I've been urging activists to do this for a while now, occasionally bringing up reminders and going so far as to offer incentives.
It's nice to see some do. here are two successful efforts Russell Greenidge sent me that show us how it's done:
If the author's name sounds familiar, you've got a good memory.
I actually got my start doing RKBA-based letters to the editor before going on to newsletters, blogging and then articles. My very first letter was published in The Los Angeles Times and my very second appeared in the Daily Breeze -- on the same day. That encouraged me to try some more, and I ended up with a nice portfolio of published letters before I gave that up to focus on publishing my own content.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Armies shouldn't be superior force
At least one other person understands the Constitution.
But most defenders of the Constitution think they can defend it best by saying the Constitution's words, at least the one's they don't like, mean nothing.
Such as this right-wing law professor:
As Professor Joe Olsen told [...] the introductory clause is not part of the rule of law.
The right wing militarists are in love with the military-industrial-complex's Standing Army.
This is how I summarize American politics in my essay Constitution Not Law?, as follows:
• RIGHT militarists support only an EMASCULATED 2A, negating the first part, the Peace Clause, because they worship the Military Industrial Complex's Standing Army as the only acceptable means of defense.
• LEFT progressives support only a DEFANGED 2A, negating the second part, the Egalitarian Clause, because they too worship the Military Industrial Complex's Standing Army as the only acceptable means of defense.
"THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” simply means national defense without a Standing Army.
To the cheerleaders of a Standing Army, I ask: What Part of NO Don't You Understand?
Post a Comment