Archive for Thursday, March 8, 2018

Letter to the editor: Change our culture

March 8, 2018

Advertisement

To the editor:

I am encouraged by the widespread demands for restrictions on gun availability, especially regarding assault rifles. There is no need for regular citizens to have weapons intended to kill large numbers of people. I would like to see AR-15s and all the bump stocks vanished. That certainly would have helped the tragic victims of mass shootings in Florida and Las Vegas and a few other places. But what about the many thousands of other people who die from gunshots yearly? I reluctantly agree with the NRA that the main problem is with the shooters.

Still, the outrage at the NRA is appropriate. The NRA has played a useful role in supporting gun safety, hunting and sport shooting; but the organization has found new life promoting a false sense of paranoia and with it the idea that any governmental restriction of guns is just a step away from loss of all our rights. Beyond that, our country seems to have developed a tolerance for violence along with a perception of those who are different and those who hold different opinions as ignorant, unpatriotic and potentially dangerous. People who feel vulnerable, threatened, ostracized, hopeless may well see violence as a reasonable, acceptable course of action. Someone who struggles, for whatever reason, to succeed in life may find scapegoats and may take out his frustration and anger on them or himself in murderous fashion. We have to change our society’s attitudes. Implementing gun restrictions is at least a symbolic start.

Comments

P Allen Macfarlane 1 month, 1 week ago

Joe, I hope you are wearing your flame-retardant underwear. Those in the NRA orbit are lkiely to pounce any minute.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

Joe, the word "need" does not appear in the Second Amendment.

Paul Youk 1 month, 1 week ago

The words 'well regulated' appear in the 2nd Amendment though, which is exactly what the majority of Americans want--smart, sensible gun regulation. Most Americans want bump stocks and military grade weapons to be banned for civilian use. Most Americans want background checks and waiting periods, and an end to bureaucratic loopholes that killers like Dylann Roof used to get a gun that he shot nine people to death in a church with.

Americans don't want to ban guns, but we do want guns to be well regulated.

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 1 week ago

Nice revisionist English, but the phrase "well regulated" meant that they could come together like a regular army without needing to take the time for basic training in things like handling firearms and marksmanship. A well regulated militia is one composed of civilians with weapons befitting military use and the skills to use them.

Well regulated did not mean controlled. The founding fathers deliberately opted for a civilian militia rather than a regular army for the very purpose of preventing the federal government from having control of it.

So, read a little history before you post so you don't make yourself look like an ignorant gun grabber.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Why do you lie? Gun control advocates do want to ban guns. If fact you even called for banning of guns in your post. Your ignorance and dishonesty is disgusting.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Any right, including the 2nd Amendment Can be regulated, but any regulation must carefully considered, as limited and narrow as possible and have meaningful purpose. No regulation should simply be symbolic. The LTE writer calls for gun restrictions as a symbolic start. This is wrong on a couple of levels. It is a bad precedent to begin restricting rights for the symbolic value.

Would any agree with restricting the 1st Amendment in such a manner? Or how about a symbolic restriction on abortion to appease the Right-To-Life advocates. Let´s not go down this road. Any restriction of a right must be meaninful.

The other problem is trying to enact a symbolic regulation will surely cause pushback and distract from looking for real solutions.

Banning AR 15s is truly symbolic and political. It will do nothing to reduce violence.

Let’s focus on change that will actually reduce violence and not political symbolism.

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

Question for you Brock, how is it currently regulated ?

"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.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

It is not but the fact it isn’t isn’t relevant since the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own a firearm.

Please go read DC v Heller to educate yourself on the law.

And, setting aside the fact that the SCOTUS affirmed that an individual has a right to gun ownership, the introduction to the 2nd amendment only presents a reason for the right, it does not set a requirement for it.

The militia back then were not military men. They were citizens who were expected to have their own weapons and come together to fight either against the federal government or foreign enemies.

Just because the federal government has destroyed any semblance of a militia, it doesn’t negate the right to individual ownership. Not just my opinion but that of the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind these men were expected to have weapons that could defend against other militaries so it makes no sense to say that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend for people to have military weapons. They did have them when it was written.

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

Thanks. So the part that says "A well regulated Militia" is not relevant ? But "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is ?

I am confused.....

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Cary, of course you’re confused. I just explained it to you but I bet you didn’t go and read Heller did you?

You will continue to be confused until you educate yourself.

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

Guess you are not getting my sarcasm ...

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Instead of being sarcastic why don’t you tell me why the 2nd amendment, in light of Heller, and the militia clause is relevant?

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

It is not relevant.

Children are being shot in schools, and nothing is done. People talk banning or arming or defending and it goes on and on and on and nothing gets done.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

You lack substance dude. Go back to being sarcastic.

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

Naaw, you just barf out the same old song and dance. 2nd amendment this 2nd amendment on and on and on with no solutions or answers.

Talk about children being killed and how to stop it without quoting the 2nd amendment.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Cary, not only are you ignorant about the 2nd amendment and the fact that you must discuss it when talking about regulating firearms, you are intellectually dishonest. To say I’ve offered no solutions means you’ve not been paying attention or just like to lie.

I’ve posted solutions many times. One more time just for you. Look forward to your solutions.

Here you go.

Enhance the background check database by adequately funding it and the FBI to manage it.

Prosecute people who lie on their gun purchase affidavit.

Require health care professionals to report patients suffering from certain mental illnesses or using certain drugs for treatment to the background check database. We have to be careful here because we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental illnesses and are more likely to commit a violent act or commit suicide, but we don’t want to deter people from seeking help.

Provide funding for more mental health access that is affordable.

Enact a law that would allow people to report a person who they believe will harm others or themselves and be able, after due process, to remove their guns. Due process is essential, but it can happen quickly. Also, make it a criminal act to falsely accuse someone.

Fund voluntary gun safety training and PSAs to promote the safe handling, storage and use of firearms. We use taxpayer dollars to fund all kinds of safety programs so why not this. I am sure there are people who would like training but can’t afford it.

Increase the penalties from the paltry 3 years many states have for felons illegally possessing guns to 25 years.

Make sentences mandatory no parole for anyone convicted of a felony while using or in possession of a firearm. And such sentences shall be at least 25 years.

Strengthen laws and increase penalties for stealing or possessing a stolen gun to at least 25 years with no possibility of parole.

Stop imprisoning drug users, provide them treatment and thus make room for these deadly criminals.

Allow the CDC to study gun violence and offer recommendations for curbing it.

Ban bump stocks - no purpose other than to circumvent the law regarding full auto.

All are doable, none infringe upon my rights and all will help reduce crime.

Cary Ediger 1 month, 1 week ago

Copy paste or did you type all that ?

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

All original and typed by me when I posted it on the other gun control thread and accused of not offering solutions. Even my biggest critic had to say I’ve offered solutions in the past. I did copy from that thread and paste here. You can see it here. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/mar...

Ken Lassman 1 month, 1 week ago

Hey, I'm honored to be described as your "biggest critic," Brock! Cary, I will stand by Brock on his list of solutions as a fine example of how through discussions, common ground can be found and folks from all sides can agree on ways to move forward in this ongoing debate on the role of guns in our society. Because of the extremely inflammatory nature of this debate, I suggest to you that the best way forward is incrementally, finding measures that everyone can support and monitor those changes to see how effective they are in reducing gun violence. Do you support this list? I certainly do as a great starting point.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Actually Ken, i wasn’t referring to you but intend the guy that likes to troll me.

I don’t see you as a critic. Sure, you challenge me, you offer alternative views and new info, but I see this as being a dialogue to burst the vacuum in which many operate.

Incremental change is the right approach. Not only will it create change it will build trust.

Ken Lassman 1 month, 1 week ago

Well I'm not disappointed. I think our dialogue is definitely a win-win situation too, and look forward to more sharing.

Bob Summers 1 month, 1 week ago

Pop quiz for the Liberal mind.

Why do you think there was a need for the 2nd amendment?

Here is a hint for you government inculcated folk.

When the Second Amendment was written and ratified, civilians had the exact same weapons as the military.

THAT WAS THE INTENT!

Jim Slade 1 month, 1 week ago

So can we now call an AR-15 a military weapon since that's its INTENT? To be used against a tyrannical government in an act of war?

Paul Youk 1 month, 1 week ago

If that was the intent and you are an absolutist on the subject, does this mean that you support the private ownership of nuclear weapons?

Louis Kannen 1 month, 1 week ago

"regulated" ...regulations...rules...common sense guidlines... training...background checks...closed loopholes...
Dad & Mom to daughter, son "OK....now that you're 18, here's the keys to the car...and yes, we obviously know you've never been behind the wheel nor had any training nor have a License or Insurance...just be careful and have fun...!!"

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Louis, the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment not only affirms it is an individual right but that it can, like other rights be regulated.

The 2nd amendment already is regulated but many would support regulation if it would actually reduce violence without unduly infringing upon our right.

Driving is a worn out talking point. It is not a right but a privilege so it can be more easily regulated even if those regulations prevent some from driving.

Here is the thing Louis- people say oh but if it only saves one child the regulation is worth it. Why don’t we raise the age for driving to 18. Thousands of lives would be saved so why not push for that change?

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

When the Founding Fathers were debating the Bill of Rights there were those who didn’t want a bill of rights for fear that it could be interpreted that these were the only rights of the people. The FF believed that men were endowed with rights naturally and those rights did not come from the government.

They feared government oppression of their rights so that is why they wanted to affirm, not grant them, in the Bill of Rights.

This is important to understand because it means that we, as free people, have rights beyond what is affirmed in the Bill of Rights. It is conceivable and my belief, that the FF mentioned only the militia as a purpose in the 2nd amendment because that is the only one they feared the government would most likely oppress. The right to self-defense was such a no brained they didn’t feel like it had to be called out for affirmation

So while the FF believed individual ownership was important to ensure a militia could be formed to defend against the federal government and foreign militaries, it is not the only reason for it.

Additionally, we the people are the militia. The need for the people to be armed to defend against government oppression and foreign invasion still exists.

This is true unless you can prove that every oppressive government began as such or no modern country has invaded another country.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Of course don’t take this as Gospel but at least read it, consider it and then challenge it. https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-‘arms’-‘well-regulated’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.

Another article.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Steve Hicks 1 month, 1 week ago

"Additionally, we the people are the militia. The need for the people to be armed to defend against government oppression and foreign invasion still exists."

Brock, this seems to be what the LTE means when he says the NRA's current (self-serving) ploy is "promoting a false sense of paranoia." Isn't your distinction that "we the people are the militia," but America's military is some kind of malevolent "other"...not "we the people"...that we must defend ourselves against, a manifestation of that paranoia ?

I asked you on another thread, and will ask you again. We have the exact scenario some writers of the Constitution feared above all others, and had in mind especially in writing the 2nd Amendment: a wannabe-autocrat Chief Executive in command of a "standing army."

Do you honestly believe if the current president ordered the army to occupy the New York Times' office, or CNN's studio, to stop their telling unflattering truth about him, the army would do it ? Or (since "Christian Conservatives" are so paranoid that their "religious rights" are under attack) that the American military would blindly obey if the current commander-in-chief ordered them to force a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding ?

The mindset toward our government that Reagan vouchsafed to Americans (that "Government is the PROBLEM") was illogical: anyone who thought about it for even a minute (Reagan was not that deep a thinker) would have realized government can't be made to work by the anarchist principle.

But Reagan also subverted the traditional American principle that "the people" are the government. And that's where the real harm, still ongoing, has come.

"Conservatives" and the N.R.A. have used Reagan's witless slogan to produce paranoid fear: and fearful people are easily stampeded in whatever direction manipulators wish. If "the people" don't believe they ARE the government (or in your example, the military), they are easily made to believe the amorphous "other" (government or the military) is their enemy.

How many times have we heard so from "conservatives," as they heroically struggle against oppressive "government over-reach" ? How many times (even on this one thread) had we heard parroted the N.R.A.'s signature propaganda that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is that American citizens be able to defend themselves...from their own government...whom they are ?

I'm pretty convinced the traditional American ideal got it right. And it's quite clear that the contrary Reagan doctrine, its current presidential spawn, and the N.R.A. have done, and are doing, immense harm to America. Easy choice.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Who rounded up Americans of Japanese descent and put them in camps? Who killed an unarmed mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge? Who burned men women and children alive in Waco? Who killed the Kent State protesters? Who droned Americans including children not charged with a crime?

Yeah go ahead and believe the government won’t turn on its people or solidiers won’t follow orders.

Gary Stussie 1 month, 1 week ago

If you don't believe that government's, many far older then ours, have turn against the people, you need to study up on your history! ... and the first thing they do is confiscate the weapons.

Gary Stussie 1 month, 1 week ago

Here’s a history of what has happened in this century after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Dick Sengpiehl 1 month, 1 week ago

There are the usual comments above by NRA advocates who love the scare tactics that have been effective for a long time. We did have laws which banned fully automatic Tommy Guns in the 30s. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment which restricts effective gun controls. The fact is, these individuals above are in the minority of public opinion. Most people including many NRA members plea for effective background checks, an d common sense gun regulations. We have far more guns circulating in the US than other civilized countries and we also have far more citizens killed because of that fact . Also, I understand that most of the weapons are held by a minority of citizens who stockpile them. Gun manufacturers are having a field day now as the issue is discussed again. Look to Australia which has effectively cut her death rate by guns dramatically by passing effective gun regulations. Of course I would never endorse the extreme rules by Japan but that has reduced their gun deaths to less than a few each year. I am a Marine Veteran and have hunted, fired expert in the Marines and when a youth belonged to the Jr NRA and competed each week, usually getting the highest score. I would never condone not complying with the 2nd amendment. But use some common sense, people, and help stop the senseless killing of so many Americans, especially our children. This slippery slope business is BS. I see that Florida just passed a measure. Hopefully things are beginning to change. It will be a campaign issue this year.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

You said the above NRA advocates are using scare tactics - care to quote one? I’m not an NRA advocate but a 2nd amendment advocate.

I have expressed my support for better background checks among other sensible changes.

Name an effective gun control that is constitutional and will end gun violence or at least significantly reduce. Before you parrot the ban AR 15s talking points look at the number of murders by AR 15 compared to handguns. You could ban the AR 15 and it won’t change anything.

Jim Slade 1 month, 1 week ago

Ban personal possession of ammunition. Ammunition must be bought from and stored at ranges, police stations, etc.

2A rights intact and most likely a dramatic drop in gun violence.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

Keep up with that tone, bub. There'll be no compromise from those of us that own and safely use firearms while you keep yammering. BTW, You don't need to have books at home. You must take them all to the library. If you want to read them, just go to the library.

Jim Slade 1 month, 1 week ago

I didn't say anything about taking your firearms away. We get to keep them!

Ammunition, however, is strictly limited and that is NOT in the constitution. Sorry!

Bruce Weber 1 month, 1 week ago

Thank You Dick for the practical common sense comments from a Veteran and life long hunter. There have been several comments from people of Stature and invaluable experience. Keep the 2nd Amendment - Fix the problems,,,,but there will always be the handful that will stick to the nra playbook #1 Just say no. #2 you don't know guns, you are ignorant, sit down and shut up. #3 repeat 1&2.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

"...Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy. The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.” How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation. “If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out..."http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/if-youre-trying-to-ban-guns-the-least-you-can-do-is-learn-the-basics/

Richard Heckler 1 month, 1 week ago

Politicians will say anything to shut americans up about guns when in reality are only waiting for this massive teen slaughter situation to run out of steam.

The GOP which is controlled by very radical right wing money aka ALEC will do nothing about deregulated gun sales. Nothing will change.

This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with a few new regulations need to stay active and loud.

Politicians will say anything to shut americans up and in reality are only waiting for this sitaution to run out of steam.

The news media must stay on top of this matter. Assault weapons must be taken off the retail market, the black market and not allowed in gun shows.

Military and law enforcement weapons when retired MUST be melted down and perhaps brought back as picinic tables.

Arming teachers is shallow thinking. Security officers are acceptable HOWEVER they cannot stop an action if they don't when a shooting is going to take place or where it will take place

Regarding the gun issue. What is the true motivation is the question? I say it has little to with rights to have lethal assault weapons and more to do with a back door method of building right wing armed militias.

GET all assault weapons off the market, off the streets, out of homes no matter what then make it a felony to own or sell one!!!!

Law enforcement KNOWS damn well this open carry places them and all of us in harms way to a greater extreme than ever before.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

"...Security officers are acceptable HOWEVER they cannot stop an action if they don't when a shooting is going to take place or where it will take place..." You expect them to be able to see the future? If the Broward coward had not been too concerned with his own safety, he could have entered the building where a crazy person was killing students and stopped the slaughter.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

"...Roundly vilified for not entering a Parkland high school during a mass shooting, Broward Deputy Scot Peterson insisted publicly that he believed that gunfire was happening outside on campus — not from inside the building. But internal radio dispatches released by the sheriff's office Thursday show Peterson immediately fixated on Building 12 and even radioed that gunfire was happening “inside.” And, just as school shooter Nikolas Cruz was fleeing the building after killing 17 people, Peterson warned his fellow officers to stay away — even as wounded students and staff lay inside. BSO policy calls for deputies to engage an active shooter and eliminate the threat..." http://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article204226584.html?__twitter_impression=true

Greg Cooper 1 month, 1 week ago

So, a reasonable person might infer that, since a highly trained officer could not decide to engage the shooter, that a less than highly trained teacher or custodian or administration official would have even a harder time making that choice. Thanks you for your cogent citation showing reasonable folks how unreasonable arming school officials is.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

I’ve opposed arming the teachers for the reason you stated and also oppose it for a couple more reasons. I want teachers to focus on teaching and not safe gun handling while they are carrying and I don’t want teachers to have to bear the burden of shooting another person, possibly a former teen student. It is a heavy burden for them to carry if they are forced into that position.

Spend the money and hire professional security.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

What is it with disappointed leftists wildly misunderstanding things on this site?

Greg Cooper 1 month, 1 week ago

What was misunderstood, Bob? Maybe you can read your own citation again, then get back to me as to how my reply indicates any misunderstanding. Or, perhaps not. I don't expect it, but it'd be nice to know exactly what you meant by your citation that I "misunderstood".

Paul Youk 1 month, 1 week ago

What is it with hooplehead conservatives inability to realize that Deputy Scot Peterson is living proof that 'a good guy with a gun' is a fantasy to stop violence, not a plan.

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 1 week ago

There are two main problems with that.

First, you are correct that you cannot count on law enforcement to protect you. The problem is that your 'solution' is to make sure the victims are disarmed so that they must count on law enforcement. Logically speaking, your 'solution' only works when no solution is needed. When the SHTF, your 'solution' doesn't work.

The second problem with your position is that it is based on the false assumption that the "good guy with a gun" must use that weapon and stop the killing in all instances for it to be valid in any instance. However, that is a criteria that is only used by dishonest gun grabbers. The truth is that being armed gives you a choice rather than a mandate. If there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, I'd rather go down shooting back. If I am unlikely to be able to stop the shooter, as a civilian, the best choice may be to run or hide. An armed individual may not make any difference, but at least it represents a possibility that unarmed victims do not have.

Just to clarify: If Scot Peterson had been an armed civilian rather than a law enforcement officer, most people would not be calling him out for not rushing into danger. The fact is though, that he was a law enforcement officer and his sworn duty was not to hide outside and then lie about why he didn't enter the building.

Gary Stussie 1 month, 1 week ago

Greg, most people, even the disturbed ones, value their life and/or fear the pain of death. If a would be shooter knows there may well be a painful or fatal price to pay, I believe it will act as a deterrent.

Greg Cooper 1 month ago

Really, Gary? You really believe that? Perhaps you might take your own advice and study history a bit closer. How many mass murderers died as a result of their actions? Let's take, just off the top of my head. the Texas Tower killer, the Las Vegas concert-goer killer, you know, guys like that. And how many have been imprisoned for life? What part of that means drastic penalties prevented any of those killings? None, Gary. This isn't like a traffic fine or a tax lien. This is life and death. And most of those who kill don't give a damn about their own lives.

Steve Hicks 1 month, 1 week ago

"Webster's defines a terrorist organization as one that uses fear to effect its goals. What organization in America has used fear better than the NRA?"

Connecticut Governor Dannel [sic] Malloy.

Maybe, Brock, Governor Malloy and others are referring to the N.R.A.'s repeated claim (you may have heard it parroted by LJM commenters, and others) that "THEY are trying to take away your guns" ? Or...since the N.R.A. and their followers pretty exclusively equate "guns" with "rights"..."THEY are trying to take your rights away" ?

Think such claims might cause fear among (let's just call them) some people ?

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

Remember Joe Biden telling black people that if Romney was elected, they'd be put back in chains?

Andrew Applegarth 1 month, 1 week ago

Just because you fear the truth does not mean that telling the truth makes me a terrorist.

As to equating guns with rights, since the 2nd Amendment is 1) a right and 2) about guns, that would be a logical equality. Further, since the point of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people and their rights from not only foreign armies but threats from within, it is also logical to recognize the 2nd Amendment as the first domino and further equate guns with those other rights protected behind the 2nd Amendment. It's a simple "If A=B and B=C then A=C" bit of logic.

Nice try to stir up fear to effect your goal by falsely equating the NRA with terrorism...

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

Steve why resort to lies? Webster has no definition for a terrorist organization but does have this under terror.

4 : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Shame you had to resort to lying.

If I am wrong post a link to terrorist organization as defined by Webster

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

I’m sure you’re aware, Brock, that “Webster’s” is a formerly-copyrighted trademark (like “aspirin” and “koolaid”) in widespread colloquial use as a generic term. So sometimes people say "Webster's" meaning simply “dictionary." You know that, right ?

There’s a court-ruling that the term “Webster’s Dictionary” is in the public domain. So Random House’ dictionary legally calls itself the “Random House Webster’s.” Think maybe Governor Malloy (legally) referred to “Webster’s” in that sense ?

Or if he strictly meant “Webster’s Dictionary,” which one do you think he meant ? The Merriam-Webster Company has several versions in print: the Third New International, the New Collegiate (currently the Eleventh, but the Ninth and Tenth are still popular and in circulation), Webster’s New World Dictionary ?

Each also has abridged and unabridged versions, and specialized editions (“for Academics,” “student” editions, “compact” editions, etc.). There are also online versions (including a partial Fourth New International): some by Merriam-Webster, and some by other companies using the name “Webster’s” generically. (“The Webster’s Online Dictionary,” for example, is not by the Merriam-Webster Company.)

You may not know which “Webster’s” Governor Malloy referred to, Brock; but which did you ? I’m sure you searched more than one: as a stickler for truth, I’m sure you searched MANY more than one: to be certain that Governor Malloy’s definition didn’t match any definition of “terrorist” in any of them, before you started screaming that he lied about what “Webster’s” says ?

Governor Malloy says the definition of a “terrorist organization” is “one that uses fear to effect its goals.” Maybe he paraphrased …in which case screaming “LIE !!” is a very dishonest characterization. Or maybe he quoted an edition of Webster’s you didn’t consult ?

A lie is “an untrue statement with intent to deceive,” Brock (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie). If Governor Malloy claimed Webster’s defined a “terrorist organization” as a “fraternal association of organic farmers,” that would be a lie. But Governor Malloy’s saying it’s a group that “uses fear to effect its goals” would accord very well with any definition of “terrorist organization” in any Webster’s you want to consult.

It’s wise to be honest, Brock: especially if you’re going to accuse other people of lying.

Steve Hicks 1 month, 1 week ago

Hi, Brock:

Thought you'd be interested, if you weren't watching "60 Minutes" tonight:

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told "60 Minutes" tonight that her greatest accomplishment has been stopping "government over-reach."

The Reaganite worldview, right ? "Government is the PROBLEM"...so everything against what government does...providing education, roads, environmental protection, law...is GOOD, right ?

As the LTE says, we need to change the culture...the dominant "conservative" culture is evil, and destructive to America.

Want me to point out to you every time this "conservative" mindset shows up in current political culture, Brock ? Or do you recognize that that it's pervasive, and destructive ?

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

The FBI and the Broward County Sheriff's office were at fault in the Florida shooting. Not so much government over-reach as government sit-on-their-hands.

Greg Cooper 1 month ago

Bull, Bob, just bull. The fault was with the shooter. Don't even try to make this a government problem. What is more intelligent is saying something like, "The BCS did nothing to stop the shooter until it was too late." You could truthfully add that nothing was done by the school or the state to prevent this nut case from becoming the shooter.

Just get off your defense of the wrong thing.

Bob Summers 1 month, 1 week ago

Changing the Liberal culture will never happen.

They are destined by genetics to behave as they do.

Look at Detroit. Look at Oakland. Look at any of their societies.

Since time immortal, since Cain killed his brother Abel in a fit of jealousy, the Liberal ones have been a bane to mankind on planet Earth.

Billy Graham tried to change their behavior, but Billy did not know the Liberal generic predilection cannot be changed...maybe modified by law...but not soulfully changed.

Bob Smith 1 month, 1 week ago

"...Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail. For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences. At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil. We see this pattern repeated in the context of illegal immigration, global warming, environmentalism, opposition to Islamic subversion of Western culture, feminism, and social justice generally. Nowhere has it been more acutely on display than in the left's hatred of private gun ownership as the ultimate barrier against political overthrow. In order to disarm the country, the left's adherents must be tricked into believing that guns and gun ownership are irrevocably evil, and simultaneously that they and the policies they endorse have nothing to do with the "gun violence" they selectively decry. In order for leftists to succeed, lawful gun-owners must be tricked into going along with this illusion. Unfortunately for the left, people who are serious enough to decide to accept the responsibility of careful stewardship of firearms are not stupid enough to ignore that we are living in a cesspool entirely of the left's making. Not surprisingly, mature, responsible gun-owners have declined the left's invitation to be caricatured and smeared as the scapegoats for where liberalism has taken us as a culture. As serious people, they don't have much capacity for irrational, emotionally unhinged accusers pointing their fingers at those who not only did not cultivate the environment that has bred mass shooters, but also do not provide such people from their own ranks. The phenomena of unhinged "mass shooters" and the predictably vulnerable environments where they carry out their evil are unique byproducts of liberalism and its failures..." https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/gunowners_are_being_blamed_for_the_failures_of_liberalism_.html

Steve Hicks 1 month, 1 week ago

Here's another recent one, Brock, from a LJW piece I just got around to reading this morning:

"Kansas state Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said a convention of states is necessary to rein in the federal government.

“The federal government is out of check..."

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

You make a pretty good news clipper. Now if I could train you to bring me coffee too it’d be perfect.

BTW, when are you going to link to the Webster definition of Terrorist Organization? I contend you lied about it, but maybe I just missed it when I searched Merriam Webster for it and it said not found.

Brock Masters 1 month, 1 week ago

And yes, I realize it wasn’t your quote but you posted it so you own it.

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

"...you posted it so you own it."

Well put, Brock. I'll remind you of that fact in future threads.

Brock Masters 1 month ago

Absolutely. Part of the reason I post here is to be challenged. I make mistakes and appreciate when I’m called out on them.

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

I'd agree. You show more integrity, and intelligence, than the ordinary "conservative" lemmings.

But that makes it the more reprehensible when you act like one of them, calling Governor Malloy's sound definition of "terrorist organization" a "lie."

Why do you do that ? Unlike the ideologically-lobotomized, I presume you know better ?

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

Just keeping my eyes open to see what's going on, Brock. You should try that.

Hard to have an accurate idea what the current "culture" is, if you don't pay attention. Thought I'd help you out a little.

You're welcome.

Brock Masters 1 month ago

Well look for that Webster definition of terrorist organization. I still can’t find it, but I’m sure you can and paste a link to it.

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

No, I obviously find Governor Malloy's definition honest, and in accord with what any "Webster's" would say. You called his definition a lie; that's yours to prove.

English Common Law standard of commentary, Brock. Maybe you're from Louisiana, but Governor Malloy's definition is not "guilty until proven innocent" anywhere else.

Bob Smith 1 month ago

"...No, I obviously find Governor Malloy's definition honest..." That says a lot about your world view. Too bad there isn't an ignore function on this site.

Brock Masters 1 month ago

You can’t link to the definition in Webster’s dictionary because it doesn’t exist. He said it was from there to give it credibility. It doesn’t exist so it’s a lie and you just posted the lie because it fit with your agenda.

Here is the proof it doesn’t exist. Admit it you posted his lie.

It wouldn’t be a lie if he said he defined a terrorist organization as....but he said Webster did which is a lie and you posted it too.

Man up and admit it is not true otherwise you have no credibility and I will have no choice but to fire you as my news clipper. I can’t have fake news in my clips.

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

Here you go, Brock: http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/terrorist%20organization

I'll revise my earlier personal characterization to say that you CAN sometimes show more integrity and intelligence than your ideologically-lobotomized friends.

Wanna tell us why right now you instead choose to act like a pettifogging jacka55 ?

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

Now your turn, Brock:

Please show us a Webster's definition that doesn't accord with Governor Malloy's claim that a "terrorist organization" is "one that uses fear to effect its goals.”

One so contrary to Governor Malloy's definition that it would justify your calling Malloy's definition a flat-out "LIE."

We're counting on you, Brock.

Brock Masters 1 month ago

Damn you’re obtuse. He said Webster´s dictionary. He lied about it. It wouldn’t be a lie if he said a terrorist organization can be defined....but no he stated it came from Webster´s which was intended to add credibility.

The definition you quoted is from word.net.

However, based on it, really any organization could be labeled a terrorist organization. Doesn’t pro-choice groups use the fear of outlawing abortions? Don’t gun control groups use the fear of school shootings to promote their agenda? How about the BLM - they don’t use the fear of police brutality so they?

Plus you’re acting on a false premise that the NRA is promoting fear. NRA members are not snowflakes. We don’t live in terror - the NRA doesn’t scare us.

Definition of terror

1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat 3 : reign of terror 4 : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

Steve Hicks 1 month ago

Brock, I have no idea what "word net" is: but since its definition very clearly and publicly appears on "www.webster-dictionary.org," it seems it can honestly be referred to as "Webster's" definition.

Don't you think ?

That "Webster's" definition of "terrorist organization" is "a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals." Verbatim: double-check me on that, if you wish.

Governor Malloy's quote was that "Webster's" says a terrorist organization is "...one that uses fear to effect its goals." Those are the Governor's words, verbatim: feel free to check me on that too.

You might want to compare the two. Looks like the governor's definition is pretty close to that of (one) "Websters." Don't you think ?

Trying to maneuver past those simple facts by errant sophistry seems more than "obtuse," Brock. Your contention is looking very much like "an untrue statement with intent to deceive" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie).

Brock Masters 1 month ago

Of course you don’t know what word net is because you are not sophisticated to understand that a link name doesn’t mean squat. The site you used redirected you to this site http://wordnet-online.freedicts.com not a Webster site.

WordNet Dictionary

Noun 1. terrorist organization - a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals Synonyms: foreign terrorist organization, FTO, terrorist group

You linked, not to Webster, but to WordNet Dictionary. You obviously did this to mislead because you knew where to find the actual Webster Dictionary site since you linked to it for the definition of lie.

Putting the term Webster in the link is a way to get uneducated people to visit their site instead of the Real Webster site.

So, despite the use of the word webster in the link it is not a Webster dictionary site.

Sad you’re TFD to even understand what you post.

The site is not named Webster Dictionary, but let’s assume for sake of argument it was. Do you think Malloy was referring to the site you linked or the real Webster site?

And based on your logic if I say on this site According to Steve Hicks Trump is the greatest president would I not have posted a misleading statement or lie even if somewhere someone named Steve Hicks said it?

Of course it would be because everyone would naturally think I was quoting you.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...