No concealed carry in Lawrence schools

Wrong.

Children aged 18 or higher are protected under the 4th Amendment, just as you an I are. There simply hasn't been a challenge to the whole no guns on school yet, but the instant they allow teachers to carry on campus, there will be one.

Oh, and by the by, 18 years of age is the minimum for owning a firearm. Yes, 'children', as you put it, have as much constitutional access to the Second Amendment as you and I do. Well, I know I do. Not sure about your age, no offense meant.

April 27, 2013 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

No concealed carry in Lawrence schools

Well, at least someone does. Somehow, though, jhorus, I highly doubt I will get much of an answer to the question. Challenging people, while entertaining, rarely leads anywhere overtly fulfilling.

April 25, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

No concealed carry in Lawrence schools

So what would be the legal reasoning behind preventing a student that is of the age of majority, in possession of a firearm and has received all the "proper" training from bringing said weapon to school?

Seems to me that it would be infringing on that student's Second Amendment rights. I mean, honestly... if you are going to insist that this is an issue of rights, then it is an issue of everyone's rights, not just those that you approve.

April 25, 2013 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: NRA sway?

And yet again, by kicking, screaming and dragging our heels, we allow a lobbyist group to yet again dictate federal law.

Is there a reason that we elect Congressmen/women or is it just a chance for the average citizen to be a bigger pain in the neck?

April 22, 2013 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Roberts, Moran vote against expanded background checks in gun sales

So, if this is ALL about Constitutionality, why have we, as a group, tolerated interpretations of the First Amendment but refuse to interpret the Second Amendment in any fashion other than the exact wording, without the option of it being expanded?

April 20, 2013 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

Uhmm, for starters, how about the utter nonsense that death row inmates get single occupancy. That right there jacks the price up. With today's ability to telecommunicate, we can eliminate more cost for transportation and increased security during said outings to the courthouse because they want to contest the placement of a comma.

I think it's bogus that the state can set up a well maintained, well regulated health industry in a prison system, but for the average citizen, well, since they aren't causing a problem, they don't matter as much. The same thing goes for housing and food. Why do the inmates deserve cable television, Internet access, and a host of other luxuries provided by the taxpayers when most of the taxpayers have to choose between those luxuries and other ones, such as heat or food?

And just how does the ironic nature of keeping them healthy and preventing suicide change if we don't kill them? You do realize that we food the bill for any and all medical procedures, up to and include chemotherapy for cancer, which I personally know runs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Not to mention educating them above and beyond high school equivalency. How many inmates that are in for life have acquired bachelor degrees, if not higher? I wonder who foots the bill on THAT activity?

You say it's cheaper to keep them alive. I say stop coddling them and giving them as many luxuries and make prison something that should truly be avoided. How many kids from the 'inner city', or whatever other PC term you want to use, get a free ride to college?

April 18, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

Then death would work just as well, since only on AMC do you find the dead up and moving around.

April 17, 2013 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

Oh, I have done quite a bit of reading, but I have yet to see a cost breakdown on why is costs so much more. California seems to be a favorite for the comparison, but all the reports say is that is costs 90,000 bucks more to house them on death row than in the general populace. Well, logic would dictate keeping them in general population, wouldn't it? Why do they need to be housed in some special place?

As to the appeal process, perhaps they shouldn't get to appeal each and every single little thing that ever occurred in their case. Naturally it will cost more to reexamine each piece of evidence with one entire court case. Trim the fat.

Do you think that *POOF* inmates will simply not care if they are given a life without parole sentence and will not contest each and every ruling that was ever considered, let alone made, in their original trial?

If something is wrong and/or broken, then you fix what is actually wrong, not just shuffle paper around, clear your throat a couple of times, and ignore it until it's out of sight, thus making it out of mind. These parasites do NOT deserve better care and treatment than law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong, but yet do not get access to the medical care, dental care, and all the other crap that prisoners are given. You want to talk about fair, how bout dealing with that little nugget of reality instead of worrying about whether swabbing the injection site for a lethal injection is moral or not. God forbid that they should go to Hell with an infection.

April 17, 2013 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

So what, exactly, is the point of life without parole?

April 17, 2013 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Exonerated death row survivor fights capital punishment in Kansas

Do a head count on how many people are sentenced to life without parole. Calculating just 25,000 bucks a year to feed, house, clothe and care for these parasites, 100 of them is over 2 million bucks a year. Take a stab at 25 years life span in prison, and you are over 50 million bucks.

Now add in 5 salaries for 5 guards, say 35,000 bucks a year, 165,000 bucks a year, times the same 25 years. Why are these parasites worth that much money? I have no qualms with employing the guards, but I can absolutely find a much use for 50 millions bucks than feeding someone like Charles Manson. You notice ANY remorse coming from him? If they had empathy, they wouldn't have done it in the first place, so put them out of everyone's misery and put them down.

Maybe that 50 million could go towards medical research, or tax reforms, or keeping the blasted roads in one piece through the winter. Heck, it might even finance education reform so it's effective again.

No, let's keep them alive, waste millions upon millions every single blasted year, accomplish less than nothing but have joy joy feelings about ourselves for being 'enlightened'.

April 17, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )