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

Columnist’s wrong on interpretation

September 21, 2013

I am writing in response to the commentary “Cherry picking for rights” (Aug. 26)....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

Donnar

Sep-23-13 1:53 PM

She's getting just as bad as Steiner. Same garbage, different day.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Sep-23-13 12:25 PM

She just chooses to ignore facts and twist what others say to fit hers and her hero's leftist agenda.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Donnar

Sep-23-13 10:35 AM

Judeye, Can you read or do you just choose to ignore facts? RD clearly states "I personally don't agree that people should carry fully automatic weapons, (which have been illegal for decades Federally, but apparently are still allowed for gang usage in Chicago)."

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Sep-22-13 9:03 PM

Oh, and did I say RACIST? I must have forgot, because all of you libs are the most racist bunch out there.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Sep-22-13 8:59 PM

That's OK Judy. You can take parts of my comment and twist them all you want, in order to pursue your outright lies. Everybody knows that this is the way to make you think that you won the argument. When in fact it proves my point exactly. Obama voters are all arrogant, self absorbed, self aggrandized, self serving, manipulative, ignorant, lying, whinny boobs, who can't take care of themselves, so they think that government should do it all for them. The fact is, Judy, no one owes anyone anything, it is illegal for the government to take guns or to make laws outlawing them, and it is illegal for the government to take money from one person and give it to another.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Sep-22-13 12:17 PM

I can easily believe she did that joew. The left are very good at misinformation otherwise known as outright lies. Them obamaites are very adept at screwing and twisting what others say.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Sep-22-13 11:21 AM

Judeye I can't believe you twisted what "rednewt" posted to fit your less than intelligent reply. Are you and Dcroakernig blood relatives by chance?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Sep-22-13 11:20 AM

Judeye I can't believe you twisted what "rednewt" posted to fit your less than intelligent reply. Are you and Dcroakernig blood relatives by chance?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Sep-22-13 9:47 AM

rdnewt.."the individual own a weapon that was comparable to one used in battle, so as to allow them to defend their homes against enemies both foreign and domestic,"

So do you think we all should be able to have machine guns, tanks, and yes even nuclear weapons to use?

And if you think Japan did not attack the USA because they would be up against a person with a shot gun (or rifle, or other hunting weapon)...against their military weapons, like bombs...I got a bridge to sell ya...

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Sep-22-13 8:54 AM

Lilrud, the answer is....All of them, that are legally owned by law abiding citizens. You can't keep changing laws to punish the law abiding, just to make you "feel" safe, instead of enforcing the law that is already on the books. Every one of these animals who committed a mass shooting, committed numerous felonies prior to committing their ultimate crime. Many of these have had prior arrests, and/or have been reported as psychologically unstable. Look at the Rochester incident last year, the guy was in jail previously for killing his Grandmother. The DC shooter, Colorado Theater shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter all had problems that had been reported to government authorities. Do you really want this same authority to be in charge of protecting you? We are all ultimately responsible for our own protection and safety.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Sep-22-13 8:43 AM

I don't know "lilrud.."? I do know that PRESSURE COOKERS can be had for as little as $40.00 however and backpacks are really cheap.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LilrudSteven

Sep-21-13 5:48 PM

Violence needs a will and a means. How many would have died if the shooter had no gun? Keeping the "community safe"? How many privately owned guns have kept the community safe?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Sep-21-13 2:37 PM

Actually DCronlg, if you were to use the logic that you stated, perhaps then the government should stick to 18th century weapons as well. The fact is that when the Second Amendment was written, people carried or owned the same weapons as the military, so why not now, again, by your own logic. I personally don't agree that people should carry fully automatic weapons, (which have been illegal for decades Federally, but apparently are still allowed for gang usage in Chicago). I do believe that if a person wants to own a semi-automatic weapon, regardless of how scary it looks to you, they should be allowed to. This will allow them to properly train, and learn how to keep it safe, and their family and community safe with it. Your type believes that to declare the weapons illegal, that will end violence. It is an ignorant farce. Violence comes from the heart, not from a tool.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Sep-21-13 1:46 PM

You are an Obama backer therefore you have no case.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LilrudSteven

Sep-21-13 1:35 PM

I rest my case.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Sep-21-13 10:56 AM

The thing about these "small town minds" is they are right while the far left liberals (everyone who agrees with Obama) have it wrong about guns and many other things. Anyone who is so afraid of guns that they want to take away the rights of the majority should just set back and shut up.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LilrudSteven

Sep-21-13 10:47 AM

When people are wrong, they resort to insults. Small town minds.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Sep-21-13 9:52 AM

Keep picking troll...

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Sep-21-13 9:46 AM

Not sure what bizarro world in which the author resides (not to mention how his mind works given his beliefs...), but to use 17th, 18th and 19th century citations, heavily determined by social norms of those times, as singular, referential basis for 21st social and regulatory policy is breathtakingly ludicrous.

No? Follow the author's logic: with his argument, I could equally argue the 2nd amendment only applies to 17th & 18th century muskets and not to any 21st multi-round weapons, as that is what the Founders intended, given their 16th, 17th & 18th definitions.

But obviously, the author and his ilk would categorically scream all sorts of inapplicability...which further solidifies how bizarro-world-out-of-touch they are. Small towns, small minds.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Sep-21-13 8:48 AM

rd has it right. The cops are not liable for individuals , only the collective mass. The japanese did say that in WW2. Gun loby formed after civil war. Everyone knew gun control originally meant to keep slaves from owning guns to prevent a rebellion . Later, the argument was changed as to prevent crime by these same slaves. In California in the 60s, reagan went for gun control when , guess who folks , armed groups of minorities began patrolling the streets . they were heavily armed. fear gripped the population and the rest is history.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Sep-21-13 8:33 AM

Also, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and of the Revolutionary War, it was the people bringing their own guns to the war if they had them. It was encouraged by the government because of this. No man is better equipped, than if he is using his own weapon that he is familiar with, trained with, hunted with, etc. If you look also at the time of the writing, it was INTENDED that the individual own a weapon that was comparable to one used in battle, so as to allow them to defend their homes against enemies both foreign and domestic, as well as to assist in the basic defense of the nation as needed. This proved to be true in WWII, when the Japanese decided against attacking the mainland US, because "There would be a person with a gun hiding behind every blade of grass". The government is not meant to protect every individual citizen. It is only designed to protect en-mass. If you are alone unarmed, you are on your own.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Sep-21-13 8:10 AM

Hey terry, what you describe in liberals is just how they operate.They accuse others of cherry picking. In the meantime, the libs cherry pick galore. It paints them as a champion while ridiculing their opposition.Choice , their mantra is only for a woman and her private parts.There is no discussion of vouchers for schools as that would destroy the public schools, the haven of dumbacrats. Free speech is only intended to mock the right , but never libs. their hatred of citizens united is proof. The govt invented everything. Guns are bad and their proliferation is due to greed of corporations. The right is obstructing congress with no jobs bill while the first stimulus flunked. the right is the only party wanting Obamacare repealed even while the big unions want it repealed too. over and over we see this pattern. It proves to me that the libs are mentally challenged.freedom is agreeing with a liberal Terry.The libs want it so.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 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