Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Gun control backers aren’t against Second Amendment

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:00 am

Can we all please stop with the "Obama is taking our guns" talk? If all of you stop watching Fox News and start reading for a change, you would know that the gun control people do not want to infringe on the Second Amendment; all we would like to see is limited ammo clips, better background checks, better control of illegal sales and getting rid of military-style weapons.

Arming teachers and bringing back the Wild West is the dumbest thing that could happen. Let's all please get sensible on this and think before we rant.

And just a note, the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, way before all of the advancements in weaponry. I am sure the Founding Fathers were not thinking of assault muskets!

Mike Hartung

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

44 comments:

  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:55 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    SS: Good points. I wonder if those people considered their dead brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers just collateral damage?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:53 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Simon: I truly find Ms Bobbin's offensive, crass and callous. Both of my brothers died from their service to this country. Many of my relatives were wounded and several died in the service to this country. Most of us were drafted and served with distinction. Her comments stating that the death of a Border Patrol Agent..who was unable to defend himself properly because of this administrations policy to use beanbags on illegal aliens...as merely "collateral damage" is outrageous and absurd. I don't think one soldier, police officer, fireman, or any other safety service person would consider one name on the Viet Nam Memorial Wall, WWII Memorial, Korean Memorial or any of the hundreds of memorials to others was in any manner just "collateral damage"

    Her statement is a affront to all who have served this county in ANY capacity and I am demanding that her comments be removed immediately.

     
  • stan taves posted at 10:55 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    If it is reasonable to assume the worst for the dollar's future; then it is reasonable to assume that food stocks could conceivably disappear from the grocery shelves. I'm not suggesting that chaos is in any way imminent; I'm only suggesting prudence is in the preparation. You lefties are perfectly willing to surrender your personal protection for a promise from govt leadership; But given leaderships record, you'd be on the wrong of that promise.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 2:20 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2293

    Muskets, with their utility in delivering rapid volley fire, were most certainly the assault rifles of colonial America. When the British tried to confiscate American arms at Concord, the patriots fought back and the American Revolution was born.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 12:46 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Such filth, such vulgar comments! So by your thinking...we don't need soldiers, cops, firemen, building inspectors, safety crews...or any other forms of protection for the average citizen??? But we do need BO, JB and the millions of welfare people they have created over the past 4 years???

    The problem with you msbb...is that when your assertions are proven wrong, idiotic or platitudinal, you attack the very people you profess to defend. So with those points in mind...it would be okay with you that a robber come to your door, you would open that door, let him take what he wished, kill you and your husband with your own gun and then walk away freely. I think most people would have a problem with your scenario. Cold??? No... just dumb because that is exactly what happened in Europe from about 1932 to 1944. Read some history.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:35 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    It began when you decided ABC News is a "conspiracy theory" website.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:34 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    ABC News is a "conspiracy theory" website? Huh? [huh]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:29 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    It is quite the toss up, eh?

    The only difference is that Andrew gets his twisted version of the truth from conspiracy websites - those are the only ones that make sense to his twisted version of whatever "reality" he lives in.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:27 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "Under Bush…no deaths. Under BO…On the evening of December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and others were patrolling Peck Canyon, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. The group came across five suspected illegal immigrants. When they fired non-lethal beanbag guns, the suspects responded with their own weapons, leading to a firefight. Terry was shot and killed;"

    Like any other occupation, if you don't want to get killed or put your life on the line, don't enter a profession in which the likelihood of that happening is great.

    If you don't want to fall off a roof, don't become a roofer.

    Sounds cold, doesn't it? The liabilities of the job of a Border Patrol Agent are well known by all agents. It's called "collateral damage," sad, but true.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 10:46 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1113

    Birds of a feather flock together??

    I don't know who "copies and paste better" ??

    [wink]

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:55 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1338

    Folks,
    When you argue with each other, it is no longer about education, and what's right and wrong.

    Now, you are like US citizens, uhh... rats in a psychology experiment.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 6:53 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 500

    Mr. Barrow, in my opinion, many law abiding citizens are the ones that fuel the drug trade by purchasing alcohol/drugs. alcohol has been classified as an addictive substance and included in the drug category, and without those "law abiding" citizens the illegal drug trade, as well as the illegal gun trade, would not flourish if these criminals had only their own kind to deal with and sell to.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:04 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Thanks for saving me the time Mr. Maple. [thumbup]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:03 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Is ABC News another "Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory website" Ms. Bobin? [sleeping]

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:03 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    ms bobbin: Such vulgar boorish language and comments!!

    Under Operation Wide Receiver, there had been a FORMAL ATF CONTRACT with the cooperating gun dealer and efforts were made to involve the ATF Mexico City Office (MCO) and Mexican law enforcement. Under Operation Fast and Furious, at Bill Newell’s, (special agent in charge of ATF's Phoenix field division) insistence the cooperating gun dealers did not have contracts with ATF, and MCO and the Mexican police were left in the dark.

    The NEW operation Fast and Furious began on October 31, 2009, when a local gun store reported to the Phoenix ATF that four individuals had purchased multiple AK47 style rifles. Altogether, 2,020 firearms were bought by straw purchasers during Fast and Furious. (under Bush 450).These included AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, and FN Five-sevens. As of October 20, 2011, 389 had been recovered in the US and 276 had been recovered in Mexico. The rest remained on the streets, unaccounted for. Most of the guns went to the Sinaloa Cartel, while others made their way to El Teo and La Familia.

    Under Bush…no deaths. Under BO…On the evening of December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and others were patrolling Peck Canyon, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. The group came across five suspected illegal immigrants. When they fired non-lethal beanbag guns, the suspects responded with their own weapons, leading to a firefight. Terry was shot and killed; four of the suspects were arrested and two AK-pattern rifles were found nearby. The suspects were believed to be bandits who robbed illegal immigrants within the United States. The rifles were traced to Fast and Furious within hours of the shooting.

    So I suggest ms bobbin…you are the one who “that's right - pulled it out of your behind, that's why. that's right”.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:28 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    And once again - ONLY right wing CONSPIRACY THEORY websites are stating that all of the mass shooters named by Andrew were Democrats (except for the Columbine kids who were obviously corrupted by their Democrat parents).

    I wonder why ONLY right wing CONSPIRACY NUTS know this and no one else does?

    Oh, that's right - because they pulled it out of their behinds, that's why.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:24 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency."

    In "ACTUALITY":

    "The Bush administration gave weapons to suspected drug traffickers in a program similar to the one President Barack Obama has been criticized for by Congressional Republicans."

    "Under Bush, a similar program known as Operation Wide Receiver allowed guns to “walk.”

    Time to get up to date, Andrew.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 9:02 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1364

    Joanne: As someone who lived nearby to where these murders took place, I (and most "country" dwellers) can count on my fingers and toes the number of times I haven't slept with a gun next to my bed. Out in the "country" you are on your own for how ever long until the sheriff arrives.

    I had to wait 20 minutes for a unit to be dispatched and arrive from French Camp where the closest free unit was available. This was after I told the dispatcher I was holding someone at gun point.

    Lessons learned: 1. Be armed; 2. Never, ever give up your gun, that puts the criminal in charge. Keep your gun, the best the criminal can hope for is a draw, assuming you don't get fatigued and just shoot him or her; 3. Never open the door without seeing clearly who is on the other side, and even then be very, very cautious.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:25 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, do have a common thread.

    Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

    Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

    Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff; Registered Democrat.

    Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

    Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

    ALL of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.[sleeping]

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 8:17 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Sand...head

    The willing blindness continues...

    Guns...murder...Behghazi...Arizona...

    Sand....no shine

    Criptique consequences and consequential drip

    Moon...beam...ahhhh enlightenment....garbage

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:03 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    It's beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeks to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 8:00 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1113

    "front man...Eric Holder..."

    The beating of the dead horse continues...


    [lol]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:44 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    What is your definition of an "assault weapon" Ms. Bobin?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:41 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:53 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    "Maybe we can freak out the most extreme gun freaks so badly their blood pressure explodes and the problem solves itself." So msbobbin...you are for murdering people...innocent people who have done nothing but demand their rights???

    msbobbin...you think it is okay to HARM or wish harm onto someone because you disagree with them???

    BUT...you want unwanted babies to be discarded like Douglas Gretzler? That is okay with you?? You want people who disagree with you to be punished??

    msbobbin: BO DID approve the sales of weapons...through his duly appointed front man...Eric Holder...the owner of the business has ultimate responsibility for his appointees and employees...maybe if he stayed home and did a little more business he would know that. You agreed that the sales was illegal...why hasn't Holder been fired...why aren't you demanding that HE be fired??? Hmmmmm...

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:15 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    First of all, President Obama did not approve gun sales to Mexican cartels. That was an ATF decision that took place both under Bush and Obama, but not with their knowledge.

    Second, those "straw" purchases where made by American citizens from gun dealers in the US.

    Dumb a..es should not be allowed to make comments, seriously.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 10:10 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    I would totally support a line-item veto power for the president, on spending items. But, unless they amend the Consitution, that will never happen. Congress gave Clinton that power in 1996, but the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:00 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1982

    I know the issue of riders is not specific to the gun debate/bill. But with it being such a hot topic it (I suspect) that politicians will see it as a golden opportunity to get other things passed that otherwise wouldn't simply because no one wants to be cast as being anti SMART gun laws.

    This rider issue is why I support and wish the politicians had a line item vote ability. So every new part of any bill can be voted on, not just the whole thing as a massive all or nothing bill.

     
  • Christina Welch posted at 9:26 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Lodi 1970 Posts: 85

    Kevin,
    You made some really good points that I had not considered as part of this debate. The issue of all the riders being attached to the bill is a very solid point, and one that I now worry about. I don't think they'd attach something that violates the 4th amendment or anything as big as that, but what about some sort of spending item or something? That is so commonplace in Congress, and very troublesome. I would hope the Rules Committee would see this issue as important as it is and not allow any amendments, riders, etc. but who knows? As for the government take-over idea, I kinda get that, too, but if a politician is even able to manage a take-over (which I doubt, with our system of checks and balances) he/she would have our nation's nuclear arsenal at their disposal, so a citizen's guns would fail in comparison anyway. Regardless, you have definitely brought up some interesting points for this argument and have proven again what an incredibly complicated issue this is. There are no easy answers, to be sure.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:17 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I'm sure that no number of guns would have saved the Parkin family and friends from the fiendish crime perpetrated on them by Willie Steelman and Douglas Gretzler in Victor back in 1973. Nine people murdered in a bizarre series of events that began as a robbery.

    Ironically, Gretzler, sentenced to death in Arizona for two murders and after a total of 17 murders including those 9 people in Victor, invoked violations of his Constitutional rights in his appeal.

    Thankfully, he finally got the needle he deserved in 1998 - twenty five years after commiting those horrific acts.

     
  • Charles Nelson posted at 8:52 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Charles Nelson Posts: 259

    I believe that American citizens should be able to go to a gun dealer and purchase the same types of weapons that President Obama approved for sales to the Mexican drug cartels. Wouldn't that be fair?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:32 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Getting a tax credit for turning in your assault weapon?

    Maybe we can freak out the most extreme gun freaks so badly their blood pressure explodes and the problem solves itself.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:11 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1982

    Eric: It is a good point. My only rebuttal is this, I am not going to have a drug addict break into my house and throw drugs at me. But if a bad guy gets a hold of a gun then they can do massive harm to me and my family.

     
  • roy bitz posted at 10:34 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    roy bitz Posts: 497

    Our good president asked us not to "rush to judgement" when a US Army officer shot and killed 13 at Ft hood. By the way---- what ever happened to this perp?
    Does anyone out there Know how to put toothpaste back in the tube?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:18 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1486

    Kevin in addressing your fist point if we create laws against drug abuse and law abiding citizen obey them but criminal continue to use drugs do we eliminate the laws or do we prosecute the criminals who are breaking the laws

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:36 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    "brits back to Iceland" ROFLMAO [lol]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 3:33 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1982

    Personally, and as a conservative, I agree with the PROPOSED gun ban. But here are a couple of issues BEFORE I get excited: First and foremost is the very real question, when you pass a law who obeys it, the law abiding citizen or the criminal element?

    Second, when this bill goes before congress what other, non related to guns measures will there be included and slipped through in order to pass. It is no secret that most bills have hidden measures on them unrelated to the main issue. So let's say the 2013 Gun bill is filled with very good intentions but a rider is put on it that allows for federal government to search any home without a warrant (Yes I know that is an extreme, done to prove a point). IS the gun bill still a good thing? If a politician votes against it because of the search clause then their opponents will say they are against gun control.

    And here is the third and only a minor concern, but one the founding fathers addressed as well. IF somewhere down the road a politician takes over and starts a military take over of the country, how will the citizens of the country defend themselves with guns 20 years behind the military's. It doesn't even have to be a military take over, how about that point down the road where we are a weaker nation and Canada (again, just used for an example I just as easily could have said alien invasion [scared]) decides to take us over. Then a well armed citizen population could play a major role in defending this country.

    But, as I said in the beginning, I do see a lot of sense in the Democrats following the Republicans lead from years ago in tightening gun control.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:33 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    H.R. 226 was introduced by Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro on January 13th.
    [sleeping]

    The language included in the legislation specifies that the bill is part of the government’s “program to reduce the number of privately owned weapons”

    In other words, a program to disarm the American people. [sleeping]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 1:16 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1364

    They may not have been thinking of "assult muskets", but they would have snatched 'em up it they were available! They could have whipped them sanguine brits back to Iceland or where ever with rifles instead of smooth bore muskets so the bullet would go where you pointed it instead of the ball going in whatever direction it was when it left the muzzle.

    While they didn't see advances in weaponry, had they been available, it would have given them a definite edge. Would they allow only citizens to buy smooth bore muskets instead of the much more deadly rifles? And repeating arms? The Native American's at Little Big Horn sported many repeating rifles while the American cavalry was using single shot Sharps (I believe). So would we have outlawed repeating rifles for citizens so that the army and citizens would be equally armed?

    The men who wrote the Constitution had great vision, but it wasn't very concise. Would they be against "assult rifles" for civilians? Maybe not if they read the history books where advanced weaponry gave that side an edge.

    I think you'd be surprised the number of your neighbors who own assult rifles. Take a drive up to the gun range in Ione (very nice, very welcoming even to novices). Every other or every third rifle is a black gun (except some women who have pink ones. I'm just saying....).

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:03 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    All depends on the person supporting/signing legislation and WHO they are targeting.

    Fine for Reagan - a revered president who had an assassination attempt against him.

    Fine for Reagan who was targeting Black Panthers.

    Not fine for Obama. He's already got multiple strikes against him - he's black and he desires to "fundamentally change" our government/throw out the Constitution/hates America/(fill in the blank).

    No one before him has ever done anything like this before.......

    Black people are just fundamentally scarey according to some.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:13 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1486

    "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

    Reagan wrote to Congress in 1994 urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

    Supporters of gun control point to the strict legislation Reagan signed as governor of California, such as the Mulford Act of 1967, which forbid open carrying of guns. The act came at a time when the Black Panthers openly carried weapons.

    http://mountainview.patch.com/articles/who-was-tougher-on-gun-control-barack-obama-or-ronald-reagan

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:45 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Apparently, some commenters ONLY believe that gun control measures proposed by a black socialist president are conspiracies to "relieve law-abiding citizens of their weapons."

    Where was your indignation when previous laws were signed by white, non-socialist presidents?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:43 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    "Political posturing" has never happened before the Obama Administration, right Mr. Kinderman?

    Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers

    By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    7:46 PM PST, January 8, 2008

    WASHINGTON -- A rare piece of gun legislation finds the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on the same side, and President Bush signed such a bill Tuesday.

    The measure, Congress' response to last year's Virginia Tech shootings, is the first significant federal legislation in years aimed at tightening gun laws. It seeks to expand the federal database used to screen gun buyers to include the estimated 2 million-plus people, including felons and mentally ill individuals, who are ineligible to buy firearms.

    The legislation signed Tuesday, designed to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, was the first gun measure to emerge since Democrats took over the House and the Senate a year ago. It was passed last month, in the waning hours of the 2007 legislative session.

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., one of the bill's sponsors, said it would "close the wide gaps in our nation's firearm background-check system to ensure violent criminals and the mentally ill no longer slip through the cracks and gain access to dangerous weapons."

    A White House-ordered review of the Virginia Tech shootings found that "accurate and complete information on individuals prohibited from possessing firearms is essential to keep guns out of the wrong hands."

    Currently, 17 states provide no mental health records to the background-check system, according to the Justice Department.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:10 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    Really? Well, what did New York City's illustrious mayor announce just recently, that there's "too many guns" out there? No, this is a concerted effort to relieve law-abiding citizens of their weapons. But once they think they've got them all, they'll soon realize that they only have the guns belonging to those who were responsible with and for them.

    This is just more political posturing from those on the far-left: "Look at us! We're doing something about all the killings in America!" Yeah, right!

     

Recent Comments

Posted 24 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: La Raza does support illegal im…

[thumbup] Thank you Walter I couldn't have said it better myself without taking 4 times as many words.

More...

Posted Yesterday by Joseph Wood.

article: Lodi Academy students on their way to h…

Another example of the incredible community spirit that exists in Lodi. It's a never-ending story.

More...

Posted Yesterday by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Friend’s car was wrongfully tow…

I have no sympathy for people who blatantly violate the law then whine when they have to suffer the consequences. The signs at the Lodi Pos…

More...

Posted 2 days ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Surprised by water bill

Until the meters were put in that flat rate was outstanding since you could use all the water you could get through a hose anytime you want…

More...

Posted 2 days ago by Walter Chang.

article: Letter: La Raza does support illegal im…

"some bloggers here" Kevin, I was referring specifically about a handful of Archconservative/Retrogressive "Christain"…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists