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

Controlled thinking

June 4, 2014

Throughout history there have been attempts by many governments and leaders to control thinking. Jesus Christ did not believe the leaders of the religion of that date....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(96)

MECURY2

Jun-06-14 3:46 PM

LauriH: It seems that way,maybe the S/G thinks we're going to change something,who knows!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Jun-05-14 10:15 PM

Mecury2, for a second when I glanced at what you wrote I thought you wrote "steelman" not salesman LOL, same BS just a different name. Am I mistaken but are these yesterdays same letters?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Jun-05-14 9:29 PM

"What the hel* is wrong with you 'gun-huggers'? Ain't nobody coming to take your gun! What your problem is that we have a "black in color only" President and if you come back with,"now you want to make it a 'race thing' that sh*t is getting old,your 'bigots and that's the bottom line,period! If you want to bulls*it people become a "salesman" on the boardwalk in N.J.!!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Jun-05-14 9:17 PM

enigma: I'm guessing you're 'mentally ill'by your comment at 10:56am!!Sane people DON"T shoot people and dogs don't bark! Again, you're a NUT!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Jun-05-14 9:13 PM

Scott, thanks for the shoutout, I see my "fan club" is alive and well LOL.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Jun-05-14 9:06 PM

Totally off subject but Congrats to the Class of 2014! Glad the rain did not hamper your great milestone. Be careful and safe.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jun-05-14 8:35 PM

MonkeyWrench,

You pose some very intriguing questions. Most of your questions could lead to interesting debate. This being said, you have(for the most part)come to the wrong place. JMHO, but this does not fit in to the local flavor--Hard right wing/TP(also fits the ultra far left)ideology demands simplicity--Remember "You're either with us, or against us". I believe that you are easily intelligent enough to understand that asking hard questions, where true thinking on one's own is a sure way to thin out a crowd. JMHO, Have a Safe, Happy night, tomorrow-Scott

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

Jun-05-14 7:33 PM

The issue:

A contributor said:

"the main intended purpose of the second amendment is so that the people have more power than the government."

Does this mean that, in crafting the second amendment, they intended to say: "the main intended purpose of the second amendment is so that the people have more (FIRE?) power than the government."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Jun-05-14 7:23 PM

Enigma you do realize that people evolve over time correct? When the world we live in today shares no resembalance to what our founding fathers intended, why because times have changed and rules must be written to change with them also. If we stuck to what was written 200 years ago I would not be allowed to vote and blacks would still be slaves. I am sure our founding fathers would not have wanted guns to be used to execute 5 year olds either, that does not take a well educated person to figure that out.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

Jun-05-14 5:23 PM

I also asked you to explain yourself: "what do you mean by "people"? Any group of people, a majority of people, what? And "power?" Do you mean "Gun power"?...some other kind of power? And intended? By whom? And government: federal, state, local? And is a government elected by the majority of the people a government of the people?"

Save me some time and point me to those portions of the Federalist papers that give definitive answers to what you mean by these terms. thank you.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

Jun-05-14 5:11 PM

Thanks, now I understand your position better.

I asked you:

"What constitutional and legal arguments do you offer as evidence to support this contention?"

You did not answer my question. But you did refer me to the Federalist Papers, told me to read things other than liberal blogs and preceded your advice with a signature dismissive barb about my lack of education.

I'm impressed.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-05-14 3:52 PM

MonkeyWrench, For a guy who pretends to be so educated you ask some very elementary questions. Read the Federalist papers. You'll be amazed at how out of step we are today with what the founders intended. The second amendment was intended to keep the federal government in check. It was never intended to be the centralized government it has become. Read something besides your liberal blogs and you will learn a lot.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jun-05-14 2:03 PM

No texas it is not a decision for "society" to make for a women. It is a personal choice.-LauriH

You will not convince some for any reason that they should not have a "right" to interfere with this woman's highly personal choice. But for whatever it's worth, IMO, you are a very good person to stand up for women on this issue.(other issues also) You don't take any crap from any of them, & seem to know how to respond with the right mixture of force mixed with class--Don't change!!!-Have a Great day!!-Scott

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jun-05-14 1:51 PM

You can not even get help for someone you know might be a danger.-hopeforfuture

Not necessarily true. A friend related a story to me in which he persuaded his other half to voluntarily commit herself--the other option was to sign a paper stating that he felt "threatened" at times. He did not sign, realizing that for the rest of the other persons life they would have to carry around the fact that they were "involuntarily committed".

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-05-14 1:45 PM

I would like to know what any of this has to do controlled thinking. That is what the letter was about.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

Jun-05-14 1:26 PM

A favor: so that we are talking about the same thing: what do you mean by "people"? Any group of people, a majority of people, what? And "power?" Do you mean "Gun power"?...some other kind of power? And intended? By whom? And government: federal, state, local? And is a government elected by the majority of the people a g"government of the people?" Thank you.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MonkeyWrench

Jun-05-14 1:11 PM

Question:

Does

"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."

mean:

"the main intended purpose of the second amendment is so that the people have more power than the government."

If so:

What constitutional and legal arguments do you offer as evidence to support this contention? Thank you.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-05-14 12:45 PM

Cap, Would it be OK with you to outlaw any type of firearm that could be used in a crime? That's what they are moving toward. If you don't draw a line at no infringement you lose the ability to draw a line. If it is Constitutional to outlaw 30 round mags, then it is Constitutional to outlaw 5 round mags or 2 round mags or any weapon that can be loaded ahead of time. Any gun control legislation is a step toward banning all weapons for civilians. Make no mistake, that is the end game for those pushing for "reasonable" restrictions. To them it is reasonable to have all weapons in the hands of the government. In the last 100 years we have seen reasonable on a steady march to the left.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LauriH

Jun-05-14 11:59 AM

No texas it is not a decision for "society" to make for a women. It is a personal choice.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jun-05-14 11:43 AM

Enigma, the balance of power is already shifted towards the government. There are MANY weapons that the government has in it's inventory that are illegal for citizens to possess. The fact is while I don't believe the outlaw of "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines would have had any bearing on these mass shootings, high capacity magazines are often used in the commission of other crimes in many other firearms besides these so called "assault weapons". During the period that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was enforced, in VA alone they saw a 22% reduction in violent crimes being committed with the use of these magazines that were outlawed in the Act. IMO, banning the magazines does not intrude on a person's right to bear arms and use their weapons for their intended purpose.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-05-14 11:07 AM

"personally I see no problem if they want to ban high capacity magazines. This would place no restrictions on the weapons themselves as far as being used for their intended purpose by responsible adults." - Capricorn1

Cap, you seem to forget that the main intended purpose of the second amendment is so that the people have more power than the government. A ban on so-called high capacity magazines would tip the balance of power even more in favor of government. As you have already observed, the ban would serve no purpose in stopping murders, so the only logical conclusion is that any such ban would be intended to further subjugate the people. Are you sure that you are OK with that?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-05-14 10:56 AM

"you don't have to be mentally ill to shoot and kill someone or a mass amount of people with a high output mag." - MECURY2

Yes you do! People who are not mentally ill do not commit mass murder. Sane people do not have the inclination or even the ability to do it. Yes, they can load and fire a weapon, but they can not bring themselves to shoot people. You have to be mentally ill to do that. If you don't believe that, then you must be one of those mentally ill people and we should not allow you to have guns. I suggest you get professional help immediately.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Jun-05-14 10:49 AM

Not sure if anyone knows this but, you don't have to be mentally ill to shoot and kill someone or a mass amount of people with a high output mag. even with a 'permit' Just wanted to point that out.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jun-05-14 9:51 AM

Nobody-"Or as you guys suggest, maybe not in some cases. In any event, why would you need a 30 round magazine for personal protection, hunting , and/ or target shooting?"

I don't know, why would I want a Dodge Challenger SRT8 with a factory top speed of 182 mph when most speed limits are 70 or under? I guess just because I want one.

FWIW, my handgun holds 10 in the mag and one in the chamber. And why would I want a 30 round magazine for target shooting? Because with several of them, I can spend more time shooting and less time reloading them when I want to shoot?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jun-05-14 9:45 AM

CMReeder-"Except when it comes to abortion laws then it isn't."

Abortion boils down to one simple question: when does the right of the child to live override the right of the mother?

You see it as a mothers right to choose, we see it as the child's right to life.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 96 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