Is The Death Penalty Repeal On Life Support?

Seeing as the bill to repeal the death penalty in Delaware has just passed the state Senate, you might be wondering why I chose such a title.  Well it wasn’t intended to anger any special interest group, that’s for sure.

I will get to the title later, right now let me talk about the Senate vote. It was as close as it could be, 11-10 in favor of repealing the death penalty. An amendment was added that would keep the seventeen who are already on death row, on death row. This is but a small victory for those who wanted the bill to fail.

I would  like to commend my senator, Brian Pettyjohn  for his vote in opposition of the bill. Not surprising, since a large part of his district is in the Georgetown area, and emotions are still raw over the murder of police officer Chad Spicer. Thank you Senator Pettyjohn.

Prior to the actual vote, a lot was made of the fact that Republican senator Gary Simpson was a co-sponsor.  But today the story seemed to be all about the vote cast by Senator Ernie Lopez. Senator Lopez is a freshman senator, and also a Republican, and he voted in favor of repealing the death penalty.

Senator Lopez was interviewed on the Susan Monday Show on Delaware 105.9 today.  Prior to his appearance on the show the host, Susan Monday, took calls asking if people felt betrayed by those senators who had voted for repeal.  Several people called in and stated that they  did feel betrayed by the vote of Sen. Lopez, one caller expressed her displeasure,  by stating that she was active in her community, and that Sen. Lopez had not bothered to contact her, to ask how she felt he should vote on such an important issue.

Can we please, for one moment come into the real world? Why would any voter think that an elected official would call every voter in the district and ask their opinion? I wonder, did this caller actually try to contact Senator Lopez? This is a representative republic, and that means it is a partnership, between the voters and the elected officials. If a voter is interested in a particular issue, then they should contact their representatives within government that are concerned with that issue. I would also add that any voter who took the time to get to know Mr. Lopez during the election process would have known where he was on this issue, as he had answered that question on occasion.

Sen. Lopez spoke of the many people who he did speak with prior to casting the vote. I have always found Sen.  Lopez to be approachable and open-minded. I have asked him tough questions and always gotten what I found to be honest answers. Personally I am disappointed in the vote that Sen. Lopez cast, but he is not my senator, and I respect the reason he gave for voting the way he did. He stated that between talking with the people within his district, and his personal faith, he felt that he must vote to repeal the death penalty.  Many of the same people who will now criticize Sen. Lopez for this vote, are the same people who feel we need more faith in government. Well that is exactly what they have gotten with Sen. Lopez, he brings his faith with him to office.

Now back to the title of this piece. I had the opportunity today to speak with Delaware’s  Speaker of the House, Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf (D) on this very issue. Rep. Schwartzkopf told me on the record that he was opposed to repealing the death penalty, and that when the bill came to the floor of the House of Representatives, that he would cast a no vote to repeal.

The Speaker also stated that he would not however, play any political games with assigning this bill to committee. He stated that the bill should go to the judiciary committee, and that is most likely the committee that will handle the bill for the House. This, even though some have suggested to the Speaker, that he should send it to the administration committee where it would most likely die.

I have to be honest, as much as I would like to see the bill die in committee, I can respect the Speaker’s reasoning. That being, that the bill should face an up or down vote on the floor, and let the opposing sides find the votes they need.

In the past I have been critical of Mr.. Schwartzkopf, but in this case, I have to thank him for his honesty when speaking with me, and also for, in my opinion, being on the right side of this issue, even though it will be against the Democrat line.

Speaker Schwartzkopf also mentioned that he was not sure at this time whether there were enough votes in the House to pass this bill, hence the title of my post.

One final thing on the issue of the death penalty. It was my contention all along that the original bill was in danger of being found unconstitutional if passed because it would have crossed the line separating the separate branches of government. First the original bill would have commuted the death sentences of the seventeen already on death row. This would have veered into both the judicial  branch and the executive branch.

First of all, those cases were already adjudicated by rightfully seated courts and juries, this legislation would have overturned those sentences. And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only the executive can commute death sentences in Delaware. Thus the reason for the amendment.

I believe that Governor Jack Markell was hoping to sit back and keep his hands clean on this one, allowing the General Assembly to pass this bill and only having to sign it after the fact.

Now if he wishes to allow any, or all of the seventeen, to have their death sentences commuted, Gov. Markell will have to do it himself, on a case by case basis.

I will wait and see if Speaker Schwartzkopf’s feelings on the chances of the bill passing the House are correct. But I won’t wait for my Representative to call me and ask my opinion, and I suggest that if this issue is important to you, that you not wait either, call them and tell them what you think. Then if they go against you wishes, you at least have a real gripe.

61 Comments on "Is The Death Penalty Repeal On Life Support?"

  1. waterpirate says:

    You can not please all the people all the time. Senator Lopez cast a vote that he said represented his district, why all the fuss?

    The problem with the death penalty as it exists now is that the sentance is niether cost effective nor carried out in an expedient time. As a fiscal conservative I support inprisonment for the rest of your natural life instead of the cost of a capitol case and the cost of the subsequent appeals and wasteing of the courts time. This opinion is based solely on the economics.

    If the death penalty sentance in DE allowed for a 6 month time limit on appeals and then we hung them on the circle in G town I would vote the other way, but that my eye for a eye freinds will never happen.

  2. bruce says:

    YOUR PAST>>>>Frank Knotts Wants to Kill Ron Sams
    January 15th, 2011 • Related • Filed Under
    Filed Under: National
    By jason330
    The sheer weight and repetition of violent rhetoric aimed at Ron Sams is a big red flag. That fact that Knotts feels victimized by those in the DE GOP that do not buy into his extreme brand of social conservatism is typical of the kind of paranoid ravings that tend to presage the type of violence that is becoming a hallmark of the Teabag Republicans.

  3. Dave says:

    As a fiscal conservative and pragmatist, I have to agree with WP. It’s economics.

    But I also believe in the ten commandments and would find it difficult to both anti abortion and pro death penalty.

    Finally, the standard – beyond a reasonable doubt has been responsible for the execution of those who were innocent of the crime for which they were being executed. If we wanted or needed to keep the death penalty, there has to be a higher standard in place before we exact that great of a penalty, unless someone wants to advocate that the occasional mistake is a small price to pay to gain retribution.

  4. waterpirate says:


    Dave, that is exactly why I oppose the economic issue of the death penalty. I do not want to short term the due proccess that may send an innocent man to his death, soooo you are left with a less costly trial, and the accused has the same rights as all others who are convicted to appeal their cases without the impending risk of the ultimate penalty.

  5. Frank Knotts says:

    I am not sure I buy completely into the idea that a life sentence will be cheaper for the state, simply on the basis of the appeals process. Are we to believe that if a person is convicted at the age of twenty and lives to be seventy five or eighty that the cost is cheaper? Do we really think that they will not be appealing their life sentence the same as they would the death sentence?
    And Dave for me, it is not about retribution alone. It is about a balance. The scales of justice represent a balance between the crime and the punishment, if the punishment is either too harsh, or to lenient, then there is no justice.
    Bruce I am going to allow your totally off topic posting above, but let me point out that you chose to highlight an attack on myself by a person who I feel would take great pride in being called a far left liberal, you failed to link to the article I wrote that he was remarking on, either because it wouldn’t’ t make your point, or because you had no idea what he was talking about, so let me help you out. Here is the article I wrote on January 15, 2011, I do not hide from my past, though I may have grown since then, I stand by my writing as it was in context of who I was and what I felt.
    Bruce I am not sure why you have taken on this task of pointing out my past, but I welcome the chance to demonstrate how a person can travel the road of politics and not only find a new way, but allow others the same chance.

  6. waterpirate says:


    Following the money trail clearly indicates that the cost of a death penalty appeal deffense by the tax payers far outweighs room and board and the deffense of a life sentance. When we see appeals for the ultimate penalty they are often brought by outside money and special interest groups that are in alot of cases based on emotion. since we are talking about death, the courts are compelled to hear them, and the AG defend them. It is all a drain on our courts resources and the taxpayers money.

    For a life sentance
    we see appeals that are heard on the merits of the law, and based on the introduction of new evidence, not based on emotion. The courts summarily dissmiss frivalous appeals because they are not effecting the ultimate punishment.

    On a side note for what it is worth. $.02
    What makes a blog relavant is the disscussion of important topics and calls to action. Now that HB37 has been introduced the time to engage in debate is now. I will be attending the town hall and I hope our distinguished officials are ready answer the hard questions regarding hb 35 and 37.

  7. waterpirate says:

    My appoligies. My post should read:

    SB 35 and 37, not HB

  8. Frank Knotts says:

    WP, you make good points on the cost. I also go back to an earlier comment, that the appeals process is too long, adding to the cost. But when we are talking about justice for victims and families of victims, I am not sure if cost should be the overriding factor.
    As for the meeting with the elected officials, hard questions are exactly what should be asked.
    As for the relevance of a blog and important issues? Well I happen to think that the death penalty being repealed is an important issue. And there is still time to stop it.
    As for the guns issues? I think the Republicans are trying to find a comropmise with background checks, thinking that this would be the path of least resistance. I have written in the past that i fear background checks more than anything else concerning gun control, since I see it as a mechanism for denying gun ownership. So ask away

  9. waterpirate says:

    I think that the problem here is that the problems in NCC are being hoisted on te rest of us to a detrimental degree. The discussion allways goes to the emotional not the inteligent. Both sides are guilty of that. We need to hammer home the importance of tis legislation without going to the emotional or the low hanging fruit that gets everyone all twisted up and yelling at each other.
    There are enough people in the state who want to encourage responsible gun ownership coupled with an initiative to keep guns out of criminal hands, and not jump on the lets ban all the weapons on the list on SB 37.
    I would like to believe that there are enough responsible gun owners south of the canal, on all sides of the aisle to turn back this lunacy. Everyone understands that when you give government an inch they will seek to take a mile, and then tax or impart fees for the privaledge.
    This issue is so imortant to me that I sent out the only e-mail blast I have ever sent on this topic. We must continue to point out and disscuss these issues on their merit, without driving a wedge into disscussion that will break along party lines.
    I would urge you and all others to help in this initiative or there is no telling how far the mile of govt. intrusion will extend.

  10. Frank Knotts says:

    WP, I think we are in agreement on this. I agree that there is a bit of the fanatical on both sides of the issue. On the one side you have the President trying to trade on the emotions of the tragedy at Sandy Hook and upset that people are not still as reactionary in their views as they were following the shooting.
    On the other side of the issue, you have people putting out there that the government is around the corner waiting to knock down your door and take your guns, they post on Facebook long strings of pictures of guns and lend credence to the lefts attacks that all gun owners are nothing but far right gun nuts.
    Before the more reasonable members of society can have a reasonable conversation, we must tone down the angry rhetoric on the fringes of both sides of the debate.

  11. William Christy says:

    Frank you are just as guilty of the rhetoric.
    Like it or not guns have been seized in California.
    A NJ family had their home stormed by police and a CPS worker who refused to provide their identification over a picture of a 12 year old boy who had just finished a firearms safety course holding a .22 cal sport rifle.
    Delaware legislators are trying to pass a bill that all assault riles must be registered or the owners will face felony charges.
    Left wingers demand the right to accept their lifestyles and beliefs while they steadfastly refuse to accept the rights lifestyles and beliefs.
    I open carry which is my Constitutional right as I have been doing for months yet last Friday after going to Jimmy’s in Bridgeville like I do every Friday someone claimed I was parading around with a sidearm. I sat and ate my breakfast with a retired DSP trooper and their child, I went up to Dan Gaffney’s mic to speak and went to the men’s room. Then I left at the end of the show with the DSP trooper and their child. I was not parading around in any way or doing anything illegal. It was also interesting that after I pointed out who funded this site that 3 people just happened to show up, yet never said one single word to me.

    I don’t intimidate easily, if that was the intent they are wasting their time. It’s very clear that I have become a target of not only the left wing nut jobs but the nut jobs in my own political party.

    The fact that posts in another topic that clearly violate the rules of this blog are allowed to remain speaks volumes about the real intent of this blog.

    “Finally, on the matter of guest interaction. Of course many of our guest know each other outside of the bogging world. They may have personal knowledge of each other that can be either embarrassing or even actionable. We here at Delaware Right would ask that personal differences be settled somewhere else. If you have a problem with another commenter on a personal level, do not bring it here. We are not a day-care center. Those monitoring the comments will attempt to sort out comments that are clearly out of line”

  12. William Christy says:

    Frank Knotts
    “On the other side of the issue, you have people putting out there that the government is around the corner waiting to knock down your door and take your guns.”

    There is absolutely no justifiable reason for requiring law abiding citizens who lawfully possess their firearms to register them or face Felony charges. It doesn’t require a whole deal of thought to figure out why, it will make it all that much easier to seize guns if the government knows what firearms the citizens have.

    “Delaware Senate Bill 37

    This act would add a new section 1462 to Title 11 of the Delaware Code and set in place a prospective prohibition against the manufacture, production, delivery, sale, or purchase of assault weapons. Persons who legally possess assault weapons at the time the act goes into effect may continue to possess them legally, but must provide proof of ownership to the Delaware State Police within 120 days of the effective date of the act.
    A first violation of the new section 1462 would be a class F felony, which carries a maximum sentence of up to 3 years to be served at Level V. A second violation within ten years of the first violation would be a class E felony, which carries a maximum sentence of up to 5 years to be served at level V. ”

    This sure looks like registration to me. If the Stalinists’ that run this state have their way we will have to become “free agents” and move to a state in the old CSA borders that rejects this tyranny.

  13. waterpirate says:

    You have the ” right ” to open carry, but that desicion certainly makes a statement that is going to prompt people to react. That reaction is going to be in most cases adverse. It is a choice that IMO will never be recieved well, especially in a diner in Bridgeville.

    Was there a clear and present danger from the pancakes making hostile moves towards the french toast?

  14. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy, the rhetoric I am speaking of is clearly on display when you say, “A NJ family had their home stormed by police and a CPS worker who refused to provide their identification over a picture of a 12 year old boy who had just finished a firearms safety course holding a .22 cal sport rifle.”, because you say stormed when all that happened was that the police knocked on their door and asked to come in and see the gun in question and when they were refused, the police left and have not returned. They could have come with a warrant, they could have called for a warrant, they could have come back with a warrant. I agree that just showing up is troubling. I also believe that the father used his son to stir up a controversy, the rest of the story is that when the father arrived home after being called by his wife, he just happened to have his lawyer on speaker phone and the lawyer just happened to be a second amendment specialist. To use your child in that way is shameful.
    Much in the same way that someone who exercises their right to open carry hoping for a confrontation. Yes it is your right, but tell me why you felt the need? With our rights goes a responsibility to exercise them with reason. With the number of shooting in public places that have been in the news, you have to know that for some people, seeing a man walking around with a gun is troubling and may cause undue alarm. While I understand your intention to attract attention to an issue you want to be front and center, unduly frightening your fellow citizens may not be the best tactic. It is all about the optics after all, but of course that is exactly why you would do it after all. You open carry a gun into a public place and you are a hero to your fellow travelers, one of which has criticized me for wearing a legal knife at a polling place. The hypocrisy on your side of the issues does you no favor. As for your paranoia about people from this site? Don’t flatter yourself.
    As for the registering of assault weapons, we are in agreement on this completely.
    I have said from the start that background checks are the real danger in all of this because they will be used to deny ownership as the reasons to deny are expanded. But so many people were more worried about whether they could have a 30 round mag or only a 10 round mag.
    This registering of assault weapons will be cross referenced with background checks and will be used to remove these weapons from the public. This amendment should not be allowed to stand, in fact the added background checks by the state are without merit, since they are redundant of the federal checks. This is another case of trying to look as if we are doing something to sooth the public.

  15. Frank Knotts says:

    WP, thank you. Maybe it was the scrapple, it does frighten a lot of people.

  16. William Christy says:

    waterpirate first Jimmy’s owners have no issue with anyone open carrying in their diner. There has never been an issue made prior to this last Friday and it wasn’t even any patrons who made an issue but someone on delawareliberal who wasn’t even present. Why should there be an adverse reaction it’s a Constitutional right, just like any other. I am not the only person who has and does carry at Jimmy’s, I also open carry every time I leave my home. If it presents adverse reactions then the state should change form a “may issue” state to a “shall issue” state regarding CCDW permits.

  17. William Christy says:

    Frank I am personal friends with a relative of the family in NJ. The police did not “knock on the door and ask to enter. They entered the house, the husband/father was not home at the time, the wife called him and he returned. The police demanded that he show them the firearms he owned, and demanded that he open his safe. He refused and was told by the CPS wprker that his refusal along with the picture of his son holding the sport rifle was grounds to possibly take his soon into protective services custody. When the father demanded to see the CPS credentials the person refused to provide their name or show their stat issued credentials. The father then told the police and CPS to get out of his home and off his property.

  18. William Christy says:

    “Much in the same way that someone who exercises their right to open carry hoping for a confrontation.”

    If you knew anything about carrying a firearm you would know you claim is ludicrous. Carrying a firearm is open statement that a confrontation is not wanted.

    “Yes it is your right, but tell me why you felt the need?”

    I open carry every single day, our state is a dangerous place we rank #7 in the nation for violent crime it’s not paranoia it’s a reality, I will not be a victim of a criminal hell bent on committing an act of violent crime.

    “With our rights goes a responsibility to exercise them with reason. With the number of shooting in public places that have been in the news, you have to know that for some people, seeing a man walking around with a gun is troubling and may cause undue alarm.”

    Perfect example of why I carry a firearm. Also I wasn’t “walking around” I was sitting at a table with a well known retired DSP Trooper and their child, along with another child. I was enjoying my breakfast, conversing with fellow regular Dan Gaffney followers. I was at the rear of the diner where patrons don’t even go, unless they are there for the Dan Gaffney show.
    Certainly you must know that when someone wasn’t even present and makes issue of something they only have second hand knowledge of it’s disingenuous to say the least and politically motivated seeing how it was an extreme leftwing website that “reported” it.

    “While I understand your intention to attract attention to an issue you want to be front and center, unduly frightening your fellow citizens may not be the best tactic. It is all about the optics after all, but of course that is exactly why you would do it after all. ”

    I open carry because it is my legal right and to protect myself from criminals, PLAIN and SIMPLE. It has nothing to do with wanting to attract attention, and if this state was a shall issue state it wouldn’t take 4-6 months to get a CCDW.

    “You open carry a gun into a public place and you are a hero to your fellow travelers, one of which has criticized me for wearing a legal knife at a polling place.”

    I have no idea who you are speaking about. If you carried a knife at a polling place which was at a school it’s against the law plain and simple, so stop making an issue of something that was illegal regardless of the size of the knife.

    “The hypocrisy on your side of the issues does you no favor. As for your paranoia about people from this site? Don’t flatter yourself.”

    My hypocrisy? I don’t carry a firearm or a knife where it is not allowed including a school zone.

    There’s no paranoia on my part I simply made a statement of observation that in all the months I’ve been going every Friday none of these people were there in the past. I was not the only one who noticed and commented about their presence. I could care less it’s a public place, but if someones going to stare me down the reaction they will get will be well deserved, after all it’s all about the optics.

    I wonder what the optics were when J.D. abruptly left after loosing the election last month.

  19. William Christy says:

    ” you are a hero to your fellow travelers”

    Frank for someone who has such disdain for shoddy reporting, allow me to enlighten you. Since you were not present on Friday at Jimmy’s i would be more than fair to assume that you were reported back to about whom my “fellow travelers” were. Both the person who provided you with the information and you are completely wrong in your assumptive claim.

    I meet the same person every Friday at Jimmy’s a GOP member who has announced their intention to run for Governor in 2016. That is the person I sit with and leave with every Friday. Since they are a retired DSP Trooper I doubt because I carry a gun, I’m considered a “hero” in their eyes. BTW that person also happens to be an ECD for the 40th district.

    Anyone else who happens to come to Jimmy’s and sits with us is purely a coincidence, there is no connection.

  20. waterpirate says:

    This is not about your rights, or the policy at Jimmy’s grille. It is about your choice to open carry. Chooseing to open carry does make a statement of intent and of offense, and IMHO is looking for a fight of words, at the least. You do it for shock value. By your making that choice, it sends a message to others. Like wearing pagan colors in a in another clubs bar, It says ” I have arrived, look at me”. That is not something I would look for in a defensive posture. The crime stats you cited are clearly in full force at Jimmy’s during breakfast. Alas I digress. I will sleep good at night knowing that you are keeping the scrapple safe for all of us.

  21. William Christy says:

    waterpirate I do it because in the real world there are criminals hell bent on committing violent crimes. I WILL NOT be a victim of a violent attack. Since I’ve already been falsely accused of being an avowed racist in here and over in delawareliberal I have every right to be concerned. Interesting you bring up Pagan colors there are several Pagan’s at Jimmy’s every week. They have never been an issue either.

    You may not like open carry
    that is your right.

    You may not believe in God
    that is your choice.

    But if someone commits a violent crime with a gun in front of you the first two things you are going to do

    Call someone with a gun
    Pray they get there in time

  22. Another Mike says:

    “Like it or not guns have been seized in California.”

    Yes they have. Legally. From owners who have lost the right to keep them. (

  23. waterpirate says:

    Are you prohibited from the the other options? Carrying openly is all ego, and a form of intimidation period. It also makes you a primary target, not just someone who is eating scrapple in a diner. So you are inviteing action, not takeing prudent steps at self defense. Being afraid of writings in the blogosphere and idle accusations is pretty rich

  24. William Christy says:

    No I am not prohibited. It has nothing to do with ego or intimidation. I am taking personal responsibility for my own safety and the safety of my family.

    I feel truly sorry for anyone who makes a joke about the level of violence going on in the world. I bet none of those theater goers who were brutally murdered thought it was about to be the last piece of popcorn they were going to eat as they sat watching a movie.

    Post with your real name let me direct the same”idle accusation” at you, while I list where you live lets see how “rich” you think it is then especially of you have 2 children under the age of 8. Or maybe I could post you’re a pedophile like your buddy, like the same person did to me. It’s not a joke and people have been killed over the same and or similar “idle accusations”. like the old childhood saying goes “It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt” Now the hurt in many cases is death.

    Dan Gaffney was targeted over some inappropriate bilingual signs, that he brought to the attention of the community. In retaliation someone posted a google map view of his home where he, his wife and his children live. There’s NOTHING funny or “rich” about acts like that, which is why they are crimes in this state.

  25. William Christy says:

    waterpirate, I remembered your posting name from somewhere else. Why don’t you post with your real name since you used it in another forum? I will be at next months GOP meeting, like I was last month when I was nominated for the 1st36th EDC seat. If you are there, I welcome you to introduce yourself. Personally, I like to form my opinions about people from their in person actions rather than a blog.

  26. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy. first let me address the issue of my carrying a legal sized knife at a polling place. I vote at a firehouse, not a school. But shouldn’t someone who is so pro second amendment also defend my right to carry a knife? Your strict reading of the constitution should protect my rights from being infringed upon as well as yours. A law that says you can’t carry a gun in this place or that place is an infringement, is it not?
    If you were honest you would admit that like the father who used his son for publicity, you are seeking the same type of news story for yourself. You are hoping that someone will confront you about carrying a weapon, so that you can act the victim and scream infringement of your rights.
    Yes it is your right to open carry, but in doing so you run the risk of disturbing the peace of others. I have the right of freedom of speech, but if I stand in the middle of a diner and start shouting out curse words I will disturb the peace.
    Again you and your fellow travelers do not understand that your actions are outside the norm. You insulate yourself at your club meetings and tell each other that the wolves are at the door. When you do talk with people outside your small circle of fellow end of the world believers, your only response is that they are blind to the danger that you see around every corner. If you are so frightened in public that you feel the need to carry a gun openly, then maybe you should stay home.
    As for the NJ story, you state that the police forced their way into the home, here is a story of the incident form The Blaze, I figure you have already read this one.
    No where does it say the police forced their way into the home, they were inside when the father arrived and exited when asked to.
    This overblown rhetoric that you use so casually is exactly why people react negatively to your stance on issues.
    You are not trying to win people over to your side, you are trying to bully and intimidate them, much in the same way you do when you carry openly. I am sure a person with your background is able to obtain a concealed carry permit, why do you feel the need to open carry, if not simply for the show?

  27. waterpirate says:

    If nothing is preventing you from haveing a permission slip signed by the honorable Judge Graves, you are standing on loseing ground. your choice to open carry is based on an expression of your feelings, emotions and ego, all of which will prompt an adverse reaction from people as well as provideing you with a tactical disadvantage.

    We commonly see this behavior exibited in our teenage children. A petulant display of odd haircuts, loud music, and general dissmissal of convention. To see this same behavior in an adult is troubling to me and others.

  28. waterpirate says:

    As I have stated inumumerable times, I am hideing in plain sight and if you do not know my real name by now it is only because you do not want to know. Useing a handle is common courtesy in the blogosphere, it seeks to remove the emotion from a debate.

    In regard to the other forum, I chose to leave when management appointed a moderator to seek to exert control over the debate. A blog that tollerates behavior by some and not by others is a blog that will become an island unto itself and eventually wither and perish.

    The county GOP is another issue all together. Untill it achieves a level of leadership and control that is accepting of all, and not based on the illusion that the only way, is the way it was in 1950, I will stay away. I wish Mr. Rielly all the luck in the in his uphill climb. What message do you think you are sending from the party to others when you open carry? Are you going to conduct your edc duties door to door in your district while open carrying and trying to grow the party? These are the questions that need to be addressed BEFORE someone makes the choice to be petulant and open carry.

  29. William Christy says:

    “But shouldn’t someone who is so pro second amendment also defend my right to carry a knife? Your strict reading of the constitution should protect my rights from being infringed upon as well as yours. A law that says you can’t carry a gun in this place or that place is an infringement, is it not?”

    NO Frank it is not an infringement. It is against federal law to carry a firearm or other dangerous weapon in any post office as an example. If I am asked not to carry a firearm in an establishment I have no problem complying with the request, if I do I can always go elsewhere.

    If I were honest? Frank you really have no place commenting about anyone else regarding honesty. If you knew what you were even talking about instead of buying into the b/s you would know the photo was posted on the fathers fb page. He was proud his son had aced the firearms safety course. If you knew what you were talking about you would know there was more than met the eye to the story. The photo was provided to the authorities by a person who had an axe to grind with the father. I’ll take the word of the father and mother involved over any slanted story just like you report on issues.

    As I have stated already the waiting time for a CCDW is currently 4-6 months. There are 50-60 notices every week in the guide that’s 200-240 a month. Delaware is a “MAY ISSUE” state so there is NO rubber stamping of CCDW permits and only ONE judge grants them. Do you think that criminals will put a moratorium on crime until all those people get their CCDW’s

  30. William Christy says:

    waterpirate to see an adult make so many assumptions is troubling to me.

    There are roughly 200-240 CCDW applications monthly, with one judge reviewing each one as well as handling cases that come before him. Prior to December’s tragedy the turn around time for a CCDW was 3-4 months from time of notice in the newspaper as required. The wait is now 4-6 months in Sussex County. The judge who is responsible has made it known it will be closer to 6 months.

    If you think obtaining a CCDW is a simple matter of walking in and getting a stamp placed on a permit perhaps you should educate yourself in the process before you castigate someone who is older than you by a decade plus.

    While you speak of the 50’s as they relate to the GOP, to see the same bigotry directed at people that I DID witness in the 50’s is extremely troubling to me and many others on both sides of the political aisle.

  31. Frank Knotts says:

    But Mr. Christy, how can your strict interpretation of the Constitution allow the Federal government to pass such law? There is no mention in the constitution about not being able to carry a gun in a post office, even though both “arms” and the “post office” are enshrined within the constitution. It would seem to me that under your previous arguments on constitutional issues, that to ban anyone from carrying a gun into a post office or anywhere, there would need to be a constitutional amendment. Base on your previous arguments. How come not so in this case? you seem to think that you have the right to pick and choose your own constitutional rights and those of others based on your own personal desires.
    Also Mr. Christy, if you were able to read and listen without your built in bias, you would know that I have argued for changing Delaware to a shall issue state for quite some time. But that doesn’t fit with calling me a liberal because I disagree with you on other issues.
    WP has hit the nail on the head, many on the radical right tend to act as children do, they are reactionary and mean. Once offended they cannot calm down and realize that the offense was not nearly as bad as they perceive it to be.
    As for the NJ case, well I know at least? Well maybe? No I don’t have a single 2nd amendment lawyer on speed dial. And really, how the police came to be there is not relevant to the discussion we were having, it was about your rhetoric and saying that the police stormed the home, when even in the Blaze article no such accusation was made.
    It must be terrible to live everyday of your life in fear, to see stormtroopers and criminnals around every corner to such an extent that you feel the need to wear a gun everywhere you go. Like in the old west! But I guess you just never know when a posse will be needed, now do you?

  32. waterpirate says:

    I will make no assumptions about you, you are just a name in blogospere to me, however I will continue to hammer you with your own words and statements untill your brain explodes. I will not get sucked into emotional side arguments, only point out the flaws in your original logic as to why you feel the need to open carry.

    You stated that you had been open carrying for months. You said that their is a six month wait, you said it is not a simple proccess. you said the Honorable Judge Graves is overworked.

    Give me a break, which excuse are you going to continue to use? SNAFU? It is a proccess by which all persons wishing a permission slip must abide by. Do you feel so threatened by the blogosphere that you need a ” stop gap measure ” untill your application gets processed, or is this just more petulant actions by a adult?

    You continue to try and change the focus, post after post as to why you feel the need to open carry, without ever addressing the facts. It bothers people, it is a tactical dis advantage, and you do it for shock value and to agitate.

    If your female parental unit did not show you enough love as a child, just ” cowboy up ” and say so. Admit that you open carry to shock and offend and open up beligerent disscussions about you rights to open carry.

  33. waterpirate says:

    Now back to the GOP.
    While I can respect you as my elder of a decade plus, Your statement is what is wrong with alot of things. If you are a decade plus my senior that makes you sixty or close to it. Do you really think you have your mind in touch with the generation that is represented by our grandchildren? Do you still believe you know what is best? do your self a favor and stop trying to replay the leave it to beaver epesodes in living color within the Sussex GOP and go golfing or what ever it is the blows your skirt up and leave the party leadership and direction to people who are not retired.

  34. William Christy says:

    Frank How much plainer can it be made. The Constitution has the 2nd Amendment, the state allows open carry. I am not infringing on anyone’s rights when I do so. So let me get this straight I can’t call you liberal for your views but you can call me radical right. Now if i were still a registered Democrat you could call me a radical right all you want. I am a Moderate Conservative GOP member. You have a problem with same sex marriages, I have no problem with same sex marriages, so obviously you’re more conservative on that issue.

    Frank I commanded personnel in the military, I flew scout planes with half the tail and wings missing in Vietnam, respectfully neither yo or (edited by Frank Knotts) have a clue about what you claim, concerning my ability to remain calm.

    I’ve stood in front of a man who had beat my daughter and grandchildren repeatedly, one granddaughter 4/12 had a fat lip and the other one 2 1/2 had a black eye. He kept ranting i didn’t say a word, when he was done right in front of 4 DSP Troopers I calmly told him he would never see my granddaughters again. That was 3 years ago he hasn’t spoken or seen either one and he never will. I don’t need to nor have the desire to resort to angry outbursts or violence.

    It must be terrible to assume to know what motivates everyone around you, that is usually a burden for GOD to know what’s in mankind’s hearts and minds.

  35. William Christy says:

    “I will continue to hammer you with your own words and statements untill your brain explodes. I will not get sucked into emotional side arguments. If your female parental unit did not show you enough love as a child, just ” cowboy up ” and say so. Admit that you open carry to shock and offend and open up beligerent disscussions about you rights to open carry.”

    You claim you’re not going to get sucked into any emotional argument then you go on a tirade of misspelled words as you spew vile comments about my mother. My other was a good woman who served in WWII as a nurse, she passed away in 1999 two years after my father. My parents instilled the values that I still have to this day. Those values clearly differ from yours thank GOD, I have enough self respect that I would never talk about someones mother in the manner that you did in your post.

  36. waterpirate says:

    Nice try,
    Why do you still refuse to defend your choice to open carry instead of getting a permission slip? Changeing the subject to God, family drama, your prior service, the GOP, or my lack of interest in pressing the spell check button does not support nor defend your choice, it simply wastes band width.

    Why do you choose to open carry instead of getting a permision slip?

  37. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy, I have edited you comment above, it may have been an unintentional slip, but please do not “OUT” people here who choose to use a screen name.
    You have a seriously bad habit of taking words out of context and blowing them out of proportion. Such as stating that a home was “STORMED”.
    I did not state that you were infringing on anyone’s rights by open carrying a gun, I asked you to juxtapose your two positions on the Constitution.
    On the one hand you are saying that the issue of the sheriff is settled in law simply because of the term C O P in the state constitution, and that any laws passed are unconstitutional without the constitution being amended. Yet on the matter of open carry, you admit that the federal government can infringe upon your gun rights to carry a gun into a post office simply by passing a law, with no amendment. Please explain the two contrary positions you have taken. This is the inconsistency in your arguments that make it hard to have a level conversation with you.
    Finally, I would suggest that you look up the term “reading for comprehension”, you say that I called you radical right, I assume you are referring to my previous comment where I said,
    “WP has hit the nail on the head, many on the radical right tend to act as children do, they are reactionary and mean. Once offended they cannot calm down and realize that the offense was not nearly as bad as they perceive it to be.”
    You should really learn the difference between certain words used as qualifiers. No where in that paragraph did I use the word “you”, I said “they” and “many”. If you read yourself into that paragraph, then maybe you are simply self projecting those traits upon yourself.
    You may call me a liberal or any other label you choose.

  38. William Christy says:


    A personal observation you have a serious problem remaining unbiased concerning the rules you choose to enforce.

    I posted what I was informed DIRECTLY regarding the NJ matter. just because you don’t view it as being “stormed” (why are my not surprised) doesn’t mean the young wife/mother didn’t feel that way.

    1. STORMED -“moved forcefully in a specific direction”

    A mother was home alone and a group of armed police officers show up with a DFS worker and enter the persons home WITHOUT a warrant. They demand to see the firearms kept in the home WITHOUT a warrant. They demand that the safe be opened where the firearms are kept WITHOUT a warrant. The DFS worker who refuses to identify themselves threatens to remove the child WITHOUT a warrant. I can certainly understand given the scenario that the person felt their home was stormed and I agree.

    I didn’t say you did make any statement about “infringing” on others when I open carry. I made the statement I’m not infringing on anyone’s rights when I open carry, and their feeling uncomfortable doesn’t trump my lawful right to open carry. PERIOD! Stop reading into what is posted that just isn’t there.

    I have stated and I still believe in the office of the Constitutional Sheriff, PERIOD! Frank what you don’t obviously understand is YOU personally don’t get to pick and choose what I consider to be infringements. That is my choice, just as you can choose to see possessing a knife in a polling place as an infringement upon your rights.

    I will play this game with you though.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    If you believe a law can be written to settle a Constitutional issue (such as the case of the County Sheriffs) then why did the United States add the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery, which was never legal in the first place.
    If we take these words in their literal meaning, it proves my assertion. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    WP directed his response at me with his comment. You in turn then agreed with wp’s observation, in a direct response you made to me. You were clearly implying that I was part of the “they” wp was describing. You can put whatever spin you want on it Frank, I’m quite knowledgeable in the English language, since it was my major.

    The really ironic thing is wp in his observation is describing his own behavior. I didn’t resort to the childish nasty name calling, or comment about his “female parental unit” . Unfortunately, in my personal opinion your inability to remain unbiased clearly taints your views such as matters like this one. I have no desire to label you or anyone else, nor do I desire to be labeled as the radical right which I am not and my positions on issues vary.

    In the words of my Great Grandfather, US President and US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft:
    “Don’t write so that you can be understood, write so that you can’t be misunderstood.”

  39. waterpirate says:

    I am not asking you for the legality of open carry, we all know that it is lawfull to do so. It is a choice.

    SOOOOOOO Why do you choose to open carry instead of getting a permision slip?

    intimidation factor?
    it makes you look like a cop?
    you enjoy a tactical dis advantage?
    your fear of the pancake upriseing?
    it makes you feel relavant?
    it’s a great conversation starter?
    you like getting the hairy eye ball?

  40. Laffter says:


    Water pirate, I don’t agree with you on much, but I do agree with you completely on this thread.

    I personally feel there is something psychologically wrong with someone who is all about the attention they try to get, especially if that is attention is of the negative type, which is what our friend here seems to seek.

    Any one in law enforcement, worth their salt, would look askance at someone who open carries like he does, it is begging for trouble, and were I to see anyone in a public place, wearing a firearm and not wearing a u inform, I would simply leave. It’s asking for trouble.

    I would also agree that there is something wrong with someone who won’t apply. The amount of time he has been here in DE leads me to believe ere is some issue preventing this from happening.

    Ther Eli’s not ONE judge in DE signing them all, there is ONE in each county doing it, at it’s the clerk of the courts also known as the prothonotary, who actually assigns it to another clerk in Superior Court who does all the work on it. And yes, it’s a process

    Maybe the only person who will write him a letter of recommendation is Eric Bidenweiser, from his prayer group.
    Not a stellar recommendation, by any means

    But our friend had had a rather stellar past , so they should overlook his friends. After all he has been

    A JAG
    A war pilot flying aircraft that was shot down
    A LT. COL ( in what, Boy Scouts?)
    A federal “agent”
    A child mentor
    Aske to run for public office
    Leader of his HOA
    Personally friendship with that dad in NJ
    descended from President Taft

    by his measure a hero in his own mind

    I could not imagine going to a meeting where the ED open carried, no a restruant where someone feels the need to openly pack heat.

    I think our buddy has some serious mental health issues and like I said, enjoys being the provocateur .and the center of negative attention…..of course that personality disorder will usually get you into more trouble that you can handle.

    Every LEO that has seen his comments have said ” no way should this person get a CCDWs , that mind set is dangerous.” We recognize that as we are more mature and cognaziant to what is normal- he obviously is not

  41. Laffter says:

    Of course the paranoid delusions just make it that much more titillating too

  42. Laffter says:

    And this…… But hey, Delaware IS one of the most violent states, especially the area around Jimmie”s grill in bridgeville

  43. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy, you do realize that you are swimming in the deep end of the pool right now don’t you?
    You talk about the Constitution, and then quote the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is not our governing document, it was the document that declared our independence, and did not carry, nor does it now carry any rule of law..
    You then ask why it was necessary to pass the XIII Amendment to abolish slavery since slavery was never legal in the first place?
    WOW!!! Have you ever really read these documents? Or are you again simply repeating the talking points of others?
    Of course slavery was legal, all you have to do is read Article IV, section 2, which reads,
    “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
    This section of the CONSTITUTION, which is our governing document and which does carry the rule of law, clearly upholds the rights of slave owners to retrieve their property. And that class is why they had to pass an amendment to abolish slavery.
    And by the way, even though we may feel infringed upon, you nor I get to decide what is actually an infringement, that is up to our judicial branch of our representative republic. But of course when they find against your views, you simply say the court is liberal.
    But if you don’t realize the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution, well maybe you aren’t ready for deep thoughts like representative governance.

  44. william Christy says:

    “I am not asking you for the legality of open carry, we all know that it is lawfull to do so. It is a choice.”

    Thanks for telling me it’s my choice, I don’t need to be validated by you or anyone else for that matter.

    “SOOOOOOO Why do you choose to open carry instead of getting a permision slip?”

    Why do you choose to continue to act like a pompous ass assuming that; 1. It’s any of your business what I’m doing since I’m NOT breaking any laws, 2. I haven’t applied for a CCDW ( something else that is none of your business)




    “intimidation factor?”

    “it makes you look like a cop?”

    “you enjoy a tactical disadvantage?”
    NOPE and it’s not a tactical disadvantage.

    “your fear of the pancake upriseing?”

    “it makes you feel relavant?”
    I don’t need to carry a firearm to feel relevant

    “it’s a great conversation starter?”

    “you like getting the hairy eye ball?”

    Feel free to continue this conversation with me at the CHEER center Monday night. I’ll be there, man up and get some balls. I’ll be more than happy to discuss it with you. If you start in with the same line of crap I’ll just walk off.

  45. Laffter says:

    FRANK, nice post remind me not to get into a constitutional argument with you…..

    But, I was also thinking………why is it OK, to stroll around and open carry, which is a right in this state, no question, but can be considered provocative……

    But North Korea moves their own missiles closer to their southern and eastern borders, and DP goes into a frenzy thinking they are going to strike and war is imminent.

    Isn’t their right to move their weapons inside of their borders anywhere they want? Just like it is our friends right to open carry anywhere he wants?

    The two items do equate, but I view NK as an immature and unstable country, that stomps it’s feet and does all it can to focus attention on itself.

    Much like our friend, demands his right to open carry and the right to do it where he wants, and arms his feet and focuses attention to himself , most of it negative.

    What also equates is our perception of the two. both North Korea and our OPEN CARRY bilovator are viewed,,by the adults in the room as dangerous and unstable and the rest of us just make it our business to avoid them both

  46. Laffter says:

    After that screed Frank, I don’t think he’s swimming in the deep end of the pool, I think he is underwater.

    I would avoid him, and will, at the CHEER center……..why would anyone even TALK to a nut with a gun on his hip..,,…..

    At this point I do believe there is a reason he cannot apply for a CCDW and Frank, I would pay attention to that fact.

  47. Willaim Christy says:

    Well see Frank up where my family came from we didn’t believe in slavery, an anyone who came up to take back their slaves fond themselves on the wrong end of a gun.

    Far more intellectual persons than you including Abraham Lincoln considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration was a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

    If you don’t believe the Declaration of Independence has any bearing then you must also acknowledge that our nation was founded on a lie. Think about that it’s reslly not hard to figure out.

  48. waterpirate says:

    Before the era we are in now, embraced in PC, the gym teacher would have leaned over to the principal and remarked ” that one is a real secret squirel “.

    I respectfully decline your urging to meet you at the O.K. coral, I mean the Cheer center with my balls???? It clearly demonstrates an offensive position, not one of quiet defense. Maybe someone will bring up this thread at your confirmation vote and make people take pause before they vote. As an EDC you represent the party and the executive commitee and your actions and words should refect that.

    What does your RD think about your words in blogosphere, and gun wearing tendancies? He is a peacefull man of the cloth is he not?

    Most items on my list were humor, the tactical disadvantage was not. The concept of defense seems to be lost in your lust to present the most shocking offense, that makes you a primary target for a shooter, not someone just eating scrapple.

    By open carrying you are circumventing the safegaurds that go along with a CCDW permit.
    Background check
    Community Refrances
    Judge approval

    When the general public sees someone open carrying that is not law enforcement, that is not at a hunting camp, we see someone who is operating in the grey area between rational thought and legality vs. secret squirrel.

  49. William Christy says:

    wp theres a reason you aren’t an EDC anymore I would hazard to guess it has to do with the display you’ve shown in here. Perhaps you should have heeded your own advice. Your comments, insinuations, innuendos, harassment and derogatory comments directed at my deceased mother were totally uncalled for, and unwarranted.

    I haven’t circumvented anything by open carrying. Since your inception of railing on about this issue which has NOTHING to do with the discussion you have assumed that I have not applied for my CCDW. I have repeatedly stated it is none of your business. None of your comments were posted in a humorous light, nor were they taken that way. You continued on the same path escalating each insult and innuendo.

    1. Education I’ve taken firearms training for over 45+ years. I taken the requirred training for a DE CCDW permit as well as 2 other additional advanced tactical training courses at an approved Delaware firearms instructor. I passed all 3 courses. I’m also a graduate of the Glock armorers school.

    2. I have passed a background check as extensive as the one required for CCDW. I also submit to a background check each time I buy my firearms directly from Glock and have it shipped to my FFL dealer in Milford.

    3. Since I have nothing prohibiting me from owning a firearm under either the state guidelines or the federal guidelines shown through a background check I AM qualified. As I stated above I have qualified under the requirements for firearms training.

    4. Every time I purchase a firearm I go through a background check. This includes when I buy direct from Glock USA under the Glock Blue label program (law enforcement program). The firearm has to be shipped to a FFL gun dealer where I am required to fill out the background check form.

    5. I have more then enough community references by people who have known me since I moved to Delaware, that includes LEO.

    6. Judge approval? Nowhere does the Delaware code state that a judges approval is needed to carry a firearm.

    It’s not a grey area, it’s clearly black and white concerning open carry in Delaware and 43 other states. If a person is NOT disqualified from owning/possessing a firearm they can open carry in Delaware. When law abiding gun owners encounter people like you we see people who want permitting of all gun purchases and ownership. People like you want to require gun registration.

  50. waterpirate says:

    Why is it you choose to open carry?

    How does your prospective RD feel about your open carry?

    How does the rest of the committee feel about your representation of the party?

  51. Laffter says:

    You certainly have circumvented something by openly carrying…….


  52. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy, please try to focus on the discussion. You stated that there was no need to pass the XIII Amendment because slavery was never legal. You based this false claim on the Declaration of Independence, which while it is our founding document, it is not a governing document.
    I pointed out that Article IV sec. 2 clearly demonstrates that at the time, slavery was legal.
    Also you were pointing out the legality of slavery, not whether it is morally wrong, which it is.
    This is where you seem to always run off the rails when talking about the law. You seem to believe that emotions and beliefs trump the actual facts of the law. You know, like thinking that some vague term is an actual definition of powers and authority.
    Maybe if you put down the oil and cleaning rag for a second you could concentrate on the discussion.
    You clearly are on some kind of power trip related to your gun. The way you repeatedly state that you buy direct from the Glock company, though again I don’ t think you understand the word “direct” since it has to pass through a dealer to get to you.
    I know that there is a certain line of thought among some psychologist that certain male inadequacies are compensated with large powerful firearms.
    You know, like the mid-life crisis male who buys a Corvette!

  53. William Christy says:

    Frank wrote “please try to focus on the discussion.”

    I’d be happy to but you can’t follow your own advice; because you immediately go into another of you diatribes

    “You seem to believe that emotions and beliefs trump the actual facts of the law. You know, like thinking that some vague term is an actual definition of powers and authority.
    Maybe if you put down the oil and cleaning rag for a second you could concentrate on the discussion.
    You clearly are on some kind of power trip related to your gun. The way you repeatedly state that you buy direct from the Glock company, though again I don’ t think you understand the word “direct” since it has to pass through a dealer to get to you.
    I know that there is a certain line of thought among some psychologist that certain male inadequacies are compensated with large powerful firearms.
    You know, like the mid-life crisis male who buys a Corvette!”

    What EXACTLY are we discussing Frank?
    Is it the term Conservator of the Peace (“some vague term” in your first sentence)? OR

    Your assumption that I’m sitting here cleaning my firearms ?
    (the reference to oil and cleaning rag in your 2nd sentence) OR

    Your assumption I’m on some kind of power trip ?
    (the 3rd sentence reference to my direct purchases from Glock under their LEO guidelines) OR

    Your assumption I don’t “understand” word DIRECT since the firearm has to pass through a dealer to get to you?
    (4th sentence reference)? OR

    Your assumption I might suffer from some male inadequacy hence the need for big firearms or a Corvette?

    SO SEE FRANK having a discussion with you about a specific issue is virtually impossible because you are all over the place and you continually comment in a condescending manner. But i will try one more time to clarify each topic of discussion you had in your post.

    First the Conservator of the Peace discussion has been beat to death, let it go.

    Second I’m sitting here laughing at how boring, irrelevant, and mundane your blog really is. If it wasn’t for the personal attacks on me, there would be no comments like in most of your topics.

    Third DIRECT purchase means I pay the Glock factory for the firearm/firearms I purchase under their law enforcement officer program. The dealers ONLY involvement is providing a FFL location for it to be shipped to under the law. There is no added expense for the service. No monetary transaction takes place with the dealer. So yes Frank I buy DIRECT and fully understand the word.

    Fourth I’ve owned firearms since I was 8 years old, actually longer than you’ve been alive Frank. My interest in firearms has nothing to do with any “certain male inadequacies” or the midlife crisis male who buys a Corvette.
    It has nothing to do with the midlife crisis male who looks back on his life and realizes he’s just another worker ant who’s mark on this planet doesn’t mean squat, so he becomes a blog writer in hopes of boosting his ego and feeling some sense of self worth.

    Your blog has become quite boring and the views from the liberals your blog attracts are not the views I believe in or share. Just so you know Conservative and Tea Party are not synonymous.

  54. Frank Knotts says:

    We have a winner!!! Mr. Christy and Frank Knotts have found something they agree on when Mr. Christy states, ” Conservative and Tea Party are not synonymous.”
    Sir you are oh so correct. The fact that so many now within the TEA Party movement are frightened by free and open debate, proves that the original merit of the TEA movement has been coopted by a bunch of sub groups of angry single issue mobs.

  55. Laffter says:

    Does anyone think it possible that after today , our “constitution/ declaration ” quoting friend will be that much more educated on what the Constitution actually says……

    Or course, he will then also have someone else’s interpretation of it as well,

    Sigh, no original thoughts….how sad.

  56. Frank Knotts says:

    My concern is that after today there will be more of our constitution/declaration quoting friends who have no original thoughts.

  57. Laffter says:

    LOL – good retort

    But they still won’t be right ….in any interpretation of THAT word.

    Nor original

    Keep writing Frank – altho I don’t always agree with you on policy/ politics, I absolutely agree that the right needs the left and the left needs the right.

    It keeps all the rest in balance- and balance, check and balances is what the founders wanted. It is how good governance happens.

    And I have always been donsistant in that perspective.

  58. dpmoderaator1 says:

    laffter your use of state owned computers for posting which is a violation of the states AUP has been reported to the State of Delaware

  59. Laffter says:

    Ok. Good luck with that

    Won’t affect me in the least

  60. Laffter says:

    The US federal cyberstalking law is designed to prosecute people for using electronic means to repeatedly harass or threaten someone online. There are resources dedicated to assisting adult victims deal with cyberbullies legally and effectively. One of the steps recommended is to record everything and contact police.[22][23]

    You have just been busted….thank you thank you thank you.

    Frank. Would you like a subpoena, or will you turn over the ISP voluntarily if contacted by me, or would yu prefer it done thru the law enforcement / legal process?

  61. Frank Knotts says:

    This is addressed to the person using the screen name of dpmoderaator, if you are who your screen name says you are, then you are a poor excuse of a moderaator. I would suggest you restrict your actions to DP, and use caution when coming onto this site. While we will tolerate many things, we will not tolerate outing and threats of any kind, be they vailed or otherwise. We will also cooperate with the authorities if contacted in the proper manner to see to it that anyone who breaks the law is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
    You are welcome to come here and comment, but keep it friendly.

Got something to say? Go for it!