Huge tornado hits Oklahoma City suburb, kills 51 May 20, 2013
F35, I'm not sure how you can make a pro-freedom argument in support of a bill that prevents legislators from taking up any idea that might bother the gun manufacturer's association. Speaking of Constitution bashers, this bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Leara should worry about doing business for the people, not the NRA. This is our state, not theirs.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to own military-style weapons designed to kill large numbers of people in a short time. The Supreme Court, as of now, says the 2nd Amendment means you have a right to keep a handgun for protection.
Funny how people who call themselves "conservative" want to adopt a liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and read words that aren't there.
You have no "right" to your AR-15. Period.
Not a subscriber, so I guess this is the last of dispatch from the old Sequoia. Without getting all misty, it's been fun on the comment section.
Regardless of one's opinion, taking the time to put it down in words in a back-and-forth with others makes one sharper. Competition encourages vitality. Good writing demands precise thinking. Putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) is like putting out roots. Some have the guts and patience to go deeper than others.
My main comment has always been to show how the conservative "movement" has subjugated conservative principles. Any true conservative in the Republican party has been drummed out by the ideological conservative "movement," which is a series of big-business-friendly policies sold to voters with rhetoric intentionally designed to arouse racial, religious, nationalistic and sexual anxiety. Even now, Missouri Republican legislature would have the state reject Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act simply because they don't like anything having to do with Obamacare, costing the state money, jobs and health care. It's insane.
On the local level, the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce can look no further than the conservative movement knee-jerk anti-government ideology propogated by the national Chamber for the demise of local projects that would have benefited local business owners, workers and residents.
That's why good conservatives are rejecting the Republican party and looking back to the basic conservative principles of individual freedom, live-and-let-live social politics, and pride in local excellence.
We still have work to do. A big tree grows slowly. Don't indulge panic, but let all things go their way and return to the Source.
Things ARE getting better.
Chop away, trolls. I've got another thousand years in me, easily.
Lifer said: "Wish I could find a no-skill job that requires no education that pays me $28/hr tax-free income. What a crock!"
Yeah, well... you CAN. I just heard Applebee's is hiring. What's stopping you from the crock of your dreams?
The cities that are most dangerous have the most restrictive gun laws. You've got it backwards, chum. You think Chicago would turn into Mayberry if the gun laws were repealled?
Explain why any felons follow any laws. Are you saying we shouldn't have any laws, since criminals don't follow laws? This makes no sense.
A different modus operandi wouldn't be able to gun down dozens of people in a few seconds.
Nothing crazy about more restrictive gun laws.
My car has a license number, so everyone knows exactly which car is mine, out of all cars in the whole U.S.
Why are firearms subject to less?
I don't think anyone was criticizing Sarah Palin for being a woman. They were criticizing her because she was seeking very high office and didn't seem to be cut out for it.
There is a huge difference between blanket perjoratives about large groups of people and pointed criticism of an individual public figure.
Just because a person is a woman and subject to criticism does not mean mysogeny is at work. All public figures that weild power MUST be subject to criticism, regardless of their race, age or gender.
So, you're not going to cite anything, then.
If you didn't care what I thought, then why get on here and chastize me for "ignoring" all these writings where Adams, Franklin and Jefferson explain the 2nd Amendment? Why can't you give me one example of all this stuff I'm supposedly ignoring?
You see, I have read my share, and that's why I'm suspicious about your claims about all this writing that Adams, Franklin and Jefferson did about the meaing of the 2nd Amendment. I mean, read Heller... if there were a bunch of writings by Adams, Franklin and Jefferson elucidating the 2nd Amendment, DON'T YOU THINK SCALIA WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THEM? Was he ignoring them too????
Come on dude. All those books you got from the library. Puh-lease.
You just repeat the talk shows dude, and it is plain as day. Face it.
So, yeah, when it says "ordinarly when called for service," who do you think it is that is "calling these men to service"? Yosemite Sam?
This seems to say that the idea is for the militias to exist as a local branch of the government military, to be called into action when needed.
Sounds like the National Guard to me.
This discussion is also about the value of a doctrine of Constitutional interpretation known as "originalism." It's the idea that a judge today can know what was in the mind of some guy who helped draft the constitution, or what some guy thought about the constitution when it was drafted, and use that to "decide" what the Consitution means for us today.
Judicial "originalism" is just judicial activism. It's a scam.
Unlike others on here, I'm pretty transparent about where my ideas come from:
Heller is certainly the latest word, but it definitely does not say that the 2nd Amendment means individual Americans have the right to weapons for the purpose of protecting themselves against the government, or for the purpose of revolting/overthrowing the government.
It says we have the right to keep a handgun in our home for self-defense. You can imagine whatever threats to your self you like, but there is no historical evidence that any of the drafters of the constitution imagined they were protecting the right of the people to forcibly overthrow or fight off the government. The framers designed the whole Constitution so that would not be necessary.
Last login: Monday, April 29, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.