 |
|
Supporters'
Replies
These are just
some of the letters we received at the campaign,
which were sent to the Denver Post in response to a letter to the
editor
they published on June 6, 2002. That letter was written by Ted
Remington in response to Rick's act of civil disobedience, and
can
be read by clicking here.
| This
response from Ari Armstrong was printed in the Denver
Post on Thursday, June 13, 2002. On civil disobedience Re: "Libertarian's action at Civic Center was anything but civil disobedience," June 6, The Open Forum. Apparently, Ted Remington believes any law supported by the majority is necessarily just. By Remington's standard, segregation was just, and Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong in fighting those laws. Remington is wrong. Libertarians know that individual rights trump majority rule and that Rosa Parks is a great hero. Rick Stanley carried a loaded gun on his hip in Denver to protest the city's disarmament ordinance, which he believes is unconstitutional and unjust. Remington compares Stanley's peaceful act to an act of murder. Remington's suggestion is absurd. The definition of "civil disobedience" is engaging in peaceful behavior to break a law one believes is unjust, in order to encourage the repeal of the law. Remington says Stanley should move to where "people don't speak English, you can't drink the water, and there are no seats on the toilets." On the contrary: people willing to go to jail to peaceably protest unjust laws deserve the highest seats of honor in our society (whether they speak English or not). ARI ARMSTRONG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Ralph Shnelvar, Libertarian Party nominee for Colorado Governor 2002 In regards to Ted Remington and "Libertarian guilty in gun case," May 17 news story. Mr. Remington neither understands what civil disobedience means nor what the rule of law is. I am running on the Libertarian Party ticket for Governor of Colorado and I enthusiastically support Rick Stanley's act of courage and civil disobedience to demonstrate that Denver's ordinance prohibiting guns is unconstitutional under both Colorado and Federal Constitutions. Just because Denver's city council passes an ordinance does not make the ordinance either legal or moral. Even illegal laws passed by the U.S. Congress can and are successfully challenged by those who choose to "break the law" in order to make a test case. If the Denver City Council decided by some corrupt majority that only Republican advertisements might be carried in the City of Denver, would our Democrat friend, Mr. Remington, support such a law or violate it by an act of civil disobedience by handing out pro-Democrat literature? The Denver City Council illegally stepped on our Second Amendment rights. Mr. Stanley successfully demonstrated that the Denver courts are as vacuous as Mr. Remington's inane arguments. Ralph Shnelvar, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From John Gurley, Libertarian candidate for Sheriff in Mesa County 2002 Libertarians act at the Civic Center was anything but Civil Disobedience. Editor, In regard to Ted Remington's letter denigrating Libertarian Rick Stanley, what does Remington think of our Constitution? That you can just pick and choose the parts you like or do not like? Mr. Stanley's courageous actions were a peaceful demonstration against an unconstitutional law. The Second Amendment clearly states, "Shall not be infringed" and any law restricting this most important right needs to be repealed immediately. Gun control is always the first step for governments to enslave the people. Sincerely, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Ted Remington's letter, "Libertarian's action at Civic Center was anything but civil disobedience" Mr. Remington obviously knows nothing about the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. Rick Stanley's protest was called Civil Disobedience because that's what it was. He disobeyed an unconstitutional "law" to bring injustice to light. Now everyone can see that Denver has passed a "law" that violates both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. Denver has a street named Martin Luther King Blvd to honor an American hero who gave his life for the cause of liberty and justice for all. How many unjust laws did the good Reverend break before he was murdered? How much better off are we, today, because he and others like him would not meekly submit to blatant injustice masquerading as "law"? The only place Rick Stanley is going to hie himself off to is the U.S. Senate. The Libertarians, the disaffected voters, the unaffiliated, and everyone else who wants truth and justice are going to put him there. I suggest you and your kind start looking around for a nice socialist country to move to. This is the USA. Our supreme law is the Constitution. Many brave Americans have died defending it. Love it or leave it, Mr. Remington. Michael T. McKinzie ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is in regards to the letter that Ted Remington wrote. Ted, that country you spoke of where "people don't speak English, you can't drink the water, and there are no seats on the toilets." I'd pack up and move there in a heartbeat if I thought my rights as an American citizen were going to be taken away. The most basic right I have is to stage a non-violent, civil act of disobedience. Just like the one Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for Senate, did. The First Amendment guarantees that right to me. There are civil consequences of course. Just as Martin Luther King Jr. spent time in the Birmingham jail, so I would spend time in the Denver jail. I'm prepared to commit a non-violent protest. Are you prepared to condemn me? You don't have to agree with Rick's position on gun law issues, but you have to protect his right to stage acts of non-violent, civil disobedience as an American. Ted wrote, "Would you have called it an act of civil disobedience if Mr. Stanley had pulled out the gun and shot Senator Allard while declaring that he was doing so to make a point that the laws against murder are invalid?" Of course not, Ted. That would have been a criminal act. Just as I applaud the acts of Martin Luther King Jr. while condemning the race riots that happened after his death, I applaud the peaceful acts of Rick Stanley, while condemning your anti-freedom, anti-American letter. You want a country where protesting is illegal? It's too bad the Tailban government has been demolished, because you would have fit right in! Sincerely, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The biggest problem with Mr. Remington's statement is that he is obviously unaware of what Liberty is. Liberty means the ability to do whatever you please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another person. So, let's take his examples. 1) Rick Stanley openly carrying in defiance of a law suspending the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution which secures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms: I'm at a loss. How do Mr. Stanley's actions here infringe on anyone's rights? From where I stand, he's deliberately disobeying a law that directly DOES infringe on Mr. Stanley's rights, so therefore it is what Mr. Remington doesn't like to call 'civil disobedience.' 2) Rick Stanley shooting Senator Allard: Well now, that would be Mr. Stanley directly infringing on Mr. Allard's right to live. Therefore that is Stanley directly infringing on the right of another person to live. That is illegal based on the original frame of what the Founding Fathers laid out for us. Other great people in history have ordered civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King for example: "We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we will not obey your evil laws. We will soon wear you down by pure capacity to suffer." So by defying laws that directly discriminate against blacks, by Mr. Remington's standards, Dr. King should 'hie himself off somewhere' where blacks are not hated for the color of their skin. The same thing goes for Rosa Parks. She didn't want to sit at the back of the bus just because she was black so they kicked her off. According to Mr. Remington, the bus driver should have boxed Mrs. Parks up and sent her to that same land Dr. King went to. I suggest Mr. Remington take his own advice and hie himself over to say China, where people are not allowed to challenge their government out of fear of execution. Where people are not allowed to own firearms to protect themselves and where people's lives and family are controlled by government down to whether or not the people can have children. That sounds to me like Mr. Remington's utopia. I like Rick right where he is today. Here. Ken Ross ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously Ted Remington does not know the difference between an act of violence and an act of civil disobedience! Does he know the difference between a just and an unjust law? Rick Stanley had no intention of using it, except to make a point and wake up people to all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed that restrict everyone's freedom, for the sake of a minority few or for some illusion of security! This kind of rhetoric is what has enslaved us all to the politics of corruption that we now have. Does the "Home Rule" of the Country of Denver take precidence over the US Constitution? If it does, we have sunk to the depths of hell... like a frog in a pot of water on the stove, who will die a slow death before it realizes what has happened. What would have happened if our country's forefathers had not acted in disobedience for the rights of all? What will happen to us, as we die a slow death by asphixiation from the corruption of our Constitution? Deborah Hamm |
This web site paid
for by Stanley for Senate. All rights reserved.
Contact the webmaster. Contact the campaign.