Comments by Tonewah
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on November 10 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That IS disappointing. I hope the council isn't putting on their old Perkins Boondoggle Goggles.
I WAS pleased that they voted to outsource garbage collection. That'll probably save the city the money they'll blow on the stupid cameras.
Posted on November 10 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Katie's article was informative. The only thing I'd like to point out is that a concealed carry permit in any county in the state is recognized in all counties, so if you've just moved to Dallas County and hold a permit from another county, you don't have to get one in Dallas County until yours expires, so the waiting period doesn't affect you.
bama, do you even read what you type before you post?
Paying any fee to allow you to exersize a right infringes on that right. Just like requring someone to pay a poll fee to vote infringes on a person's righ to vote, requiring a fee for carrying a concealed pistol infringes on the right to carry a concealed pistol. Alabama's concealed carry law is pretty lenient, though, and Dallas County Sheriff's Dept. is good about giving the permits w/out any hassle. Federal gun laws are a whole different subject, though.
Posted on November 9 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You don't have to get a permit to get a speedy trial or jury trial (6th and 7th Amendments). You don't have to get a permit to keep someone from beating a false confession out of you (5th Amendment) You certainly don't have to get a permit to go to church or write an article for the paper (1st Amendment). The Bill of RIghts merely codified what are known as our natural rights. These weren't given by the Constitution, merely recognized by it. You have a right to defend yourself. The 2nd Amendment simply reinforces that right.
Gun control is a tool of tyrants, not of free republics. Gun control laws don't work, anyway. All you need to do is look at crime where guns are controlled to see that. When you take away arms, you take away the right of the people to defend themselves. This is true throughout history.
I like to use Kennesaw, GA as an example of a place that got it right. Kennesaw had a crime problem. Instead of writing laws that violated our nation's charter by limiting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, they passed a law that required EVERYONE to own a gun, which is basically what the 'well regulated militia' clause means. Crime practically disappeared.
Of course, many would rather give up their rights for a false sense of security, anyway. All those 'scary' guns. bah.
Some are suggesting that journalists should register, because unfiltered free speech is too 'dangerous'. When Leesha, Dennis et al have to register for a journalism permit, the first amendment will be gone, too. lol. But at least you'll be 'safe'.
Bama: Have you read Locke, Burke, Bastiat, etc? I urge you to do so. Also, after you get a grasp of the reason our country was founded, take a few minutes to read the communist manifesto. It's not long. Take a few minutes to ponder the 10 basic tenets that must be in place, according to Marx and Engels, to have a communist nation. It pretty much describes the current path of the USA.
I guess I assume that you don't want the cruel and inhumane form of government that marxist communism brings, but I could be wrong...
What did Stalin, Hitler and Mao have in common, other than killing millions of innocent people? The first thing all of them did was impose GUN CONTROL.
All that said, Alabama's gun laws are some of the least intrusive in the country. They're not ideal, but they're a heck of a lot better than some other states. We also have Sheriffs who keep the oath they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and who would rather err more on the side of freedom than of tyranny.
Posted on September 11 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we have a lot more nationalism and a lot less patriotism. Patriots are willing to risk it all to be free. Too many would sacrifice a little freedom for the perception of safety, now.
I remember watching as the 2nd plane hit. Like everyone else, I couldn't believe it could happen. The same thing was barely avoided 8 or 9 years earlier, though, in 1993 when Bin Laden attacked the WTC the first time. Our intel groups should have seen it coming.
I really wish those in our intelligence agencies who failed to follow up on the information that could have prevented the second attack were forced to face the music. Instead, we gave them all a free pass because nobody wanted to place the blame on anyone but the terrorists, who DO deserve the blame. After all, THEY DID IT.
But... if you were robbed and your family was murdered while a whole specialized force of trained men were guarding your house, who were purposed with the sole task of keeping your house from being robbed, I strongly doubt you'd want the same guards in the future. You'd probably fire them immediately, at the very least. Especially if some of their employees tried to warn their bosses that the attack was coming and their bosses laughed them off, like happened in the days leading up to 9/11.
Instead, we have given those guards huge raises, the right to violate our privacy without even telling us, and just about broken our treasury. The value of the dollars we hold now are but fractions of the value they held before 9/11. And that's our fault for just letting government run wild in the name of safety and security under the vulgar and insidious lie that it's some sort of patriotism not to question government.
I thank God we live in a Free Republic, and I hope it stays that way. If the foundation republic fails, though, there is nothing left but tyranny, even if you have democracy. If we allow the republic to fail, I pray God has mercy on the people.
On Have we lost our sense of patriotism that came after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001?
Posted on September 6 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think you and I are in partial agreement, dogbert. I don't think the carmeras are worth even a short-term trial. But I think this has never really been very interesting.
I am in agreement with congressmen like republican Sam Roher. Roher is in a battle agianst this stuff up in PA. He says the only secure data is uncollected data. Without probable cause or a warrant, government really has no right to take your picture.
And I also think you misinterpreted what I said about responsibility for protecting rights, in that you didn't notice the preposition I used was WITH not FOR. Protecting our rights is pretty much the ONLY thing government should do. They're just not responsible WITH them. In a free society, you MUST take personal responsibility. Before cameras, tyrants used block captains, snitches, etc... it's still surveillance.
Sorry about OK St. I thought GA shoulda beat 'em.
Take care, T.
Posted on September 5 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again...
We need POLICE OFFICERS, and GOOD ONES, not cameras. Simps in government pushing these worthless cameras to try to make it look like they're doing something is irresponsible at the very least. Government has NEVER been responsible with people's rights - ever. A surveillance state is an idea suited more to the collectivist nations like France or the UK. We are an INDIVIDUALIST nation.
Oh, and Archangelsk... the argument that rights take a back seat to safety is one tyrants have used since recorded history. Don't fall for it. The cameras aren't really fighting crime. A shortage of officers and detectives not following up on REPORTED CRIME is Selma's problem. What good do cameras do if they're not following up on crimes they already know about?
Dogbert, if you had a point, I'd address it.
We DON'T NEED THE CAMERAS people. Total waste of money.
I know everybody in these discussions wants to be right. I don't care about all that. I just want my personal freedom protected, not sacrificed for the illusion of security.
Posted on August 9 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Liberty vs Tyranny on the y axis, and left vs right on the x axis.
Obama=Limbaugh=O'reilly=Pelosi, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum... they're all on the tyranny side of the y axis.
If you don't understand that, crack a book. There are many books on freedom, economics and the history of our great nation that the layman can easily understand.
Listen to Ron Paul about 25 years ago, speaking at Von Mises over at Auburn, and you'll hear, in detail, what caused each of our economic woes in the years since and before.
Posted on July 12 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ffwife, you are right that it infringes on the rights of others to produce this dangerous chemical. That was my point. That's why we've made it's unregulated production illegal.
However, alcohol is far more dangerous than all illegal drugs combined. Alcohol directly kills far more people each year than all the combined drug related deaths. That means both those killed directly (O.D.) and indirectly (production catastrophes, drug related homicides, public safety personnel deaths, etc...) 85,000 people are killed directly by alcohol every year. The number killed by drugs, both directly and indirectly, is a small fraction of that number. (Source=Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pp. 1238, 1241). I'm not for reinstating the prohibition on alcohol, but, statistically, it makes a whole lot more sense than fighting the war on drugs.
Prohibition failed for a reason. Under prohibition, deaths of law enforcement officers TRIPLED. The same thing occurred in the 1960s when substances began to be classified as controlled.
The combined number you gave for public safety injuries related to drugs for the years 96-99 was 158, averaging 40 INJURIES a year related to drugs. It's a terrible thing that people are injured, but it's a relatively small number. More people than that are injured falling down in the tub every year, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC.GOV).
Again, I am NOT defending the people who illegally make these dangerous substances. They broke the law and will have to pay the consequences. However, the war on drugs has cost us, the taxpayer, trillions of dollars since it's inception. Drug use has gone UP since then. Not much bang for our buck. We really need to rethink how we fight drug abuse. The war on drugs has failed.
pleasureme: How can you call someone stupid? Liberty has the facts on her side. Wouldn't ignorance of the facts make someone seem less intelligent than simply having a different opinion than yours?
Posted on July 11 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our elected representative government has decided that making these kinds of dangerous substances to distribute is illegal, and I support that law. I don't think these are horrible people, but they certainly aren't the kind I want to be around me or mine.
What someone wants to do to themselves isn't really my business, nor the government's. It's a medical problem. But when they start to try to PUSH something that is harmful onto others, that's when they are violating someone ELSE'S rights, and I can't agree with that.
I feel bad for these folks, and hope they get help. But I really can't find myself defending them.
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on November 14 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hisel is right that you can't give something to someone without taking it from someone else, but the someone else we're taking it from is our CHILDREN. You don't just pay off 12 trillion dollars in a few years.
Federal Reserve is out of control. When asked, point blank, to tell congress where the money from the bailouts went, FED chairman Ben Bernanke said, and I quote, "NO."
If our economy even survives this nonsense, it will be generations before the country recovers from our current reckless behavior. You simply can't create trillions of dollars without seriously damaging the value of our currency.
And yes, Glen Beck is a parrot. He saw a huge grass-roots movement raising millions in the name of conservative values and saw dollar signs.
On Don’t take from someone to give to another