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

Gun Vote

Listen to voice of reason, not the NRA

April 19, 2013

If anyone was searching for an act of courage on Wednesday, the chamber of the U.S. Senate was not the place to loo....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(84)

WhatsNext

Apr-28-13 10:37 AM

AaronS, Denver can't answer your questions because because his cable is out and he doesn't know what the clowns at MSNBC and CNN want him to say. So he'll just keep sipping his "Kool-Aid" and stalling for time while totally wasting yours. Denver and his ilk aren't worth arguing with. Their heads are so far up Odumma's butt that they will never see that the Socialist piece of scum and his cronies are destroying America. Anyone who believes in Odumma's idiotology are a bunch of moronic and pathetic losers. Not name-calling, just obvious facts!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-27-13 12:26 PM

Par the course dennie, while you can regurgitate the DNC liberal puppet talking points, when challenged to answer on your own, you whiff big time.

The answer is simple. There is no reason to pass more laws that will not be enforced other than to mislead the American public into thinking liberals are actually doing something. If Manchin and Toomey actually wanted to address the situation, they would have addressed current laws and why they are not being enforced. They would have engaged gun advocates and said, “How do we come up with a bill that actually addresses the situation” instead of simply trying to manipulate the public with a bad bill that in no way would have prevented any of the recent tragedies that are driving this conversation.

Instead, they get on TV, cry and act like they are doing something and the minions eat it up without a clue as to why they are manipulated so easily.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Apr-26-13 6:46 PM

Little Buddy your the one with all the information.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-26-13 10:19 AM

So now it's your turn dennie, why don't you answer stickhaulers question? Why pass more laws that won't be enforced?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Apr-25-13 6:21 AM

There you go "AaronS" "stickhauler" just answered our question!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Apr-25-13 3:58 AM

Denver, Joe Biden answered your question about WHY current laws aren't enforced. Because there aren't enough cops to arrest the law breakers, enough prosecuters to try them, not enough judges to sentence them, and nowhere near enough prison space to house them.

SO, the liberal response? Pass MORE laws they can't or won't enforce.

But, I guess that makes sense, since this bunch of clowns decided to sell guns to "straw purchasers", facilitate the smuggling of them across the Southern bordern to supply the drug cartels. All in some idiotic plan to arrest the cartel leaders. In a country where WE can't arrest them, and they kept this operation secret, didn't let the Mexican government, or their cops know it was going on.

And you trust these clowns with governing our country?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-24-13 9:14 PM

No bill changes the Constitution.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-24-13 6:59 PM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Apr-24-13 4:40 PM

What specifically in the bill that Senator Manchin proposed, do you believe changes the Constitution? Background checks already occur, is there a Internet dealers or gun show loophole in the Constitution currently? That is what this article is about you know. So why would you need a Constitutional Amendment?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeffward

Apr-24-13 11:32 AM

11:06 post; I meant to say this last century speaking of the 1900's.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeffward

Apr-24-13 11:20 AM

neo: I don't believe any gun laws really existed until the gangster massacre days in the 20' & 30's. I may be wrong but believe that's correct. Remember people in general were not well educated as they are today. There also wasn't the communication capabilities either. It was easier for the government to take advantage of us as a whole intentionally or not.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeffward

Apr-24-13 11:06 AM

neo: on your 6:43 post; The Constitution doesn't provide any remedy for loss of rights under any circumstance. This is why I say it must be done by Constitutional Amendment. Until it is, every law written concerning taking of rights is unconstitutional. I agree completely that these issues need addressed badly. The thing is it has to be done correctly to keep our system above board. Until this century anyone that did anything, no matter how bad, didn't lose their rights. Through knee jerk laws we have allowed this to spiral out of control. A constitutional amendment would correct most of the problem. If we don’t do all correctly we might as well not have the system we have at all and that would be bad for us all. We have to follow the rules to keep them.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-24-13 8:33 AM

If you would take the time to read the document dennie you would know that slavery was delt with Constitutionally in the wake of the civil war, nearly 150 years ago so why would I defend a non-issue?

But thank you for making my point. If you want to change the 2nd Amendment then the ONLY way to do it is through a Constitutional Amendment, as was done with slavery.

What say you now?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Apr-24-13 6:08 AM

The 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago by people who were in real danger of being pulled out of their homes and shot in the streets. The Constitution, at the same time the 2nd Amendment was written, also specifically states that slaves aren't real people and don't count as full human beings. Is that part outdated too, or are you gonna to defend that? I'll wait....

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-23-13 11:05 PM

How much credit can be given to someone who doesn't know what our firm of government and falsely claims America a democracy?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Apr-23-13 11:02 PM

The fears Madison envisioned in Federalist 46 and were shared by iur Founding Fathers is the government we live under today. If they could see us now, it is not our guns they would take away, it is the control if our central government.

And the person faing to prosecute those who violate current law dennie is Eric Holder and the person who put him in the AG's office.

Who is that again?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Apr-23-13 9:48 PM

manyd, it is entirely possible for a democracy to go wrong. Or a republic.

The meaning of "militia" changes, but arms in the hands of the people are still part of the system of checks & balances, although implied rather than directly stated.

How can the people's weapons count for anything against the government's weapons? B/c NO government can long function w/o some perception of its legitimacy -- & ESPECIALLY a democracy. If the government has to resort to mass violence against its own people, it wins the battle but loses the war. That's a check. (How long it takes for the government's legitimacy to decay depends on how much the people are divided, & how effectively the government plays that. See Syria.)

On the other hand, if a minority think they are to be our saviors, form a militia & attack the government elected by the people, the government GAINS legitimacy by putting them down (& acquires thereby more power than it was meant to have

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Itsnottolate

Apr-23-13 9:00 PM

final thoughts, what an idiot!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Apr-23-13 8:32 PM

FINAL THOUGHT: THE European Armies of 1778. were under the control of KINGS, and NOT a democracy as we have today... That's what Madison was talking about...

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Apr-23-13 8:27 PM

AARON S, To twist and manipulate MADISON'S words {thoughts} {not laws} {I am TALKING ABOUT THE Federalist Papers #46} is a total disservice to his INTELLECT AND REASONING, at the time, OF 200+ YEARS AGO. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING [CIRCUMSTANCES] THAT ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY...

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Apr-23-13 8:16 PM

Seems to me that many of you are failing to realize that our Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Instead of recognizing this FACT, you continue to cling to the MILITIA EXCUSE as a reason to hang onto ASSAULT WEAPONS. Our founding fathers that you so often quote couldn't have possibly envisioned the government or society that we have today... Their thoughts and observations are recorded in the FEDERALIST PAPERS... {as someone earlier quoted} MADISON. #46. Madison was talking about an ARMY similar to EUROPE's at the time, in 1778. That NO WAY relates to 2013.....

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Apr-23-13 6:43 PM

@ jeffward: Last 3 lines of which? My post, I assume. True, & perhaps it was over-the-top.

This subject needs serious discussion, but has received a considerable measure of nonsense.

You have contributed both, by my reading; and I have made that distinction. It appears you do not make that distinction, you think everything you post is of equal value. Please take another look.

"Nowhere does it say our rights can be taken because of someone's bad behavior, including our own."

Does that mean that no one can lose his or her 2nd Amendment rights b/c/o conviction of murder, or any history of violence? How else am I to read it?

When I post nonsense like that, please call me on it. I'm not sure this time was it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Apr-23-13 6:33 PM

"AaronS" Your asking the wrong person why our current laws are "NOT" being enforced, Id like to know that myself! When you find out get back with us and let us know. OK!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jeffward

Apr-23-13 3:10 PM

Neo: The last 3 lines are the kicker!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Apr-23-13 2:55 PM

This Navy veteran agrees w/ most of your post, but it reads like you didn't really read my post.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 84 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

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