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

Columnist’s views are filled with flaws

May 30, 2013

This is in regard to a recent commentary “Funny what we can afford when it suits us....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(43)

stangv8

May-31-13 10:00 PM

Judeye, read some of your own American history. During the Civil War, many units of the North and South were made up of militia who elected their own officers and NCO’s. Mostly the senior officers were the wealthy who would finance the militia. Until they were called up to augment the Army, they had no government oversight.

Remember, our Founding Fathers feared a strong powerful central government in control of a large military force. Just because that’s what we have today and have had for probably about the past 100 years doesn’t make it the way it was meant to be. Unfortunately, world conditions call for a strong military

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

May-31-13 9:45 PM

Judeye, I’ve explained to you numerous times that background checks are done every time a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer. That’s the law. The only way to do a background check for purchases between private individuals is to first have universal gun registration. Any one with a thinking brain knows that in order for the government to conduct a background check on private purchases between citizens, the government has to know who has what firearms by serial number. The thing with your polls was that the question that wasn’t asked was: Do you support background checks on all firearms purchases between citizens if it requires mandatory gun registration? You would get a very different answer.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-31-13 12:40 PM

As for user ID's, other than those who might suffer at their job over speaking out, I strongly believe if a person ahs something to say, they should do it publically. I catch all kinds of H e l l for some of my columns. But I speak out. I think people hiding behind screen names lose credibility in many cases. I wrote a column about that too, and caught LOTS of crud over it. Mostly I make that an issue when the attacks are more personal, or obviously racist.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-31-13 12:33 PM

There is a huge difference between Democratic leadership and the average Democratic member. I come from a long line of blue collar workers, all Democrats of course. None of them were or even liked true Liberals. I'm not sure where abortion fits in this discussion? I take very little stand on the issue, but do believe religion shouldn't come into play other than for a person's personal choice, and since I'm a man, and will never need one, I'll bow out. It's a no brainer for me if a woman is raped. After first trimester, I start having issues. But again, many Liberals would not like that stance at all.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-31-13 11:43 AM

A question if you will. Are not most modern day democrats liberals. Are not most who are pro abortion liberals? Why is calling someone a liberal any worse then calling people tea baggers. Why do you think anyone who has a user ID on either side of the fence is a coward? All fair questions I hope.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-31-13 11:03 AM

(cont. from previous post)..person who disagrees with you a Liberal or a Socialist and MAYBE we could tone things down. Many of my columns have infuriated the more Liberal readers. And far too often, like the column this article is disagreeing with, I wonder if the responders actually read them, the responses are so far off. Anyway, we'll see.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-31-13 11:00 AM

I served 2 years from 1969 to 1971, 13 months of that with the 101st Airborne Division, HQ Battalion, Military Intelligence Company, Sensor Platoon, Long Range Implant teams. I performed recon missions for Military Intell. as well as G2_Air and MACV, which involved either tracking movement along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and Ashau Valley areas, mostly along and across the Laotian border, or calling in Air or Artillery strikes. This involved laying sensors along trails while accompanied by an Infantry platoon, then staying behind with one other Sensor team member for up to a week. My attitude towards upper level Military "leadership" and politicians in general stems from that service. I saw human beings knowingly used as little more than cannon fodder. I saw information I risked my life for thrown into garbage cans because it contradicted planned operations. I could go on and on. I have no reason to THINK the Government and the Military lie, I know they lie! Stop calling every pe

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-31-13 10:43 AM

Personally I would like to see the "hate" between us and the bastardization of user names stop. Along with your use of the term coward because I am anything but. You started this because you don't like my user name. Not sure why but oh well. The choice is now up to you on how we continue.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-31-13 10:42 AM

I am not "dissing" your creds by any means. I believe you served. But at the same time we both have seen to many people wearing "boonie hats" to use that as an example of have served. I served from Mar 1965 to Nov 1969 on active duty with the USN. I was with the 6th and 2nd Fleets. Did a shakedown cruise at gitmo before returning to the 2nd Fleet. Not I wasn't on the ground as you seem to have been. Hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-31-13 8:04 AM

Would you like me to post the results of other polls asking the same question on background checks?

Like this "New PPP polls in Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee find that even in dark red states there's strong, bipartisan support for expanded background checks. And as we've found elsewhere, voters are unhappy with their Senators who voted against them."

Yes, the people the vast majority of people in this Country want expanded background checks to purchase a gun.

Explain in reasonable logical terms why background checks would not be good.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-31-13 7:59 AM

stangv8...in the definition it states must be "able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Does that then exclude people not within that age range..and all women except those in the Guard?

Would this then mean that only those in such a militia have a right to bear arms?

Some contend that this amendment was put in place to maintain the state militias who helped keep slaves from uprising.

In any event I support people having the right to own weapons. Just think that there should be restrictions on the types.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-31-13 6:44 AM

LOL! I'm really curious why that Vietnam Veteran hat, which many vets wear, is such a bother to some of you. I guess because I don't fit in your little stereotype boxes and that ruins your small minded efforts to cast all who disagree with you into a certain light? Bill? Bill what? Saying your name is "Bill" is still anonymous. You're a coward. I(f I ever saw you, I might not call you "Bill", but I surely wouldn't call you "Sir", even more lol! Anyway, enjoy your cowardly and anonymous rants. I'll enjoy the privilege I've earned to wear any Vietnam Veteran gear I wish and when I wish. Funny how all you gun-slinging veteran advocates seem to have no issue with dissing any vet's credentials if they don't agree with you, like all the other twists and turns you all make when your dogma isn't working. But then, let's face it, parrots can't think, they just repeat what they hear. Where and when did you serve, "Bill"?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 11:05 PM

You got it stangv8.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

May-30-13 10:19 PM

Judeye, 90% of other Americans? What you really mean is 90% of a survey of 1100 people.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

May-30-13 10:17 PM

10 United States Code, TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES, Subtitle A - General Military Law, PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS, CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA, Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes, Statue (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

May-30-13 10:15 PM

Judeye, my, how soon we forget where I got that from. I've actually explained it in detail numerous times before in these discussions but you always seem not to come back when I do. Anyways, here it is again.

see above

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 8:08 PM

BTW as I told you before my name is Bill. But you can call me SIR as you have not earned the privilege of using my name.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 8:07 PM

"In Internet slang, a troll (/'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion" The site also had a photo of this small minded person "donning a Vietnam Veteran hat". Had a big C on his vest like he thought he was some kind of super hero or some. I could have sworn it was you but maybe not. There could be someone else out there with that drooling grin but I doubt it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 7:17 PM

To be a true Troll, one must post anonymously. I don't, you do, end of that subject Mr. Troll.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 7:16 PM

Funny Murikin, how you so deftly describe what probably was meant by the wording of the 2nd Amendment, etc., etc., when it suits you, but nobody else can have a differing opinion without being labeled by you as some sort of less than patriotic citizen. Do you really have any idea what you post? You're a joke.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 7:15 PM

You really are a little minded troll aren't you.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 7:14 PM

Now Murikin, the entire article was about me, about one of my columns, so forgive me if I misinterpreted your remarks. I'm sure I didn't, but that's ok.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 6:41 PM

"To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe."

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 6:40 PM

Sorry ran out of space Read more at ht tp://ww w.lectlaw.c om/files/gun01.htm

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 6:39 PM

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government." Read

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 43 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