<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ban on &#8220;Stop and Frisk&#8221; Leads to Murder of 1-Year-Old</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 01:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271841</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I meant limiting the scope of this particular discussion.  I haven&#039;t got all day to write a philosophical treatise and then discuss the implications of it on everything from the specific way I&#039;d go about privatizing the roads to whether the government should let gay bakers turn down business from straight people.  You kept asking for a bigger picture or something comprehensive, and I don&#039;t know what you expect in this format beyond what I already provided:  my opinion that the Constitution cannot be bent or flexed or otherwise adapted to justify stop and frisk policies.  How that becomes favoring the opposition I don&#039;t know.  You are correct that the state has weakened the individual&#039;s ability to act in his own defense, but the solution is not to give it more latitude for harassing us while we walk around disarmed.  That&#039;s not consistent.  Consistent would be fighting for gun rights and the right not to be stopped and asked for our papers.  If constitutional limits on the state and freedom for the individual are the goal, then stop and frisk is the last thing that we should be tolerating.  I agree with the last two paragraphs of the above post.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant limiting the scope of this particular discussion.  I haven&#8217;t got all day to write a philosophical treatise and then discuss the implications of it on everything from the specific way I&#8217;d go about privatizing the roads to whether the government should let gay bakers turn down business from straight people.  You kept asking for a bigger picture or something comprehensive, and I don&#8217;t know what you expect in this format beyond what I already provided:  my opinion that the Constitution cannot be bent or flexed or otherwise adapted to justify stop and frisk policies.  How that becomes favoring the opposition I don&#8217;t know.  You are correct that the state has weakened the individual&#8217;s ability to act in his own defense, but the solution is not to give it more latitude for harassing us while we walk around disarmed.  That&#8217;s not consistent.  Consistent would be fighting for gun rights and the right not to be stopped and asked for our papers.  If constitutional limits on the state and freedom for the individual are the goal, then stop and frisk is the last thing that we should be tolerating.  I agree with the last two paragraphs of the above post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271838</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 03:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271838</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Consistency doesn&#039;t imply or require simplicity.  I did not and do not conflate the two.  Conservatives are inconsistent when they claim to be for freedom but concede that a little bit of statism is necessary.  In general they&#039;re Democrat-lite.  They aren&#039;t consistent advocates of freedom.  That&#039;s what I meant by consistency.  It has no implications one way or the other for simplicity or complexity.  I would never say that one should pretend anything.  The left has won a great number of victories, usually for lack of effective opposition, but when free choice is available to human beings the outcome of any given ideological fight is not inevitable.  There is right and there is wrong, moral and immoral, but which will prevail on both individual and historical scales is anything but pre-ordained.  If by civil war you mean literal war, then we are not yet at that point.  The US exhibits many elements of dictatorship at this point, but we are still free to blog, associate, petition, assemble, and vote to change and negate those elements.  When those avenues for political change close, then it will be time to talk about war.  It&#039;s earlier than people usually think, but we&#039;re also making more progress than is immediately obvious.  Just 20 years ago people didn&#039;t throw the word &quot;socialist&quot; around to describe politicians.  Now it&#039;s common.  There are more political pundits and bloggers trying to re-educate people now than ever before, and that means that people are exposed to ideas like never before.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consistency doesn&#8217;t imply or require simplicity.  I did not and do not conflate the two.  Conservatives are inconsistent when they claim to be for freedom but concede that a little bit of statism is necessary.  In general they&#8217;re Democrat-lite.  They aren&#8217;t consistent advocates of freedom.  That&#8217;s what I meant by consistency.  It has no implications one way or the other for simplicity or complexity.  I would never say that one should pretend anything.  The left has won a great number of victories, usually for lack of effective opposition, but when free choice is available to human beings the outcome of any given ideological fight is not inevitable.  There is right and there is wrong, moral and immoral, but which will prevail on both individual and historical scales is anything but pre-ordained.  If by civil war you mean literal war, then we are not yet at that point.  The US exhibits many elements of dictatorship at this point, but we are still free to blog, associate, petition, assemble, and vote to change and negate those elements.  When those avenues for political change close, then it will be time to talk about war.  It&#8217;s earlier than people usually think, but we&#8217;re also making more progress than is immediately obvious.  Just 20 years ago people didn&#8217;t throw the word &#8220;socialist&#8221; around to describe politicians.  Now it&#8217;s common.  There are more political pundits and bloggers trying to re-educate people now than ever before, and that means that people are exposed to ideas like never before.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271827</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 03:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The most consistent side in any argument will win it.&quot;



Consistency is good as a rule, but that doesn&#039;t mean complexity is always bad. Effectiveness and integrity are guiding absolutes, but not necessarily simplicity. And you&#039;ve conflated consistency with simplicity as far as I can read you here.


Or you&#039;re saying that I must be consistent and pretend that they haven&#039;t won some battles already. There is only a single rigid constitution and it&#039;s plain that I should win? That&#039;s not working.


That&#039;s been tried many times. Do you really think there is any chance of winning that way other than recruiting people for civil war? It&#039;s too easy to paint this view as out of touch with modern issues. And we need to show that most of these modern issues are a result of giving in to emotional socialist ideas rather than just dealing with &quot;the new things of modern progress&quot; because that is BS in all of the contentious issues. Most conservatives and even more libertarians have no problem regulating automobile exhaust for example.


But pretending that &quot;violence&quot; is a modern problem or that is requires a modern &quot;socially just&quot; solution is complete BS, but they&#039;re winning. 


What to do about that? I think the answer is to approach from more than one angle. You&#039;re helping the cause by making part of the argument but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a complete winning strategy. And if you prove me wrong we&#039;ll both be happy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The most consistent side in any argument will win it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Consistency is good as a rule, but that doesn&#8217;t mean complexity is always bad. Effectiveness and integrity are guiding absolutes, but not necessarily simplicity. And you&#8217;ve conflated consistency with simplicity as far as I can read you here.</p>
<p>Or you&#8217;re saying that I must be consistent and pretend that they haven&#8217;t won some battles already. There is only a single rigid constitution and it&#8217;s plain that I should win? That&#8217;s not working.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s been tried many times. Do you really think there is any chance of winning that way other than recruiting people for civil war? It&#8217;s too easy to paint this view as out of touch with modern issues. And we need to show that most of these modern issues are a result of giving in to emotional socialist ideas rather than just dealing with &#8220;the new things of modern progress&#8221; because that is BS in all of the contentious issues. Most conservatives and even more libertarians have no problem regulating automobile exhaust for example.</p>
<p>But pretending that &#8220;violence&#8221; is a modern problem or that is requires a modern &#8220;socially just&#8221; solution is complete BS, but they&#8217;re winning. </p>
<p>What to do about that? I think the answer is to approach from more than one angle. You&#8217;re helping the cause by making part of the argument but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a complete winning strategy. And if you prove me wrong we&#8217;ll both be happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271823</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 03:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively. You said that you&#039;re &quot;trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.&quot; Unless I completely misunderstood you there.&quot;

And if we establish that objectivity is crucial, that means they fail to justify their unconstitutional power grabs. That&#039;s what you want, isn&#039;t it? My goal is not a more objective nanny state. My goal is showing the nanny state that they&#039;ve failed to make their case objectively and therefore we win, which means the nanny state loses.

&quot;They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort.&quot;

Precisely my point.

&quot;This isn&#039;t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc. That&#039;s beyond the scope of the discussion.&quot;



I see. I&#039;d like to refer you to a site I recommend, called &quot;Front Page Magazine&quot; or frontpagemag.com. You might want to check it out.


I agree that you have to limit scope to a degree, but not to the point of favoring the opposition&#039;s objectives and victories. You need to achieve some logical balance. The root cause of this need for the police to react to these high crime areas is not that our state is too weak but that the state has weakened the individual too much. If the police have taken away some of my ability to defend myself because supposedly that&#039;s their job, then I want it done such that it favors law and order with a careful eye of making sure that the state doesn&#039;t also get more powerful in the process.


And laying the groundwork for returning to objectivity in the courts and in congress as part of those battles seems more than just smart, it seems like the only way we can win. If we don&#039;t return to objectivity then this constitution we have will only exist in theory. It will be ideological only and we&#039;ll lose even more. It seems like we&#039;re already close to the point of no return, but I&#039;m no prophet.


There are no inalienable rights without objectivity. You probably agree with that. The way to return to objectivity is to focus on objective arguments and attacking all of the salient emotional arguments that led to the losses we&#039;re dealing with.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively. You said that you&#8217;re &#8220;trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.&#8221; Unless I completely misunderstood you there.&#8221;</p>
<p>And if we establish that objectivity is crucial, that means they fail to justify their unconstitutional power grabs. That&#8217;s what you want, isn&#8217;t it? My goal is not a more objective nanny state. My goal is showing the nanny state that they&#8217;ve failed to make their case objectively and therefore we win, which means the nanny state loses.</p>
<p>&#8220;They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort.&#8221;</p>
<p>Precisely my point.</p>
<p>&#8220;This isn&#8217;t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc. That&#8217;s beyond the scope of the discussion.&#8221;</p>
<p>I see. I&#8217;d like to refer you to a site I recommend, called &#8220;Front Page Magazine&#8221; or frontpagemag.com. You might want to check it out.</p>
<p>I agree that you have to limit scope to a degree, but not to the point of favoring the opposition&#8217;s objectives and victories. You need to achieve some logical balance. The root cause of this need for the police to react to these high crime areas is not that our state is too weak but that the state has weakened the individual too much. If the police have taken away some of my ability to defend myself because supposedly that&#8217;s their job, then I want it done such that it favors law and order with a careful eye of making sure that the state doesn&#8217;t also get more powerful in the process.</p>
<p>And laying the groundwork for returning to objectivity in the courts and in congress as part of those battles seems more than just smart, it seems like the only way we can win. If we don&#8217;t return to objectivity then this constitution we have will only exist in theory. It will be ideological only and we&#8217;ll lose even more. It seems like we&#8217;re already close to the point of no return, but I&#8217;m no prophet.</p>
<p>There are no inalienable rights without objectivity. You probably agree with that. The way to return to objectivity is to focus on objective arguments and attacking all of the salient emotional arguments that led to the losses we&#8217;re dealing with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271811</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree.  Well, I&#039;m not sure what you mean by my direct and scattered approach, but I can tell you that my consistent adherence to my principles has had a direct and meaningful impact on at least two people in my life, neither of whom gave much thought to politics and certainly not to philosophy before we started discussing it.  I didn&#039;t proselytize or harangue; I didn&#039;t even introduce the topics, usually.  I answered questions as they came up, questions usually about current events and my take on them.  Both of these people whom I turned to the Dark Side were receptive to reason and either already understood or were pretty easily convinced of the importance of ideas.  One of these people lives in Seattle, where her exposure to lefty rubbish is considerable.  I don&#039;t know what else I&#039;m supposed to do, other than vote, harass politicians, post commentary like this when it&#039;s warranted, and pay attention to current events so that I&#039;m not an easy mark for ideological hucksters.  If I&#039;m supposed to lead a revolution that overthrows 150 years of statist oppression in three easy steps, then you&#039;ve got the wrong guy.  But I practice what I preach and I can make my case in the context of current events that people notice and which matter to them.  When I encounter people who are receptive or at least open to hearing another opinion than what they&#039;ve held by default, then I can make a case and have an impact on their thinking.  I don&#039;t know who could ask for much more.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  Well, I&#8217;m not sure what you mean by my direct and scattered approach, but I can tell you that my consistent adherence to my principles has had a direct and meaningful impact on at least two people in my life, neither of whom gave much thought to politics and certainly not to philosophy before we started discussing it.  I didn&#8217;t proselytize or harangue; I didn&#8217;t even introduce the topics, usually.  I answered questions as they came up, questions usually about current events and my take on them.  Both of these people whom I turned to the Dark Side were receptive to reason and either already understood or were pretty easily convinced of the importance of ideas.  One of these people lives in Seattle, where her exposure to lefty rubbish is considerable.  I don&#8217;t know what else I&#8217;m supposed to do, other than vote, harass politicians, post commentary like this when it&#8217;s warranted, and pay attention to current events so that I&#8217;m not an easy mark for ideological hucksters.  If I&#8217;m supposed to lead a revolution that overthrows 150 years of statist oppression in three easy steps, then you&#8217;ve got the wrong guy.  But I practice what I preach and I can make my case in the context of current events that people notice and which matter to them.  When I encounter people who are receptive or at least open to hearing another opinion than what they&#8217;ve held by default, then I can make a case and have an impact on their thinking.  I don&#8217;t know who could ask for much more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271810</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively.  You said that you&#039;re &quot;trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.&quot;  Unless I completely misunderstood you there.  They cannot justify the expansion of power objectively and they don&#039;t even want to try.  They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort.  This isn&#039;t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc.  That&#039;s beyond the scope of the discussion.  I&#039;ll take the moral victory, by the way.  I&#039;d rather be right and lose a battle, because I can still win the war.  The statists are wrong, and their entire decrepit edifice is built on lies, human weaknesses, and subjectivity.  They win now because they rely on those lies, weaknesses, and that subjectivity consistently.  The most consistent side in any argument will win it.  When consistency in defense of correct principles is established by the other side, then the victories will come, but when matters of principle are involved there can be no compromise.  To compromise is to concede.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I meant that the state cannot justify its power objectively.  You said that you&#8217;re &#8220;trying to force [statists] to justify [the expansion of power] objectively.&#8221;  Unless I completely misunderstood you there.  They cannot justify the expansion of power objectively and they don&#8217;t even want to try.  They know that their only chance of winning any argument is by appealing to emotion, subjectivity, and the LIV to whom those things are a comfort.  This isn&#8217;t the forum for dealing comprehensively with the issue of how to win minds stunted by decades of government schooling; how to privatize all the schools; how to develop and nurture a society that upholds the rights of the individual and subordinates the state to those rights; etc.  That&#8217;s beyond the scope of the discussion.  I&#8217;ll take the moral victory, by the way.  I&#8217;d rather be right and lose a battle, because I can still win the war.  The statists are wrong, and their entire decrepit edifice is built on lies, human weaknesses, and subjectivity.  They win now because they rely on those lies, weaknesses, and that subjectivity consistently.  The most consistent side in any argument will win it.  When consistency in defense of correct principles is established by the other side, then the victories will come, but when matters of principle are involved there can be no compromise.  To compromise is to concede.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271807</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The only thing you&#039;re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government.&quot;


We&#039;ve already been shafted. You hadn&#039;t noticed? It was already in play long before I was born so I don&#039;t feel too guilty about it personally.


&quot;Today, tomorrow, next week. But shafted. And so will everyone else.&quot;



And your direct methods are successfully tested how? How have you personally demonstrated that your direct and scattered approach is more effective than what I&#039;ve suggested? I&#039;d love to know and love to be wrong here. I like you&#039;re way better, but your way is the most common approach already from those who understand that in absolute terms that you are correct. You just don&#039;t have a way to win the argument according to recent interpretations of the law, although you do hold the dominant majority view on &quot;completely random police frisking.&quot; You&#039;ll win a few battles but the big nanny state will continue to win the war.


Without objectivity in law, you have no republic. You have a pure democracy that might be cloaked in other ideals but it&#039;s still mob rule. Some mobs are simply more polite than others.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The only thing you&#8217;re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government.&#8221;</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve already been shafted. You hadn&#8217;t noticed? It was already in play long before I was born so I don&#8217;t feel too guilty about it personally.</p>
<p>&#8220;Today, tomorrow, next week. But shafted. And so will everyone else.&#8221;</p>
<p>And your direct methods are successfully tested how? How have you personally demonstrated that your direct and scattered approach is more effective than what I&#8217;ve suggested? I&#8217;d love to know and love to be wrong here. I like you&#8217;re way better, but your way is the most common approach already from those who understand that in absolute terms that you are correct. You just don&#8217;t have a way to win the argument according to recent interpretations of the law, although you do hold the dominant majority view on &#8220;completely random police frisking.&#8221; You&#8217;ll win a few battles but the big nanny state will continue to win the war.</p>
<p>Without objectivity in law, you have no republic. You have a pure democracy that might be cloaked in other ideals but it&#8217;s still mob rule. Some mobs are simply more polite than others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271800</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Why don&#039;t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them?&quot;

Because I don&#039;t see an effective way to be as direct as you want to be, but I&#039;m not stopping you from trying either. I&#039;m simply saying that I want these issues to be dealt with comprehensively and objectively. That way when I lose out to emotional arguments at least I&#039;ve planted seeds for the next potential victory.

But like I&#039;ve said in various ways, if you think you can win your way faster than I can, I would love to be proved wrong.

&quot;...you&#039;re &quot;trying to force them to justify it objectively.&quot; They cannot and they will not.&quot;

Objectivity never wins in court? Then you have no constitution at all. You&#039;ve got ideology. 

&quot;And since when is being right the losing side of an argument?&quot;



You&#039;ve never heard of a moral victory losing the day? You&#039;re right in absolute terms but not dealing comprehensively with the issue so you&#039;re not building a compelling case for your argument. That&#039;s because few people believe in absolute interpretations of that &quot;ancient document.&quot;


How about this: You&#039;re absolutely right and good luck. I will be rooting for you. I just won&#039;t be following you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why don&#8217;t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them?&#8221;</p>
<p>Because I don&#8217;t see an effective way to be as direct as you want to be, but I&#8217;m not stopping you from trying either. I&#8217;m simply saying that I want these issues to be dealt with comprehensively and objectively. That way when I lose out to emotional arguments at least I&#8217;ve planted seeds for the next potential victory.</p>
<p>But like I&#8217;ve said in various ways, if you think you can win your way faster than I can, I would love to be proved wrong.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;you&#8217;re &#8220;trying to force them to justify it objectively.&#8221; They cannot and they will not.&#8221;</p>
<p>Objectivity never wins in court? Then you have no constitution at all. You&#8217;ve got ideology. </p>
<p>&#8220;And since when is being right the losing side of an argument?&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve never heard of a moral victory losing the day? You&#8217;re right in absolute terms but not dealing comprehensively with the issue so you&#8217;re not building a compelling case for your argument. That&#8217;s because few people believe in absolute interpretations of that &#8220;ancient document.&#8221;</p>
<p>How about this: You&#8217;re absolutely right and good luck. I will be rooting for you. I just won&#8217;t be following you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271793</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271793</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You might not hand more power to the state, but you&#039;re not trying to reduce that power, either:  you&#039;re &quot;trying to force them to justify it objectively.&quot;  They cannot and they will not.  It cannot be done logically or by any resort to reason.  Why don&#039;t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them?  And since when is being right the losing side of an argument?  If you know that you&#039;re right and you still concede to the people who are wrong, what are you accomplishing?  What are you teaching them about yourself and about their power over you?  Why should they change, if you know you&#039;re right but refuse to fight for it?  There is no bigger picture than our natural rights as protected by the Constitution.  That&#039;s as big as it gets.  We either insist that the government be restrained within those limits, or anything goes, as it has gone for more than a century.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might not hand more power to the state, but you&#8217;re not trying to reduce that power, either:  you&#8217;re &#8220;trying to force them to justify it objectively.&#8221;  They cannot and they will not.  It cannot be done logically or by any resort to reason.  Why don&#8217;t you just skip that part and go straight to getting the power away from them?  And since when is being right the losing side of an argument?  If you know that you&#8217;re right and you still concede to the people who are wrong, what are you accomplishing?  What are you teaching them about yourself and about their power over you?  Why should they change, if you know you&#8217;re right but refuse to fight for it?  There is no bigger picture than our natural rights as protected by the Constitution.  That&#8217;s as big as it gets.  We either insist that the government be restrained within those limits, or anything goes, as it has gone for more than a century.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271789</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The police can disarm criminals until they go blue in the face--once the criminal has committed a crime.  What they can&#039;t do is randomly stop a guy who hasn&#039;t committed a crime just because he got out of his car funny.  Who is responsible for protecting citizens, and when?  Citizens, always.  Case law has established that the police are not responsible for protecting any given citizen.  That&#039;s every man&#039;s job, not the cops&#039;.  The responsibility for my safety is mine.  That&#039;s the case morally, and practically every statistic shows that more guns mean less crime--if the guns are in the hands of the law-abiding.  It doesn&#039;t mean everyone has to be armed; many people probably should not.  But the principle remains:  my safety is my responsibility.  The police and the courts are what happen after a crime has been committed, to ensure that the law is applied equally and objectively.  I do not believe that there should be &quot;gun free,&quot; i.e. &quot;get your disarmed victims here&quot; zones.  Anywhere.  Unless a private business wants to advertise their vulnerability.  You can have your rights violated with oversight if you like and your Constitution bent, and see how far that will get you.  Personally I like my rights intact and my Constitution straight.  Why do you want to limit rights at all?  Why do you want a limited nanny state, instead of no nanny state at all?  The Founders didn&#039;t write the Bill of Rights to provide for limited government meddling in our lives.  What&#039;s a little violation of my right to be secure in my person and papers?  Either I have that right or I do not.  There is no middle ground here.  You are trying to have it both ways, and the government is a double-edged sword.  You like &quot;reduced standards for determining probable cause,&quot; but will you like reduced standards for a free press, or for freedom of association?  Will you like it when the police can make warrantless entry into your home on alternate Wednesdays, but not otherwise because that&#039;s what was determined by a bunch of LIVs?  The only way to protect against the other side of that blade is to return to the principles already established in the Bill of Rights, not by massaging those principles because you like the result in a given case.  The only thing you&#039;re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government.  Today, tomorrow, next week.  But shafted.  And so will everyone else.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The police can disarm criminals until they go blue in the face&#8211;once the criminal has committed a crime.  What they can&#8217;t do is randomly stop a guy who hasn&#8217;t committed a crime just because he got out of his car funny.  Who is responsible for protecting citizens, and when?  Citizens, always.  Case law has established that the police are not responsible for protecting any given citizen.  That&#8217;s every man&#8217;s job, not the cops&#8217;.  The responsibility for my safety is mine.  That&#8217;s the case morally, and practically every statistic shows that more guns mean less crime&#8211;if the guns are in the hands of the law-abiding.  It doesn&#8217;t mean everyone has to be armed; many people probably should not.  But the principle remains:  my safety is my responsibility.  The police and the courts are what happen after a crime has been committed, to ensure that the law is applied equally and objectively.  I do not believe that there should be &#8220;gun free,&#8221; i.e. &#8220;get your disarmed victims here&#8221; zones.  Anywhere.  Unless a private business wants to advertise their vulnerability.  You can have your rights violated with oversight if you like and your Constitution bent, and see how far that will get you.  Personally I like my rights intact and my Constitution straight.  Why do you want to limit rights at all?  Why do you want a limited nanny state, instead of no nanny state at all?  The Founders didn&#8217;t write the Bill of Rights to provide for limited government meddling in our lives.  What&#8217;s a little violation of my right to be secure in my person and papers?  Either I have that right or I do not.  There is no middle ground here.  You are trying to have it both ways, and the government is a double-edged sword.  You like &#8220;reduced standards for determining probable cause,&#8221; but will you like reduced standards for a free press, or for freedom of association?  Will you like it when the police can make warrantless entry into your home on alternate Wednesdays, but not otherwise because that&#8217;s what was determined by a bunch of LIVs?  The only way to protect against the other side of that blade is to return to the principles already established in the Bill of Rights, not by massaging those principles because you like the result in a given case.  The only thing you&#8217;re going to get consistently with your position is shafted by the government.  Today, tomorrow, next week.  But shafted.  And so will everyone else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271787</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle.&quot;



I am saying that. You&#039;re trying to use emotional arguments and I&#039;m trying to use practical arguments. None of my arguments hand any more power to the state. I&#039;m trying to force them to justify it objectively. They&#039;ve already set precedents and little by little the statists are winning big time. The only thing that can save us is to teach HOW to get back to the constitution. Very few people are in favor of deviating from the constitution in principal, but it&#039;s not considered absolute because of emotional arguments. 


You going around saying that it&#039;s absolutely always unconstitutional may be in strict terms correct, but it&#039;s a losing argument. They&#039;ve already defeated that one when you play by their tactics.


Slow down and look at the bigger picture and put together a more comprehensive and coherent argument.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am saying that. You&#8217;re trying to use emotional arguments and I&#8217;m trying to use practical arguments. None of my arguments hand any more power to the state. I&#8217;m trying to force them to justify it objectively. They&#8217;ve already set precedents and little by little the statists are winning big time. The only thing that can save us is to teach HOW to get back to the constitution. Very few people are in favor of deviating from the constitution in principal, but it&#8217;s not considered absolute because of emotional arguments. </p>
<p>You going around saying that it&#8217;s absolutely always unconstitutional may be in strict terms correct, but it&#8217;s a losing argument. They&#8217;ve already defeated that one when you play by their tactics.</p>
<p>Slow down and look at the bigger picture and put together a more comprehensive and coherent argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 01:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people: &quot;Moving in and out of a car too quickly.&quot; &quot;Making a &#039;quick movement.&#039;&quot; &quot;Looking over their shoulder.&quot; &quot;Sitting on benches or something like that.&quot;&quot;



There are ways to improve these policies and come up with objective standards for reasonable search, while recognizing that special times and places might requires different standards than other places. If not, then it&#039;s never legitimate to take away right to bear arms under any circumstances.


And in formulating those arguments you force them back to using the constitution and objective arguments rather than emotional ones.


I guess the only thing you have to fear is that you already solve your problem by &quot;illegally&quot; carrying a firearm and you&#039;re afraid that my suggestions for incremental-ism would hurt you. That&#039;s a valid reason to make your case and to strongly bundle it with gun rights rather than simply saying &quot;these extra searches can&#039;t ever be constitutional.&quot;


At the very least, start pointing out the biggest reason for huge spikes in gun crime in these areas; only the police and the criminals carry guns.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people: &#8220;Moving in and out of a car too quickly.&#8221; &#8220;Making a &#8216;quick movement.&#8217;&#8221; &#8220;Looking over their shoulder.&#8221; &#8220;Sitting on benches or something like that.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>There are ways to improve these policies and come up with objective standards for reasonable search, while recognizing that special times and places might requires different standards than other places. If not, then it&#8217;s never legitimate to take away right to bear arms under any circumstances.</p>
<p>And in formulating those arguments you force them back to using the constitution and objective arguments rather than emotional ones.</p>
<p>I guess the only thing you have to fear is that you already solve your problem by &#8220;illegally&#8221; carrying a firearm and you&#8217;re afraid that my suggestions for incremental-ism would hurt you. That&#8217;s a valid reason to make your case and to strongly bundle it with gun rights rather than simply saying &#8220;these extra searches can&#8217;t ever be constitutional.&#8221;</p>
<p>At the very least, start pointing out the biggest reason for huge spikes in gun crime in these areas; only the police and the criminals carry guns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone? &quot;High crime area&quot; and &quot;furtive movements.&quot;&quot;



It seems like you&#039;re not reading what I&#039;ve said. If there are special circumstances like government buildings that need &quot;gun free zones&quot; and &quot;metal detectors,&quot; then there are other circumstances that might require those steps as well. If not, then we have at least correctly put together a coherent position on who is responsible for protecting citizens and when. If it&#039;s not ever constitutional for the police to put together effective means of disarming criminals then certainly that makes an even stronger case that disarming law-abiding citizens in spite of our explicit constitutional guarantees is *always* an outrageous violation.


All of those decisions should not be left in the hands of the state. We need to restore the principals of checks and balances and make the government prove where, why and when they need special laws restricting firearms and enforcing those restrictions effectively enough to not inadvertently increase crime when they do so by causing the criminals to be the only well-armed residents. By checks and balances I don&#039;t mean we each get guns, I just mean that if there are special cases where interpretations of the constitution need to be &quot;bent&quot; then we need to make sure these are done consistent with our principals of not handing that power to the state without assuring oversight and accountability to the public. First they violate individual rights for the &quot;greater good&quot; but then they remove accountability. Restore our ability to keep them accountable and in that fight we&#039;ll surely be heading in the right direction; trimming the overgrown nanny state.


My arguments first lead to consistency and coherency by correctly, objectively reviewing policies without unbundling them (which can lead to irrational arguments based on theory and emotion) and then saying that you need to meet specific objective tests before you limit the right to bear arms and cede that power to the state. When you do it, you need to make sure the justifications are clear and constitutional. 


In effect you then say that what some call &quot;stop and frisk&quot; and I call &quot;reduced standards for determining probable cause relative to traditional interpretations&quot; can be more objectively challenged and managed by officials that are responsible to the constitution and to their constituents.


All I&#039;ve said was that it could be done constitutionally, and you read that in your own way, deciding that you can read my mind.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone? &#8220;High crime area&#8221; and &#8220;furtive movements.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>It seems like you&#8217;re not reading what I&#8217;ve said. If there are special circumstances like government buildings that need &#8220;gun free zones&#8221; and &#8220;metal detectors,&#8221; then there are other circumstances that might require those steps as well. If not, then we have at least correctly put together a coherent position on who is responsible for protecting citizens and when. If it&#8217;s not ever constitutional for the police to put together effective means of disarming criminals then certainly that makes an even stronger case that disarming law-abiding citizens in spite of our explicit constitutional guarantees is *always* an outrageous violation.</p>
<p>All of those decisions should not be left in the hands of the state. We need to restore the principals of checks and balances and make the government prove where, why and when they need special laws restricting firearms and enforcing those restrictions effectively enough to not inadvertently increase crime when they do so by causing the criminals to be the only well-armed residents. By checks and balances I don&#8217;t mean we each get guns, I just mean that if there are special cases where interpretations of the constitution need to be &#8220;bent&#8221; then we need to make sure these are done consistent with our principals of not handing that power to the state without assuring oversight and accountability to the public. First they violate individual rights for the &#8220;greater good&#8221; but then they remove accountability. Restore our ability to keep them accountable and in that fight we&#8217;ll surely be heading in the right direction; trimming the overgrown nanny state.</p>
<p>My arguments first lead to consistency and coherency by correctly, objectively reviewing policies without unbundling them (which can lead to irrational arguments based on theory and emotion) and then saying that you need to meet specific objective tests before you limit the right to bear arms and cede that power to the state. When you do it, you need to make sure the justifications are clear and constitutional. </p>
<p>In effect you then say that what some call &#8220;stop and frisk&#8221; and I call &#8220;reduced standards for determining probable cause relative to traditional interpretations&#8221; can be more objectively challenged and managed by officials that are responsible to the constitution and to their constituents.</p>
<p>All I&#8217;ve said was that it could be done constitutionally, and you read that in your own way, deciding that you can read my mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271771</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271771</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They already took that power?  And you&#039;re okay with that?  The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle.  No one in the government should have that power.  The Constitution still says that very thing.  The citizenry needs to force the government to return to its constitutional limits, not squabble over how it should use the power it wrongly arrogated to itself.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They already took that power?  And you&#8217;re okay with that?  The correct response is to say that we should be trying to get that power away from the government, not figuring out how best to mollify statist conservatives who want to use that power to benefit their own side of the aisle.  No one in the government should have that power.  The Constitution still says that very thing.  The citizenry needs to force the government to return to its constitutional limits, not squabble over how it should use the power it wrongly arrogated to itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Douglas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271769</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paula Douglas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Using the Constitution as a rigid guideline would immediately cede this debate to me.  There is no provision in it which allows the police to stand around on street corners demanding to see people&#039;s papers or rifle their purses and backpacks.  In fact, there is a specific provision preventing them from doing exactly that.   Please don&#039;t try to tell me that my right to be secure in my person and effects stops at my front door.  From 2004 to 2009 over 2 million people were stopped and frisked for weapons in New York.  98.5% of those people had no weapons of any kind.  Only 6% of stops led to arrests, i.e., the cops were wrong 16 times more than they were right.  More than a third of the time they didn&#039;t even specify the crime they claim to have suspected.  You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone?  &quot;High crime area&quot; and &quot;furtive movements.&quot;  Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people:  &quot;Moving in and out of a car too quickly.&quot;  &quot;Making a &#039;quick movement.&#039;&quot;  &quot;Looking over their shoulder.&quot;  &quot;Sitting on benches or something like that.&quot;  And these are the people you want to entrust with our Fourth Amendment rights?  Does any of that sound like probable cause to you?  Does any of that sound like those cops have the judgement and perception necessary to effectively prevent crime?  Because they haven&#039;t effectively prevented crime:  98.5% of the people they stopped had no weapons of any kind, and of the remaining 1.5%, there is no way to make the case that had they not been stopped they would have committed a crime with whatever weapon they were carrying.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using the Constitution as a rigid guideline would immediately cede this debate to me.  There is no provision in it which allows the police to stand around on street corners demanding to see people&#8217;s papers or rifle their purses and backpacks.  In fact, there is a specific provision preventing them from doing exactly that.   Please don&#8217;t try to tell me that my right to be secure in my person and effects stops at my front door.  From 2004 to 2009 over 2 million people were stopped and frisked for weapons in New York.  98.5% of those people had no weapons of any kind.  Only 6% of stops led to arrests, i.e., the cops were wrong 16 times more than they were right.  More than a third of the time they didn&#8217;t even specify the crime they claim to have suspected.  You know what their most common reason was to justify stopping someone?  &#8220;High crime area&#8221; and &#8220;furtive movements.&#8221;  Here are some more ultra-compelling reasons given for stopping people:  &#8220;Moving in and out of a car too quickly.&#8221;  &#8220;Making a &#8216;quick movement.&#8217;&#8221;  &#8220;Looking over their shoulder.&#8221;  &#8220;Sitting on benches or something like that.&#8221;  And these are the people you want to entrust with our Fourth Amendment rights?  Does any of that sound like probable cause to you?  Does any of that sound like those cops have the judgement and perception necessary to effectively prevent crime?  Because they haven&#8217;t effectively prevented crime:  98.5% of the people they stopped had no weapons of any kind, and of the remaining 1.5%, there is no way to make the case that had they not been stopped they would have committed a crime with whatever weapon they were carrying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271394</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Sep 2013 04:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agreed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271305</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, as I mentioned, I don&#039;t consider drugs or guns to be any of the government&#039;s business.  As for outstanding warrants, the police should either stake out the guy&#039;s last known address or run checks when they have a valid reason for questioning someone.  I don&#039;t expect to be stopped and searched by the police for no reason just so they can run a check to see if I happen to have any outstanding warrants.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, as I mentioned, I don&#8217;t consider drugs or guns to be any of the government&#8217;s business.  As for outstanding warrants, the police should either stake out the guy&#8217;s last known address or run checks when they have a valid reason for questioning someone.  I don&#8217;t expect to be stopped and searched by the police for no reason just so they can run a check to see if I happen to have any outstanding warrants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271304</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ll go along with your argument, and of course the answer is that concealed carry should be &quot;allowed&quot; in New York since it is a fundamental right.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll go along with your argument, and of course the answer is that concealed carry should be &#8220;allowed&#8221; in New York since it is a fundamental right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BenZacharia</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271194</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BenZacharia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am not black and I object to the violation of my G-d given right to go about my business un-molested. The article reminds me of the headlines screaming that &quot;Sunset of Assualt Weapon Ban Leads to Mass School Shootings&quot;. What a bunch of dreck. I object to Terry Stops too. If a LEO asks if he could speak to me I have the right to say NO!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not black and I object to the violation of my G-d given right to go about my business un-molested. The article reminds me of the headlines screaming that &#8220;Sunset of Assualt Weapon Ban Leads to Mass School Shootings&#8221;. What a bunch of dreck. I object to Terry Stops too. If a LEO asks if he could speak to me I have the right to say NO!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: poetcomic1</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/ban-on-stop-and-frisk-leads-to-murder-of-1-year-old/comment-page-1/#comment-5271174</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[poetcomic1]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=203056#comment-5271174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All the constitutional niceties don&#039;t apply - Brownsville is a WAR ZONE and as in all war zones the innocent are often the victims.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All the constitutional niceties don&#8217;t apply &#8211; Brownsville is a WAR ZONE and as in all war zones the innocent are often the victims.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 806/859 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 20:42:24 by W3 Total Cache -->