A cup of coffee would destroy the rural character of our town View Comment

Let's hope the ramshacled look and potholes, I mean the current ambience, pristine look and traditional character of the intersection are not destroyed by over development. View Comment

I would like to see businesses that do not have any customers, signs or advertising, generate no traffic, noise or light and maintain North Salem's historic architecture but nevertheless pay exorbitant real estate taxes for the privileged. View Comment

Option A is ugly but both options look like there will be plenty of birds' nests. No doubt we will hear in a few years how bird droppings are causing millions in damages and that the tolls will have to be raised to make repairs. Of course then Robert Kennedy will sue to protect the birds and the cost of relocating the birds will have to figure into the increase. View Comment

You continue to try to obfuscate the issue but perhaps you will find this enlightening: "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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." I sense that you do not understand how scrupulously freedom must be defended so you will probably not be impressed with Jefferson's words, so I will offer some more specific examples. First the demand for the justification of a right is the first level of tyranny. Just as defendant does not have to explain why they remain silent, no one should be required explain why they own a gun. While overthrowing the government is a very unlikely scenario, and at present is is only justified in the heads of jihadists, lunatics and other enemies of freedom, it is possible that future malevolent permutations of our government could evolve. There will be no opportunity to ask for our guns back. In the mean time other tyrannies exist. Such as the government abandoning American border towns to armed Mexican drug lords; killers armed with guns that our government gave them. The only thing between life and death is the Second Amendment. Or when the government ignores Muslim fanatics in the armed forces who eventually gun down Americans, the Second Amendment is our only protection. When the only response that the Mayor of Chicago can muster to a flood of murders is to ask the drug dealers to conduct their turf wars amongst themselves, people have a right to fight the tyrannies of fear and murder. None of these scenarios explore the possibilities of the Chinese using debt and cyber attacks to destroy this country or some future president and Senate abdicating our sovereignty to the UN, but the outcome will likely be more favorable to those who can resist being sent to the re-education camps. View Comment

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, real vigilantes. It is a shame that so many brave men and women have sacrificed everything to protect your freedom and you do not have a clue. I hope you get it before you are led off to the showers. View Comment

Machine guns have been illegal for 78 years and "assault weapon" is a meaningless term. So the "founding fathers never considered..." argument is specious. Laws change but rights do not. At least not without serious effort. Slavery was ended by the 13th and 14th Amendments, women can vote because of the 19th Amendment. .These expansions of individual rights followed the tedious amendment process, no small feat. They happened because of overwhelming review and support. Since the 60's however, searches for evidence are more restrictive than when the constitution was written, "Piss Christ" is free speech and the religion has been removed from society for fear of offending any religious minority or atheists. What has "naturally" changed is the ease in which liberty is expanded. Hardly a tradition that can be the basis for limiting gun owners rights. As far as protection from tyranny is concerned, its interesting to ponder how successful the Final Solution would have if Hitler had not first, registered and then disarmed German society. View Comment

You completely miss Madison's and the founding Fathers' point. Liberty is a God given right that exists prior to the formation of the central government. The people grant the central government specific powers as listed in the Articles of the Constitution. This is a list of what the federal government is allowed to do. It is not granted power to do anything else. Those powers remain the purview of the states. The government gets its power from the people, not vice versa. Our rights are spelled out so it is clear that these reside within the people. The term people refers to individuals. Our rights are not the collective rights of a community. They are individual rights. Each person has freedom of speech, religion and freedom fro warrant-less searches, just as each person has the right to bear arms. This is the beginning, everything follows from this point. Your references to killing and coups are extraneous histrionics that are little more than feeble attempts at prior restraint. It does, however reveal a lack of respect for the Constitution and the rights of all Americans. Alarming, coming from someone apparently so preoccupied with over throwing the government View Comment

The Second Amendment is precisely for individuals. It does not grant, but rather it enumerates and guarantees the basic right of self defense. When James Madison used the term "well regulated Militia", he was not referring to a military governed by regulations, i.e. the Army or National Guard. He was referring to individual citizens who may have a need to come together. The adjectives "well regulated" refer to a group of citizens who were well practiced and in good order. It is a goal. In order to be well practiced, individuals needed to have arms. The right to bear arms therefore must not be infringed. Individuals bearing arms is the beginning point of the concept, any regulation or involvement flows from that right, not the reverse. View Comment

What is the point of more gun laws if they will not be enforced. Federal District Court Judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, is in the process of prohibiting police officers from stopping anyone they suspect of possessing a gun. While perhaps a cliche, it is true that when guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. The law abiding citizens will only have funerals. View Comment

Will they still have the area's highest prices? View Comment

The question is not where (the east side of RT 22 just north of the 684 overpass) but why has the poster, a supposed proponent of a beautiful North Salem, left it up for almost three years? View Comment