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)

Premier

Jan-03-13 5:19 AM

Bill, you my friend are guilty of making to much sense in too few a words.

13 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idiottwo

Jan-03-13 5:44 AM

well done.

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 6:49 AM

Three thoughts: First, the author begins by saying he doesn't like being considered "sub-human" by his "liberal friends" but ends the letter comparing his "liberal friends" to lemmings. Second, regarding the Boston Tea Party, Ben Franklin was in England representing the Colonies when that occurred and he offered to pay for the lost tea. Third, regarding what guarantees our rights, I believe that the ballot box guarantees our rights much more effectively than a box of ammo.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-03-13 8:21 AM

"Please understand we are not sub-human evil-doers, we just have a deep and very real fear of government run amuck." - William L. Harris

*

Your paranoia is QUITE obvious.

*

"Don't forget, lemmings fall hard and deep." - William L. Harris

*

Everyone's WELL-aware of Porky Limbaugh's ditto-heads' martyrdom-complex. They really should "Ask their Doctor" about medication for their masochistic-tendencies.

3 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-03-13 8:34 AM

LOL

You are not the evil doers the left is. All the while the right sank the economy.

3 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-03-13 8:49 AM

"Please understand we are not sub-human evil-doers, we just have a deep and very real fear of government run amuck"

Are you sure you aren't a violent subversive, considering you apparently have persistent violent fantasies, about using guns to murder local, state, and federal officials to overthrow the democratically elected US government?

And of course, your chances would be outstanding with you Bushmaster AR, considering the govt doesn't even need to send people to get you. A member of the US military can sit in an air conditioned trailer in NV, and remotely pilot a drone carrying a Hellfire missile that could blow you , and anyone standing near you into pink mist. They don't even need to gas up a tank, or attack helicopter.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-03-13 9:06 AM

You know it’s a good LTE when the leftists’ laps right into their narcissistic projection and personal insults; well done Bill.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-03-13 9:13 AM

The letter is narcissistic and hurls insults but then Phil doesn't see that.

I find it interesting that the writer states the right has a deep fear of government run amok. That is called paranoia. Then you add the fact that you are the ones with the guns.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-03-13 10:39 AM

“I find it interesting that the writer states the right has a deep fear of government run amok. That is called paranoia.”

No, that’s called reality; paranoia is an unreasonable fear, sort of like the left has for the Tea Party.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-03-13 10:44 AM

Somebody needs to read up on the meaning of narcissism before making accusations about other’s narcissism, that is if he’s capable of understanding what he reads.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-03-13 11:29 AM

I suggest that you look up words Phil. The left does not fear the Tea party the Republican establishment does. Deep seat fear is not a reality.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-03-13 11:33 AM

DavidBross,"I believe that the ballot box guarantees our rights much more effectively than a box of ammo."

They had ballot boxes in the Soviet Union and in Iraq. They still have them in Cuba, but they have no rights. Governments don't fear the ballot box because they control them. What they don't control is arms in the hands of the citizens. Mao said,"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." If the people don't have the sames guns as the government, then they do not hold political power. Without guns the ballot box is just a box. I do not, "have persistent violent fantasies, about using guns to murder local, state, and federal officials", but I do want those officials to be aware that it could happen. They enforce their laws with guns, why shouldn't be be able to do the same.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-03-13 1:24 PM

I know lots of liberals with guns Chuck.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-03-13 1:42 PM

I never said that they did not. They are not opposed to gun controls.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Jan-03-13 2:02 PM

To those favoring more gun control laws...

Here's my question. I asked before but none answered.

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?

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 2:02 PM

I was referring only to our elections here in the US. But, I think places like Japan, England, France, and Germany should be included. And there certainly are places where elections are a sham.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 2:07 PM

Waiting for Reason, every right has limits. They way in which a particular right is limited may differ from other rights. Ultimately, though, the Supreme Court is our final arbiter of which limits are constitutional and which are not. On top of that, the rulings of the Supreme Court do change with time. This is not to dismiss your interesting questions.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-03-13 2:25 PM

DavidBross,"I was referring only to our elections here in the US. But, I think places like Japan, England, France, and Germany should be included. And there certainly are places where elections are a sham."

Liberals have claimed that elections here are a sham. In 2000 and 2004 the election results were not what they wanted so they had to be wrong. We have seen that elections can be stolen (Al Franken is one verified example). So how do you see that it can't happen here. All it takes is one wrong person elected one time and without some means for the people to take control, we could be a dictatorship at any time. The founders knew this and passed the Second Amendment to protect against it. You may not believe that Obama is that guy, but can you guarantee that it will never happen here? Given that gun bans have never worked in reducing violent crime, is it worth the risk? You can only have free elections if you have free people and free people have guns.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Jan-03-13 2:29 PM

David,

Thanks for the response but I wanted an answer as to why some believe that contitutionally guaranteed rights can be applied differently throughout the country to law abiding citzens. As an American you are guaranteed those rights and your state or locality should not have the power to limit the application of the constitution. Don't punt to the Supreme Court. Why do you think that is right? If Chicago can decide that the 2nd amendment does not apply to its citizens, why not the 4th. If memory serves me correctly that's the protection against illegal search and seizure(forgive me if I'm incorrect). If a city decides warrantless searches and wiretaps are fine, you're OK with that? If you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, right? We'd catch more bad guys and the world would be a better place. Where does that path lead?

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-03-13 2:32 PM

David, if we’re guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what limits are acceptable except not infringing upon another’s rights?

I hope you answer this one, because I regard your opinions.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-03-13 4:26 PM

If you're WaitingForReason from the left, you will be waiting a long time.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 5:43 PM

I've put together a reply. It may take two postings to fit it all in. Here goes:Let me start by saying that about the only things I am sure of are that life is complicated and change is inevitable. Regarding elections, our elections like those in Germany, Japan, England, and France are valid because our countries are reasonably free and open. Regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections, they were valid also. In 2000 the Supreme Court solved a problem that couldn't that could not be solved by the other organizations in our country. That's is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. In both elections I thought the safeguards etc worked reasonably well. Not perfectly. But I think reasonably well is a very valid standard. Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I see the point about that right being limited differently in various parts of the US. Perhaps each right has some constitutional line beyond which it cannot be limited. But, that doesn't mean a right has to be limited to that degree.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-03-13 5:43 PM

Here is the rest: Various states, municipalities etc, can limit a right to some lesser degree. Regarding what are acceptable limits to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I agree that the infringement of the rights of others is the benchmark. How and when that infringement occurs is a real can of worms. The infringement on the rights of others is definitely a function of population density. People have much more freedom to do things in rural areas than in more highly populated areas. For example, the amount of noise one can make is very limited in an apartment building but less so in a free-standing single family home. In terms of other behaviors, that gets really subjective. For example, swatting a misbehaving child on the butt in public is very acceptable in some areas, and not at all acceptable in others. If all this seems vague, it is not on purpose. This is a good faith effort to respond to these issues.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-03-13 6:05 PM

You did good David, I can’t disagree with anything you said.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-03-13 6:07 PM

David, The test of limits on rights is where it infringes on another person's rights. Where does my owning any kind of weapon infringe on another person's rights? It doesn't, therefor there is no constitutionally valid limit to my right to keep and bear arms.

3 Agrees | 1 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