tigerarmy247 (Andrew Dufour)


Comment history

Effects of Kansas business tax break more widespread than estimated

No no, you don't understand. The tax policy is responsible for the additional businesses claiming the exemption from taxes. And it's responsible for new businesses apparently starting up to take advantage of the tax break. However, it is ONLY responsible for those things because we consider them to be good things, anything bad that happens in any way related to the tax break WAS DEFINITELY NOT caused by the tax break.

February 25, 2015 at 9:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Senate approves proposed ban on abortion procedure

Is it in any way relevant to the discussion. And I suppose we need to explain to you the difference between metaphor and literal meaning of a sentence.

February 20, 2015 at 3:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

Again I said I didn't want to be putting words in your mouth, I was basing my response on your post. My point is one that you are actually making too. This is a line drawing exercise that we're engaged in. You said it yourself that you're okay with the one particular line being at WMD's. I don't think it's too much of a restriction on ones rights to require a permit to conceal and carry a weapon. I think that the additional safeguard of requiring those people who wish to conceal and carry that they go through some sort of training/safety protocol is a good thing and the state should be allowed to (and should require it).

February 20, 2015 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

That's ridiculous and you have to know that. It's not an apples to oranges comparison. There is no way to measure the level of infringement upon ones rights when comparing two completely different rights. I understand that you disagree with me on whether the government should be able to require a permit, that's fine I get it we disagree. The point I'm making is that it's reasonable to disagree on that point and that this is ultimately a discussion on the proper restriction of the second amendment.

February 20, 2015 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

I'm sorry Fred but the second amendment is not so crystal clear on its face that one can open or conceal carry a gun. The first amendment says "Congress shall make now law respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." There are hundreds of ways that this supposedly clear right has been regulated over the years. Vouchers for public schools, tax breaks for churches, laws against "obscene" material, can't incite a public riot with free speech etc. The point is that none of our rights are so abundantly clear on their face that the mere discussion of limiting them is off the table. As with any of our rights what we get into is a discussion on where the right should be limited. That is precisely what is going on here, you think that the a limitation requiring a permit is too much of a limit, others would argue it's a perfectly legitimate limit. Just recognize that fact, don't try and shut the conversation down by simply declaring that clearly the second amendment would render a permit law unconstitutional.

February 20, 2015 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

Sorry Lawrence but we're not simply discussing whether it's constitutional to open carry or if special permits are needed. We're discussing whether special permits are a permissible limit on a constitutional right. You yourself just drew a line by saying WMD's are illegal and implicitly that the second amendment wouldn't protect their ownership. You say that "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be abridged" (conveniently omitting the portion referencing a militia) apparently so obviously protects open/concealed carry that it shouldn't even be questioned. Gun control advocates don't see it that way and that debate right there is the one where having, where can the state reasonably step in and put a restriction on the second amendment.

The editorial argues that it should be at requiring a permit to conceal carry, you're argument is apparently that nothing short of WMDs should be restricted (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, just what I'm gathering from your response). The debate though is where to draw that line and I'm simply asking that you recognize that, that is in fact the issue and that reasonable sides can disagree on where that line should be.

February 20, 2015 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

You're absolutely right Scott, nevermind the GOPs attempts to severely cut money for welfare programs or block grant Medicaid, or their desire for Chained CPI for social security benefits, or comments from the GOP presidential candidate that basically said every poor person in the country are a bunch of moochers.

You realize there is a bit of a gray area between believing the GOP wants to starve children and actively despises the poor and pointing out that in general the GOP policies appear to be detrimental to the lower classes. I could be wrong but I'm relatively certain Stuart does not think that the GOP wants to starve children, I imagine he's simply reacting to the policy choices advanced by the GOP which would actually make him informed.

February 20, 2015 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Gutted gun law

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it begs the question of where do you draw the line. It's fine to say that the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected and thus I should be able to carry said arms openly or concealed. The question then is whether you're comfortable with any restrictions at all. What gun control advocates are arguing is that the line should be drawn at requiring some sort of licensure/permit requirement to ensure some level of safety for those around these guns. What you seem to be arguing is that that's an infringement on a constitutional right and thus should be declared unconstitutional.

I think the next logical question for you is where would you draw the line for the right to bear arms. All constitutional rights are limited in some way shape or form and the argument here is where to limit that right. Unless you believe that the 2nd amendment is so sacrosanct that it should be completely unlimited, if that is your belief then I suppose anyone should be permitted to own chemical weapons, or build bombs, or perhaps a rocket propelled grenade etc. If you don't think that's okay then we just need to discuss where a fair line should be.

February 20, 2015 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commissioners concerned about e-mail from Wicked Broadband; WOW introduces faster Internet service; update on cable TV changes in Lawrence

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that people are less inclined to vote for her because of what her husband did. I at least am less inclined to vote for her because it appears with the timing of her decision to run that her sole reason for running is to affect the vote for her companies broadband plans.

January 23, 2015 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commissioners concerned about e-mail from Wicked Broadband; WOW introduces faster Internet service; update on cable TV changes in Lawrence

The difference is that it's not the prune juice lobby asking for a direct loan or grant from the government. Special interests are fine and if a group of people concerned with high speed internet wanted to lobby in support of a city attempt to get high speed internet that would be fine. The problem is when he's not just lobbing for high speed internet in general he's asking the city to approve his companies high speed internet.

January 23, 2015 at 8:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )