Lodinews.com

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

Politicians trying to remove Second Amendment rights

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:42 am, Wed Nov 16, 2011.

Sacramento-area law enforcement selling guns that ordinary citizens cannot buy and somehow ending up in Mexico; then our politicians blaming this on our Second Amendment rights as citizens being the cause. It seems once you start feeding at the taxpayer trough you seem to turn against the citizens who put you in office.

Most people don't have the time to follow these politicians as they turn their back on the citizens. Or change their vote to whatever is in vogue at the time. Or it happens overnight as with Assemblywoman Galgiani, D-Livingston, revealing she is gay — now I am afraid to go to bed.

Well, anyway, with the increase in crime and laws against protecting yourself, just resign yourself to becoming a victim. Get your training; Las Vegas has a good school. Reno has another school which I have heard about, teaching liability and safe use 12 hours a day with a certificate of completion. I am sure there are other good schools also.

I have no idea what good this will do for you. Most politicians, once they reach Washington or Sacramento, have one-track minds — remove the guns from law-abiding citizens. The criminals are the only ones allowed to own them, to rob, burglarize or "drive-by" at will. They will have guns long after we give up ours.

Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite.

Ben Coleman

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.

60 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:35 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel...I refused to answer it as I felt it was not appropriate. Feel free to answer the question if you wish. I have no desire or motivation to explain why I opted to give my opinion.

    That you asked the question is an insult and tells me future dialogue between us will likely be fruitless.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 5:55 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: I asked a question that is yours, not mine. I don't have any respect for that.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:50 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    It makes no sense only if you do not bother to figure out how to answer your own question.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 2:09 pm on Fri, Nov 25, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: That make no sense.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Nov 24, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel stated...If you don't have an opinion, and if you won't respond in the future, then why did you start anything by expressing an opinion on my communication skills?

    Very good question Daniel... Now you are on your first step to knowledge. Take some time to answer your own question and it will help.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:35 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: K Lee called it best before me.

    If you don't have an opinion, and if you won't respond in the future, then why did you start anything by expressing an opinion on my communication skills?

    Why do you care so much about my communication skills?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:48 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I also will not participate in the topic in future posts."

    Darrell: You often say this sort of thing and never follow through.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:54 pm on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel... thank you for your concern... however, what you study is a high prioity to you.. For me, it is a low priorty. I will not make future suggestions to you concerning communication or vocabulary. I also will not participate in the topic in future posts.
    Thank You.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:14 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: The person who is responsible for Darrell's education is Darrell, not Daniel.

    Darrell stated, "Daniel stated...Washington D.C. is foreign to us...
    This is specifically what I was referring to ... you cannot state it in these terms."

    What kind of terms would be understandable to you?

    Is this understandable?: YOU COULD SUFFER GREAT CALAMITY IF DON'T STUDY.

    Get into the computer and find a network to study. Sooner or later, your work will pay off.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:41 pm on Mon, Nov 21, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: There is nothing complicated about stating that there are
    two governments. Can you count to two?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:54 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: A good thing to understand is the fact that Washington D.C. is foreign to us. If you want to understand something, I suggest this would be a good place to begin. I have been dropping hints for a very long time now.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:53 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: "Many times it is hard for me to understand what it is you are talking about as I am not familiar with the vocabulary and concepts you address."

    Difficult or not, the material I am posting is vitally important. People cannot deny that their U.S. Treasury is insolvent, but most difficult to believe that it is near bankruptcy liquidation.

    People deny that amidst the wide-spread foreclosure, these foreclosures are in fraud, and people can defend against them without losing their home.

    So when people continuously deny that they don’t understand, their central bank is ready to collapse. In this regards, I am trying to inspire a motivation to study, if only you knew where to begin, or the first thing to look at…

    I am posting in the wrong venue, but I continue to post here anyway because I know where I came from.

    This information requires a large amount of study.
    In summary, I am trying to teach the fundamentals of law in general, and commerce.
    In the letter in regards to the second amendment, I taught the principle that standing is the absolute most important element of a court case. Who are the parties is what determines the outcome, not the facts. I am trying to beat people over the head with this concept because when I use logical reason, it doesn’t work.

    Most difficult to post in here is international law, and when I start saying that we are foreign to Washington D.C., I start losing people.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:36 am on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel: Good Question. My guess is the truth was not a consideration in what was provided. I really am uneducated in what is important to you Daniel. Many times it is hard for me to understand what it is you are talking about as I am not familiar with the vocabulary and concepts you address.
    I concern was that you were treated unfairly in this case. I might disagree with you on ideas, but I respect your contribution.

    For example, you state there is no difference between the two political parties. In one way, I agree with you. I think both sides are like ice cream ( how they are the same), but democrats are vanilla and republicans are chocolate. So ice cream is ice cream... but I see a big difference in flavor.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 10:05 pm on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: In the stuff that I discussed below, there is a lot of controversy and bad feelings. Most of the stuff has a long story, but I think the point is made that they had to reach way back to the 1990's to find a bogus Bill of Exchange to suggest that "sovereign citizens" are writing these today. Why couldn't they find one that was written recently?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:11 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Darrell: I guess I read this wrong:
    Mr Tillet stated...Pay him little to no attention ( in reference to Daniel)
    Now that Mr Tillett has spoken... case closed. Sorry Daniel, Mr Tillet is all knowing and does not make mistakes in matters such as this.

    Exactly!... That was sarcasm … Jeff Tillett is a high school teacher who presents himself as all knowing in my opinion. I could not believe he linked you to that web site as reason why people should pay little attention to you... so yes, you must have taken my words literally instead of sarcasm.

    Sorry I was not more clear.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:41 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: I responded yesterday, and I haven't heard anything since. ...
    Hello ....

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:10 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: You concluded that I was affiliated with that website, and not only did I tell you where the website came from, but I also knew about he details of the images that they showed, making me somewhat more knowledgable on that website than you.

    I think a confession is in order that you made judgments without knowing what you were talking about.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:08 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Darrell: I guess I read this wrong:

    Mr Tillet stated...Pay him little to no attention ( in reference to Daniel)

    Now that Mr Tillett has spoken... case closed. Sorry Daniel, Mr Tillet is all knowing and does not make mistakes in matters such as this.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:19 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff and Darrell: That's more depressing that the two of you would associate me with that website. How would you like it if I posted a cite like that about you?

    Daniel, please read my post more carefully. I was very critical of Jeff for using that web site. I felt it was very unfair and inappropriate. Because I was so critical ofJeff, he asked why I attacked him. I am confused as to why you would think I was doing anything but defending you. I, like you, would not appreciate such a thing. I think Jeff owes you an apology.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:01 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: Sorry. One more thing... That website you cited is very depressing.

    Jeff and Darrell: That's more depressing that the two of you would associate me with that website. How would you like it if I posted a cite like that about you?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:58 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    I'm gone for a few days. ...

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:57 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: In the judgment that you have made, and by the website that you have used as evidence for judgment, what is the motive, and who is the victim?

    Before you answer that, please consider whether you are passing judgment upon a large mass of people in general, for actions that are either unrelated, or were performed by a single individual.

    I ask, do you actually believe that a large mass of people who are writing bills of exchanges that are drawn upon a bank account that does not have authority to respond to the given signature, or which does not contain any funds?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:44 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: (On the website, continued.)

    Photograph images, second row, second column: Bill of Exchange.
    The term “Bill of Exchange” is a check. What is the difference? I don’t know if there is one.
    Notice that the Bill of Exchange is dated in 1995. Quite some time ago.
    I would never write this document, and I don’t think that the signers had authority to sign this check.

    The bumper sticker in the 4th row is a long story.
    The indemnity bond in the 5th row is definitely a longer story than the bumper sticker.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:31 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff: You wrote, "Mark, Daniel is a sovereign citizen devotee. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement."

    I appreciate the statement, "let's ask daniel," even though the question was made that I am associated with the website.

    nevertheless, I can show you a few things about it.

    The header shows that it is published by a law firm. We (a lot of people) have identified lawyers as having alternative loyalties; hence, they have an interest in promoting a negative public opinion.

    The website emphasizes the death of Jerry Kane and his son Joseph, and they celebrate in the images, third row, second column, of how many bullet holes they put into their car when they killed them.

    If you see how much weight he has in the second row, third column, and compare to the mug shot above, you can see that he lost some weight. The mug shot I suspect was taken when he was arrested in New Mexico a few days before his death, but I'm not sure. In the images that were shown on 60-Minutes, there was an issue of the amount of body weight that he displayed in the film, compared to his actual weight at the time of his death.

    The autopsy report, which would reveal the body weight, was not released.

    Jerry was fighting mortgage foreclosure and he was educating people on how to do it. Before Jerry’s teachings, I had a very limited understanding of the nature of the foreclosure frauds that are happening across this country. In this regards, Jerry has educated a very large number of people, and he threatened to bring down mortgage fraud, without bothering to ask for assistance from the district attorneys. This is quite an embarrassment. Moreover, his teachings were posted in the Yahoo groups, and in other websites. Jerry taught people exhaustively, free of charge, but he asked for donations if people could afford it.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:12 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Jeff Tillett: Below, I emphasize that the constitution does not give any rights. I elaborated that since “We the People” created the constitution, then it is impossible for the constitution to be used to take away a right that is already given by God. That is the gist of my postings. Further, I blocked my shadow, Mark, who always has something to say, but doesn’t understand Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

    1) I never heard the term “sovereign citizen” until I saw it on 60-Minutes. I suspect that it was invented by 60-Minutes itself. Therefore, one must understand 60-Minutes report in order to understand whether I am a “sovereign citizen” or not.
    2) In 60-Minutes, they peacefully interviewed some guy with grey hair, who they stated was a “sovereign citizen.” Where did this guy come from? I don’t know. In the 60-Minutes presentation, the guy made some incredibly ridiculous statements. This form of journalism was used to help the viewers form the judgment that 60-Minutes wanted its viewers to make. Honestly, I have never heard of the guy before, and still today, his name has never appeared in anything that I have read.
    3) The term “sovereign citizen” is an oxymoron, by the common understanding of the term “citizen” which is by the 14th amendment.
    4) Above, I mentioned that “We the People” created the constitution. Here, “We the People” is the sovereign. In this regard, all that one has to do in order to become one of the people is to simply state that they are one of the people. Nothing complicated here.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:41 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne: Sorry, one more time.

    To which website are you referring? If you help, I can direct you to answer the question to the best of my ability.

    I stand firmly by my statement that District of Columbia is a corporation.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:39 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne,

    Otherwise, I note that you talk about me in the 3rd person, and I am not sure if you have made a good judgment or a bad judgment about me.

    Anyway, if you have a question, you can address me in the 1st person, and simply ask me a question, if you want to know.

    Jeff did.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:38 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne: I am not a Gulf War Vet. I did go to the Gulf, in between both Gulf Wars. In that regards, I am just a vet.

    Gulf War Syndrome refers to the 1991 war, and I was not there at the time. You might have recalled that I stated that by all of the training, it was difficult for me to leave, and I actually wanted to go back.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:37 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne: (Continued on your attempt to quote an FBI visit.)

    At no time did I ever express a fear of a law enforcement visit. I emphasize, that I was joking, most likely as a result of my being shocked for being exposed to this event in my life.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 7:35 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne:

    1) If the FBI were to identify a threat, they would not knock on a door. They would case the joint, and find a safe way to apprehend the suspect, such as when he goes grocery shopping.
    2) When the FBI knocks on a door, not only is it a friendly gesture, but they have already expressed their trust to enter upon the property. There is an investigation, and they trust the person upon whose door they knock. It is a privilege to receive that knock at the door. If they come to the door, I would want to talk to them.
    3) If someone is important, they might talk for a long time, especially if they want information, or if they want to make a determination. They want to assure that a threat does not exist.
    4) They probably don’t knock on my door because I type in the comment columns. They might fear that I would type it all over the comment columns, and they would be afraid that what they say will be repeated here. [If the trust were given, I would honor and respect that trust. You can know that by my honesty in other transactions.]

    You wrote that I “regretted that he had not been afforded that "priviledge." ”
    I was probably joking that someone else is more important than me.
    At the time, this was my first exposure to law enforcement visits. Today, I am not so shocked like I was before, and if a friend got the same visit, I probably wouldn't mention it anymore.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    J. T stated... Why are you going to such extraordinary lengths to attack me...

    Mr Tillett... Now you are being silly. It is I that have been checking my mailbox as a precausion to you for sometime now. I guess I should have been looking under my car.
    As far as my comments to you, I use a measured system where I give out what I perceive is given to me and others... I am not attacking you in anyway...you however have attacked me ( and others), I simply responded.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 5:14 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Mr. 4897, what is your problem? Why are you going to such extraordinary lengths to attack me? Should I be checking my mailbox or look under my car or take extra precaution when out with my toddler?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    J.T. Stated... that 'his diatribes here reflect the core beliefs of the movement.' Reflect. Not 'is congruent to', not 'matches', not 'is exactly'.

    However, JT then followed his own statement with...”It took me a while to figure out where from his ideology was coming. Pay him little to no attention.”

    Lets look closely that this last statement. “It took me a while to figure out”... That is history, as he has already concluded something about Daniel. What has he already figured out... JT is not guessing, is not saying maybe, not could be... but a definite conclusion about what?.. he is not guessing, not maybe, not could be... but definitely knows the direct source of Daniel's ideology. So what does J.T. ( not a French man) advise others to do because of the absolute definite knowledge he has????
    He does not state “you might” not... does not state “think for yourself”... does not state “be leery”... but states with confidence and finality... pay him little to no attention.

    And what was this source that he attributed Daniel's ideology that is so irrefutable and definite?

    People should read for themselves at the link J.T provided. The conclusion … Daniel's ideology has its roots in racism. That mostly black people are members and are totally unaware of its inherent racism. I was very surprised that J.T. Would give such a horrible link without making clear that he really has no way of knowing if Daniel's ideology has anything to do with many of the things this link talks about.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:07 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Hutchins, if I recall by his own admission, is a Gulf War Vet who returned home with a severe case of Gulf War Syndrome.

    In the past he has revealed that, although he, personally, had not been questioned by the FBI, an associate of his had and he regretted that he had not been afforded that "priviledge."

    I'm not sure Mr. Hutchins conforms to the "sovereign" MO, but he definitely has beliefs and associations that are contrary to his perception of the US government as it exists today, i.e., his belief that the US is a corporation - I did not see that information on the web reference provided.

    Contrary to Mr. Tillett's assessment, I think that Mr. Hutchins is not to be ignored for reasons other than his difference of opinion.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:38 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Or let's ask Daniel. Do you consider yourself a sovereign citizen, Daniel?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:37 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Wait, who is the "expert" opiner, Mr. 4892?

    I do seem to recollect, yes I most certainly did, state that 'his diatribes here reflect the core beliefs of the movement.' Reflect. Not 'is congruent to', not 'matches', not 'is exactly'. I left it open. Now, go look back and look at Daniel's ideology throughout the past year(s). Look at the sovereign citizen ideology. There is a lot in common. Don't like SPLC's take on it? Then investigate elsewhere, like I have done, including some self-described sovereigns' websites.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:29 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    It's Tillett, not Tillet. I'm not French, darn it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:30 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Tillet stated...Pay him little to no attention ( in reference to Daniel)

    Now that Mr Tillett has spoken... case closed. Sorry Daniel, Mr Tillet is all knowing and does not make mistakes in matters such as this.

    His link is the final authority... why? Because Jeff is all knowing. This link says that what you ascribe to is part of a strange subculture of the sovereign citizens movement, whose adherents hold truly bizarre, complex anti-government beliefs. In addition Jeff is confirming that your movement is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism. I guess we should all conclude that Mr Tillet thinks you are a racist at heart... therefore... you are ( I guess) ...right?

    Yes, Jeff has you pegged... All people should listen to Jeff with his superiority and highly complex sophisticated analysis and thinking skills. Logic is his game.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:55 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Daniel stated...How many of you are self-employed? Is it possible for your own corporation to sue yourself?

    Daniel... you are not self employed is you form a C corporation. You become an employee just like all other employees. The corporation pays you a salary under your individual social security number. A corporation is a separate entity and has its own tax ID number that has nothing to do with the people who own stock in that corporation.
    I do enjoy reading your posts, but I am still hoping you change your method of communication as the vocabulary you select can be interpreted so many different ways, that it makes it difficult to understand the intent of your posts. In earlier posts you articulated how important it is to define and specify the words that you use. Maybe you can take advantage of your own thought and clarify what it is your words mean.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 8:43 am on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Mark, Daniel is a sovereign citizen devotee. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement

    While he may not relate to some of the more infamous from the movement, alas his diatribes here reflect the core beliefs of the movement. It took me a while to figure out where from his ideology was coming. Pay him little to no attention.

     
  • MARK TROVINGER posted at 10:06 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    MARK TROVINGER Posts: 204

    Does anyone have a clue as to what Mr. Hutchins is trying to say or what topic he is attempting to address? Perhaps it is way past the time for him to call it a night and sleep it off. Let's all pray that he doesn't try to drive in his present condition.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:10 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Mark,

    Did you see the episode of Saturday Night Live, where the producers had arranged for a meet and greet for fellow "friends" who speak about each other in the comment columns?

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:09 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Mark,

    I confess: The principle that it is impossible for a creator to be sued by its own created, is, to you, nothing but jibberish, so you don't need to bother trying to understand it, and you can seek to find something negative to write about this simple concept.

    If you own a business, I suggest that you take a look at whether it can sue you, especially if you are self-employed.

    Maybe your own business can take away your right to own a weapon.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:05 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Ben Coleman: You could be a good mystery or suspense thriller author.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:03 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    The constitution does not grant a single right.

    People created the constitution, then at circa 1868, the constitution was used to create its subordinate Citizens.

    It is impossible for the creator to be prosecuted by its created.

    How many of you are self-employed? Is it possible for your own corporation to sue yourself?

    Then if you understand that you are one of the people that created the constitution, then you can know that it is impossible for it to take away any of your human rights.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 9:00 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Folks,

    Simple reading of the 2nd amendment shows that it is not granting a right. It is saying that the federal government shall not infringe the right, as if the people who created the constitution already possess that right to possess weapons.

    In this comment column, not one single person is saying that the right to possess a weapon is granted by God, not by a government. When someone believes that the constitution grants that right, then that same constitution can take it away.

    People are saying that Government is passing laws that seek to take that right away. If someone is subordinate, then yes, they can lose that right.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:56 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1339

    Joanne Bobin, I am starting to see a trend here.

    How can a black cat with yellow eyes have credibility to discredit a letter for the past history of the author, rather than the content of the letter.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:20 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Alex stated...You quoted some guy who was chairman in 1976. What about all the other chairmen who have rallied for gun safety and common sense

    Alex, please read more carefully...
    I was giving an example of incrementalism. This was the beginning statge and it has continued. One tiny step at a time.

    The statement read..."We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

     
  • Alex Kennedy posted at 4:07 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Mark and Jeff, well put.
    Darrell, sooooo wrong. You quoted some guy who was chairman in 1976. What about all the other chairmen who have rallied for gun safety and common sense. I own two guns and have never once feared "the man" is going to take them from me. Both guns (bought a few years apart) were really easy to get legally. Also, where did your quote come from because I have trouble believing its authenticity. Lastly, you quoted the current mission statent and your claim about banning ALL guns with few exceptions, is obviously wrong.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:50 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Trovinger stated...Where does Mr. Coleman get off making this statement that is nothing more than a blatant fabrication...

    Comical that anyone would take what Mr Coleman said literally... very funny... in fact anyone who would bother to think just for 3 seconds, would conclude he only intended to say the criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime would be able to own a gun without permission or registration (why bother). Obviously, this man feels discouraged and helpless when criminals can so easily obtain and use guns for their intent, but someone like himself has to go through legal channel and requirements that takes great time and effort in order to protect himself from these kind of people.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    This group is a gun control group who has much influence in the USA as you this issue....please not the mission statement of chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are affiliated non-profit organizations in the United States. They are named after James Brady

    Stated mission
    From Brady Campaign's website:
    "As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.”
    In 1976 then chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields stated
    "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 12:17 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    By the way, Ryan- federal agencies are not only trying to restrict gun useage at federal land- acess is being cut off entirely to citizens. Of 1232 miles of federal land in Plumas County, 868 miles of it are now restricted for public use. go to www.freedomadvocates.org for the whole lowdown, but be prepared to read for hours...the Sustainable zealots have been at work for years perfecting their plan. Dams are being torn down, private citizens being threatened with stiff fines and regulations. www.defendruralamerica.com
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

     
  • MARK TROVINGER posted at 12:06 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    MARK TROVINGER Posts: 204

    Mr. Coleman says' "The criminals are the only ones allowed to own them, to rob, burglarize or "drive-by" at will."

    Where does Mr. Coleman get off making this statement that is nothing more than a blatant fabrication. I'd be amazed if anyone could present any evidence of any law allowing criminals to own firearms, much less any law allowing them to rob, burglarize or "drive-by" at all. Criminals may have guns but this does not mean that they have been allowed to legally own them. Criminals may be breaking laws but that does not mean that they are legally allowed to do so. These are crimes and it is rediculous to state that criminal actions are allowed by any lawmaker or society.

    What a stupid statement from a person that wants us to believe his credibility or cause.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:05 pm on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Anyone who has read Mr. Coleman's submissions in the past would know that he is an adherent to the fringe elements that are contra to the Constitution of the US.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:28 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    What is incrementalism?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:26 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff stated...They are not, contrary to the hysterics, trying to take away our guns, or even more laughable, 'remove the guns from law-abiding citizens...

    Jeff could not possibly be wrong... he went directly to the bible of truth and accuracy, the huffingtonpost....With Reporting By Lucia Graves who covers politics for the Huffington Post.

    This reporter aked Obama Admistration officials what their intent was . She reported what they said. Of course, the Obama Administration never lies.

     
  • MARK TROVINGER posted at 11:14 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    MARK TROVINGER Posts: 204

    Mr. Tillett I totally agree with you that this is the ranting of a hysteric person. This reminds me of the early 1990's when California was anouncing its new Smog Check 2 program. At that time many people went hysterical because everyone was talking about the state crushing your car if it didn't pass the smog check. My own parents joined hundreds of other people on the steps of the capital to protest against this new law. Even though I read them the the 3 or 4 paragraphs of the law, and told them that there was no such clause in the law, they wouldn't believe me simply because everyone was saying that this was part of the law. They heard this from their friends, talk radio, religious leaders ect. Therefore it had to be that the state was going to crush your car if it didn't pass a smog check. At the protest in Sacramento, high government officials told the crowd that no such clause ever existed in the new law and that there would be no government tow-trucks coming to take anyone's car to the crusher if it didn't pass a smog check. Everyone left happy, not because they now knew the factual truth, but because they believed that the protest had changed the minds of the officials making the law change.

    Too many people refuse to ever check anything out for themselves or would ever want to disagree with the people that are feeding them information. I own legally registered firearms and have no fear that the government is going to take these away from me with these potential changes. I might have to go through a little more waiting to get another firearm.....So what, I wait a little longer to legally purchase a firearm and a criminal no longer has access to certain types of weapons. Big deal. This doesn't upset me half as much as it will the criminal.

    People like Mr. Coleman, with his letter, are only trying to cause hysteria. He is turning the truth around totally and this makes himself look like an idiot or a trouble maker to intelligent people. It's just too bad that many people will panic and accept his version of the truth as being real. These people would be the ones that are lazy, stupid and too much of a conspiracy freak, to find out on their own what the truth really is.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:29 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 551

    Yes, and those potential changes deal with 'issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html)

    They are not, contrary to the hysterics, trying to take away our guns, or even more laughable, 'remove the guns from law-abiding citizens. The criminals are the only ones allowed to own them, to rob, burglarize or "drive-by" at will.'

    Let's try to reign in hyperbole.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:50 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    During a meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Obama reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

     
  • Ryan Jameson posted at 6:50 am on Wed, Nov 16, 2011.

    Ryan Jameson Posts: 195

    Ben's point is very important, not well said but important none the less. I just read this morning that the BLM is attempting to restrict recreational shooters from public lands because some people "freak out" (quote from the editorial) when they hear gun shots. The utter ridiculousness of that story is still leaving me at a loss for words....

     

Recent Comments

Posted 14 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: We care about animals, but what…

Kaur In your last sentence you state that it is better to bring a child into a world of misery rather than abort a child who cannot be pro…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: Immigrants must come to the U.…

Just as we get ready to celebrate the first illegal immigration the residents want to through us out Happy Thanksgiving Steve.

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Letter: Immigrants must come to the U.…

As the descendant of native Americans I demand that illegal immigrants and their descendants be deported in the order in which they arrived…

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Letter: We care about animals, but what…

If only Mr Amber Fields valued living women as much as he values fertilized eggs.

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: Letter: We care about animals, but what…

The beauty of this country is that everybody gets to choose their God and people's actions in relation to their deity of choice is between …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

CREATE AN EVENT

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