should only be a posted sign on property where concealed carry is inappropriate and prohibited. Criminals and the mentally unstable should be prohibited from owning or carrying guns by law.Gov. Pat Quinn deserves to be tarred and feathered and run out of town for denying the residents of Illinois their Second Amendment right.
Charles D. Sullivan
Waterloo
Bev Mattison responds via her letter:
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/06/1698926/letters-56.html
Laws must be followed
I am so pleased that letter writer Marc MkKoy is thankful for my last letter. Usually very few people are.I don’t know where McCoy’s displeasure with the government in general and law enforcement in particular stems from and quite frankly I don’t care.
His description of his encounter with police officers is two paragraphs of attempting to convince people that he is a passive person who somehow provokes physical aggression from police officers for no reason. Really?
He claims my statement of being “mostly free” means I’m a slave. On that I would ask, to whom or what? McCoy should know that every civilized society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them. Oh, I’m sure McCoy would if he felt compelled, but then he shouldn’t be surprised if he finds himself standing before a judge.
Of course, that situation would afford him the perfect opportunity to convey his philosophy to the judge and I quote from his letter, “I have natural unalienable rights that are beyond the scope and authority of government,” upon which the judge would reply: “Not today you don’t.”
It is not productive to claim the government has no authority over me as an excuse to disregard laws. The alternative would be to locate on an island away from man-made laws and the people that enforce them. Happy hunting.
Bev Mattison
Fairview Heights
Thanks to letter writer Charles Sullivan for his retort to doting sycophant, Bev Mattison on 5/31/11
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/31/1729432/letters-531.html
Some laws need to be broken
In a rebuttal to a letter by Marc MkKoy, Bev Mattison (May 6) naively states: “McCoy should know — society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them.”
Mattison is wrong. We are free to break them and some laws should be intentionally broken. Openly breaking an unconstitutional law is the best way to challenge an asinine law by being arrested. Rights are worth the possible consequence for failing in a challenge.
Recently, the proposed Illinois concealed carry law was defeated. Good. With this law, a law-abiding resident could be denied this right if he has poor marksmanship.
We do not need this law when we already have a law (Second Amendment) for concealed carry that mandates our right to protect our lives and property within or without the confines of our homes. A right cannot be denied, taxed, registered, licensed or infringed upon.
Limits to the concealed carrying of a firearm should only be a posted sign on property where concealed carry is inappropriate and prohibited. Criminals and the mentally unstable should be prohibited from owning or carrying guns by law.
Gov. Pat Quinn deserves to be tarred and feathered and run out of town for denying the residents of Illinois their Second Amendment right.
Charles D. Sullivan
Waterloo
Finally, the Belleville News Democrat saw it fit to publish my letter in response to Mattison’s ramblings.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html
Government and freedom
Letter writer Bev Mattison, again, parrots the ignorance of those who believe law is what the guys with gavels and guns say it is.
Government is not something that springs forth from nature. It is not real. It has no authority or legitimacy over those who do not consent. If Mattison would invest in reading some history, philosophy and real law, she would understand this.
Government has nothing to do with society. People freely associate without centralized authority and manage fine. There are generally accepted rules that bind all reasonable people. Look around and tell me just how civilized our society is, even as the number of laws increase.
It is government that creates most of the problems by criminalizing non-violent, private actions of people and creating dependency and exploiting ignorance and fear.
Neither I nor anyone has an obligation to honor, recognize, or obey what conflicts with his conscience. Government, as it is today, is a violent, thieving, exploitive, fraudulent, and abusive Leviathan. It does little good and brings harm and suffering to otherwise peaceful people.
I do what I do not because a law commands it, but because I command me.
Mattison is free — as long as she obeys. I suggest she read a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude on my site at http://marcmkkoy.com/2010/ 10/ 29/discourse-on-voluntary- servitude/. Be careful, it’s not government approved.
Marc MkKoy
Collinsville
Thanks to letter writer Charles Sullivan for his retort to doting sycophant, Bev Mattison on 5/31/11
http://www.bnd.com/2011/05/31/1729432/letters-531.html
Some laws need to be broken
In a rebuttal to a letter by Marc MkKoy, Bev Mattison (May 6) naively states: â‚“McCoy should know â‚â society needs laws, some of which are extremely unpopular. That does not mean we are free to break them.â‚
Mattison is wrong. We are free to break them and some laws should be intentionally broken. Openly breaking an unconstitutional law is the best way to challenge an asinine law by being arrested. Rights are worth the possible consequence for failing in a challenge.
Recently, the proposed Illinois concealed carry law was defeated. Good. With this law, a law-abiding resident could be denied this right if he has poor marksmanship.We do not need this law when we already have a law (Second Amendment) for concealed carry that mandates our right to protect our lives and property within or without the confines of our homes. A right cannot be denied, taxed, registered, licensed or infringed upon.
Limits to the concealed carrying of a firearm should only be a posted sign on property where concealed carry is inappropriate and prohibited. Criminals and the mentally unstable should be prohibited from owning or carrying guns by law.Gov. Pat Quinn deserves to be tarred and feathered and run out of town for denying the residents of Illinois their Second Amendment right.
Charles D. Sullivan
Waterloo
Finally, the Belleville News Democrat saw it fit to publish my letter in response to Mattison’s ramblings.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html
Government and freedom
Letter writer Bev Mattison, again, parrots the ignorance of those who believe law is what the guys with gavels and guns say it is.Government is not something that springs forth from nature. It is not real. It has no authority or legitimacy over those who do not consent. If Mattison would invest in reading some history, philosophy and real law, she would understand this.
Government has nothing to do with society. People freely associate without centralized authority and manage fine. There are generally accepted rules that bind all reasonable people. Look around and tell me just how civilized our society is, even as the number of laws increase.It is government that creates most of the problems by criminalizing non-violent, private actions of people and creating dependency and exploiting ignorance and fear.
Neither I nor anyone has an obligation to honor, recognize, or obey what conflicts with his conscience. Government, as it is today, is a violent, thieving, exploitive, fraudulent, and abusive Leviathan. It does little good and brings harm and suffering to otherwise peaceful people.I do what I do not because a law commands it, but because I command me.
Mattison is free — as long as she obeys. I suggest she read a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude on my site at http://markmccoy.com/wp/2010/ 10/ 29/discourse-on-voluntary- servitude/. Be careful, it’s not government approved.Mark McCoyCollinsville
It is government that creates most of the problems by criminalizing non-violent, private actions of people and creating dependency and exploiting ignorance and fear…..that very statement has me home on a computer with no idea how to go forward with my life or even how to afford to raise my family. Strangled in the buracracy of a nation in ruins with no options cause being a slave to a boss with no respect of its employees in wages or attitude just the treatment of your so expendable cause theres 5000 applications in his desk of slaves in line for your spot you worthless piece of trash no your 50 hrs a week isnt goin to get you out of the ghetto cause if you work that 3rd day double time we are goin to soak it all up cause you jumped to the tax bracket of someone who works in airconditioning NOT crawling in your sewers unclogging your pipes stealing his whole SUNDAYS double time pay so why did he even both to keep showing up…Your thieves thats all you are thieves liars and mobsters….I pitty the revolution that my gut says is headed your way I pray to my god who loves all even those who dont know him but live with love in their hearts to protect ALL the down trodden freedom fightershere and (abroad) yes the muslims are just fighting against our anglo saxton hostile regime of economic and ethnic discrimination and terrorism for conqust of empire. To bless them in their fight for freedom…oh and please bring back tar and feathering of traitors of my great yet off track nation. )o,,,
Finally, the Belleville News Democrat saw it fit to publish my letter in response to Mattison’s ramblings.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html
Government and freedom
Letter writer Bev Mattison, again, parrots the ignorance of those who believe law is what the guys with gavels and guns say it is.Government is not something that springs forth from nature. It is not real. It has no authority or legitimacy over those who do not consent. If Mattison would invest in reading some history, philosophy and real law, she would understand this.
Government has nothing to do with society. People freely associate without centralized authority and manage fine. There are generally accepted rules that bind all reasonable people. Look around and tell me just how civilized our society is, even as the number of laws increase.It is government that creates most of the problems by criminalizing non-violent, private actions of people and creating dependency and exploiting ignorance and fear.
Neither I nor anyone has an obligation to honor, recognize, or obey what conflicts with his conscience. Government, as it is today, is a violent, thieving, exploitive, fraudulent, and abusive Leviathan. It does little good and brings harm and suffering to otherwise peaceful people.I do what I do not because a law commands it, but because I command me.
Mattison is free â‚â as long as she obeys. I suggest she read a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude on my site at http://marcmkkoy.com/2010/ 10/ 29/discourse-on-voluntary- servitude/. Be careful, it’s not government approved.Marc MkKoyCollinsville
A BND reader, baroqueboy, completely misunderstands anarchist philosophy.
His profile is here
http://disqus.com/mcclatchy-de2e16a97f404d826747d6ff234d5e19/
Mark McCoy seems to have an implicit commitment to aprinciple of self-interest over the principle of community. That is, he would
rather fulfill his individual desires than cooperate in a coherent society,which would require that, each one act for the good of the group.
Accordingly,the principles of individualism as spouted by McCoy states that his needs aremet by himself outside of the community and he is willing to shirk his societal
duties in favor of fulfilling his individual desires.
The rest of us live our lives trying to cooperate and use reasonable means, a democratically elected government, traditional agreed upon laws to control our environment, which requires work and sacrifice on the part of responsible members of a society.
The term “anarchy”, the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority, in my opinion best
describes McCoy’s approach and worldview.
True Anarchists advocate a philosophy that presupposes that given the absence of the state, inherent human nature would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviors. I do not think that this is what would happen…I think that chaos would occur and then yes the man with the most power would be in charge and we would no longer have any options as to life directions.
Read more: http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1O7TZqFL2
In response to baroqueboy,
“McCoy seems to have an implicit commitment to self-interest over the principle of community….he would rather fulfill his individual desires than cooperate in a coherent society..”
Tell me, baroqueboy, why would I have individual desires? Can you tell me that it is in some way immoral or unnatural to have such desires? Are we individuals first, and members of society second? By what machination are we assimilated into a society where our individual desires are suspended and the wants of society made paramount? Where do individual desires end and societal desires begin? You speak as though society is an entity unto itself where it possesses a common purpose and morality that draws upon the consent of all who belong; and what if I choose not to belong? You also speak of a “coherent society”, as though such a thing exists at this time. If a group of irresponsible, unreasonable, oppressive people form into a society, is it incumbent upon those who disagree with their commands to participate even though them may call themselves a “coherent society”?
I also disagree with your statement, “shirk my societal duties”. What, exactly, are my “societal duties”? Do I owe anything to anybody, individually or collectively, other than to be peaceable, respectful, reasonable, and tolerant? What of my personal resources are owed to anyone? How does my focus on my life deprive society of anything? And where does this society come from and who are its members? What are the limits of the claims that society can make upon me, possibly to my own detriment?
Baroqueboy seems to believe that people working without external, coercive authority would be chaos, therefore the need to control people. Yet, I say that government produces a chaos that is orchestrated by those in power for the benefit of those in power. He says that, “…the man with the most power would be in charge and we would no longer have any options as to life directions.” This is exactly what we have with government. There are men with power in charge of the lazy masses who tax, regulate, and exploit them. They are called legislators, police, judges, mayors, councilmen…. Does baroqueboy believe he is in control of these men, or does he believe his cooperation is justly demanded? Is it that he believes his individual desires must yield to such men in order to maintain his illusion of a coherent society?
I think baroqueboy is sadly mistaken and misguided. People operating in freely-chosen societies absent external, coercive authority can do better for their purposes since they are free to participate or not.
FREEDOM // LIBERTY am I at liberty to get a freezer on a bike in summer a peddal around and sell some popcycles or hotdogs on my public side walks like the icecream trucks without having to consult a lawyer who i cannot afford at 600.00 an hour NO only in TEXAS have I seen a State that didnt seem to mind the mexicans peddaling around selling grilled ears of corn wrapped in foil and tammallies THAT IS FREEDOM NOT THIS SHIT I SEE IN MICHIGAN OR ANYWHERE ELSE IVE LIVED )o,,, NAZI POLICE STATE THUGS ALL I SEE EVERYWHERE I GO,,,o( FALSE FLAG OIL NAZIs )o,,,
COMMUNITY = COMMUNISM = COMMIE……WACO….well I guess it has to be a communiy of their standards or ELSE )o,,, Yes I saw the original missing CBC video of the tank spewing fire from its barrel NOT smoke burning men women and CHILDREN ALIVE,,,o(
GUARENTEED A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT =P AS long as its the 2 parties your given to choose from and if you try to get a 3rd party by (us(big brother / the cartel)(U.S. Gov.) We now have in place the 2 party dictatorships LIFE ALERT (ELECTRONIC VOTING hahahaha with NO traceable paper ballots) We will try and keep up the appearance of choice but good luck finding liberty. Hmm I am at liberty to what rent a garage and start changing oil and doin small time mechanics. NO i got a bunch of freaking muck put in place to keep me down a scam of legal ease to sort whatever screw you .gov ..|..
A BND reader, baroqueboy, completely misunderstands anarchist philosophy.
His profile is here
http://disqus.com/mcclatchy-de2e16a97f404d826747d6ff234d5e19/
Marc MkKoy seems to have an implicit commitment to aprinciple of self-interest over the principle of community. That is, he would
rather fulfill his individual desires than cooperate in a coherent society,which would require that, each one act for the good of the group.
Accordingly,the principles of individualism as spouted by McCoy states that his needs aremet by himself outside of the community and he is willing to shirk his societal
duties in favor of fulfilling his individual desires.
The rest of us live our lives trying to cooperate and use reasonable means, a democratically elected government, traditional agreed upon laws to control our environment, which requires work and sacrifice on the part of responsible members of a society.
The term “anarchy”, the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority, in my opinion best
describes McCoy’s approach and worldview.
True Anarchists advocate a philosophy that presupposes that given the absence of the state, inherent human nature would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviors. I do not think that this is what would happen₦I think that chaos would occur and then yes the man with the most power would be in charge and we would no longer have any options as to life directions.
Read more: http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/01/1730825/letters-61.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1O7TZqFL2
In response to baroqueboy,
“McCoy seems to have an implicit commitment to self-interest over the principle of community….he would rather fulfill his individual desires than cooperate in a coherent society..”
Tell me, baroqueboy, why would I have individual desires? Can you tell me that it is in some way immoral or unnatural to have such desires? Are we individuals first, and members of society second? By what machination are we assimilated into a society where our individual desires are suspended and the wants of society made paramount? Where do individual desires end and societal desires begin? You speak as though society is an entity unto itself where it possesses a common purpose and morality that draws upon the consent of all who belong; and what if I choose not to belong? You also speak of a “coherent society”, as though such a thing exists at this time. If a group of irresponsible, unreasonable, oppressive people form into a society, is it incumbent upon those who disagree with their commands to participate even though them may call themselves a “coherent society”?
I also disagree with your statement, “shirk my societal duties”. What, exactly, are my “societal duties”? Do I owe anything to anybody, individually or collectively, other than to be peaceable, respectful, reasonable, and tolerant? What of my personal resources are owed to anyone? How does my focus on my life deprive society of anything? And where does this society come from and who are its members? What are the limits of the claims that society can make upon me, possibly to my own detriment?
Baroqueboy seems to believe that people working without external, coercive authority would be chaos, therefore the need to control people. Yet, I say that government produces a chaos that is orchestrated by those in power for the benefit of those in power. He says that, “…the man with the most power would be in charge and we would no longer have any options as to life directions.” This is exactly what we have with government. There are men with power in charge of the lazy masses who tax, regulate, and exploit them. They are called legislators, police, judges, mayors, councilmen…. Does baroqueboy believe he is in control of these men, or does he believe his cooperation is justly demanded? Is it that he believes his individual desires must yield to such men in order to maintain his illusion of a coherent society?
I think baroqueboy is sadly mistaken and misguided. People operating in freely-chosen societies absent external, coercive authority can do better for their purposes since they are free to participate or not.
Automaton, Bev Mattison, further illustrates how unthinking sycophants have, with rudimentary proficiency, mastered the skill of sending nonsensical babble to the Editor of the Belleville News Democrat, by way of her letter on 6/14/11.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/14/1747636/letters-614.html
Go ahead and seek justice
Letter writers Charles Sullivan and Mark McCoy are an interesting pair. They both seem to believe government is evil, attempting to control people, and that I am naive for not realizing it.
Well, if a person thinks government is seizing his rights, he should challenge the government. Make a case. Take it to the courts. No one is preventing him from acting on his beliefs. If he feels so strongly, he should take action. Complaining in a newspaper doesn’t get it done.
I personally don’t feel the need to challenge every law I don’t agree with on constitutional grounds. However, a person is convinced a law is an enormous infringement on his personal freedoms, go for it. Don’t let anyone stop him.
No one is stating America is perfect. It’s not and never will be. However, we do have a court system that allows any citizen to seek justice if he feels he has been denied. Dwelling on persecution fantasies doesn’t get it done.
By the way, I am familiar with McCoy’s website and as a rule I try never to make the same mistake twice. So looking at it again is a no.
As for Sullivan’s statement that the Second Amendment covers concealed carry, the Second Amendment states: “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.”
I agree, but could those muskets be concealed under a militia jacket?
Bev Mattison
Fairview Heights
Read more: http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/14/1747636/letters-614.html#ixzz1PFTTL7Cb
Yeah i guess in wars back then they didnt have pistols. Derp ah derp…The first pistols were created around the 1500`s. I guess soap operas dont do much history. And this person works for government bah what a crock. The statement of well regulated malitias is to protect malitias right to assemble wwith their arms and the right of the people to keep and bear…. keep…bear…keep(to remain in ownership and have possetion) bear…bear..to bear ( to show, to reveal ) . Shall not be infringed. And if you try and make a claim that the world is any safer than when indians roamed the woods and robbers & looters rode horses. Well I would guess you can afford to live in upscale neighboorhoods where your out of touch with the reality of how bad some people have it just to safely get from their house to their car. Oh my god I wish my country werent so full of uneducated indoctornated foolish SHEEPLE )o,,, That obviosly dont even understand (Your Government HAS NO AUTHORITY that is not specificaly granted to it by the Constitution and its Amendments) You cant tell anyone how someone has to carry anything your all a freaking joke anyway listen to your own ignorance go back and read the freaking Constitution you lazy turds in Government. NOT TO MENTION SUCKING THE NIPPLE OF THE PEOPLE, MILKING THE MEAGER REWARDS OF OUR LABORs TAXING OUR HOMES TO THE POINT AS SOON AS WE ARE UNABLE TO WORK TO KEEP up with property taxes you can come take it so our grandmothers have nowhere to live! Life long polititians get the hell out after 2 yrs never to work in another tax subsidised job. PASSING BILLS FOR OVER 70 yrs without reading them. You DO NOT REPRESENT US. You represent your coffers that give you money. You forced your public education on me for 12 yrs and i get out with NO knowledge of the real world just more or less fabrication of history,some math skills, social studies (letting you know theres a mess of crap my countrys been sticking its nose in and mucking up my countrys reputation around the world and at home) AND after those 12 yrs of indoctranation you dont even leave me with the skills to get threw your legal muck to even open a restraunt. Even then when I work at a restraunt i here how they have to buy thier food from only your mafia monopoly fied CISCO )o,,, Up YOURS U.S.A. inc. ,,,o( DIE NEW WORLD FALSE FLAG OIL NAZI MASONIC SKULL N BONES ORDER =p P.S. Planning on sueing you for economic terrorism and economic discrimination derilict of duty TREASON….THE PROFF IS MOUNTING AND MOUNTING AND MOUNTING,,,o( The guilty know they were a party to it and their own mouths will will give me all i need to prove beyond resonable doubt we Americans were set up to fail through their treason and the evidence is undeniable )o,,,TRAITORS KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND YOUR ACTIONS GIVE YOU AWAY,,,o(
Automaton, Bev Mattison, further illustrates how unthinking sycophants have, with rudimentary proficiency, mastered the skill of sending nonsensical babble to the Editor of the Belleville News Democrat, by way of her letter on 6/14/11.
http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/14/1747636/letters-614.html
Go ahead and seek justice
Letter writers Charles Sullivan and Marc MkKoy are an interesting pair. They both seem to believe government is evil, attempting to control people, and that I am naive for not realizing it.
Well, if a person thinks government is seizing his rights, he should challenge the government. Make a case. Take it to the courts. No one is preventing him from acting on his beliefs. If he feels so strongly, he should take action. Complaining in a newspaper doesn’t get it done.
I personally don’t feel the need to challenge every law I don’t agree with on constitutional grounds. However, a person is convinced a law is an enormous infringement on his personal freedoms, go for it. Don’t let anyone stop him.
No one is stating America is perfect. It’s not and never will be. However, we do have a court system that allows any citizen to seek justice if he feels he has been denied. Dwelling on persecution fantasies doesn’t get it done.
By the way, I am familiar with McCoy’s website and as a rule I try never to make the same mistake twice. So looking at it again is a no.
As for Sullivan’s statement that the Second Amendment covers concealed carry, the Second Amendment states: “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.”
I agree, but could those muskets be concealed under a militia jacket?
Bev Mattison
Fairview Heights
Read more: http://www.bnd.com/2011/06/14/1747636/letters-614.html#ixzz1PFTTL7Cb
Well said…Id almost think ya wrote the movies of william wallace and rob roy