Indexes
January 8th, 2009
January 7th, 2009
January 6th, 2009
January 5th, 2009
January 3rd, 2009
January 2nd, 2009
January 1st, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- On global warming and same-sex marriage (180)
- George W. Bush will take a legacy of failure with him (134)
- Another vote against the Supercenter (64)
- Being a Kennedy doesn't make you qualified (27)
- People can find an excuse for doing almost anything (26)
- Lodi City Council sends plan for DeBenedetti Park back to staff for more review (25)
- Regional Roundup (24)
- Wine Country Cardroom in Lodi wants to increase games, hours, tables (23)
- Elm Street eyesore (20)
ADVERTISEMENT
How to fight our gun-obsessed culture? Burn your copy of 'The Godfather' and push for a $20 tax on each bullet sold
It looks like the gun nuts got their way again. The U.S. Supreme Court, by a margin of one, held that the Constitution actually means what it says: " ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Think about it. If we lovers of peace had just one more liberal on the Court, we would have done away with the Second Amendment. That justice could have argued that this right only gives the army the freedom to carry guns. But hey, that's politics these days.
This doesn't mean the struggle for sanity is finished. I, for one, will not rest until all of these weapons of woe are wrestled from the hands of our most innocent, law-abiding citizens. There are ways we can work against this ruling and stem the ever-increasing rates of violence found at gun shows, sportsman clubs and firing ranges. Here are just a few:
1. Set the example: You can help by not buying guns. If you already have some, take them to the nearest authorized recycling center for firearm meltdown. Look for the sign that says: "The Making of a Prius Begins Here." There is a world shortage of steel and these centers will immediately send the resulting scrap to Japan. We need to build all the hybrids we can in order help fight global warming.
2. Don't sell guns to street people: We all want to make a buck, but selling guns on the street is not only illegal, it's a bad idea. All of us have empathy and realize that the underprivileged cannot afford gun store prices. Many cannot pass the background check, as law enforcement is unfairly prejudicial toward convicted felons. You should only consider selling to crack addicts if they are trustworthy and promise to recycle as well.
3. Control what your children learn: With careful parenting, we could change America's attitude toward guns in a generation. Make sure your kids see no firearm violence during their upbringing. Shows like "3:10 to Yuma" and "Scarface" are out. Of course, banning war movies are no-brainers. Burn you copies of "Godfather" and "Goodfellas." Only allow your offspring to view more wholesome shows such as "Beach Blanket Bingo" or "Sex in the City."
4. Teach the evils of hunting: Our children need to understand that wild animals are here to prevent us from drilling for oil. They do not exist simply for our sadistic predatory amusement. Ban games such as, "pin the tail on the donkey" or "break the pinata," as these only stimulate children's animal hunting instincts.
5. Call your local legislators: Encourage your local assemblyman or state senator to find ways around this dastardly decision. Some that come to mind are putting a $20 tax on each bullet, or requiring firearms sold in this state to only shoot blanks. After all, the Constitution simply says there is a right to bear arms. It doesn't say they have to work. They might also pursue a legal tactic and argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply in California.
6. Finally, join the NRA: Yes, I know this is counterintuitive, but think of the possibilities here. Right now, the National Rifle Association has approximately 4 million members. That leaves 299 million Americans who have not yet joined. If everyone else became a member, imagine the influence we would have with this organization! We could outvote the pro-gun people and replace them with friendlier folks who prefer bows, knives or aluminum bats.
So as you can see, a handful of justices do not have to stop us in our quest to create a more safe and sane society. A little creativity on our part can change the course of history. Let's do what we can to stop the madness.
Just don't let anyone take MY six-shooter away.
It's the only defense I have against those who could care less about gun laws.
Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer and satirist.
Reader Feedback
dyan wrote on Jul 9, 2008 8:33 AM:
LOL!! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 4:10 PM:
Are you suggesting then that those 17 amendments not included in the 'Bill of Rights' are NOT 'rights' in the same context as the original ten?
The point here is that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin has deemed the right to bear firearms by individuals to be Constitutional. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
My argument is regarding those who believe that that right is afforded to us by God and therefore cannot be taken away. In a nation that takes pride in its separation of religion and government just how does that square with those who truly believe that God (religion) should have no say in what is permissible and what is not?
No, the rights afforded to us in the Constitution were placed there by men who believed them to be necessary to be included in the Constitution. As time has passed, circumstances have arisen where other men and women have added or otherwise modified previous 'rights' to better identify the rights of the citizens. "
davej wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:58 PM:
Now, unless you think that the writers were completely random and were just jotting down their thoughts, you might want to see if there were some sort of order visible in those amendments. The first protects our right to assemble and the freedom to speak. The second enables the protection of the first and come before all the others including those endagered by the Patriiot Act.
The best, most secure and farthest reaching gun control laws were passed be Hitler and Stalin. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:54 PM:
And your point is? "
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:11 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 8, 2008 1:22 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:44 PM:
And to think I almost missed this little gem. Once again your labeling those 'Socialist' because they don't agree with you is quite telling of your intellectual and philosophical credibility. While it is certainly none of your business I have a wonderful relationship with God. And because of that relationship I call upon Him or those here on earth more learned than I in the area of His Divinity to counsel me on His ways. Ultimately, of course who and what I am is my own responsibility that will be judged accordingly when the time comes.
Silly me - until I noticed that statement by you directed at me I was nearly fooled into believing I was debating with someone with a brain. I will certainly be more careful in the future.
Your continuing with your ridiculous accusations will only further expose your weaknesses; you might want to think about that. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:07 PM:
The fact that they were not necessarily inalienable or god given was one of the very reasons why they felt the need to enumerate them.
I mean, does anyone really believe right to trial by jury in civil matters where the disputed value is greater than $20.00 is god given? "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:55 AM:
The Preamble to the Constitution, however specifically denotes that what follows it is created by 'We the People,' not God. It further states that We the People, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' In fact, there is no mention of God anywhere in the U.S. Constitution except in the date where it states, 'Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.' 'The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.' (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god)
I am curious as to just how we could ever enforce other governments to 'respect' our God-given rights. Your further thoughts on that claim? "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:38 AM:
In actuality, the party of any Justice should not even be a consideration. These people are mandated to do one thing - determine the Constitutionality of the matters that are brought before them.
Sure, they're people and they have political leanings. But these are the select few who should well understand the immense importance of leaving their politics at the door while donning their robes. Obviously, a few of them are not as intellectually mature as we had hoped they would be. But this is what we've got. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:35 AM:
My suggestion to amend the Constitution by removing the words, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' would settle the argument once and for all.
For those who believe that a 'well regulated militia' is something that should still be defined in the Constitution, perhaps merely separating these words to form a new amendment that addresses only the militia would suffice.
Regardless, something that is 'God given' should not be able to be altered, should it? "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:40 AM:
"I've attempted to use logic, common sense and reason in arriving at what I believe to be true - that while we certainly have every right to defend ourselves AND it is now the considered opinion of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that the 'right' for individuals to bear arms has been affirmed, I do not believe that this right was bestowed upon us by God. That's all there is to it.
And because it was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court I believe that this matter is not yet finally settled. I even went so far as to suggest how an amendment to the Constitution might assist in putting this controversy to bed once and for all. "
It was not unanimous because we have socialist judges, not republican judges, on the Supreme Court. Socialist judges do not respect the God given rights of the individual, republican judges do. The Socialist judges belong in Russia. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:37 AM:
Just what are you confused about? Awhile ago someone suggested that the ownership of a gun is a 'God-given right.' I merely questioned this claim. I have yet to receive an answer based upon anything other than emotion from anyone in this forum."
Sorry but I will have to educate you. The definition of the Bill of Rights is not up to you to define. The writers defined it at the time it was written. The 2nd amendment was 1 of 10 rights. The philosophy used was from the Enlightenment thinker, John Locke. Unalienable, fundamental rights are God given rights that all governments must respect. The government does NOT issue these rights, God does.
You, being a Socialist, are not understanding because the word God came up. This is why Socilaist don't like religion. If they can take away God then they can take those God given rights. The government can only take what they give. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:19 PM:
Just what are you confused about? Awhile ago someone suggested that the ownership of a gun is a 'God-given right.' I merely questioned this claim. I have yet to receive an answer based upon anything other than emotion from anyone in this forum.
I've attempted to use logic, common sense and reason in arriving at what I believe to be true - that while we certainly have every right to defend ourselves AND it is now the considered opinion of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that the 'right' for individuals to bear arms has been affirmed, I do not believe that this right was bestowed upon us by God. That's all there is to it.
And because it was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court I believe that this matter is not yet finally settled. I even went so far as to suggest how an amendment to the Constitution might assist in putting this controversy to bed once and for all. "
dogbark wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:06 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:49 PM:
I often agree with you, but tonight I don't know! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:24 PM:
This statement was in response to someone claiming that the ownership or possession of a gun is a 'God-given right.' Because I did not recall ever reading in the Bible or hearing from the pulpit that I possessed that right directly from God, I would have been irresponsible if I did not determine the veracity of that claim.
By conducting a modicum of research which could very well include discussing the matter with my pastor or other better-informed members of my church I found the answer. Regardless, I wasn't curious about whether or not I should or should not have a gun; I was concerned as to whether or not it was a God-given right as someone claimed it to be. After performing my research I determined (for myself) that it is not.
Also, your insistence that '. . . if you don't have common sense about things then you shouldn't be asking,' is absurd on its face. In fact, it is utter foolishness. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:20 PM:
This statement was in response to someone claiming that the ownership or possession of a gun is a 'God-given right.' Because I did not recall ever reading in the Bible or hearing from the pulpit that I possessed that right directly from God, I would have been irresponsible if I did not determine the veracity of that claim.
By conducting a modicum of research which could very well include discussing the matter with my pastor or other better-informed members of my church I found the answer. Regardless, I wasn't curious about whether or not I should or should not have a gun; I was concerned as to whether or not it was a God-given right as someone claimed it to be. After performing my research I determined (for myself) that it is not.
Also, your insistence that '. . . if you don't have common sense about things then you shouldn't be asking,' is absurd on its face. In fact, it is utter foolishness. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:39 PM:
My experience, as it relates to free speech is that it is usually the far-left crowd that cannot tolerate the opinions of others. Even Dyan recognizes this with his comment about the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine,' cleverly named to cause the uninformed and/or weak-minded to actually believe it is a good idea.
Because liberal talk radio has and will forever be a dismal failure, they deem it to be 'unfair' for conservative radio to be successful. Therefore, none should be permitted.
Thankfully this little gem will never become law. "
MARZO2008 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:36 PM:
"I cannot ever recall listening to my pastor speak of our God-given right to own a gun". If you can't think for yourself. then maybe you should not have a gun. If you need to talk to anyone it should only be God. I would not ask my priest if i should have a gun or not. I can make that decision on my own. Remember, if you don't have common sense about things then you shouldn't be asking. "Could you please cite the authority for this claim? Answer is. Yourself. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:53 AM:
Giovanina wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:52 AM:
" Giovanina's definition of a "socialist": anyone who doesn't agree with Giovanina "
Leonard- LOL! your a man of few words, lots of name calling, personal attacks, and not much content. "
Gator wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:59 AM:
Fish the Salmon river for a few days "
sam wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:15 AM:
Last night a car load of men did the same thing to my neighbors, only they are in their 80's and felt so powerless.
Talk all you want, but I will use my gun to protect myself and my family... and the flash that comes out of the barrel of my 9mm when I am alone, in the dark being threatened "looks and feels" so good. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:24 AM:
I am glad to hear that you are one of the good guys on these issues. "
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:12 AM:
on talk radio? How about their so-called "hate speech?" (anything that disagrees with PC). The U.S. is about the last country on Earth with any free speech at all -no thanks to liberals. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:54 AM:
That is good.
The odd thing is that they often violently disagree with the very same quote when it comes to the Rights to Freedom of Speech or Due Process.
This is not so good. I wonder why it is. "
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:19 AM:
-Benjamin Franklin "
Leonard wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:17 AM:
" Bathtubs and swimming pools killed 4,000 children last year. shall we get rid of them??
Chuckle.... We'd be safe but smelly. "
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:03 AM:
SSG Jeremy wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:44 PM:
Robb wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:25 PM:
Robb wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:24 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:39 PM:
With a Remington 700, 300 WIN.MAG. And a Remington 870 12 ga 3
Mag. Has the thought ever crossed my mind to kill some one, No! And
here is my point, take the criminal element out, the macho and the just
Plain stupid what have you got? And you start holding people accountable
do a crime with a gun,10 years to life, shoot someone with a gun and they
die, guess what you die, no ifs ands or buts with in 60 days no later
Its been said that cars werent made to kill but neither was Model airplane
fuel, with a gallon of fuel, a cell phone and a couple of pounds of ammonium nitrate you have an IED and you can do some very serious
damage to a lot of people. All that is needed is a sick mind just like shooting Some one only on a larger scale. The idea is to punish the
guilty not the law abiding people and I mean punish not a slap on
the wrist. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:22 PM:
Surely you're not suggesting that practicing with a .22 caliber pistol in any way assists you with accuracy in the playing of darts are you? "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 3:21 PM:
Surely you're not suggesting that practicing with a .22 caliber pistol in any way assists you with accuracy in the playing of darts are you? "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 3:16 PM:
And just what is the desired result of this pursuit of 'accuracy' with your .22 Buck Mark semi auto pistol that was not designed to take the life of anything? If it is not designed for at least self-defense, what then is the point? Surely the mere satisfaction of performing bulls-eye after bulls-eye on your 'assigned target' wears off after time? Maybe its only value is for training purposes to enable you to utilize a more powerful weapon for other non-non-lethal uses?
Nevertheless, perhaps you could expound on these 'assigned targets' a little? I would imagine moving targets would pose more of a challenge after the desired level of accuracy is achieved on non-moving ones. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 6, 2008 2:39 PM:
And just what is the desired result of this pursuit of 'accuracy' with your .22 Buck Mark semi auto pistol that was not designed to take the life of anything? If it is not designed for at least self-defense, what then is the point
Perhaps you should tour the pubs of England and take a survey regarding the point of darts.
While I do own weapons for 2nd Amendment purposes, my .22 pistol is purely for recreational use.
As for moving targets, I haven't hunted anything since I was a teen ager. Killing things just isn't my cup of tea.
That said, a paper plate hanging from a string can provide an added level of challenge. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:21 PM:
And just what is the desired result of this pursuit of 'accuracy' with your .22 Buck Mark semi auto pistol that was not designed to take the life of anything? If it is not designed for at least self-defense, what then is the point? Surely the mere satisfaction of performing bulls-eye after bulls-eye on your 'assigned target' wears off after time? Maybe its only value is for training purposes to enable you to utilize a more powerful weapon for other non-non-lethal uses?
Nevertheless, perhaps you could expound on these 'assigned targets' a little? I would imagine moving targets would pose more of a challenge after the desired level of accuracy is achieved on non-moving ones. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 6, 2008 11:58 AM:
" Sure Gator makes a good point. However, cars are not designed to kill anyone.
Tell that to the nuts with the Hummers.
My .22 Buck Mark semi auto pistol wasn't designed to kill people either. It is designed to put a small bit of lead through an assigned target at a great rate of speed with a variable amount of accuracy (depending on the user).
Its all about how you use machines. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:42 AM:
Guns on the other hand have only one purpose - killing. Even those who do nothing but shoot at targets are honing their skills for the possibility or probability that one day they will actually kill something, be it a human or animal.
But of course this has little to do with the issue at hand. I am still convinced that the constitutionality of citizens to own personal weapons is not yet settled. My opinion is supported by the lack of a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:27 AM:
Gator wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:38 AM:
Clown that has 3 beers, blows a red light and wipes out a family of five. No!
They are just as dead had he walked up and shot all five, tragic but what do you Hear, he was drunk anyway, There is no accountability in society to day. Where do most of the gun deaths take place???In the swamp called the inner City, Drug wars, turf wars and just plain macho stupidity all glorified on TV and in the movies and Gangsta rap and Gangsta life style, are we for
Real???2007 THERE WERE 29,000 GUN DEATHS and 2007 THERE
WERE 49,000 TRAFFIC DEATHS OF WHICH 18,000 WERE DRUNK!!
When I was 16 I stood on a street in northern California, saw the broken bodies, glass, Twisted metal and the smell of blood and booze and heard
the words ITS OK HE WAS JUST DRUNK. 3 died that night, but not
the driver and for the people, just as dead as if they had been shot. "
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:34 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:42 PM:
While you certainly may 'feel' safer with your concealed weapon, there are those who might argue whether or not you are actually safer. "
Robb wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:42 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:23 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:56 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:46 AM:
No I didn't. We are talking about 'guns.' Now if you think we should begin discussing the merits of the right to bear box cutters and commercial airliners by all means let the debate begin. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:43 AM:
However, had the Founders had the foresight to separate their intentions regarding a 'well regulated Militia' and 'individuals' we here in the 21st century would not be having this conversation. Because the word 'Militia' is capitalized in the original Constitution, this concept was of extreme importance and relevance before, during and after the Revolution. While the concept of militias is heralded by some to be relevant and necessary today, these groups are no longer 'well regulated' or even officially recognized.
By simply reading the Second Amendment word-for-word it is clear why this matter has not been settled after all these years. Even now with this clearly partisan decision by the Supreme Court there is no doubt that the issue will again raise its head in the future. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:42 AM:
" You don't have any printed evidence whatsoever?
I've seen the Obama clip and I don't see an endorsement of confiscation anywhere in there.
If, however, you can supply me with a specific quote to the contrary, I would be happy to reconsider the issue. "
This shopper is easily misled by written advertisements..chuckle! "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Robb wrote, 'Guns are NOT dangerous, People are...'
Okay - but stupid, evil or irresponsible people who do not have a gun are decidedly less dangerous. "
9/11 terrorists used box cutters, and jets. I think you misjudged that statement. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:36 AM:
" No, I am a Lodian, born and bred. We moved to Austin a couple of months ago for my wife's job.
I grew up in Lodi, moved away for college and jobs and then moved back for a couple of years before this latest move.
Austin is very liberal, much more so than the Central Valley. "
Leonard is correct. I know one Moderate Liberal that couldn't handle left wing Austin, and moved back to Los Angeles. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:32 AM:
" dyan wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:15 PM:
" Hey Leonard: Be sure and vote for Obama so he can put that next lib on the court.
I sure will. For one thing, given the ages of the current Justices, the next vacancies will most likely come from the liberal judges. Given the immense damage the current crop of conservatives have already done to our non gun related rights, I can't imagine what they would do with another Clarence Thomas style hack on the court.
In any case, my right to bear arms will stay pretty safe as long as I remain here in Texas.
Thanks for your concern "
Leonard- These would be Socialist liberal judges, and they would take gun rights away from Teaxans. You can't be that delusional, can you? Socialist judges did it to U.K. and Austrailia. "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:27 AM:
The idea of firearms was almost an afterthought; after seven Articles it had to wait until the Second Amendment.
girard74- What?? are you a little kid? It is obvious from this statement that you do not know the history of our Constitution. The Constitution was created as a framework for the government structure, and not for rights. Several states, including New York, held up ratification because our rights were not written out, or formally expressed. It was only on the promise of our Bill of Rights being immediately ratified, that these states agreed to ratify the Constitution. Think you better read the Federalist Papers about the 2nd Amendment "
Giovanina wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:21 AM:
" sam wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:45 PM:
" Leonard, on one of the news shows I saw where a man shot 2 men for robbing his neighbors house. He shot them dead. He was not charged because it is legal in Texas to shoot a robber.
I have been reading up on the Texas law in preparation for getting my concealed carry permit and I have to say that I think that was a quite a stretch of the law. The Castle Doctrine, as I understand it here in Texas, does not apply to perps who are clearly running away on someone else's property.
I think that in this case, the local DA simply wanted to get reelected. "
No. There was no indictment of Mr. Horne because they were looking for justice and not a conviction. "
dyan wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:57 AM:
papercut wrote on Jul 4, 2008 2:51 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:47 AM:
-LP "
dyan wrote on Jul 4, 2008 10:46 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:17 AM:
He hasn't been able to get the newest I-Phone. I don't consider that torture. LOL "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:11 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:07 AM:
The Patriot Act is only in the best interest of the country.
Leonard seems to feel uncomfortable with this. I wonder what illegal activities he is doing that warrants this concern.
I, myself, have nothing to hide and they can tap me all they want. "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:02 AM:
" So, remind me Brian. I know we have discussed this before by my memory, for the moment, fails me.
What do you keep in your gun closet to protect your Family and Freedom? "
At the moment I don't have any guns. I have a 2 and 4 year old and my wife and I have chosen to wait until they get a little older. If you interpret me not having any guns as not wanting to protect my family and freedom, you're entitled to your opinion.
You are consistent with your cheap shots and condescending remarks. "
dyan wrote on Jul 4, 2008 8:35 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 4, 2008 8:31 AM:
What do you keep in your gun closet to protect your Family and Freedom? "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2008 8:10 AM:
Perhaps there are. It's quite rare.
As for liberals: It is as common as sand on the beach.
I don't know how you can support Obama
when he believes in limiting our second amendment rights. You better hide that mini 14. His thugs may be coming around to confiscate it from you if he gets elected. "
Polemicscat wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:31 AM:
Maybe the freedom of the press will go next. Then we can just put people like the author of this article in jail for writing what any current government doesn't like. "
Brian wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:53 PM:
" dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:49 PM:
" you don't know what "tyranny" is until you've lived in a country like Cuba or Romania.
Do they tap phones, hold people without charges and torture people there? "
-Leonard, your torturing us with your razor sharp intellect.
Are you suggesting we would be better off here under a Castro-like regime?
You'll have all the Cuban cigars you want. That's for sure. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:25 PM:
Yeah, ain't it something?! A little ingenuity, the ability to rearrange words and voila - you've got new ideas! What a concept!! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:35 PM:
Yeah, ain't it something?! A little ingenuity, the ability to rearrange words and voila - you've got new ideas! What a concept!! "
girard74 wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:25 PM:
Okay - but stupid, evil or irresponsible people who do not have a gun are decidedly less dangerous. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:01 PM:
Okay - but stupid, evil or irresponsible people who do not have a gun are decidedly less dangerous.
I am constantly surprised by human ingenuity in these matters. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:58 PM:
Okay - but stupid, evil or irresponsible people who do not have a gun are decidedly less dangerous. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:52 PM:
" you don't know what "tyranny" is until you've lived in a country like Cuba or Romania.
Do they tap phones, hold people without charges and torture people there? "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:49 PM:
Robb wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:27 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:24 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:23 AM:
The only problem is that they are all for wing nut sites.
Strangely, the alleged original source is always absent from the list. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Sorry. I can't improve your Googling skills. Try the Baltimore Sun 2-15-08.
Obama: " I think local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws."
I believe that is what the conservative majority on the Court found as well, as long as those laws don't involve a ban. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:08 AM:
Obama: " I think local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws." (referring to D.C. and Chicago. He also said micro stamping bullets was a good idea.
Another reason why political beliefs are blind. If you'd really would like to open your eyes someday, check with the NRA on their reasons. Why must the blind lead the blind? "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:57 AM:
Did you, perhaps, misquote it somehow? "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:55 AM:
See, two can play at this game. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:53 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:52 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:25 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:15 AM:
Perhaps this will lead you to question some of your other assumptions as well. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:37 AM:
Obama is the most liberal guy in the Senate. When it comes time for Supreme Court appointments, they are going to be left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Now just how do you think they are going to rule on the second amendment, based on the last decision? Sorry. Texas will not be exempt. The feds trump. Why do you think the NRA hates this guy so much? Reality check. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:32 AM:
I give up.
Given your inability to support your assertion with any sort of evidence, that is probably a wise choice. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:24 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:21 AM:
I've seen the Obama clip and I don't see an endorsement of confiscation anywhere in there.
If, however, you can supply me with a specific quote to the contrary, I would be happy to reconsider the issue. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:10 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:06 AM:
" Jeez, Len. Wake up! It's right there in his own words on U-Tube! Case closed "
Where? Give me a transcript. If Obama really made the statements you suggest, it should not be any sort of challenge for you to support your assertion with evidence. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:01 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:59 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:58 AM:
" Look up his double-speak comments on the second amendment decision. In so many words, He's for second amendment rights but communities should have the right to ban guns.
Again, I understand that this is what his enemies say. Do you have any quotes from Obama that support your assertion? "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:50 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:43 AM:
" Obama made it pretty clear that he was for confiscation of D.C. and Chicago pistols
I know that conservatives like to say this about Obama. Do you have any actual quotes from Obama that would support your assertion? "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:30 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:28 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:53 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:44 AM:
" The scary thing is: There are liberals out there who actually say some of this stuff. "
And there are conservatives like you who don't care enough about Liberty to be part of an armed citizenry.
As Giovanina says, an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a slave.
What are you packing, B? "
Brian wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:40 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:33 PM:
liberals in a way where one could actually believe a liberal could say some of these things. "
Brian wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:17 PM:
I have never heard a conservative call anyone a gun nut in the context that Steve writes. Nor would you ever hear
a conservative talk about the evils of hunting. "