Affordable Care Act bringing jobs to Lawrence

I was just typing a similar reply but yours is much more succinct that mine so I will just give you the “thumbs up”.

May 16, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun ‘rights’

The term “well regulated” or any derivation of the term is nowhere in Article 1, Section 8.

It would appear that you are trying to be one of Agnostick’s “time travelers that claim to have been in Philadelphia in 1787”.

If you would do a little research, you would find what the meaning of the term was, and is, as it relates to the Amendment. This has been pointed out so many times that it is becoming rather tiresome. You anti-freedom folks are becoming like broken records.

I guess it all goes back to my “extreme” opinion; if we can’t trust you with a firearm, why are you walking around freely among us?

April 30, 2013 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun ‘rights’

You must have been in such a hurry to respond that you didn’t even read and comprehend what I wrote.

I never said that the Second Amendment repealed anything, but it does place limits on what the Legislative Branch can do under its Article 1, Section 8 powers in relation to the private ownership of firearms. As you correctly pointed out, the Amendment deals with a right of the people that cannot be infringed by the Congress, no matter what powers it is granted in the Constitution to regulate the militia, or interstate commerce for that matter.

I believe the “fail” is yours……..

April 30, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun ‘rights’

It seems pretty clear to me that you don’t understand how a document like the Constitution works. Article 1, Section 8 is part of the base document. The Second Amendment comes later in the chronology. Therefore, the Amendment takes precedent in any interpretations.

April 30, 2013 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Ticking debt

The wars have created a small part of the overall debt, along with overspending on just about every function the government is involved with. Returning the government to its Constitutional limits would be a great start on reducing the deficit and the overall debt.

April 16, 2013 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Ticking debt

Even if you "got rid of" those groups and took all the money to pay down the debt, you would still be looking at 20 years. Is that quickly?

BTW, that would include getting rid of all military retirement benefits and veteran's benefits.

Good luck with that.

April 16, 2013 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Ticking debt

The only thing simple is that statement and the fact that you got two “thumbs up”.

The debt is rapidly approaching 17 trillion dollars. Do you really believe that you can tax that away?

April 16, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas Senate advances expansion of concealed carry of guns

The conversation is about allowing concealed carry on campus. Suicide is a separate and distinct conversation. I don’t think you are going to find any correlation between the two so suicide is not part of the conversation.

March 28, 2013 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gay-rights advocates observe Supreme Court proceedings with excitement, anxiety

First, the status quo is not what I was referring to when I talked about hypotheticals, I was talking about the proposed solutions. You knew that but thought you could make some kind of point by challenging it.

Your tactic failed.

In one of your comments you rightfully say that “separate but equal” leads to continued inequality but you seem to be arguing for solutions that will lead to exactly that condition. You can call my idea simplistic if you wish but what you really mean is that it would not be easy. All you seem to care about is what will be easy to get the collective to agree on. If everyone believed as you do we would still live in a country that only allowed white males to vote and own property.

March 28, 2013 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gay-rights advocates observe Supreme Court proceedings with excitement, anxiety

All of the scenarios presented so far are hypothetical, that is why we are discussing our opinions.

You do know what “opines” means don’t you?

Do you think it is a better idea to have 50 different sets of rules and another 1200 pages added to the tax codes to cover all of this? That is what is going to happen if the court strikes down DOMA in a limited decision with no other action.

I guess it is a good thing that all of those people who wanted rights for women and blacks just sat around and waited for the government to do something instead of advocating for ideas that were considered “hypothetical scenario(s) that will not occur” at the time.
But, based on your comments above, you seem to think that you should just wait around and let “society” decide everything according to its whim. After all, rights are just a fallacy, the collective must decide all.

March 28, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )