Monday, April 21, 2008

Shields Mightier Than the Pen

My Sunday print column is up. It's about frequent Spencerblog poster C. Scott Shields, his lawsuit against Philadelphia for its new gun ordinance, and his giving Rutledge borough council president Greg Lebold heartburn.

49 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 21, 2008 at 4:45 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Why, that doesn’t sound very Lib “tolerant” at all, Dave. What you post here is much more offensive than anything Mr. S has posted.
See how Libs really feel. They really don’t like others having free speech if it is contrary to their warped Lib agenda.
Is there any further question as to just who is the most intolerant hate filled poster on this blog?

Mr. S is a good man. Keep up the good work!

April 21, 2008 at 4:55 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"Sounds like a cause for a class action suit against him for libel or slander or defamation-of-character for claiming all the gays are suffering from a mental impairment."

David,

C. Scott is entitled to his opinions, just like you are entitled to yours. That you would like to see him sued to shut him up, suggests an illiberal understanding of the First Amendment.

That you would like to see your perceived enemies arrested for expressing views you dislike, suggests something a bit darker.
Jonah Goldberg called it "liberal fascism."

Your understanding of the law both civil and criminal leaves a lot to be desired and little to be admired.

April 21, 2008 at 5:47 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 21, 2008 at 9:22 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Talk about ill Liberal...

Dave, you are the problem.

April 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

David Diano said...

"He and his pal are purposely creating a public nuisance and diverting the cops from crime prevention (or donut eating) and wasting taxpayer dollars."

Wow Dave, my neighbor (an Upper Darby police officer) wouldn't take your statement too kindly, as well as probably 99.9 percent of just about every police officer in the U.S.

Seriously, who you want to run the White House?

April 22, 2008 at 3:50 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Awesome article. Mayor C. Scott's got strong opinions but refuses to waiver from them. I'd love to meet the guy one of these days.

I do still want to hear Scott's opinion about notification of lost or stolen guns.

"Donut Eating"? Why not start calling all of them "pigs" while you're at it?

April 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

LOL, "liberal gadfly from havertown"

April 22, 2008 at 9:51 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Shields isn't trying to protect or advance the First Amendment, but rather exploiting it for his own gain and ego. He's no better than someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Ahh, yes, there's the usual Liberal with the conspiracy theory. When it's the left wing, it's free speech, when it's the right wing, there's always a conspiracy. I guess free speech belongs to the left, right everyone?

April 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I don't think anyone was surprised that Lib Dave displayed the usual Lib anti-cop attitude. And all the while he misplaces his sympathies with criminals -particularly black ones.
Yep, Dave's all Lib.

April 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

again, when it's the libs, it's free speech. When its the right, it's a conspiracy. Sit back, dear gadfly, Mayor C. Scott's busy defending our rights, and leaving his ego at the hockey rink.

April 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Yeah, especially when one considers the many distortions and outright lies the Left regularly feeds the masses. Lying is not protected free speech.

And I don’t think it should be legal for Libs to scream things like “racist!” in a crowded country, designed to do nothing other than silence others’ freedom of speech, when they have nothing to back their slanderous charge.

April 22, 2008 at 1:23 PM 
Anonymous r said...

…or “global warming!” in a crowded planet.

April 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Steve:

I apologize for not answering your prior question about the lost gun ordinance. As I see it, it will make anyone who doesn't report a lost or stolen gun a criminal which is problematic for people who have guns but only touch them when they go hunting or to the range on an infrequent basis. It is also problematic for dealers and collectors that don't take an inventory every day. I have a gun dealer client who had a handgun stolen from his inventory, he reported it stolen. The bad guy got caught in Philly with the gun while dealing drugs, subjecting the bad guy to a 5 year minimum mandatory sentence, but the revolving door Philly justice system dropped ALL of the charges, and my dealer friend was told that he had to file for a court hearing to get his property back. Justice is grand...

Diano Edwards:

You obviously know nothing about the Constitution, like many Judges. Question: would it be illegal for Philadelphia to pass an ordinance banning abortions in Phila?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 23, 2008 at 1:13 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano Edwards:

First, the pro death/pro choice groups would freak out if the City banned abortions or regulated them by making it more burdensome on women to kill their unborn.

As for reporting lost/stolen firearms, as an owner you have a duty to know if something is missing, and a duty to report it. As for a gun dealer who had a weapon stolen, what other products that are stolen is there any requirement to defend yourself on the reasons why it was stolen. Isn't the real issue about the person that stole it? Also, why not impose the minimum mandatory on this particular guy? There were no issues with his arrest, I spoke with the detective assigned and he shook his head stating that they arrest the bad guys and the courts let them go. It is a great system for the criminals, but the law abiding have to suffer losing their freedoms.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 23, 2008 at 5:44 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Mayor C. Scott, thanks for the reply.

The debate over gun control obviously goes back to our second amendment, where it is our "right" to bear arms, as opposed to a "privilege". Scott, I am assuming this is the arguement you made, and, per the amendment, I don't disagree with the ruling from a strictly interpretative perspective. A Driver's License is a privilege that can be restricted or taken away through Commonwealth Powers. However, per the amendment, the right "cannot be infringed upon".

I would prefer gun control, but I think the interpretation is rather clear on this one. I also don't see a change to the amendment anytime soon, as it has remained in tact for over 200 years now.

So, in this case, Scott, what would you do?

Personally, I don't believe more-strict prison sentances will scare criminals off.

April 23, 2008 at 8:45 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Steve:

The primary argument is always that the 2nd amendment says the right shall not be infringed by gov't. The other argument, and I think the better argument is that we have a State constitution that is an independent source of rights providing more protection than the 2nd amendment, and which is also an inviolate right of man. (Art. I, section 25 of the PA Constitution).

People don't talk about the various state constitutions, but they can always provide greater relief than the Federal constitution. That said, some of my clients on the first and second amendment claims are now focusing on the various state constitutions as an alternate and greater source of protection.

As for stiffer sentences, I belive that the only way to control the criminal use of firearms is to control the criminal. If there was a 10 or 15 year minimum mandatory sentence for the criminal use or possession of a firearm, along with mandatory ENFORCEMENT of the minimum sentences, you would see a dramatic reduction in the criminal use of firearms.

Chitwood took a shot at the NRA last week over the double homicide in Upper Darby, without acknowledging that it was gang and drug related. In my opinion, Chitwood needs to go after the gang bangers and the drug dealers and leave the law abiding citizen alone.

Sounds good, but the politicians don't have the guts to impose greater sentences as they get more mileage from vilifying the gun.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 23, 2008 at 11:24 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Yes. Libs love to shift blame to others and vilify inanimate objects all the while calling names. Like angry children Libs are.

Our State Constitution actually goes even farther in protecting our gun rights. It says that our right to keep and bear arms “shall not be questioned”. Not even questioned!
So technically, you could sue the Lib gun grabbers for violating our rights just for questioning those rights. Right, Mr. S? You should start with Dave. Lol…

April 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Randal:

Actually, I have advocated the arrest of Nutter and City Council for knowingly violating our rights. The statute is called Official Oppression, and it is in the chapter called Abuse of Office.

Diano Edwards:

Question:

What would happen if the City passed ordinances in the City to require homosexuals to register, under the guise that a good many homosexuals have aids, and that there is a health concern to the police and emergency personnel to know when they go to a home that they could be handling someone who is bleeding and who also has aids. Apply the same rationale to that scenario as to what Lower Chi was trying to do requiring new residents to tell the police how many and what types of guns and ammo they had.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 23, 2008 at 3:03 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I love how Canada is even more gun-loving than us yet their muder rate nationwide barely reaches three digits. Maybe it's something in the snow...

April 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The Canucks have a very different, umm, demographic than us, Steve. African blood no likey it cold.



Great guns & homos comparison, Mr. S!

April 23, 2008 at 9:04 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 23, 2008 at 10:47 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Randal hits a new low in attributing Canada's reduced murder rate to its relative shortage of blacks.

Umm, I think you mean I hit a new truth, Apologist Dave. And the truth is never "racist". Sorry.
If you were unaware or in denial, that would be one thing. But you're not. You well know this to be the truth. So once again you're just an apologist liar attemtping to vilify the messenger delivering a message you don't want others to hear.

And don't you worry about others' guns. MYOB and don't own one if you don't want to. If you haven't noticed, our society doesn't pay much mind to shrill gun-fearing cowards like you and your silly gripes.

Straights should be able to sue gays for infecting them with AIDS.

April 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano Edwards:

I will give up the fight about gays and the risk of HIV. Suppose Phila passes an ordinance that you keep your weight at a predetermined level, and that if you are overweight, that you pay more (surcharge) for medical coverage and emergency services, since we know that being overweight is not healthy and could injure an emergency worker who tries to pick them up or move them.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 25, 2008 at 1:28 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Diano Edwards:

No such thing as a gun free safe zone. Read what John Lott has to say. he did a real study on that issue.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 25, 2008 at 8:27 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Wow. Look at all the words. Dave sure is a gun-fearing coward! Lol… What say you MYOB and just not get a gun if you don’t want one, Dave.

And gays knowingly infected straights with AIDS. So there should be some legal recourse, right? You know, like the Big Tobacco settlement. Hehehe…

April 25, 2008 at 11:05 AM 
Anonymous r said...

I think that since Dave is such an attention hound that his fragile feelings were hurt by Gil not including him by name in his column.
There, there, Dave. It will all be ok.

April 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM 
Anonymous r said...

"there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime."

So what you are saying is that more guns in society DO NOT cause more gun crime. Good. I'm glad to see you're coming around and we finally agree on this.



Psst... That a point.

;)

April 26, 2008 at 11:27 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 27, 2008 at 12:52 AM 
Anonymous r said...

My, what ever happened to your silly musket "argument"?

(snicker-snicker)

And who said it was Libs' job to save everyone from themselves and guns? What gives you the right?

April 27, 2008 at 1:46 AM 
Anonymous r said...

What’s it your business what goes on in other people’s bedrooms… er, I mean homes?

Suicides… How is that any of your business? You have the mindset that something is dangerous and wrong so this somehow gives you the right to challenge others’ rights and –if you had your way- legislate what goes on in their own homes to save them from themselves. Once again you are just plain old wrong. And you sound like a weepy woman.

April 27, 2008 at 1:52 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Puff Daddy Diano:

If two gay guys can sodomize each other in the privacy of their bedroom, why can't I have the same privacy right for my arsenal?

Also, why do elitist politicians want to take away our guns and our ability to defend ourselves and families, yet they have armed protection for themselves and loved ones? If they take our guns, who then will be responsible to protect us? If government confiscates all guns, will the elitist politicians give up their armed protection?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 27, 2008 at 8:46 AM 
Anonymous r said...

If two gay guys can sodomize each other in the privacy of their bedroom, why can't I have the same privacy right for my arsenal?

Hey, I get the assist on that one! Lol...

April 27, 2008 at 12:33 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

(sigh) Once again, it is not for you to decide, Dave. Certainly you –of all people- cannot be trusted to rationally decide what is a “legitimate need” or a “reasonable” or “excess” amount of anything, given your shrill and cowardly feminine fear of guns. Maybe we should consult cats about regulating dogs too? Lol…

See, only in your gun-fearing mind does the mere presence of a gun in a home constitute a “potentially unsafe environment”. Should parents also be required to disclose if there is a dog in the household? A smoker? Ashtrays? Knives? Hammers? Turtles? Porn? Dildos? How about a gay? I’ll bet lots of folks would want to exercise their “right” to keep their kids away from that “potentially unsafe” influence. And don’t worry, it wouldn’t infringe on the gay’s rights. (hehehe)

And since when did we start “registering potential offenders” anyway? Are you sure you want to take us there? What if Shield’s says gays are “potential sex offenders” and should be registered? Will you go along with this? (hehehe, again)

You are a Slippery Sloper. This is clear. You’re not fooling anyone, Dave. And your fear of guns goes beyond irrational into, well, childish. You’re all about your “feelings”. This is why cowardly Libs like you have largely been dismissed from the gun debate. You have no one to blame but yourself and your blind childish Liberalism feelings.

April 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Lol… A smoker in a home, even if not actively smoking, is still a secondhand smoke threat because they could potentially light up! LMAO!...

What a dishonest coward...

April 27, 2008 at 3:15 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Heck, given the overwhelming black crime rate, having a black male in the home could certainly be considered by some to be a “potential threat” to violent crime occurring even if he wasn’t actively crimeing. So should parents have to disclose the existence of a black in their home? After all, doing so won’t violate his rights. (hehehe)

Libs are fun!

April 27, 2008 at 3:55 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 27, 2008 at 10:46 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Parents also have the right to keep their children away from second hand smoke.

Sure. But we ain’t about to legislate it, pal! Lol…

how many kids are killed each year from turtles, porn, dildos, and ashtrays?

One is too many! We must banish all those dangerous items from people’s homes!

blahweepblahweepshrillgunfearingLibliesdishonestcheapshotatourPresidentblahblah

Yeah? Well, blahblahblah to you too!
I think that you should put a sign on your front lawn letting every parent know that yours is a “Gun Free Home”. That is, if you’re not afraid to. (snicker)

If the Klan had universities, you'd be receiving scholarships or a teaching position.

And with your White Guilt and talent for shifting blame you are qualified to instruct at onea them Habitually Black Colleges and Universities!

April 28, 2008 at 12:37 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Puff Daddy Diano:

Thank the lord that we are still free and that poeple like you don't rule us. Your hatred of guns is as irrational as anything you have ever said. Without a gun and the constitutional right to police protection, how are you supposed to protect yourself from a misunderstood criminal who did not get their fair share of the pie?

I agree that there are irresponsible gun owners and that accidents happen, but I also know that more kids die in automobiles and accidental drownings than are killed acccidently by a firearm.

Anyway, if we can regulate guns your way, how about fast cars, swimming pools, beer, bourbon, cigarettes, heavy televisions, rectangular coffee tables, knives, golf clubs, baseball bats, dogs, or just plain old liberal IGNORANCE?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com

April 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

“Guns don’t kill people, Liberalism does.”

I propose a separation of Liberalism and State.
Whereas Libism has been proven many times over to be shortsighted and misguided and backwards and harmful and just plain childish,
Thereby it and its idiot purveyors should be precluded from all policy considerations, be it waging war, social reforms or regulating guns.

(No, I’m serious.)

April 28, 2008 at 12:31 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even though even now many others tend to be
more budget aware.

Also visit my website - http://www.getfitnstrong.com/adjustable-dumbbells/dumbbell-sets/

May 11, 2013 at 11:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Essentially it deals with muscular energy, cardio respiratory stamina, flexibility and your muscular
endurance.

Here is my page :: bowflex adjustable dumbbells

May 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then shift to totally free weights to develop muscle mass and perform stabilizer muscles.


Have a look at my web blog; click the next internet page

June 7, 2013 at 9:55 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nonetheless let's go into the Bodylastics bands overview and go over what I contemplate to be three one of the most vital components you really need to continue to keep in mind when you are thinking about acquiring any piece of training devices.

Also visit my web blog 100 pound dumbbells

June 12, 2013 at 4:09 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home