text:
Should Sheriffs Speak Out Against Gun Proposals?
Several metro Atlanta sheriffs have come out against President Barack Obama's recent executive orders tightening gun restrictions. Tell us if you agree with them.
Several metro Atlanta sheriffs have stepped forward in recent days to say they will not enforce a number of gun measures proposed earlier this month by President Barack Obama.
Some of the president's proposals include a limit on the number of bullets in an ammo clip and a renewed ban on assault rifles.
In Cherokee County, Sheriff Roger Garrison said he and his deputies would not enforce "any laws or regulations that negate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County," nor will allow the enforcement of "Any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers" within his county's borders.
"In the aftermath of the recent criminal events, the president, vice-president and many members of Congress are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by attempting to enact laws, restrictions; and, even through use of executive orders, prevent law-abiding American citizens from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines," Garrison wrote in an opinion published on Woodstock Patch. "I will fully exercise the power of the Office of Sheriff to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County. My position is best stated by fellow Sheriff Tim Muller of Linn County, Oregon in his letter to the President. 'We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.'"
Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren authored a letter with a similar sentiment, which was published by the Marietta Daily Journal.
"It is my firm commitment to immediately challenge and seek injunctive relief from any statute or executive action which violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens of Cobb County," Warren wrote.
Should sheriffs be speaking out against the president's gun proposals? Do you feel that they should enforce any new gun laws, or do you stand by their decision not to?
Share what's on your mind with us, and then return here to see what your neighbors in Paulding, Douglas and Cobb have said.
Mar Wherler
6:59 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Yes. They have to deal with the increase in crime.
Betty Smith
1:54 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
3:46 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Betty, it seems you have a lot of violence in your blog. All CAPS?? I believe our forefathers wanted us to have what ever the government had and for the government not to be able to rein over the people. They were not stupid people. This country is going downhill because of the government with all the laws and regulations they are putting on the citizens. This would be just one more step towards the country's freedom cliff.
12:52 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
If Law Enforcement can voice support for Gun Control then Others that supports the 2nd Amendment Pro Gun can damn well voice their's
7:03 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Since their mission is to protect & serve, I would say no. Many police & sheriffs are in favor of gun control because the proliferation & caliber of guns often put their officers at a disadvantage. Look at how many officers have recently been killed or wounded just in GA. This has more to do with public safety rather than a too broadly interpreted constitutional amendment.
Curtis Mathews
9:55 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
How many of those officers were killed or injured by the guns the gun grabbers in DC want to ban? I really don't know, but my guess is ZERO.
Pam D
10:29 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
And how many of those officers were killed or wounded by guns that were legally obtained? Criminals don't really follow laws; that's what makes them criminals. In the meantime, did you read the story in the Marietta Daily Journal about the wheelchair-bound veteran in Athens whose door was kicked in by an intruder? He grabbed the gun from his nightstand and pointed it at the lowlife, who ran away. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he hadn't been armed?
11:46 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
The police have the automatic rifles and big clips, just like the criminals now. And they are not worried about the people with these types of guns and clips, they worry about the crazy person or criminals that have them. Speaking about the size of clips, sure they are not needed to go hunting, they are needed to deter future signs of the government trying to take more of our rights or to defend our loved ones and property from bad people that are threatening to take over. If people know you have weapons in your possession, they may think twice before coming after you.
Linda Newsome
3:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I think we should speak out against the Presidents gun proposals. People will get as many guns and amo as they can no matter what they do. you can kill with knives are they going to take away all knives?
kelly belford
8:35 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
In history in general have the outlaws always had guns to shoot???? Yes!!!!!!!!! So as far as gun control the bad guys will always have ways of finding and using guns. Us as citizens have been protected by the 2nd ammendment and our right to bear arms, I can gurantee if you had a home invasion and no way to protect yourself the tables may be turned on your stance on this issue.
12:26 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
It's not too broad. It's to the point. As for the officers at a disadvantage, that's only with crooks that intend to break the law. 90% of us are no threat to the law. We would stop and help an officer in a heartbeat. And they know it. We're the law abiding people.(The people the constitution was written for) The crooks could care less about what it says) This gun control will NEVER take guns away from crooks. They will always have guns that will be a danger to our officers and to us. The officers wounded and killed in Ga were killed by lawless people that have no regard for human life and had no business having a gun. And that won't change by taking guns from law abiding people that have them. Crooks don't buy their guns legally like we do. There is no way to stop them from getting guns-all types. The 2nd amendment is to protect us from the lawless murderers, rapist, kidnappers, etc. What we should be doing is supporting our officers with more and better bullet proof vest and even bullet proof pants.(lightweight material) And headgear. They should be protected every way possible.
5:49 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
why is everyone so interested in protecting an agency that the supreme court has deemed has not duty to protect the citizens. It is everyones duty to protect themselves. Not the governments. Also if a statute is passed and is not in accordance with the Constitution we as law abiding citizens are to ignore it and only back the law of the land which is the constitution. Not Statutes. People are confused over what politicians are calling law.
7:12 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
You are saying that Police and Sherffs do not have a 1st Amendment Protection but Mayors Governor and Elected Officials has that Freedom of Speech Right.The Police should have the Right too.Just as you said that many are Anti-2ND Amendment,there are many out there in the Front Lines that are Pro-2nd Amendment.From what i get you are saying just the Anti-2nd Amendment Police and Sheriffs should be allowed to Voice their Opinion,to that i say you are a hypocrite of the worst kind that if someones opinion don't match yours ,then they are wrong.BULL
Paulding County resident and parent
7:11 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Yes, the American Right to Bare Arms, or in other words own a gun, is guaranteed to us through our Constitution and can only be remedied by an Amendment. After passing both houses of Congress this would also require the consensus of 3/4 of the 50 stares (37.5) to be Ratified. It is very difficult to do as proven by past attempts to change it (Thank the Lord). It should be difficult to do as this is the only thing standing between us and a fascist government. Obama has been using the Executive Order process far too much, IMHO. He isn't a King. He is simply a President and there are Checks and Balances in place (again by our Constitution) to ensure that no one branch runs amok with power. Without our Constitution, we are open to tyranny - which is exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote it!
L. Wilsom
1:34 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Well said every word is truth. I have always been amazed at how the founding fathers knew what might happen if the ammendments weren't precisely on target. The constitution should be defended by every American including Sherriffs. if i were Sherrif I would feel better knowing there were so many Good Ameriacans with guns. i think everone should be schooled on guns, gun violence, safety and laws about them.
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Obama Executive order count: 138
Bush Executive order count: 291
Clinton Executive order count: 364
Bush Sr. Executive order count: 166
Reagan Executive order count: 381
What exactly do you fear? Reagan issued 3 times as many.
7:18 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Paulding County Resident and Parent:I believe in the Constitution as a Whole ,not just certain Parts.A lot of Newspapers will use the Freedom of the Press to get their way,but some of them are the 1st to be Anti-2nd Amendment .I believe the above comment to wrote was right on the money.Good Job!
shel schlegman
7:20 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Our sheriffs need to enforce the law. It is the responsibility of the Courts to interpret the law. Any sheriff that does not understand his job should be recalled.
Jeff S.
8:49 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Hate to break your heart but County Sheriffs in Georgia answer to the Governor Georgia, not the federal Government or Obama. Fact not fiction.
Curtis Mathews
10:01 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
County Sheriff's are elected in Georgia and if the people in the county are unhappy with him, they can do just that. I suggest that they won't.
Charles Schwable
1:10 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Oh so wrong Jeff! You need to take a paralegal course and understand the US Constitution. Read about how the Fed's are taking over Sheriff Joe Arapio in Arizona! The federal government can have supreme jurisdiction over any state or county
Ben Dover
8:03 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
If the Federal Law enforcement sets the standard of law enforcement then yes, sheriffs should be able to speak out. The current administration has determined that there are laws on the books they will not enforce. What's good for the goose.....
Jeff S.
8:44 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
They take an oath to defend the constitution... which includes the 2nd amendment! These laws are about legal citizens losing more rights. Dope, meth & cocaine is illegal, yet it's everywhere around us. Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, it just makes good decent law abiding citizens not have it! Do you honestly believe that a criminal cares if something is illegal or not? So, is the answer to disarm the people who obey the law? That is insanity! I honestly think if the police try to enforce these laws it will be the beginning of a revolution. Did you ever notice how most of these mass shootings happen in a gun free zone.
9:30 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
To the point, they don't check their citizenship at the door when they take office. They have every right to speak out and give their opinion. As mentioned also, our officials and military take oaths to the Constitution, not to other leaders and this is a critical point. No one swears allegiance to the President or Governor, etc. Everyone is independently responsible to uphold the Constitution. They must all make judgements to this effect and be accountable in the long run to those judgements. Ultimately, yes, the high courts rule on Constitutionality, but that doesn't absolve the Executive branch (including law enforcement) from using their judgement prior to Judicial review.
10:20 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
It's that "including law enforcement from using their judgement (sic) prior to Judicial review" that causes problems. How do you think we ended up with Miranda?
This ultimately will go back to the Supreme Court again. Hopefully, they will revisit the tragic Heller decision which gutted the Second Amendment of its intent. The shame is that the vast majority of the "Second Amendment" group has no idea what it says other than "the right to keep and bear arms" nor its judicial decisions which have left us in this mess.
Sherriff's need to support the constitution and the laws, etc they were elected to uphold. They also need to support other federal law enforcement agencies which were sworn to uphold the remaining laws.
9:59 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
There's enough said here that merits no other comments. It's great to see some know what they're talking about (Constitutional rights).
Guns aren't killing people...People are killing people (with all sorts of tools (hands, hammers, poison, knives, so forth). If that be change, the morals of this country will need to change.
Michael Tanner
11:32 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Yes, every American should speak out against laws limiting rights to gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the people have the right to own guns and additionally specifically states that this right can not be infringed upon. By definition, any law that limits that right is an infringement. If politicians are allowed to infringe upon such specifically defined rights, where would it stop. Liberty is not lost by the passing of a single law, liberty is chipped away peice by peice by incrementally removing what citizens would traditionally consider a right that can not be revoked.
12:14 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment 's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
-Scalia. DC v Heller.
I guess any law that limits that is not an infringement.
2:31 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The second amendment reads : "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " How quickly everyone forgets the first part of this statement "A well regulated Militia"
Pam J
2:47 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Jan, people don't care why the 2nd Amendment was written. They just think their guns are going to be taken away.
Melissa H.
4:44 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Jan, you do realize that the militia isn't the National Guard?
According to Title 10, Section 21 of the U.S. legal code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311), the militia consists of the following:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So the militia consists of all able-bodied males age 17-45 who are citizens and anyone in the National Guard. This appears to imply that the Founders (and other elected officials beyond the Founders) believed it was the responsibility of most adult males to be armed and ready to defend their communities, whether or not these citizens are formally trained by the National Guard or a military organization.
Pam J
1:00 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
So, according to all of you, it's perfectly fine for everybody to own assault weapons, AK-47's, guns that can shoot 100 bullets at one time.
Pam D
1:24 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I'm actually hoping for an F-16 for Christmas. I mean, hey... if Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood can have them, why not me? Now, Pam J... can you define an "assault weapon".. please and thanks?
Pam J
2:45 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
An assault weapon is like a rifle but with the ability to shoot more bullets in a quick amount of time. If you have a gun with six bullets in it, I guess you have to cock it everytime you want shoot, although there are guns where you don't have to. Boom, boom, boom....An assault weapon has the clips where you can just shoot one bullet after another, quickly. Apparently, whatever Adam Lanza had was capable of a lot of shots because he was able to shoot 20 children, multiple times, very quickly. Same with the joker guy in Colorado. Lots of shots, real fast. The normal homeowner probably does not need that type of gun. And if you do, why? Just because you think the 2nd Amendment says you can?
3:16 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The normal public cannot have automatic guns legally they have to be semi-automatic. Guns do not kill.
I believe we should be able to have any kind of weapon the the government has. Why should they be the only ones to have them. Remember, it was the government that committed mass murder ( Kent State, & several others) and we did not hear take the guns away from them and limit what they should use. That is why I think we should have anything they have.
BTW Pam D, good point on the F-16.
3:47 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
PamD and Greg. You can believe that all you want, but it's incorrect.
The constitution lays out quite a few rules on the operation of the government, laws, and rights. Where Article III was ruled (Mabry v. Madison) to give the Supreme Court the judicial review and interpretation of the constitution.
The legislative passes laws, the executive enforces, the judicial reviews.
The legislative says you can't have those weapons. The president signs, and it's the law. If the authorities arrest you, take it to the judicial. If they agree that it violates your constitutional rights, then the law is overruled. That's is what the Founding Fathers wrote. No American should pick and choose which parts we want to live by.
The Supreme Court and several lower courts have ruled that legislative limitations and executive restrictions to "unusual" weapons do not violate your rights. The whole process is working, just like the Founding Fathers intended.
Paul Carter
8:28 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The kids that were killed with a hand gun not a simi-automatic weapon. The guy had an assault weapon in his car, but only used hand guns. Check your facts before you spout off.
Pam J
8:48 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The "reports" said he was trying to hide the rifle under his coat when he was trying to get in the door.
9:03 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
It was a shotgun in the car. AR-15 and 2 pistols in the school. Models are in the governors report.
The Newtown Conspiracy makes no sense on top of being vile.
12:42 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Pam, Not everybody- just law abiding people. Law abiding people won't shoot other people with it. Just the lawless crooks will do that and they are going to have those guns regardless of gun control We will then be helpless against them. Something is not right or fair with this picture. What do you think??
5:36 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I rarely hear where a criminal uses a AK-47 or AR-15 to shoot cops. Usually they have a handgun. They don't go out and pick fights with cops. Only the mentally disturbed and deranged make plans to go out and kill innocent people. We need guns in schools with someone responsible who knows what to do.
Pam J
10:23 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Debra, even law-abiding citizens snap and shoot people. More than likely, a lot of the people who shoot other people had not commited any other crime in their life. Go out and buy your AK-47 if it makes you feel safer. But you also don't hear about a lot of break-ins where the bad guy has an assault weapon. If it makes you feel better to shoot the home invader 100 times, go right ahead. And Greg, I think it's just scary that we want armed guards in our schools. In order to be effective, they would have to be posted at the door. So, everyday when your first-grader walks into the school, he/she will see the man/woman with the gun standing there. Great.
Chip D.
1:11 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Yes, not only our Sheriffs, but our Governor, our Congressmen, and our Senators should be speaking out against any efforts by the President to infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. That legislation was carefully crafted by our nation's founding fathers, who had escaped the grasp of tyrannical governments, to ensure that the citizens of this nation would be protected from the overreach of just such a government.
4:19 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Seriously, this is a question. The Sheriff is a duly elected position who is sworn to uphold the Constitution of Georgia and the United States. He didn't say anything controversial...he said he would not enforce gun laws that are unconstitutional....its his job to NOT ENFORCE ANY LAW THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
5:07 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
More people were killed last year with hammers than with "assault rifles"
Murder is against the law. Yet Criminals don't seem to pay any attention to laws written on paper. Hats what makes them criminals.
Go to YouTube. Watch " the absurdity of gun free zones"
Pam J
5:40 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Good Lord, of course people are killed with other things. But there is no amendment about knives, hammers or poison. Or being hit with a big fish or frying pan. This is about the 2nd Amendment and everybody's belief that everybody should be able to arm themselves in case we are invaded by another country. Gosh, we've got to be able to kill those 30 people trying to break into our houses.
5:08 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The Sheriff is a citizen too and until the law is enacted it is his/her civic to do uphold that law. In this case, the Sheriffs' objection to modifying a law that would put more peoples lives at risk is The Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms was put there for the benefit of the people. If people choose to abuse this law, than it is up lawmakers to punish those who commit that abuse. I believe most people are missing the point.....the gun did nothing until that person got it in their hands on it. So who do you punish....the people who own guns.....or the person who committed the crime with the gun?. It doesn't matter what you own....it's how you use it. So Yes, the sheriff is a citizen as well as a law enforcer and if anything he would be doing us a disfavor if he gave in to modifying a law that would not benefit those who obey the 2nd Amendment.
5:53 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Yes, I wish every elected official that takes an oath to defend the Constitution would speak out. It's their duty.
Charles Schwable
8:11 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
The Sheriff is just a criminal with a badge and commits crimes without any repercussion
1:06 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Have you read the proposal by the President? All he has done is try to enforce the 1994 gun laws. Here is a link to the actual proposal:
12:42 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Who was President in 1994? What party was in control of Congress? Just asking...
Pam J
2:21 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
I believe that Bill Clinton was President and I think that the Republicans controlled the Congress (not sure about that one). Your point?
1:08 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Sheriffs do work for the Federal Government, the State of Georgia Government, the County Government, and the citizens of each county. You agreed to uphold the laws and to accept those responsibilties each time you take the Sheriff's Oath of Office. Perhaps, you may want to read the President's proposal and state exactly which section(s) you are opposed to: keeping our children safe, keeping automatic assault rifles out of public/criminal hands, keeping bullets that pierce protection vests out of circulation, etc.?
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
2:46 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
This is so transparent. Sheriff's are charged with law enforcement....period. They go around bragging about the "rule of law" to justify their other actions, when it is convenient or politically popular, but they have no right to pick and choose what laws they will enforce. If they want to protest laws then let them resign their post in law enforcement. This is the problem with law enforcement officials being elected at the community level--they become politicians and care more about re-election than protecting and serving their communities. Time to re-evaluate the need for sheriffs and let's go back to professional law enforcement--the days of the wild west are over. These guys are nothing more than hypocrites.
3:37 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Richard, so you claim to be a civil rights activist. You speak like a hater of our country and hate the law. I hope the people that listen to your speeches do not fall for your loose words. You group people and to you it makes them all alike. Sure there's a few bad Sheriff's but not all of them, but you bad mouth them all. Put them all in one group. It is my belief that you just want to stir up hate and anger in large masses of people. You want them to hate the whole group, not just the one that was wrong. Something is causing you to carry alot of hate in your heart. And you're trying to pass this hate to as many people as you can. Your words have no logic. I think you're out of your level of education on the subject of gun control and the law. For whatever your reason is, you are misleading people on purpose.
Curtis Mathews
8:36 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Perhaps the Sheriffs are following President Obama's example of what laws to enforce. Here is one, for example.
Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
2:48 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Regarding the 2nd amendment....hmmmm.....does anyone here know, historically speaking, why it was added to the Constitution and at whose insistence?
Pam J
9:57 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
I do, but it doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Just like with all of the other amendments, they get skewed to fit the situation.
Carl Pyrdum Jr.
10:43 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
The odd thing about elected officials and our system of government? They both can be replaced when the people feel they are either ineffectual or threatening to the will and rights of the people. These Ga. sheriffs who are stepping forward and speaking out are well within their constitutional authority to do so and they should. They are attempting to protect the people they serve from oppressive and unwarranted federal intrusion of their rights, even if the people they serve are so dull as not to understand that. Look past these cardboard cut out backdrops of appointed police chiefs that are used by Washington to support the meme. Talk to your local police officers or deputies and ask them their opinion of gun control and you will quickly see that those who actually enforce the law and deal with criminals daily are not in favor of gun control on any level. The assault weapons that are murdering our children by the millions are found in abortion clinics. Those are the assault weapons that should be banned.
3:08 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Sheriffs are certainly within their right to say whatever crazy nonsense they can come up with. They are NOT within their rights to enforce the law based on their interpretation of the constitution. Articles 2 and 3 spell out the difference. Article 5 says who has supremacy. Please read the constitution- the whole thing.
As far as the rest of your comments. Bqhatevwr.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
7:08 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Wrong Carl....the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies and associations are in favor of more gun control, such as the President is proposing, as are the majority of Americans.
The merchants of death, the NRA, and those who are in their pocket, of course do not want you to know that and will do everything to deny this.
Brett Miller
5:51 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
2 weeks before Christmas my parents home was robbed twice in 4 days.We have lived on Glade rd for 90 yrs.It is a dangerous place to live.We need our guns.The support that we have received from the BARTOW CO. SHERIFF DEPT has been incredible.My parents are in their mid eighties.I have never seen such professionalism mixed with compassion and competency from ANY police department in my life.I want to personally thank you Clark for bringing together the kind of men that you have and delegating the power of the SHERIFFS OFFICE in such a way as to provide such a service.Thank you Russell, Lee, Dan, Robbie and Jamie for what you did for my parents!Thank you for what you do everyday.After the robbery your efforts to concentrate on this area worked.I spend more time walking our property lines at night than I used to,I don't hear as much 4 wheeler activity between Staton Pl and Kings Camp as I did before.The drunk parties are keeping it down quite a bit.PLEASE keep it up!IT IS WORKING!I always felt like our end of the county was a lost cause but with recent events/The sports complex/Bass PRO SHOP/The acquisition of Kings Camp Marina/The possibility of a gated community at Bartow Carver;we might have a shot at a decent community YET.Thankyou for making a STAND with many others against the tyranny of the gun grabbers.They don't understand what made this country.That is their problem. WE voted you in/NOT THE DAMN FEDS!STAND STRONG BOYS!THE GOOD GUYS HAVE TO WIN THIS ONE! BRETT MILLER
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
7:10 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Thank you Brett...you prove the point that we can rely on professional law enforcement to protect us and do not need the personal firepower (assault rifles, etc) that we are seeking to ban.
The "tyranny of gun grabbers" is a fantasy concocted by the NRA, the merchants of death, and by those who are in their pockets or believe their nonsense.
Chris Long
8:44 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
"Common sense solutions" = code for control. Everyone always thinks they know how best to live other people's lives...it doesn't matter what the context is. B/c after all, who can argue w/"common sense", right? The problem is, it never stops...there's always some other "common sense solution" to enact, & one day you wake up & your rights have been severely restricted by "common sense" or "common sensed" away altogether. But it's OK, right, b/c it was well-intentioned. Give me a break.
& if you want to talk specifically about gun rights, the only truly "common sense solution" in any of this is law enforcement officials speaking out in favor of the ultimate law of the land--the Constitution. You need only look @ the vast majority of these "common sense solutions" to see that it's only about control. Most of what has been proposed is based on emotional reaction &/or specious (perhaps even deliberately manipulative) reasoning, & little, if any of it would have stopped any past tragedy or prevent future tragedy. The proposals/EOs serve no practical purpose other than to restrict the rights of & make criminals of law-abiding citizens, create black markets & to make weak-willed & login/reason-challenged people "feel good". & here's a hint...it's NEVER about the children, ESPECIALLY when it's about the children.
Pam J
8:48 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
If you know history at all, you know that certain amendments were "adjusted" or just reversed (like prohibition). It's a lengthy process, I assume, to get something like this done, but it can be done. I was fascinated by the line of people waiting to get into a gun show somewhere around Atlanta this weekend. They wanted to make sure they could buy that AK47 before it was banned. Once again, why does anybody need an AK47? And I still don't understand why any law enforcement person would want to face a bad guy with an AK47. Everybody is overreacting here. NOBODY'S GUNS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY. You will still be able to buy guns and rifles. Enough firepower to defend yourself against a few bad people. And please quit saying that the amendment says that the right to bear arms can't be infringed upon. Things have changed. We don't just have muskets and handguns any more. We need to start thinking about what is happening now.
Chris Long
9:00 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
I'm guessing you don't see the irony in you lecturing people about history...& particularly the history of this topic.
Pam J
7:40 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
The Bill of Rights and the amendments contained therein were written when the country was a heck of a lot different than it is now. Because of new problems, laws are being written about all kinds of things. So I think it stands to reason that some of the amendments may need to be seriously tweeked to fit modern times. Because I don't think that what is available now in firearms is exactly what our forefathers envisioned. But if those pesky British people invade us again, I guess we can shoot them with assault weapons and take them all out at one time.
Chris Long
8:57 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Stefan Molyneux says it best..."If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer."
9:09 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Quoting New World Order Truthers now? Precious.
As far as the slippery slope nonsense, the Supreme Court set a floor on gun control. The constitution has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to mean that we have the right to own handguns, shotguns, and rifles. How will this oppressive truther ban come to pass?
Chris Long
2:38 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
The author does not matter--the statement stands. I just didn't want to pass someone else's words as my own. Nice try though...thanks for playing.
10:26 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
The Supreme Court ruled for the 2A right to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, so the statement stands only as semantic garbage, as relevant to real life and US Law as "The Hunger Games".
11:34 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Sheriff's are right Sheriff's know the people of their counties and know how many law abiding people live there. They know how many gun crimes they have. Very few when you divide gun crimes into the number of people in the county. Sheriff's know that you won't ever get guns from the lawbreakers. When the lawless know we no longer have guns they will boldly walk right into your homes, take what they want, rape your children right in front of your eyes murder them then you.They are Cowards and Bullies. They prey on the Weak. If they know you can harm them, they will avoid you and look for the weak and unarmed people to attack. Crime will be out of control, The law can't sit outside of every home. We shouldn't expect them to. We're suppose to take care of our families and ourselves to the best of our abilities. Think about what would happen to your family if you had no way to protect them. While waiting for the law, you could lose your family and your own life. And over what??? FOR NOT PROTECTING THEM AND YOURSELF. If you're against having a gun to protect your family- then you need to tell them- you've decided to not protect them-they will have to wait for an officer to get there to do what you're suppose to do. I hope you're not one of these people. If you don't know how to properly use and store a gun,(locked away from children) there are gun training classes everywhere. Take the class and be safe and keep your family safe. Fight for our right to protect ourselves.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
9:25 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Wow...I never heard so much fear-mongering in one place, and that is what is most objectionable by these Sheriff's: using their bully pulpit to perpetuate myths, including:
Myth: They are coming to take your guns. (No one has proposed that and it is irresponsible to even mention it.)
Myth: We need guns to protect us from the tyranny of the elite. (So you would say that these law enforcement professionals, including those Sheriffs who are responsible and not joining in these myths , and the members of our police forces, are the elite. Take another look and you will find that they are your neighbors.)
Myth: Guns for self protection at home make us safer. (There is no research to support this and, in fact, all research indicates the opposite and the fact that owning a gun exposes one to more danger.)
4:40 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Richard Pellegrino, No, they are not just neighbors. They are also my family members. As for guns in your home making you more safer there is so many reports you couldn't read them all in a years time. Having a gun at home saves your life and your family members lives. You are so wrong in your thoughts. You have NO correct facts all at. And there is plenty facts and research to prove we need our guns to protect ourselves. Sadly it is a ""fact"" of life.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
7:05 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Hi Debra...I respect your belief but it is just a belief and if that makes you feel safer go ahead...just make sure you get trained in their use, lock them up and take every safety precaution you can because the statistics show that guns in your home or car are used against their owners, or are stolen and used to commit crimes, or are the cause of fatal accidents, way more than they are ever used to prevent an attack. (The plenty of facts and studies you say you have I bet are NRA propaganda circulated on the internet and have no substantiation whatsoever.)
Thankfully, the CDC and other agencies are now authorized by the President to resume studying the real effects of guns.
I have lived in countries without guns and they were way more peaceful and safe. I have lived in every environment possible in this country, including rural and urban ghetto, and as a civil rights activist I get death threats, and I have never felt the need for a weapon to protect myself or my family. I think we have all created boogey-men in our minds, and the unscrupulous gun lobby, NRA, and politicians in their pockets, have perpetuated these false fears. I choose to live unarmed and unafraid.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
9:26 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Now some facts:
1) We are the most violent country in the developed world.
2) Fear, bigotry, mental illness and guns don't mix (and we have more of each than those other less violent countries, so we have to look at all these aspects, including guns).
3) The overwhelming majority of Americans favor more gun control legislation, including universal background checks, and bans of certain guns and ammo.
4) The Constitution and 2nd Amendment allow for gun control and regulation, as determined by the Supreme Court. So this is not a matter of constitutionality (and even if it were, the Constitution is an organic document,open to change).
5) Sheriff's can't choose what laws they enforce. If they don't want to enforce the laws then they should step down and go into politics or advocacy work---not law enforcement.
5:22 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Richard, it is people like you that are running this country into the ground thinking the government and the majority of the people should dictate what others can do. The majority of people want security, not freedom because they are too lazy to take care of themselves.
9:25 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Hi Richard. Debra here . Thank you for your concern of my safety. I'm well trained in gun safety. Been carrying my gun since i was18 years old. 59 years old now. It has saved my life 4 serious times and never had to fire a shot,Thank God. But it was there for me and kept me safe. NRA is not where i get my information. You just assumed that and that is why people misunderstand each other. You assume things about people and it's not the truth. The facts are real. There are more times a gun has saved a life than any accidents in your home. The statistics are a lie. Don't just believe them. Look in many avenues on both sides and find the truth. Have you ever worked for 911. I have. The calls will stay with you for the rest of your life. You'll hear them screaming over and over ""Please Hurry" I rode with officers in my training and we couldn't get there in time sometimes. When people break in on you, they have planned it for a reason. And they mean to get in and out Fast. And no witnesses. boogey men are not in your mind--they are real. I don't live afraid either and it's not because i carry a gun. I just chose to help keep myself safe. When you cross an evil person you'll know it. You are a man and feel comfortable and safe without a gun, I'm a woman and it's a whole different world for us. Try to see both sides. We all have our rights and they shouldn't be taken away because someone thinks they should be. It's ok if you don't want to carry or own a gun and it's ok if we do.
10:19 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Here's some counter facts (well, I'll be honest and call mine opinions)
1) Our officers do a fantastic job enforcing laws directed toward thwarting violent crimes. Our judicial and criminal justice systems do a horrible job punishing those who commit violent crimes (and continue to release them back into society). Hence, violence increases with population. In order to "become" less violent, we must remove those who commit violent crimes from society and keep them gone.
2)Fear, bigotry, mental illness = Human. Gun= Inanimate Object. Using your argument, insert (in place of gun)...alcohol, vehicle, hammer, fire or any other inanimate object that could be misused and there's a whole bunch of items we need to ban.
3)Since the "overwhelming majority of Americans" favor restrictions on the 2nd amendment, it should be easy to amend it. We already have a process...it's called the law. For some reason, anti-gunners want to skip that process??? Hmmmmm.
4)See #3 above and use your overwhelming majority.
5)Should you ever be pulled over to the side of the road by your Sheriff, I hope you remember to point out that they do not have the choice of simply warning you about your infraction. Sheriff's make "choices" all the time.
Here's a good video for study on bad laws...pay close attention to the last minute, or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
Charles Schwable
1:43 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
American people are selfish, self-centered, "Want it their way or the highway attitude" guns kill and are dangerous, I am a convicted felon and have no need for guns or do measure to protect my home and myself and work in downtown Atlanta 7 days a week where there is alot more need for guns and crime. But, think intelligent about my surrounding and preventative measure without breaking the law and purchasing a gun either underground, illegally or through guns shows or third party sources or black market, because I am not going to jail over owning a handgun and rely on my faith for protection not human nature which will always fail you.
5:24 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Then leave Charles, go find somewhere to live that is better than what you have here.
9:11 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
First off, I don't recall the constitution dictating the number of rounds in a weapon, or type of weapon or anything else pertaining to the "freedom" or "right" the pro-gun establishment seems to be so inclined to defend - it was written in a vague manner, and for the times - meaning militia. But honestly, I can care less if my pistol holds 8 or 10 rounds, or if I can buy a clip for my AR-15 holding 30 rounds or not... I care more about background checks (already in place) and limiting automatic weapons (already in place)...
But as a civil service employee of the people,they are liable for their comments and actions, through the electoral process... If they feel the need to speak out, for or against, they have that right, just as you have the right to not agree, and not re-elect them if you don't like it. That just seems like common sense..
The problem with the common sense approach to gun control, is that someone with common sense isn't the problem - it's the crazy, the lawless and the fanatics that seem to create the issues - the crazy and lawless act, the fanatics on one side over-react and the fanatics on the other side protest - it's been happening since the dawn of civilization....
12:33 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The constitution is an operating agreement, so it wouldn't get so specific, but it does say that new laws can be made in the very first section after the preamble.
Article. I. Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
From what I've read, most states don't even input data into the background check system, so it is broken. If the states are that afraid of federal encroachment, maybe they could team up like in Powerball and have regional background check systems.
1:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I had read that about 40% of the guns sold do not go thru background checks... IE: gun shows, and personal sales. There is certainly room for improvement there.
William Compton
5:56 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Yes they should, they know what it will bring. They should come out against the new laws, bans, etc
Marcus Rayburn
9:32 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Could I ask a favor of several of you including the author of this article? For gosh sakes learn the difference between a clip and a magazine!!!!!!! Semi-auto pistols use magazines to hold the bullets NOT clips. AR-15's use MAGAZINES NOT clips. People talk about gun control but don;t even know what they are writing or talking about. A clip is a strip of metal that holds bullets that are fed into a magazine. Magazines contain bullets in an enclosed unit that when inserted into the weapon actually feed the bullets into the chamber. You don't feed bullets from a clip into a magazine and then into a semi-auto pistol chamber (or barrel for the less technical). An AR-15, Mini 14, etc use MAGAZINEs not CLIPS. And, for those of you who are in favor of assault weapons being banned or controlled they ALREADY are by Federal law!! An AR-10, AR-15, M-14, M1, etc are NOT assault weapons!!!
Marcus Rayburn
9:41 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
If we really want to have an effect and decrease the number of innocent people being killed in this country we will ban abortions. In New York state last year, 5 (yes five) people were murdered with rifles or so called "assault" weapons. But during the same time period, 150,000 (yes one hundred fifty thousand) abortions took place in New York state. Tell me which is doing more damage. Furthermore, 50 million innocent lives have been killed by abortion in the last 40 years. Nowhere near that number have been killed by so-called "assault weapons" in the U.S.
If a woman has the right to choose to kill her baby who has done nothing wrong and never harmed anyone, then we as citizens should be allowed to have weapons to defend ourselves against those who wish to actually hurt us.\, even if there was no such thing as the 2nd amendment.
Marcus Rayburn
9:44 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Furthermore, if we really do want to curb gun violence, then force our judges to impose the maximum sentence under the law when a person commits a crime with a gun. No plea bargains, no get out of jail free cards, no probation, use the maximum sentence. In fact, I would not be opposed to a simple Federal law that said if you commit a crime and a gun is either used or in your possession when you do, automatic 30 years of Federal prison time which would mean the person would have to serve a minimum of 27 years behind bars.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
9:20 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Ok friends...this has been a good dialogue with all views presented and we can see that there is certainly a lot of passion on all sides. (I apologize if my passion offended anyone, and I can find truth in everyone's comments.) Assuming that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and that some action is going to be taken in this regard since apparently the majority of Americans want that, and that no action in this regard (the status quo) is as extreme as extreme action (removing all guns) what I would like to ask is where we can meet in the middle and what type of additional gun control can we agree on?
8:30 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Where did you get the misconception that anyone has to "meet in the middle" when it comes to their guaranteed Constitutional Rights. Those rights are firm and have been in place for a long time. I am unwilling to relinquish any rights (or pieces of them) just because there are angry and emotional folks running around and ranting that I must. No sir. This plight to overcome the law and take away the rights of others is "yours" to overcome...not mine to concede. Again, if the "majority of Americans" wand to amend the 2nd, let them follow the law and not overlook it by asking anyone to "meet in the middle."
10:39 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Mr. Pellegrino is right, of course.
I think most extreme pro-gun people have little clue what the constitution says, much less what it means. You don't need an amendment to make a law, never have.
Universal background checks should happen. States should do a better job sharing info for people who should not have access to guns.
3:25 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Of course you don't need an amendment to make a law, but you may need an amendment to make a law constitutional. Conversely, laws can be voided by judicial review, finding they are in violation of existing constitutional principles. Where the line is can change in either direction over time. Every new law can be called into question against the Constitution. Some are obviously OK and some are not. That's why we have a court. I think the point here is if the advocates of much stricter control are so sure they are in the majority, then let them take their case to the people in the form of a clarifying amendment and put the question to rest. Smugly contorting the meaning of the Constitution only breeds contempt for the institutions involved in doing so. Glibly claiming that the Constitution means anything that the Supreme Court says it does, regardless of common sense, is just spoiling for a fight in the legislature and in enforcement.
Curtis Mathews
3:45 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I suggest that more cities and towns pass an ordinance that require all homeowners to own and maintain a firearm. We can meet somewere in the middle on what common sense exceptions to the requirement there should be, such as excluding convicted felons, those with strong religious beliefs etc. It sure has worked here in Kennesaw,Ga
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
4:55 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Thanks Curtis but that is not a middle of the road solution as apparently most Americans believe that more guns is not the solution, so that would be an extremist position. And there is no conclusive proof of how many people actually obeyed the Kennesaw ordinance, or exempted themselves based on their "beliefs", or that it really had any effect on crime. (See ^ Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."
^ Squires, Peter (2000). Gun culture or gun control?: firearms, violence and society. New York: Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 0-415-17087-7. "Later research, however, found no reduction in Kennesaw burglary rates [but not other violent crime] when the figures were re-examined over a longer time period." It appears that the only research which supports the ordinance is that performed by the NRA and other gun advocates--hardly independent.)
So again, what I am searching for is middle ground, between an all out gun ban or gun grab (as it appears many of you believe is coming, but is not likely) and the status quo (which is also not likely).
One statement we use in community activism sometimes is "if you don't come to the table then you are on the menu" so I think it makes sense to come to the table, not stay in our entrenched camps, and work out a compromise (which is really what democracy is all about).
12:24 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
OK, Richard. As a "community [and] civil rights activist activist", lets talk about how you would compromise on some other amendments. Let's start with the First. Surely you'd be willing to have the government administer a test of basic religious doctrine as a prerequisite to, say, vote? You know, not require that you actually profess any belief, but have heard the major sides. [State religion worked for Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. In fact the MA Constitution provided that "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require,...public worship of God..." until after 1947. Or, perhaps you would start with an office that doles out licenses for publishing content and opinions on the Internet, or provides control over just who is allowed to spend precious natural resources using paper to publish news and/or opinions for public consumption.
Sounds pretty vile and revolting doesn't it? So, why should there be compromise on the Second item in the Bill of Rights?
Do you have any idea why, with so many important topics to cover, the Founders felt it so necessary to provide a Bill of Rights and place so highly the Second? I'd love to hear your wisdom on this. Or, were you honestly asking above because you really don't know?
No, there really need be no compromise on the principles of the Constitution. Rather, find our best means of living within (and up to) those principles and expect more of those who choose to violate them.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
1:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Jeff, where did I get my idea of meeting in the middle or compromising in our understanding, interpretation and application of the Constitution---where else but in the whole fabric of the Constitution and democracy. That is what it is all about--ever evolving and subject to new interpretation. The 2nd Amendment, which everyone here so loves, was born in slavery to protect runaway slave militias rights,and was not interpreted to relate to private gun ownership until a new Supreme Court decision in 2008. (In between the 1800's and 2008, its interpretation and meaning changed many times.) So of course, it like any other aspect of our laws and Constitution, is open to changing interpretations at any time, without ever having to amend the Constitution.
5:12 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
As I expected, Richard, you are spouting revisionist disinformation born in 1998 in an article by the aptly named professor Carl Bogus at Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island. You would probably also argue the 3/5's clause was a racist slight to blacks. No, the Bill of Rights, penned by James Madison, stemmed from dissatisfaction that the Constitution lacked a statement of specific individual rights. These were enemies of tyranny who had just defeated the Crown as an overreaching central authority. The didn't want to create a new one. Madison looked to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, from George Mason and found many inspirations there, including "Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Clearly the focus is limitation of central power, fear of a large centralized army-backed authority and a desire to push power out to the people. The point of the 2nd Amendment is that the body of the people at large (not just some wing-nut minority) could, in the extreme, ultimately join forces and defend themselves against a central authority. In that context, all this whining about "military-style" firearms melts away and they are revealed as entirely appropriate.
11:53 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Every Supreme Court ruling ever supports and upholds some degree of regulation, especially when the issue turns to military weapons.
Why should we believe Lowell from the Patch over Scalia or Berger from the Supreme Court of the United States? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the constitutional scholars are on the big benching not on patch. Their thoughtful articulate decisions are posted on the Internet, and your version of the 2nd Ammendment is at odds with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6 and the preamble. So, I can't be swayed by any argument regarding constitutional interpretation.
But why would any rational patch reader accept your constitutional interpretation over that of a Supreme Court justice?
3:27 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Yeah, Byron. God knows there were never any dissenting views on any rulings, so they must be perfect. So, tell me how my "version of the 2A" is so at odds, please. I would've sworn I was looking at the same text everyone else is.
10:46 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Because the congress makes the laws (Art 1) and this is the law of the land (Art 6).
Because the original intent of the 2A as determined by the Supreme Court under powers granted by Article 3 and settled by Marbury v Madison contradicts what you say. You are wrong because you ignore the rule of law, judicial precedent, and the interpretation of actual experts.
Fwiw, the dissents don't support your view of the 2A either. Even if they did, per the constitution, they're not the meaning of the law.
3:05 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Nothing I said conflicts with your cited articles. Of course, this Federal administration has made ignoring the rule of law a common practice. So, go figure. Law enforcement is always picking and choosing enforcement actions. Any belief to the contrary is wildly naive. In this case, believing the law unconstitutional until tested and ruled otherwise in a competent court, they are upholding their oath. It's not my judgement at question here - it is the judgement of the involved LEO supervision. I simply defended their right to speak out and to make that judgement. I also never said it couldn't ultimately be without consequence.
Curtis Mathews
6:28 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Richard, I am tempted to say 'whatever' but I won't. Feel free to read this link (http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm) and then 'shoot the messenger' if that is your method of discussion. I prefer real time results to academic studies. I remember when we were 16 ars old and you had to be 18 to buy beer. We knew several 18 year olds that could legally buy beer and would then sell it to us. What makes you think that someone that can't pass a background check to buy a gun doesn't know someone that can pass to buy one for them? That is common sense, not an acacemic study.
11:45 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
That link is hilarious. "Two Kennesaw officials link A with B" using the scientific "Because I said so" technique.
The "straw man" purchases you refer to are exactly what is referred to in Obama's proposed legislation. He wants to increase the penalty of that crime. Fewer straw men restricts the flow of guns and doesn't infringe on a single right.
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
1:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Curtis, my method is to find the common ground for cooperation and compromise, which is what I offered earlier. Common sense, like everything, is in the eye of the beholder, so we need objective studies to determine what is really going on. (For instance, common sense to me is to get rid of all guns but I would not impose my common sense on you.)
Rich "The Equalizer" Pellegrino
1:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Lowell, of course I am open to reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment rights, as any other rights we have, because they all come with responsibilities.
Read my reply above regarding the 2nd Amendment---its interpretation and application has changed many times throughout history, and even most recently the Supreme Court in 2008 said that it did not allow unrestricted gun ownership and allowed for certain gun bans, background checks, etc. (and even Scalia, the most conservative, wrote that opinion).
3:43 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Richard, I hope you are mistaken when you say you would be "open to reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment rights,..." or you are horribly misguided and childlike. Perhaps you are referring to the responsibilities that come with freedom and thinking of those as "restrictions"? No, the difference is that, for example, the government does not place a muzzle on you or cut out your tongue before you go into a theatre, preventing you from yelling "fire" without reason. There are instead, consequences for misusing the right that you have irresponsibly after the fact. This is known as the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, which applies to rights like free speech. Many don't understand this and consider libel and slander laws infringements. They don't understand that the right allows you to commit those transgressions, but the responsibility part kicks in after the fact and allows for repercussions and consequences which themselves are not unconstitutional. Nevertheless the right provides unbridled freedom to those who exercise it responsibly. That I am never willing to compromise and I hope, enlightened, you would not either.
Julie Camp
9:50 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Why are ya'll talking about guns? You should be yammering on about mental health. We have millions of drug users that have fried their brains.....and quite a few that were born crazy, this is the real issue. In every case of mass murder, the gun, bomb or knife didn't do this with out some crazy person in charge.
Southern Humanist
11:59 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Where does that paranoid "church-going" old man in Lilburn who shot the young man for turning around in his driveway fit in to your equation?
Julie Camp
1:02 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
So, I'm wrong? None of these mass murderers have mental issues?
11:38 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
the same people who scream about their rights being violated by gun bans and gov't intrusion into their personal lives always say a gun ban won't work, so we shouldn't try to regulate them. These are the same people who are first in line to regulate reproductive rights and restrict abortion and access to birth control. Why does one type of restriction/regulation not work, but another one does?
11:50 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
For a sheriff to refuse to implement a federal law brings up one of the main reasons for the Civil War, The Nullification Crisis. It didn't work out so well to refuse to implement federal laws the last time it was tried, and now will be no different. This is just a way to fight the Civil War all over again; we have been having rumblings of state's rights vs. federal rights for some time now. It needs to be figured out, or we will keep becoming more and more divided. When secession is threatened over and over again because elections don't go the way people wanted, we are a broken nation.
Southern Humanist
11:51 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
"Should sheriffs be speaking out against the president's gun proposals?" No - it's ludicrous to suggest that guns are above regulation.
Do you feel that they should enforce any new gun laws, or do you stand by their decision not to? Last time I checked, sheriffs are for law enforcement, not law interpretation. They should either enforce the law or get out of the business.
ken holewinski
1:24 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
We have plenty of gun laws. Let us enforce the ones on the books, we do not need more laws, we need more safer people. Let's ban all of the violent video games, that may be a better start, although that would violate the free speech people. I have rights too, including the 2nd amendment just like everyone else.
Alex Mason
12:56 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
I love violent video games. However, if we need to tighten restrictions on them to keep people safer, I'm on board.
Interesting fact: I recently played through one of those violent video games - "Call of Duty: Black Ops". I noticed during the credits that they gave special thanks to Remington, Barrett, and Colt (three large gun manufacturers in the US). Their guns are licensed to the game makers. It's a great little marketing relationship. Here is an article in the NYTimes that explores the relationship between game makers and gun manufacturers. Unfortunately, the manufacturers did not provide a comment. Just something to think about. You can pretend to use their guns to kill people!
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The NRA just introduced a violent video game aimed at 4 yr olds. Maybe we should start there?
2:42 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Sure Ken. Let's ostracize video games as the reason for gun violence.
And while we are at it, lets ban the news too, because I see far greater REAL violence on the evening news than I see on a video game.
Games are not sold to persons under the age of 17... Guess what? Kids are playing them too, so the parents must be breaking the law, and letting their kids play them, so, let's ban people from having kids...
Pam J
2:16 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Why don't we just all agree to accept that there is nothing that can be done. There is no way to find all the crazy, unhinged people with guns. If every gun was sold by a licensed gun dealer, then the background check and such might help. But since so many guns are sold by private dealers, all bets are off. We still don't know where the kid who shot up the middle school yesterday got his gun. So let's just ban the "I can shoot 100 people at one time" guns and be done with it. Then just try and avoid any crazy, unhinged person who might be roaming around out there.
2:48 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Pam - The people who abuse the guns are the ones that don't follow laws, so the laws really only restrict law abiding citizens.. The background check laws are in place - they just need to be expanded, and networked across states - perfect reason for a federal program.. Automatic weapons are already banned...
Stereotyping an AR15 as an "assault weapon" is silly - ALL instruments capable of killing are assault weapons..
Magazine size limits are reasonable to me, as are bans on bulletproof vests and certain types of ammo - those are military/police/security items to me.
This to me would be a rational, reasonable approach.. The problem is fanatics on both sides of the issue are puffing up their chests and not listening.


text:
Home » Products » Industrial Networks » Wireless Network Components » Phoenix Contact
Phoenix Contact
Modular Fieldbus ComponentsLine of modular fieldbus components offers connectivity from the fieldbus process controller to the field devices. It includes a segment protector for use with both Foundation Fieldbus and Profibus PA and a Foundation Fieldbus power supply. Based on a Tbus connection system, the components are hot-swappable and allow easy system expansion.
Phoenix Contact; 717/944-1300
Company Information
586 Fulling Mill Road
Middletown, PA 17057 (see map)
Phone: 717-944-1300
Fax: (717) 944-1625
email: email@example.com
Website: www.phoenixcon.com
Related Products
- Phoenix Contact's FL WLAN 5101 Wireless Radio
- Belden's GarrettCom Magnum 10RX Router
- Renesas Electronics' R-IN32M3 Series
- Altima's IP Core for CC-Link IE Field
- P-Tech's P-EASY Industrial Data Transmission Radio
- SEL's Wireless Serial Adapters
- Hilscher's NetJack Network Interface Modules
- Freewave Technologies' Hybrid Wireless Bridge
- Banner Engineering's SureCross Q45 Wireless Remote Device
- Banner Engineering's SureCross B2Q Gateway Module
- All products »
Sponsored Links
Control Digital Edition
Access the entire print issue on-line and be notified each month via e-mail when your new issue is ready for you. Subscribe today.
- Featured White Papers

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our S³ Hull is the first and only one of its kind. Its stepped design reduces drag while staying glued to the water for a stable and consistent ride. The material of the S³ Hull is remarkably light yet remains incredibly strong, due to its ribbed construction. This means better handling and fuel efficiency, whether you prefer leisurely cruising or getting there quickly.
Available on the RXT, GTX and WAKE Pro models.


text:
Thorn linked to Highlanders
8 Oct 2012
It's been reported that the Highlanders are attempting to sign former All Blacks lock Brad Thorn for the 2013 Super Rugby season.
Thorn is currently plying his trade in Japan with the Sanix Fukuoka Blues. His two-year contract with the club expires at the end of the Japanese season in February.
Highlanders head coach Jamie Joseph has been in talks with the 37-year–old recently.
If Thorn agrees a deal with the Otago franchise, he'll follow the signing of All Blacks loosehead prop Tony Woodcock from the Blues. The Highlanders already boast the likes of hooker Andrew Hore and prop Jamie Mackintosh in their pack.
Thorn has enjoyed a successful career in rugby union and league, winning major titles in both codes. More recently, he won the World Cup with New Zealand and the European Cup with Leinster over the past year.
3 Comments
8 Oct 2012, 12:27 pmThorney dragon!
8 Oct 2012, 12:34 pmBrad…………………………………………………..stay in Japan.
37, it's time to let your brain do the talking. -
8 Oct 2012, 13:42 pmDefinitely the man. Just a fricken legend. Time to get more Thorn t shirts made up. He needs to stay linked with New Zealand rugby. Could he have some sort of coaching role in the future? Teach these men how it's done.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
2011 Monchhof Slate Riesling Spatlese
Back to Products
Select Quantities
750ml Bottle $250.69
Case of 12
750ml Bottle $250.69
Case of 12
Prices, promotions and availability may vary by store and online.
2011 Weingut Udo Weber Riesling Spatlese
"A "late-harvest" type, with a great body, long finish and high intensity of sweet fruit with amazing balance of sweetness and acidity. Aromas of tropical fruits and ripe vineyard-peach. A favorite of gourmets served and paired with aged cheeses, fresh fruit tarts and cakes. This sweet wine also complements salty/smoky meat/fish dishes and Asian cuisine, seafood and all spicy dishes."
$16.99 / 750ml Bottle
$193.69 / Case of 12
$193.69 / Case of 12
2009 Dr Von Bassermann Jordan Deidesheimer Paradiesgarten Riesling Kabinett
"Lily-like perfume, sweet lime, and ripe apple on the nose and a wafting, buoyant, juicy palate lend the Bassermann 2009 Deidesheimer Paradiesgarten Riesling Kabinett considerably more charm and refreshment than possessed by its 2008 counterpart, even if this is still relatively simple and probably best enjoyed over the next 3-4 years."
$23.99 / 750ml Bottle
$273.49 / Case of 12
$273.49 / Case of 12
Customer Reviews
There are currently 0 reviews for this product.
Be a trailblazer and write the first one!
Be a trailblazer and write the first one!


text:
Flora Journal-Record |
Previous | 1 of 10 | Next |
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
This page
Loading content ...
-^-f. -h-y li't-yiV'" ', Tlr- .i-'.vi ¦'•¦'¦:i^:-- i'l"^JI.I-JI -^ / 3'..-^-r '"I" :-.'i^ iiffiKr-'¦¦-: "'¦¦'\'",:i':'^-^:'iii ;, .'.., ,,. ^--T . J, ". , J .'K.-ri.-xir. '-j£Ki -^-''..-.ff::- j'.--'';»r*s:',«r.v,y.^- ¦- '^•"Xif^^'^^A •'^^''¦i^'^'^^f:^^^^A^^^i"^:'^jt^0^!''-^Vy'i' ! h 10 PAGES The FJpra Journal-Record PART ONE .4" YOU SHOULD READ THE JOURNAL41ECORD >^THE NEWSIEST NEWSPAPER IN CLAY COUNTY VOLUME XI ''H* JOCRNAIi, Vol, 52. No. 49 FLORA, ILLINOIS. THURSDAY. DECEMBER 7. 1922 NUMBER 12 WN. FLOY NAUNSKY SHOT AND KILLED Last Satnrday NiKht at Woods Homr on E>ist Street the Wm. Seventh INQl'EST SUND.IY Al-TERNOOV Last Saturday evening between slz and seven o'clock Flonr citizens were dumbfounded to learn that Wm. Floy Mallnsky, son of Mr. and Hrs. £. F. Mallnsky, had been shot at the Wm. Woods home, on East Seventh street, and tbat he was fat ally wounded. He passed away be¬ tween six and seven o'clock Sunday morning. Mr. 'Woods, who is a brakeman on the Springfleld branch ot the B. A O., lives in the Warren Smith prop¬ erty, formerly occupied by E. "6. Oorrell until-he moved to Loulsvllle. Both Mr. and Mrs. Woods were away from home, the former out on his run, wblle Mrs. Woods had gone to the country in a car, to •visit rela¬ tives. She returned nome about 7:30 p. m. , Supposed to be a nurglar It is difficult to get all details of the shooting and the causes that led to It, but the story, aa near as we can get it, seems as follows; Mr. Mallnsky appears to have gone to the Woods home to get some arti¬ cles left there on Thursday night. Mrs. E. G. Brydon, who lives across the street east, noticed a light in the Woods home and knowing the family were away, thought a burglar tiad Invaded. She gave a burglar alarm, notifying C. E. Gibson, who aroused the neighbors in an effort to capture the supposed burglar, there having been several burglaries in the neigh¬ borhood 'previously. Eber Phillips, of south of Xenla, who graduated from the Flora high school last /uOe, was visiting at the Gibson hotjte, he having boarded there whesf he attended school. It Is claimed tllat he rushed out of the house and seeing the fleeing man, fired at him with a revolver^ but supposed he was shooting above his head. Mallnsky ran to the street ju.si ^east of Mrs. Mary Campbell, Fifth and Locust, where he dropped. W. C. McCaully and Leo Lents, who had been pursuing hini an a supposed burglar, saw him fal! and he was taken into the Mrs. Campbell home, where three physicians, Drs. Bow¬ man, Finch and Young, did all pos¬ sible, but he died the next morning A bullet had pierced his right lung and his left side had been grazed by another bullet. Coroner's Iiiriuest Held Coroner James M. Dean of Xenla held an inquest Sunday afternoon at the city hall, the jurors being W. E. Wood, foreman. Dr. P. H. Bayles, vl. H. Altom, Stephen Oolden, Harold Luse and Floyd Hockman. The Jury found that Mallnsky had died from a gun shot wound and recom¬ mended holding Eber Phillips for further investigation. Mr. PhilllpH gave bond for $1,000 and was re¬ leased. A preliminary hearing has been set for next Saturday at 11 o'clock before Squire M. S. Diekerson, At¬ torney Jas. H. Smith has been re¬ tained by the defense as their law¬ yer. Funeral services were held Monday afternoon at 1:30 at the B> F. ,Ma- linsky home, conducted by Rev. G. W. Zink, pastor ot the Christian church, followed by interment in Elmwood cemetery. Deceased had been employed In tbe B. A O. shops. He was an Odd Fellow and a Mason. The circumstances surrounding this tragedy make it especially la¬ mentable, as the victim was evident¬ ly shot as a supposed burglar in the heat of excitement, with no one hav¬ ing previous malice or forethought ol taking human life. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS ELECT NKW OFFICERS Flora Knights of Pythias elected the tollowing officers Tuesday nigbt for the coming^erni. InstaUation to be held the first Tuesday night in January. Chancellor Commander, Donald Cassldy. Vice Chancellor, Jos. Terry. Prelate. Fred Chaney. ^ K. ol R. and S., Fred Greenwood. li. ot W., Chas. Ricketts. M. of F., F. E. Mack. M. of E.,C. E. Gibson. M. at A., Thos. Winn. Inner Oual-d, Cloyd McDannel. Outer Guard, Wm. Tatman. Trustees, N. V. Shepard, S Hall, R. A. Ewen. A DEUGHTFDL PROGRAN Men'.s Chorus .Attract I^argr Crowd Sunday Evening at the M. E. Church VOl'NO LADIRH HOSTESSES TO FOOT-BAIX TKAM AM) FKIE.NDS MISIC IS CALLED DIVINE ART W lMlt>RT.AXT KliKCTlON NK.XT TIESD.AY The special election next Tuesday to vote on the proposen new consti¬ tution for Illinois is a very Important one. No citizen should neglect to vote, for the result affects every per¬ son. While there Is considerable opposition to the new constitution, still many who were at first agaiust it, have concluded that It is better than the old one, an« will vote for li. The farmers' organizationB all over the state have officially endoraed it and are urging their members to come out and vote yes. Next Tues¬ day, Dec. 12th, is the election date. Don't fall to vote. I.AniES .AID SOCIETY ELECTS OFFICERS On Tuesday last the l.adies Aid of the Christian church met In the church parlor and elected the fol¬ lowing officers for the coming year; President, Mrs. Jay valbert. lst 'Vice president, Mrs. R. S. C. Heaugh. 2nd Vice president, Mrs. J. Mc¬ Gregor. Secretary, Mrs. E. 'W. Bryan. Treasurer. Mrs. H. F. Pixley. Serving committee, Mrs. Heaugh, Mrs. Pixley. Mrs Tlsdale. TWO FIXE R.4INS The long drought was broken by two fine rains whicb fell Sunday night and Monday aud Wednesday nights and Thursday morning. Wells and creeks are replenished, and the B. & O. has taken off the waler train they have been running for montbs. niYS SIXTY-.ACRK F.ARM A delightful musical program was rendered Sunday evening at the Methodist Episcopal church. There were no services beld during the evening by the pastor. Rev. W. I. Terbune, in order to have the entire program given by the men's chorus delivered without interruption. Tbe various numbers were of special in¬ terest and displayed unusual talent upon the part of those participating, showing also that of unusual train¬ ing and ability. The splendid work of the chorus choir under the di¬ rection of Mrs. Terhune received the highest commendation and the sing¬ ing of religious songs by these men wag very inspiring. Mrs. Terhune at the organ was song accompanist. She is an ac¬ complished pipe organist and Is to bo highly praised. Music Is the consistent and cour¬ ageous ally of religion. It is an ambassador of God that carries mes¬ sages of cheer and comfort. Music is universal. There Is no place In nature too remote fur its .grasp. Music is called the Divine Art. l>r
Object Description
Title | Flora Journal-Record |
Masthead | The Flora Journal Record |
Date | 1922-12-07 |
Month | 12 |
Day | 07 |
Year | 1922 |
Volume | 11 |
Issue | 12 |
Decade | 1920-1929 |
Geographic Coverage | United States, Illinois, Clay County, Flora |
Description | An Archive of the Flora Journal-Record Newspaper in Flora, Illinois. Flora Digitial Newspapers Collection. |
Subject | Flora (Ill.) - Newspapers, Clay County (Ill.) - Newspapers |
Rights | Digitized with permission from current newspaper publisher. |
Contributing Institution | Flora Public Library |
Source | Microfilm |
Type | Text |
LCCN number | 9054782 |


text:
Paul Dano Talks FOR ELLEN, LOOPER, BEING FLYNN, HE LOVES ME, NIGHT MOVES, and More at Sundance 2012
by Steve 'Frosty' Weintraub Posted 1 year, 138 days ago
One of the many films to premiere at this year's Sundance Film Festival was writer-director So Young Kim's (In Between Days) For Ellen. Led by a fantastic performance by Paul Dano, the film's about a struggling musician trying to keep custody of his very young daughter even though he's never been around. The film also stars Jon Heder, Jena Malone, Margarita Levieva, and Shay Mandigo.
Shortly after seeing the film I got to sit down with Dano for an extended interview. We talked about being at Sundance, how he got involved in For Ellen, what it's about, who he plays, how much fun he had playing a "narcissistic prick," what it's like to be in almost every frame of the movie, and if more people want to talk to him about The Girl Next Door, Little Miss Sunshine, or There Will Be Blood? In addition, with Dano involved in so many other projects, we also talked about Rian Johnson's Looper, Being Flynn with Robert De Niro, director Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris' He Loves Me, and how he's hoping to do a film called Night Moves with Meek's Cutoff director Kelly Reichardt. Hit the jump to watch.


text:
FranklinCovey Consultant Blogs | Todd Wangsgard | Downside
Change does not equal loss
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
How many times have you heard someone say, "Everyone fears change?" Employees have experienced profound changes in the workplace for decades and yet the headlines would suggest no one is ever prepared for change. Certainly we at least get a little better at navigating change, each time it is thrust upon us. But what is it that really paralyzes people each time a significant change is in the wind?
People don't fear change.
I've never met a baby that didn't want its soggy diaper changed. Most employees can think of at least a handful of things they'd like to see their boss do differently. The present economy is nothing to get excited about; the majority would certainly like to see some changes for the better. If I came to you and said, "Well, there are going to be some changes around here. We're going to start with your compensation," you might initially get nervous. Our first thoughts tend to be negative. "What are you taking away from me? How much more will we be asked to give around here?" What if I then told you, "We'd like to triple your salary?" Would you be okay with that kind of change?
People fear the possibility or the reality of loss.
Granted, a lot of the changes we are asked to swallow have a downside to them. But by assuming that all change is bad, we predispose ourselves to the paralysis of inaction, negative thinking, and helplessness. Most of us know someone who was victim of a corporate downsizing, only to share with you months down the road that his or her departure was possibly the best thing that ever happened. Of course, that can only happen when someone chooses to find the silver lining in a change that, at first, is quite devastating.
Think of the current or pending changes that are brewing in your workplace. Take inventory of the potentially positive upside to those changes. Channel your time and energy toward those activities that will bring about the good that often accompanies change. You will increase your value to the organization and find your positive outlook to be infectious. Seeing change as a force for constant improvement and innovation is a much more viable perspective, no matter where the landscape is moving.
The recent tragedy in Haiti has certainly commanded the world's attention. No one would ever suggest that their change in fortune was good. Yet each day that we peer into the news of Haiti's recovery, we learn of countless stories of rescuers and those being rescued who are making the most out of their circumstances, in the shadow of unimaginable devastation. These are the Haitians who are likely to thrive into the future and serve as a force for good in rebuilding an even stronger community and nation.
From change can emerge enormous good. Yet in change some might dwell on only the bad. Which will command your attention?