Guardian (Jim Phillips)


Comment history

Letter: Gun control

We have.

August 8, 2015 at 8:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun control

It's funny, Mr. Hamill, how Constitutional scholars disagree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment. Once again, because I have stated this before, prior to 1968, if one had a Sears and Roebuck or a Montgomery Wards catalog and a charge card, an adult could call the store, give the clerk the card number, page number, item number of the firearm you wanted to buy, and it would be delivered to your door step in less than a week. Then came the hue and cry for "sensible gun laws". There was a brief fight, but the gun lobby gave in and we got the Gun Control Act of 1968. All was well with the world...until 1969, when the request came out for "sensible gun laws", which eventually came. And all was well with the world...until 1970, when the nation demanded "sensible gun laws". You can repeat this scenario for nearly every year from 1968 to 2015. Gun laws now are more restrictive and more abundant than they ever have been in the history of this country, and yet you still cry for "sensible gun laws". Apparently, anti-gunners, (I prefer to call them anti Constitutonalists) cannot decide on a sensible definition of "sensible". Also, once again, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789. The Militia Act was not passed until 1792, thus making your militia argument moot.

August 8, 2015 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wealthy conservatives cap Koch brothers weekend with pledges

Tell ya what, we Conservatives will dump the Koch Brothers when you Progressives dump Bloomberg and Soros, mmmkay?

August 5, 2015 at 6:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: On guard

Any of you who have read my post know that I am as pro gun as it gets. Having said that, I do see issues with people with AR platform guns guarding the military. Yeah, the military is getting the short end of the deal, I get it. But,...what if something does happen at a recruiting station? The good guys are going to be firing into a heavily populated civilian area. Unless they are as skilled as Sgt. Alvin York, rounds are going to miss. Should the perpetrator be using a vehicle and perform a drive by, the guards will return fire onto a major trafficway. Perhaps a better answer is to move the recruiting stations out of the store fronts and onto military installations where the risks are greatly reduced. Having the right to defend yourself does not absolve you of your liability.

July 29, 2015 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gun responsibility

Excellent plan!

July 14, 2015 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gun responsibility

Another point being missed here is that the Bill of Rights/Constitution was finally fully ratified in in 1789. The Militia Act was not in play until 1792. The "Organized Militia" argument is moot.

July 12, 2015 at 6:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Waving the flag

I'm guessing that most of the posters here do not even know the history of the Southern Cross and all of the variants. Read and learn.

July 11, 2015 at 8:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Guns on campus

Andy, May I help you pack for your move to Baltimore?

May 29, 2015 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Guns on campus

...because Gun Free Zones worked so well at Virginia Tech, West Nickel Mines School (Pennsylvania), Delaware State University, Sandy Hook Elementary School (Connecticut), Northern Illinois University, South Mountain Community College (Arizona), University of Central Arkansas, Hampton University (Virginia), and Texas Southern University, just to name a few. And I won't even get into shootings in churches, restaurants, or movie theaters posted as gun free zones.

May 29, 2015 at 9:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Law enforcement policy, training offer guidance on potentially lethal situations

I'm not intending to throw gasoline on a fire, but I feel the way certain facts are presented in this article is a bit misleading. "The department’s use of force policy calls for officers to use only the level of force that is “reasonably necessary” to prevent harm or make a lawful arrest." Perhaps it was not the intent of the reporter, but the way I read the article, it seemed to imply that the Lawrence Police Department was unique in this approach. That most certainly is not the case. The police department is following basic legal guidelines based on court rulings. The basic premise used by courts to determine if any use of force is justified is referred to as the "reasonableness doctrine". In other words, was the force used by an officer (or by an individual, for that matter) reasonable and appropriate given the totality of the circunstances known to the officer (individual) at the time the force was used. LKPD does an excellent job in adhering to this doctrine and kudos to them for doing so. The same can be said for all law enforcement agencies. This doesn't necessarily mean every officer follows that doctrine all of the time.With the current wave of cop bashing going on right now, it's refreshing to see a positive piece on the police. I'm just suggesting we do not make matters worse with implications that could alter some perceptions, intentional or not. We all know that, for a great number of people, perception is reality.

May 10, 2015 at 10:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )