Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Off track and in gorge

January 3, 2013

To our liberal friends, lets get back on track. Please understand we are not sub-human evil-doers, we just have a deep and very real fear of government run amuck....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(51)

WaitingForReason

Jan-05-13 4:06 PM

So by that logic we should consider banning social media and rethink the 1st amendment because many more of "the public" abuse that technology than the few demented nuts that shoot up public facilities.

Exactly how are your freedoms compromised by the 2nd amendment?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-05-13 9:05 AM

NYC example is not a stretch that is what the case was about and the federal courts ruled on it.

The jucicial brmch of the federal government has ruled that the federal government can restrict and prohibit in regards to the Second Amendment What makes you think new advances in design of firearms should not be restricted if abused by the public?

You also posted; “Why are you willing to give up your other freedoms for the Second Amendment?” . What do you feel I am giving up?

By focusing solely on the Second Amendment you are willing to compromise the other rights. You are also willing to compromise my rights to freedom.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Jan-04-13 2:25 PM

CMR...

My question said "further" restrict. I never suggested our constitutional rights were absolute, i.e. can't scream fire in a theatre. My point is that IMHO the 2nd amendment is already restricted more than any other and is there's no nationally recognized standard. Why do I become a criminal crossing a state line when exercising a right guaranteed by the national constitution? Your NYC example is quite a reach....big difference between criminalizing the practice of religion and not allowing it in a particular govt owned building. If the retired marine they locked up in NYC for carrying his self-defense weapon were arrested for being Christian that would be comparable, and equally outrageous. I do thank you for your responses and hope you will explain to me what you mean by “Why are you willing to give up your other freedoms for the Second Amendment?” . What do you feel I am giving up?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-04-13 10:36 AM

"Yo, Willie,"

Uhhh...are you from Philadelphia?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-04-13 9:50 AM

"Should Maryland be able to restrict the right of Pennsylvanians to free political speech when we visit?"

You are going to have to be more specific but from what I gather yes they can. It depends on whether it was in protest, commerce, commercial.

"As for your right to vote, what if politicians start issuing licenses to only those they decide are fit to vote?"

Again you have restrictions on who can vote. It is now a requirement that you present ID in order to vote. What you are asking is, I think, testing for fitness to vote. The answer to that is no they can't.

"How much power to deny your freedoms are you willing to give up in the hope that things will be better?"

Why are you willing to give up your other freedoms for the Second Amendment? Why would you be willing to give up your freedoms for a political organization like the NRA to patrol our schools and other public areas?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-04-13 9:35 AM

"Can NYC pass a law restricting your 1st amendment right to worship freely?"

The courts ruled they can. It violates the establishment clause of the First amendment. The case in question is a church wanted to conduct church services in a school after hours. The city has maintained that church services can not be held in a school building.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-04-13 9:28 AM

WaitingForReason posted the following questions;

If you support the govt's right to further restrict the 2nd amendment, what about the 1st or any other constitutionally guaranteed right? Can NYC pass a law restricting your 1st amendment right to worship freely? Should Maryland be able to restrict the right of Pennsylvanians to free political speech when we visit? As for your right to vote, what if politicians start issuing licenses to only those they decide are fit to vote? The 2nd amendment is already restricted in each of these ways by these govts. How much power to deny your freedoms are you willing to give up in the hope that things will be better?

My answer to the first question is that the Second Amendment is an amendment on gun control. You have the right to control guns. This does not you have absolute rights. We don't have absolute rights with the First Amendment or any other amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can prohibit and restrict g

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-04-13 9:00 AM

another Stooge comment from Shempie.

Shemp: "People who call themselves conservative claim to want smaller, less intrusive government, then they make laws concerning things which are none of their business, restricting other people's lives."

ya mean like limiting the size of a soft drink, or the contents of a vending machine, or a whole plethora of things liberals want to regulate?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-04-13 7:28 AM

David,

For those of us who are civil in society, your demonstrations of particular actions/reactions are noted. My assertion spoke to "literal" instinct and self-preservation and or in the case of someone you love, which now speaks to protection.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-04-13 7:03 AM

Rmiller, That's a good question. Perhaps with self defense, the limits may involve how you do it. For example, if a threatening person comes toward me as I walk down the street, self-defense could reasonably include injuring or killing that person. But if that same person comes toward me while I am in my car, running them over may exceed my right to self defense if I could have just as easily driven away.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-03-13 10:49 PM

David,

Hello...nice to see you posting again...

"Waiting for Reason, every right has limits"

Would you hold that thought to self defence? Do you believe it has limits? If you are the individual that I believe you are...thoughtful and considerate....then surely one's "right" to defend one's self is mute.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-03-13 10:43 PM

WaitingForReason,

I appreciate your post of 2 p.m.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-03-13 10:40 PM

"Governments don't fear the ballot box because they control them."

At 60 years of age, I'm not sure that a truer statement was ever made, politically speaking of course. This election was a done deal before it started. Most people who voted would have done as well to stay at home, the results were still going to be what they were. I no longer have faith in our voting process.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-03-13 10:33 PM

As I have been repeatedly reminded, Roe V. Wade is legal, period...and I've been told to deal with it. The second amendment is what it is. I don't foresee any real change in my lifetime, but the debate continues. I have to wonder, if people actually believe the fairy tale concept that "gun control" any form...will alleviate the rage of evil.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 9:48 PM

Thanks, Phil. Enigma, I see your point. I think the definition of arms is at the crux of the debate.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-03-13 9:27 PM

Thanks Ritty.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jan-03-13 9:17 PM

"Oops, forgot a few 0's. It should read $500,000,000."

$500,000,000,000 if you mean billion$.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jan-03-13 9:14 PM

Hi enigma.. of course I believe what I wrote, for two simple reasons. One, I wrote it..two, it's true. I'm not saying Democrats are blameless regarding the debt, but I think the fact that republicans, to my knowledge, said not a word about spending or debt under, gw, and only became concerned when President Obama was elected.. the first time. And, turnabout is fair play.. I noticed you used the term Democrat cheeleader, when you, presumably, know full well the correct way grammatically would be Democratic cheeleader. It was reported that republicans in congress were advised to use the incorrect form that you used above because it polled well. Despite the incorrect usage, it's become par for the course for both republican politicians and fox news commentators. Don't expect people to take you seriously if you're unwilling to ignore such pettiness.. have a nice evening, I'm rooting for Oregon.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-03-13 8:58 PM

"If we attribute all of the drop in the budget deficit between the 2 years to the pulling out of Iraq, which was the co sliest of the 2 wars"

It was the costliest of 2 wars because Iraq had more US troops there because our military was stretched thin. As troops rotated out of Iraq, many rotated INTO Afghanistan.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jan-03-13 8:14 PM

Is drinking water with fluoride an unacceptable infringement on personal freedom?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-03-13 8:01 PM

Oops, forgot a few 0's. It should read $500,000,000.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-03-13 7:59 PM

Even under the rosiest of estimates, if ALL of the Bush tax cuts were all repealed, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ended, and the prescription drug program rolled back, the current yearly budget deficits would still be north of $500,000.

Now what?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jan-03-13 7:54 PM

The last troops pulled out of Iraq in Dec 11.

The fy 2011 budget deficit was $1.299 trillion. The fy 2012 budget deficit was $1.1 trillion. If we attribute all of the drop in the budget deficit between the 2 years to the pulling out of Iraq, which was the co sliest of the 2 wars, it becomes readily apparent that the wars were not the major drivers in the budget deficits.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-03-13 7:43 PM

Buff, You don't really believe that do you? Two thirds of government spending goes to social programs. Even after the new tax increases, we will be borrowing more than on third of what we spend. Tax cuts cannot cause deficits, only spending can do that. Anyone who thinks that one party can be blamed for the nations financial woes is a moron and I didn't take you for a moron. Was I wrong, or are you lying? Blaming one party when the spendaholic attitudes in Washington are to blame is just irresponsible. If you want to be a Democrat cheerleader, go ahead, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously (except for the incurably stupid).

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jan-03-13 7:22 PM

Hello all - I noticed the author referenced the current administrations spending.. perhaps the author is unaware that the bulk of the 16t debt our nation faces is the result of four republican initiatives.. two unpaid for wars, unpaid for tax cuts, and the prescription drug benefit. All republican proposals supported and voted for by the same republicans who now don't want to pay the bill..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 51 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web