Lodinews.com

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

Inconvenient truth about the Second Amendment

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, May 4, 2013 12:00 am

I would like to point out an "inconvenient truth" — that the Second Amendment was not put in the Constitution to protect your right to hunt, sport shoot or for personal protection. It was put there to protect the people from the tyranny of the government.

Our Founding Fathers were so concerned about this that they put it in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Do you think, knowing this, that they would restrict the people's ability to resist the tyranny of the government?

Before you say that the Second Amendment is no longer needed, think about what two Supreme Court Chief Justices have said. Justice Stevens said, "The Constitution says whatever we say it says." Justice Roberts said, "Do not depend on the Supreme Court to protect your rights." The president appoints the members of the Supreme Court with Senate approval. They are not nominated for their knowledge of the Constitution, but rather their political philosophies.

The true genius of the Founding Fathers was the ability to distill down their thoughts so that there was no confusion as to what they meant. That is why they used words like "shall" and "shall not."

Larry Young

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.

59 comments:

  • Lawrence Steinberg posted at 2:30 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

    Lawrence Steinberg Posts: 65

    It seems to me that the recently directions that were recently published online on how to build a gun with a 3-D printer make all this nonsense about "gun control" irrelevant.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 8:07 am on Thu, May 9, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    According to my history book, Joanne, the Constitution was adopted in 1787 and put into effect in 1789 only after [according to my Encyclopedia] considerable opposition to the ratification of the proposed constitution was satisfied with the promise from the Federalists, the supporters of the constitution, pledged that the Bill of Rights would have their backing which was fulfilled in 1791 with the adoption of the first 10 amendments. Without that pledge the constitution would not of been ratified. Once again this sad, nonsensical, and ignorant writer of the comment is correct.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:10 pm on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1113

    "no problem judging all gun owners"

    Joe, prevarication is a wonderful thing.

    But this is California.

    Sacramento took care of business here, we can't give credit to the President.

    So either you know nothing about the gun laws in our state (think: ignorance) or you're prevaricating?

    Which is it??

    [huh]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 2:54 pm on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1844

    Our "Dear Leader" tells us not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. But seems to have no problem judging all gun owners by the action of a few.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:09 pm on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    This is the sad state of our education system - or is it just the ignorance of certain sectors of our population?

    "Hence the inclusion of the Bill of Rights without which the Constitution would never of been ratified. The founding fathers distrusted gov't. and went out of their way to give us a divided and non-centralized one which has been slowly replaced with the monster we have today."

    FYI - to the writer of this comment - the US Constitution was ratified and put into effect in 1789.

    The Bill of Rights was ratified and put into effect in 1791.

    Conclusion - the above comment is sheer nonsense.

    The "founding fathers" constructed a document that was open to interpretation. The job of the Supreme Court is to attempt to interpret the guidelines established by this document.

    Distrust of government led to the 3 branches - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial that were given specific duties, but ultimately to ensure the NONE became all powerful.

    "Slowly replaced by the one we have today?" I don't think that the Constitution allows for that. Perhaps this comment was referring to the addition of added levels of government that have been given the responsibility of overseeing various areas of the central government that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen, such as Energy, Environment, land management, etc.

    Nor could the founding fathers have possibly foreseen the escalation of simple firearms of the late 18th century into the "monsters" that exist today.

    Thus the job of the Congress to propose restrictions and the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of said restrictions - and NONE of these proposed restrictions has negated the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    Yes you can own a firearm, but that machine gun or nuclear bomb?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:10 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1486

    When I consider the size and splendor of the churches, cathedrals and other monuments built in the name of Christianity I don't think I would consider donations to churches as charitable giving.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:25 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1486

    and the right scream bloody murder about abortion but does nothing to take guns out of the hands of whack job child killer.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 9:28 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    John.. the Republican party doesn't need the abortion issue to self-destruct...they can do that very well on their own. Yes, I am Republican as probably is Jerome but only because there is no place in the Democratic party for conservatives. And I'll bet you real money that everyone on these postings...even you liberals... all of you live your lives in a conservative manner. Living within your budgets, helping others and reaching out to others in need when your able, obeying the laws of the land, etc. But for some unexplainable reason you lefties vote for people that live and pass laws that are diametrically opposite to your lifestyles. And Joanne ...settle down,please. Stop with the blanket generalizations that all conservatives are evil and all that are like minded to yourself are angelic and always right. I think you're reading things into Jerome's writings that are not there.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 9:14 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    As it has been said, we don't know how someone's reproductive system can simultaneously be 0% our business but 100% our financial responsibility. Life is precious and should be protected instead of treating pregnancy like it was a disease. I know women who have had abortions...it was not easy for any of them. In fact, when the anniversary of the abortion comes around each year they go into depressions. The fact is that even in a medically advanced society as ours there are pregnancies that need to be aborted to save the life of the woman giving birth. But abortion on demand is wrong not only for the child [obviously] but for the woman both physically and emotionally. The child deserves the chance to live. How many aborted children could of made significant contributions to our nation? Adoption is the best option and the most humane. How many childless couples resort to adopting foreign born kids because none are available here?

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 8:50 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    No...national suicidal policies are the left's gift to America. And I include some so-called republicans in that also. The founding fathers, as I have stated, distrusted gov't and so as to protect us from an all powerful state they adopted the Bill of Rights. That's why the first 10 amendments are attacked so for with them gone the statist has no opposition in bringing about a gov't that is not for the people, of the people or by the people.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 8:42 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    Hence the inclusion of the Bill of Rights without which the Constitution would never of been ratified. The founding fathers distrusted gov't. and went out of their way to give us a divided and non-centralized one which has been slowly replaced with the monster we have today.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:50 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    -Jerome,
    This is a clip from the Newsletter Imprimus from Hillsdale College. Everytime I read one of them I think of you What a wealth of wisdom and information these newsletters always convey.

    Religion and Public Life in America

    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2013&month=04

    We must meet the challenge by showing that religion is indeed special. Religious people are the most likely Americans to be involved in civic life, and the most generous in their charitable contributions. This needs to be highlighted again and again. Moreover, we need to draw a contrast with the Nones, who tend to outsource their civic responsibilities and charitable obligations to government in the form of expanded government programs and higher taxes.

    There is another, deeper argument that must be made in defense of religion: It is the most secure guarantee of freedom. America’s Founders, some of them Christian and others not, agreed as a matter of principle that the law of God trumps the law of men. This has obvious political implications: The Declaration of Independence appeals to the unalienable rights given by our Creator that cannot be overridden or taken away. In this sense, religion is especially beneficial. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both emphasized, it gives transcendent substance to the rights of man that limit government. Put somewhat differently, religion gives us a place to stand outside politics, and without it we’re vulnerable to a system in which the state defines everything, which is the essence of tyranny. This is why gay marriage, which is sold as an expansion of freedom, is in fact a profound threat to liberty.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:08 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    No one here has claimed that, in fact the letter writer himself pooh-poohed that notion.

    But then he claimed the reason for the second amendment was to make sure the citizens of this country would possess the firepower to overthrow the government.

    Gee, I wonder why those IN the government, those who helped write the Constitution and established state and federal powers, would do such a thing.

    Suicidal tendencies do you think?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 6:12 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1844

    Owe-Blame-O screams outrage, as he should, over some whack job murdering children with a gun but celebrates an organization that is responsible for murdering thousands of children every year.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:57 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1844

    Gun control? Yeah it works well.Take a look at Mexico with a total gun ban. California had the highest number of gun murders in America in 2011 with 1,220 -- which makes up 68 percent of all murders in our state that year. How ironic that Californa has the strictest gun control laws in the nation and our dear liberal Diane Lyinstein crows about how strict gun laws in California are working soooo well.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:54 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1113


    "I resigned for health reasons"

    True.

    Decorum returned to the meetings shortly thereafter...

    With outburst and disturbances down 100%!!

    Think: boring.

    [smile]

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 2:36 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Once again for those hard of reading people: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,[1][2] scope,[3] and effect[4] of the amendment has been controversial[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.[8]
    Wiki.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 1:46 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 444

    Well golly gee whiz! I thought that governments gave their citizens all of their freedoms out of the goodness of their hearts! Well, that has never happened in the history of mankind, and never will.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:30 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Marty: As you know...it is a LIE that I was kicked off any board...I resigned for health reasons. It is a LIE...as you know there is no SELECTION of a board member and as you know...it is a LIE.

    As for: "When you make statements such as suggesting that another commenter should have been aborted you have really crossed a line Pat." Lie you did several times with your 3-4-5 rants? Only you get to speak? Doesn't work that way. CD

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:16 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    If a person doesn't like their arm or foot or nose...do they have a right to cut it off?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    What makes me laugh (or at least to smirk a little) are those who believe the Second Amendment exists so that the Founders could hunt down turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:45 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I'm not sure which historical authority imparted to you that the US Constitution was largely based on the Declaration of Independence, but that is quite inaccurate.

    The Declaration of Independence was largely a tool that the "founding fathers" used in order to stir up support for the break from English authority.

    In no way could the section you quoted be even thought of as the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

    That notion is simply laughable.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:40 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Since only 5% of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion related, this is hardly an endorsement, let alone a celebration that you contend was made by President Obama.

    Another piece of evidence that shows how little someone knows of this organization.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:35 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    At the very outset of President Obama's speech at Planned Parenthood in April he said, "I'm sorry that I could not be at the party yesterday. I understand it was a little wild." So I suppose one could say he missed the "celebration," but he was certainly sorry about that.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:34 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    For a person who is so self-righteously against abortion to use the descriptive "celebrated" and to use catch phrases such as "Abortions R Us," and 50 Million Plus Served" is to spit in the faces of individuals, couples, and families who are faced with making this type of decision.

    I find it disgusting that someone who has no knowledge of the agony that many must go through in order to make these decisions would treat this subject so despicably.

    Only a person who believes that women celebrate their latest abortion by going out partying and having promiscuous sex the day following an abortion in order to repeat the cycle could make these types of statements.

    Only a person who thinks that all birth control, abortion and pregnancy decisions are made solely by women - the sex he despises - could make statements like this.

    Only a person who believes that only "conservative women" are virtuous would make these types of statements.

    I really do not know why this person displays such sheltered views of society that he actually believes that all of society behaves as he might behave with regard to personal and sexual relationships.

    It is mind-boggling to say the least.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:00 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    Note: I wasn't quite finished with my original post regarding the Declaration of Independence when I clicked the "Post Comment" button. I apologize for the double post.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:57 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    The Declaration of Independence - from which much of the U.S. Constitution was founded upon - does in fact support taking over one's government if they believe it's become irreparably tyrannical. Every person who signed that document knew that had the Revolution failed they would have been hunted down by the British and killed, along with their families.

    The Declaration of Independence, in pertinent part:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

    The signatories on the Declaration of Independence gave us a strict guideline to follow. And while some might actually believe we’re reached that point now, it’s important (VITAL) that serious consideration be paid to the part where it begins: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. . .”

    There were many in the Andrew Johnson administration who wanted to hunt down, try and hang those who led the South in the Civil War. But he was following Lincoln's lead to restore the nation rather than tear it further further.

    Are we to that point today like the 13 Colonies believed they were right and good to separate from England in 1776? No, absolutely NOT. We still have the right to choose our own leaders. So as far as I'm concerned, what we've got is a direct result of who we've chosen to make the rules. Until that right is taken away from us, there will always be hope that things will get better - back to what the Founders wanted for our country.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:45 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    The Declaration of Independence - from which much of the U.S. Constitution was founded upon - does in fact support taking over one's government if they believe it's become irreparably tyrannical. Every person who signed that document knew that had the Revolution failed they would have been hunted down by the British and killed, along with their families.

    The Declaration of Independence, in pertinent part:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

    While some might actually believe we’re reached that point here, it’s important (VITAL) that serious consideration be paid to the part where it begins: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. . .”

    There were many in the Andrew Johnson administration who wanted to do just that to those who led the South in the Civil War. But he was following Lincoln's lead to restore the nation rather than tear it apart further.

    Are we to that point today like the 13 Colonies believed they were right and good to separate from England in 1776? No, absolutely NOT. We still have the right to choose our own leaders. So as far as I'm concerned, what we've got is a direct result of who we've chosen to make the rules. Until that right is taken away from us, there will always be hope that things will get better - back to what the Founders wanted for our country.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:22 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    So, abortion isn’t celebrated? Of course it is! Just what was the President of the United States doing during his visit to Planned Parenthood a short time ago? A “woman’s right to choose” are just code words for their right to “abortion on demand.” Roe v. Wade was a “good” thing for everyone concerned, no? Yes! We had emerged from the dark ages and into the light of a new cottage industry: “1973 – 2013: 40 Years of Abortions R Us - 50 Million-Plus Served!”

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:12 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    And I suppose that people like Larry Young actually believe that they have been given the "right to bear arms" so that they can overthrow the government if the "feel" it has become tyrannical. You would have to suspend belief and actually think that the founding fathers wrote the right to overthrow the government into the Constitution.

    Think that one has been tried already and failed. That is why Jefferson Davis was charged with treason at the conclusion of the Civil War. Just surprised that many of the Confederate military leaders were not charged also.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:06 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Never claimed any of this nonsense. Another person who chooses to hear what he wants to hear instead of reading what was actually stated.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:02 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    HA HA!

    "time before the sexual revolution?"

    You must be kidding me! The only thing the so-called sexual revolution did was make public the things that people were already doing behind closed doors or in the back seats of Chevys.

    You want to return to the time that people "thought of the consequences?" HA HA again. That was when teenage girls went to "stay with their "great aunties" for...hmmmmmm? Nine Months?

    When desperate women and teens paid for back alley abortions and many died as a consequence?

    You and all of the other right wing people here are reminiscing about a time that never existed - you actually think there has been a time when people abstained from sex before marriage and the only birth control method used was rhythm. I'd be willing to bet that you don't even know what that means.

    I hope that you or any of your children never have to experience any of the things that you all don't believe exists.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:09 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1486

    For starters you’re coming late to the argument if you think no one understands the purpose behind the second amendment. Secondly those supporters of the right to bear weapons in order to stop a tyrannical government should have thought twice before they armed ours to the teeth. Every level of our government local, state, federal and military are capable of stopping any sort of insurrection the author has in mind. I have suggested before and will again get a bigger militia the local yocals and there pop guns are not going to get it done. If you are using the argument that we maintain the right to over through our own government then the possibility of achieving that goal should be part of that argument and I don’t hear anyone speaking to that point. To sacrifice our own citizens to weapon violence in order to reserve the right to an unachievable goal is ludicrous.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:59 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Perhaps Bobin and Co. can explain to us why they believe it is evil to have an unwanted child or put the child up for adoption. And it isn't evil to have an abortion.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:54 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Ms. Bobin stated:

    Perhaps instead of just talking, you should stand with the groups in front of the Planned Parenthood office who bring their school aged kids (who should be in school) with them to hold signs protesting abortion.

    -Ms. Bobin,

    And you're also opposed to anyone who dares to take our country back to the time before the sexual revolution when people actually thought of the consequences before the actions? Male and female alike.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:47 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2821

    Jerome,

    Thanks again for your words of wisdom. And, the day Bobin and Co begin to agree with you we can celebrate their epiphany I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:20 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    So once again, from the misogynist in residence here, it is the "mother's choice."

    Guess what? Women who should have Constitutional rights to use birth control and/or not be forced to have abortions are victims of those who are, like you, Mr. Kinderman, ignorant of the fact that not everyone lives in your rosey world where partners are fully commited to making reproductive choices together.

    No one said we should "celebrate," Mr. Kinderman. Who in their right mind would add such a comment? You fully enjoy, as does Pat Maple, to put words in others mouths to try to prove your point. Honestly, I find that disgusting.

    Once again, I urge you to speak with your spiritual advisor and perhaps find the reason why you are compelled to do so.

    Perhaps instead of just talking, you should stand with the groups in front of the Planned Parenthood office who bring their school aged kids (who should be in school) with them to hold signs protesting abortion.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 2:21 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    The unborn aren't protected by the Constitution? That's patently false. They're only permitted to have their lives snuffed if it's by their mother's choice. But if an unborn child is killed by someone else, that's a different matter altogether. How sad is that, really? The one special person a child (born or unborn) should be protected by at all costs is the one who can have "it" thrown away as if it's yesterday's garbage.

    And I'm supposed to live with such a thing; as a nation we're supposed to live with and celebrate such a thing?!? While I fully understand that Roe v. Wade is currently the "law of the land," I will continue to argue against this travesty and do whatever I can to help others to understand how evil abortion is. Perhaps one day before my life here is through I might witness a turnaround of our country's collective heart and soul. Fifty million and counting . . . we should all be so very proud of our enlightenment.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:11 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Not only "flummoxed," but seemingly in favor of gun laws that allow mentally ill people like the Newtown, Connecticut criminal who mowed down 20 children and 6 adults.

    I remember seeing Sister Simone Campbell in an interview in which she asked (and I am paraphrasing) "where do we draw the line between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the already born?" Who trumps who?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:02 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Even though Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, the Republicans are doing their best to make it harder and harder in every RED state to get a legal abortion.

    They don't seem to be suffering any long term consequences - perhaps because RED states are dominated by 1950's minded males who are trying their darnedest to keep women under their thumbs.

    I am all for reducing the need for abortion, especially as a means of birth control, but as long as we have people of the JK mentality who think that every male/female partnership is an EQUAL partnership, i.e., both can agree on a reproductive plan for their relationship, we will never make progress.

    These are the people who REFUSE to believe that there are men who either prohibit their partners from using any means of birth control or sabotage birth control efforts, or force their partners to have an abortion if the "need" arises.

    These are the people whose mentality cannot fathom in a million years that there are sick and unhealthy relationships between men and women. And, ironically, these are the same people that condemn an equal and loving relationship between same-sex partners.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 12:38 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1113

    What's in? Flummoxed

    What's out? Flabbergasted

    [lol]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:49 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    If Roe vs Wade gets overturned it will be the end of the Republican Party. The money people who run the party know this so it will never happen. Have to keep people like Jerome firmly Republican.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:43 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Perhaps if Mr. Kinderman adhered to the rules and STAYED ON TOPIC, he wouldn't be complaining about what he calls a "segue."

    Not a segue, Mr. Kinderman. At every opportunity you attempt to turn the conversation to abortion, which is actually laughable because you have not the slightest clue why abortions occur and how MEN are largely responsible for them.

    I still love the comment about you checking with your son about whether condoms are available in Texas, and since they are, there should be no "accidental" pregnancies or anyone who might foil a woman's attempt to prevent one.

    My favorite OB GYN here in Lodi, Dr. Cross, once told me, "if you depend on the reliability of condoms, and one breaks in the middle of the night - please don't bother to call me because the train has already left the station!"

    I

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:35 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I suggest that you live with that decision (because it will not be overturned no matter how much you and those like Mr. Kinderman would like it to be.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:29 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Since Mr. Kinderman attempted to turn this into a conversation (again) about abortion, which is definitely against the rules TO STAY ON TOPIC, the unborn are NOT protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal.

    I suggest that you s

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:02 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Life and death start simultaneously. If a child dies in the womb we feel terrible and mourn. If a child dies outside the womb...we do the same. If a young adult dies outside the womb...we do the same. If an adult dies...we do the same. My Constitutional Rights don't die...no matter if it involves the 1st, 2nd or 5th Amendments or any other. I believe we are BORN with those Rights...the cry of a child is communications! Their bodies are to be protected from harm by all Soldiers the same as an adult.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:29 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    Oh good grief! It's amazing how undereducated some people appear (or pretend) to be. I suppose a little subtlety is beyond their grasp to understand a simple segue from one Constitutional issue to another and how they might possess certain commonality between them. Oh well - it explains quite a bit about our educational system.

    Nevertheless, I’m flummoxed by the obvious hypocrisy of those who cry the loudest for those killed by guns and other weapons demanding that new laws be established to regulate and prohibit the ownership of them but remain absolutely silent against or loudly in favor of the millions upon millions of slaughtered unborn human beings at the hands of licensed physicians who bring their instruments of death to the warm and safe wombs of women who should be caring about those growing in their bellies – all in the name of a “woman’s right to choose.” Who would have guessed that a simple vacuum would create such a holocaust in the United States of America. Now THERE’S a weapon I wouldn’t be against banning!

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 9:01 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 161

    At least some of Kinderman's confusion has been identified; the Second Amendment has nothing to do with Christianity, Jews, Catholics, Agnostics or Roe vs. Wade. He is correct, however, when he admits his side is doing a lousy job managing whatever moral transition he is making.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:07 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    Although the framers of the Constitution may not have been able to foresee "'modern' bombs, cannons, hand grenades, rockets, missiles, nuclear weapons" and other such devices not in existence in the late 18th Century, perhaps they should have, after all collectively they were some pretty smart guys. Nevertheless, the weapons of the day were also capable of "maiming, murder, threats, mass destruction [to a lesser degree] or death" and as a result that knowledge should have given them the idea to make such restrictions at that time.

    Still, because of the nature of advances of weaponry since then I would have half expected the government to at least attempt to amend the Second Amendment over the course of the past nearly 222 years. Something as contentious as gun possession is today, why hasn’t anyone in Congress begun that process? There could be a number of different ways to modify the Second Amendment that would provide for the rights originally affirmed in 1791 while at the same time ensuring protection for our growing population with access to weapons they couldn’t have dreamed of in their worst nightmares.

    Along those same lines, I sincerely doubt that when the Constitution was ratified the authors ever dreamed in equally as horrid nightmares that abortion would be permitted by the People as a matter of course (or common sense and decency); yet here we are in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade where we’re actually celebrating the deaths of over 50 million unborn American children by doctors whose solemn oath even then as is now to “do no harm.” So why is there no smart Congress person willing to begin the process to alter the Constitution regarding gun possession while at the same time having the courage to offer something to protect the next 50 million unborn potential Americans who will surely die between now and 2043?

    We’ve been living in morally transitional times – and for the most part we’re doing a lousy job managing the transition.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:16 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    SCOTUS stated: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment."

    Weapons: Bombs, cannons. hand grenades, rockets, missiles, nuclear weapons...
    Manner: Hidden, in the open, on an airplane, through tunnels, on elevators...
    Purpose: Maiming, murder, threats, mass destruction or death...
    Consistent: with the Second Amendment...as listed by the SCOTUS

    I do not own a gun...but I do own the RIGHT to own a gun...of my choice.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:14 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    When it comes to a Constitutional right, one State can't be correct with another being wrong. So eventually there will need to be a reconciliation. California cannot have overbearing restrictive rules over guns while Texas permits its citizens to keep whatever arms they choose. That would be like California outlawing Christianity as it might interpret the First Amendment while Mississippi permits ALL religions to be practiced so long as one doesn't infringe the rights of another. This would include keeping atheists or agnostics from limiting the practices of Jews and Catholics. In the United States there is NO freedom from religion – only freedom OF religion. Likewise, if the Second Amendment permits individuals the right to keep and bear arms, the Government can impose no limitation upon the type and number of arms free Americans have the right to keep.

    Liberals/Progressives like to interpret Constitutional issues based upon whether or not a right might impinge upon their ideology where of course the opposite is actually true.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 4:27 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 161

    The Second Amendment is a single sentence in length. It says nothing more nor less than what its 27 words say, despite claims made by the revisionists who have posted here, who want to see it rewritten to suit their personal agendas.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:46 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Sorry Pat. You do not own the right to own a gun of your choice. At least not in California.

    And if you are deemed unworthy after a background check is done, YOU are done.

    I'm so glad that all of the right wing posters here consider themselves experts on the interpretation of the Constitution.

    You have all missed your calling.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 10:33 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    Part of it from a speech by Edward J. Erler who is a professor of political science at the California State University, San Bernardino. He has a B.A. from San Jose State University and M.A. and Ph.D in government from Claremont Graduate School. The last part is me.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:19 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2349

    “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    It comes down to how one interprets this sentence. Some believe that the third part is a subordinate clause to the first and second. But if the authors of the Constitution had intended to keep citizens from keeping their own guns, others believe they would have been much clearer. Many of us believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” stands alone and “shall not be infringed.” We believe this just as fervently as we believe that the First Amendment restricts the government from forming its own religion while also outlawing the government from standing in the way of us from believing as we choose.

    No, both clauses of this Amendment are intended to do the same thing: protect the nation from a tyrannical government, said government from either inside the United States or outside. History prior to the establishment of the United States and certainly since then proves that if its citizens are not armed, they’re impotent from “. . . throw[ing] off such Government, . . . to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    You see, the framers were referring to the very government in control of them that forced an all-out war to establish their God-given rights; rights to be ultimately protected by the citizens themselves. They didn’t trust ANY government – even the one they were establishing. This is also why the Bill of Rights refers to the rights of the People; NOT the rights of the government. That’s a hard pill to swallow for our elected representatives who have been in power for so long. Once the newness of being within the beltway wears off, they seem unable to control themselves. They truly DO believe they’re in control over those who elected them rather than vice versa – they literally HATE being told what they CANNOT do.

    Removal of our defense against them once they’re out of control is imperative toward their nefarious ends. This is how free nations are destroyed and slaves are created.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:00 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Nice copy and paste, Ron. Care to cite your source for this nonsense?

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 9:42 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    Like many people who read the Constitution they don't bring in the context of the times it was written. Read the papers of the founding fathers. All were concerned with tyrannical centralized gov't either in families [kings,etc.] or dictators and despots. Having a standing army to those in the revolutionary generation was dangerous to their liberty. They reasoned that militias made up of citizen-soldiers were more suitable to the character of republican gov't. One of these founding fathers was Elbridge Gerry who remarked in the debate over the first militia bill in 1789 that "whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia." And how do gov'ts invade the rights and liberties of the people? By disarming the general population, doing away with the local law enforcement [militia] by using a STANDING ARMY . In the preface to the Bill of Rights [not needs] it states militias are necessary for the security of a free state. The phrase "free state" in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Look at what the federal gov't is doing with border security, illegal immigration suing states for enforcing the laws that the federal gov't refuses to do...our state law enforcement and sheriffs are our last great hope against a tyrannical centralized federal gov't that does not have the people of America best interests at heart. We are in their way and the Bill of Rights and our Constitution and the states are our only defense.

     
  • Rick Houdack posted at 8:04 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    Rick Houdack Posts: 161

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Where in the above text does it state "protect the people from the tyranny of government"?

    "We'll regulated militia" and "security of a free state" do not corroborate Young's claims.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:41 am on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I always get a laugh when someone writes nonsense like this letter. The founding fathers created the second amendment to ensure there was a militia. We did not have a standing army. Part of the reason was in case we got invaded. The major reason was to put down local rebellions. In other words the militia was used to enforce the edicts of the government which it did on numerous occasions. Sometimes I think being a gun nut interferes with one's reading ability and interferes with the ability to think straight or look at what really happened in our history. [smile]

     

Recent Comments

Posted 17 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 17 hours ago 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 20 hours ago 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 Yesterday 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 Yesterday 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