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)

Steiner

May-30-13 7:51 AM

Mr Duggan, you must remember Paul Christopher is a tolerant liberal. As such he is vehemently against anyone who disagrees with him. With Pauls outlook, the govt is the new god or king. The govt employees are the new lords. he believes in the you did not build that syndrome, as if the govt gave us what we have today. paul cannot even treat the NRa as the libs treat islamists. The NRA is a gun nut organization, even though there are over 300 million guns in the country and few accidents. medical mistakes kill more. Paul does not care about facts, just his liberal vision of utopia, which he intends by force of law to impose on us tea partiers.Other than this Paul is a normal guy in his own eyes.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 7:53 AM

When Steiner supports your cause, worry.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-30-13 8:27 AM

christopher, you have to resort to saying nonsense things like your post. you sound like cronig . Supporting a cause ? i support private enterprise which pays the salaries of the govt people who somehow grew to hate and despise us. even though we gave the world a huge increase in the std of living. It was not the govt employee christopher. You got it wrong again . It was private enterprise and learned tech guys like myself. Tough to swallow for a proud liberal, eh ?

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-30-13 8:42 AM

The second amendment which I believe you are referring to does NOT guarantee the right to have any weapon of your choice. We as a Country have placed restrictions on weapons. No one can own a machine gun for personal use, or a dirty bomb or a bazooka.

As for defending the Constitution, I just hope that those who claim they are defending it, truly understand it. Too many have no idea of the history, the evolution of our Constitution,or constitutional law.

In our Country...we turn to the courts when an issue of constitutionality is raised. The courts...NOT INDIVIDUALS...then make the determination if something is constitutional or not.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SmallTownSmallMind

May-30-13 8:53 AM

Paul has simply taken what he has experienced as a vet and a citizen and a child of God, and evolved to the person he is today. You can disagree with his viewpoint, but you can't say he is ignorant. His columns are always intelligent and informative and he does not sit on the fence. He sees life diferently than Steiner and the writer, but that's good. It makes for healthy discourse. I feel Mr. Christopher makes our community a much better place as he challenges people to think for themselves. He is much more than a union-loving liberal of which Steiner accuses him. He actually processes things and chooses to believe that which squares with his character and his personal experiences.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 9:04 AM

Great letter Mr. Duggan. Right on the money. Thank you for the letter and your service.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

May-30-13 9:50 AM

@judeye, while it may not guarnatee the right to have any weapon of choice, it also does not specificlly prohibit that either. ".. to bear arms.." is vague. Intentionally so? If the true meaning behind the 2nd amendment was to facilitate militia mobilization, or protect the right of the people to stage a revolution, then "arms" could mean any instrument necessary. A fairly liberal application of this wording could mean you're allowed to build an A-bomb in your basement.

Just food for thought.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBear

May-30-13 9:59 AM

Here we go. LOL.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

May-30-13 11:37 AM

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

May-30-13 11:40 AM

Mr. Duggan,thanks for your commemtary.If you are interested there is a Lobby Day and Rally in Albany on June 11th.We'll get to talk with our representitives(in which we are lucky to have Andy Goodell and Cathy Young as supporters of the 2nd Amendment)and then Rally on the lawn with Speakers Judge Jeanine Pirro,former Westchester DA Dan Bongino,Carl Palidino,Bill Nojay and I'm sure some of our representitives will speak.Deluxe Bus leaves from D&F Plaza at 2:30AM returns from Albany at 2PM.Contact Bill at 716-672-6210.Hope you can make it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-30-13 12:32 PM

Matt-Semper Fi from a Army guy!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 4:00 PM

I'd say Semper Fi myself, but apparently I'm not allowed to be a vet because I wear a Vietnam Veteran hat in a picture while smiling. I'm still smiling.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 4:16 PM

This is what our liberals have become "Welch got on the news after his March 1 suspension from Park Elementary School for the Pop-Tart incident. He was 7 then and denied trying to make the Pop-Tart look like a weapon." We have all heard that story but here is a little addendum to it ""Park Elementary told parents it would give counseling to any children who needed it after the Pop-Tart incident."" Please someone get these people help before the next kid gets hurt with a POPTART.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-30-13 4:29 PM

You don't think I'd condone that, do you "Murikin"? Apparently you've missed my points somewhere along the way that I do support gun ownership, concealed carry, and the inherent right to do all of those things. We ONLY differ on SOME points, but being a zealot, anyone not agreeing with EVERYTHING you believe is a dreaded "LIBERAL!!!". You really need help.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-30-13 4:37 PM

Now Chrissy I didn't mention you at all in that post. But if the shoe fits (and it would seem so from the nasty comment about me) then by all means wear it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

May-30-13 5:00 PM

A Well Regulated Militia: civilians who band together in emergencies to form an army of irregulars.

Being Necessary To The Security of a Free State: not is in “fifty states” but in the State of Being Free.

The Right Of The People: law abiding citizens

To Keep And Bear Arms: arguably any unclassified weapon which can be wielded by an individual soldier.

Shall Not Be Infringed: shall suffer no dilution upon which civilian capability to thwart tyranny may hinge.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-30-13 5:55 PM

PR24601..the second amendment also clearly (unlike the other amendments) clarifies why ..."a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.."

What this means what our forefathers meant by this is up for much debate in constitutional law circles. Remember, when written, people brought their OWN weapons when called upon to fight. We have militias now, and even those in the militias (not the crazy right or left wings ones..but the official ones) no one brings their own weapons.

It is a very interesting subject for discussion. But to restrict some weapons and some types of ammo I..with 90% of other Americans...think the time is now.

Oh..and to just remind everyone...yes we have guns...

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-30-13 5:56 PM

A Well Regulated Militia: civilians who band together in emergencies to form an army of irregulars.

Where did you come up with this definition?

2 Agrees | 7 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 »

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 6:41 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 »

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 7:15 PM

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

4 Agrees | 1 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 »

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 »

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