Advertisement

Peacemaker452

Follow

Comment history

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

It is sad to see it come down to this. I have only been around a couple of years but will miss the conversations on this site.

I will have to agree with all of those who do not wish to link thru Facebook or use their real names. There are way too many negative outcomes with too few positive.

I will say that there is no one on this site that I engaged with that I would not sit down across a table from and hold the same discussions that I held here. I would probably even buy you your favorite cold beverage. (Except Fretster, I wouldn’t pee in his mouth if his throat was on fire. But he got disappeared, so no issue.)

Good to see those of you that have been gone for a while and wish you all well.

October 9, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Merrill,

I understand that in your own little world Bush is responsible for all evil that has ever existed, and I would agree that he owns some of it, but when are you going to realize that your current savior is just as bad, if not worse.

Do you really believe that the Democrats, or your alternate “Green” party, care anymore about restoring privacy and freedom? They have had 5 years to reign in the abuses of the Patriot Act and related programs, what have they done? Let me help you out: They have expanded the programs.

I believe that it was your Democratic Party’s grand wizard, FDR, who gave us the SSN that would never be used to identify or track us, wasn’t it?

October 9, 2013 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

I guess we all need to conform to the standards established by the KU Journalism Department in regards to “extreme speech, insults, name-calling, misleading statements” so that we may have a “more civil, responsible forum for discussion”.

October 9, 2013 at 7:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Right to bear arms isn’t unlimited

“It is easier to get a gun than to vote.”
You are talking about two different processes, not the underlying rights; apples and oranges.

“We have no problem limiting the right to vote, but guns are off limits.”
There are over 20000 laws in this country at all levels that limit a citizen’s ability to obtain, own, carry and use firearms. How many laws limit the right to vote?

“Can someone explain to me the hierarchy of the bill of rights so that I can determine which one is more important than all the others?”
Are you still trying to compare voting to guns? If you are, please note that there is nothing in the first 10 Amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, which addresses voting. You will, however, clearly find the words “shall not be infringed” in relation to the right to keep and bear arms.

September 17, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Right to bear arms isn’t unlimited

I believe that Satirical spells it out pretty clearly below.

Also, please remember that the 2nd Amendment, specifically guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the militia or the government, was adopted over two years after the Constitution. This would mean that it takes precedence over any restrictions in the original, although I don’t believe any exist.

September 12, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Right to bear arms isn’t unlimited

Try again.

Why don’t you try looking at some writing that is contemporary with the Bill of Rights, you will clearly see what is meant by a well regulated militia.

September 12, 2013 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Right to bear arms isn’t unlimited

The militia would be a lot more “well regulated” but squeamish, weak minded, spineless crybabies always complain when they gather on the public square with their personal firearms to practice.

You do know that “well regulated” means “well practiced”, don’t you?

September 12, 2013 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Right to bear arms isn’t unlimited

How can “the consistent originalist interpretation in this case support..reasonable gun regulation” while at the same time “many originalists disagree”?

We are not a nation “based on personal opinions” but we should base our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on your opinion of Constitutional originalist and absolutionists.

You are talking in circles.

September 12, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Panel at Kansas Union discusses the forces and attitudes around poverty

Did the Bureau of Labor Statistics happen to tell us what kind of bachelor’s degrees these people have?

Are they Engineers and Pre-Med, or are they Business and Art Appreciation?

Just think of all the student loan debt that could have been avoided if those people had just gone straight to truck driving school.

September 12, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous