Currently: 89° | Complete forecast | Log in
Letter to the editor:
Saturday, April 28, 2012 | 2:03 a.m.
I wonder why the National Rifle Association, the self-proclaimed defender of the Second Amendment, never mentions the complete amendment? The organization focuses on the right to keep and bear arms, but “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...” is never part of its rhetoric.
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Simple. It's not relevant/germane to the issue and/or discussion.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Well, Mr. Peele, it is apparent in your letter to the editor, you did not appropriately do your homework. While on the surface, to liberals, such as judicial nominee, Elissa Cadish, you both fail to cite clarification of the Second Amendment by the Pennsylvania Constitution that reads, ""The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state."
Again this is an attempt by Democrats to take guns away from citizens.
If you want to have the right to own guns then vote Republican.
It is shocking to see that many people are clueless on how the Bill of Rights came about and what is for.
It was to limit the power of Federal government and to give explicit rights to the people.
You get that last part.....RIGHTS TO PEOPLE.
Hence in bright bold neon words the 2nd admenment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
It did say "the right of the states to keep and bear Arms".
It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
But Democrats are soooooooo determine to take this right away.
Vote Republican if you a gun owner.
The question to ask is why do Democrats want the Federal government to grow in power and take away our rights
The real question here is why we can't ignore those who want Americans to have no rights to own a firearm and those who want no restriction on what can be owned and no registration requirements.
As usual, although there is a sane middle ground, we Americans refuse to find it.
Michael
You talk of these people who want no restriction.
Can you name or cite any of them?
We don't want harsh restrictions on the right to own guns no more than we want harsh restrictions on the freedom of speech.
In both cases, there are obvious restrictions that need to be applied.
Forbidding gun ownership in cities like Chicago is wrong.
SgtRock - "Again this is an attempt by Democrats to take guns away from citizens."
That's odd. I've had weapons for many years and still do. Are you sure they want to take our guns?
SgtRock,
I'll point to the people and groups that oppose anything that deals with gun show gun purchases and registration issues. The people and groups that fight any restriction on the types of weapons and ammo that can be purchased or the amounts.
The zealots on both sides keep us from any useful compromise. You may not be a zealot, but they are out there.
Michael
Vernos,
Of course there are people and politicians who want to take all guns away from every American. Yes, there are! And there are Americans and politicians who want zero restrictions on weapon and ammo ownership and possession. Yes, there are!
These are the people and groups that need to be ignored so we can reach a compromise.
Michael
Michael,
Much of the " They will take your guns" rhetoric is nothing more than fear mongering BS that is aligned with Obama being a foreign Muslim alien. The is the way the right attacks. Conjure up some nonexistent demon to have people running around with their hair on fire. That loser Ted Nugent didn't make those comments on his own, like others the far right propanganda is confusing reality with fact.
"The organization focuses on the right to keep and bear arms, but "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..." is never part of its rhetoric."
Peele -- ye gods, here we go again. You are obviously ignorant the U.S. Supremes have taken 300+ pages since 2008 to thoroughly cover this part of the Bill of Rights. Educate yourself @ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p... and http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09p...
You all continue to ignore our state's Declaration of Rights which is far more relevant to us. Dig in @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst...
"...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 64) (2008)
Sgt Rock.I agree that we have some politicians who do want all guns removed from individual
ownership. But to say that the Democrats as a whole want to take guns away from all, is simply not true.With 3 0ut of 10 Americans (90 million people) who own guns that would be a task that would be impossible for the government to do. Gun registration now that is something that might be on the minds of all politicians.
"Much of the " They will take your guns" rhetoric is nothing more than fear mongering BS"
Do you live in la-la land?
There are many cities in the US where gun ownership is banned and they all are controlled by Democrats.
If Obama and the Democrats really believed it is aright then they should put pressure on their pals to stop that nonsense.
Obviously, Democrats have low regard for gun rights.
A million gunshot victims killed over the last few decades. Glad they put that one in the constitution.
The Japanese, Germans, Koreans and Vietnamese couldn't slaughter that many Americans.
NRA...another big money lobbying group run by Americans for Americans.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
The NRA uses the above as an argument FOR gun ownership. He fails to mention that guns will be used in most of the crimes mentioned.
Mr. Peele, please check with the U.S. Supreme Court. We have the right. Period.
We definitely have the right. It's paying for the 140,000 gunshot wounds a year that's causing the problem.
"Screw the guns, it's the people stupid"
"Books have been written and, historically, the militia issues has been put to rest years ago."
acejoker -- actually the CITIZEN militia is at the heart of this part of the Second Amendment. The McDonald case covered that. Your new government "disarm the citizens" is an excellent point. Castro did that when he took over Cuba, etc., etc. It's been happening here for quite some time. Seems government is scared of a citizenry with the means in hand to fight back.
"Because there is no comparison whatsoever between an armed and a disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants." -- Niccolo Machiavelli 1513 "The Prince" Chapter IV
Antigun nutcases, guns don't kill people let alone load, pick-up, point, aim, and pull the trigger, people do.
Take your warped logic and use it elsewhere. Americans won't allow our guns to be taken away knowing what liberals are dong to America and one day, though it won't be in my life span, but eventually Americans will rise up against the liberal agenda and use their guns to fend off the degenerate social engineering liberals are creating.
I'm not anti-gun nor am I pro-gun. I don't own a gun, I did enough shooting at people from when I was In the Army, and don't plan to no matter what the situation.
As far as the 2d Amend. goes I did a term paper on that subject in college. When you get to the crux of the purpose of this amendment you have to know what our founding father's were thinking at the time. Part of that discussion was that this country was just out of the Revolutionary War, We had no police, nor formal Armies. So to protect ouselves from foriegn invaders we were given the right to bear arms. In todays society we shouldn't need to bear arms as we have a professional poloce force and a professional army to keep us safe. I feel that given that set of circumstances the 2d Amend needs to be updated to recognize todays needs.
Tim....the anti-gun nutcases aren't the ones shooting 140,000 people a year at a cost of billions.
I have been involved in several shootings. It is not as much fun as you fools think is is.
Injuries, lawsuits, stress like you can't believe. The gift that keeps on giving.
"A million gunshot victims killed over the last few decades. Glad they put that one in the constitution."
There are over 1 million abortions each year in the USA.
All this dandy about the 2nd admen does not give the right to bear arms to people even though it clearly says so in plan English yet please tell me where it says the right to have an abortion. The Court had to do backflips and create new law out thin air and whole cloth to come up with that one.
Anywho, the Court has rule on both items and what they say is the the law of land now.
Ernie...absolutely correct. The founding fathers could never have anticipated that Americans would use the second amendment to slaughter each other by the millions.
The country was weak and the concern was foreign invasion. Not allowing some crackhead to get high and murder his entire family.
The bigger problem is that the NRA sees no limit to the second amendment. I would like to ask where the NRA Forever crowd thinks the weapon type limit should be set: a) where it is now? b)automatic weapons? c) RPG's? d) hand grenades? e) machine guns? f) Vulcan (Gattling) guns? g) anti-aircraft guns?
Abortion isn't a crime and has nothing to do with gun violence. Soon some fool will bring up car crashes. Happens every time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Culp...
Connie Culp....the face of guns in America.
If one thinks about how Jefferson felt about revolutions and the need thereof one can easily see that he didn't intend to have any limits on the Second Amendment.
"So to protect ouselves from foriegn invaders we were given the right to bear arms. In todays society we shouldn't need to bear arms as we have a professional poloce force and a professional army to keep us safe."
ernieb1202 -- no, the Second Amendment like the entire Bill of Rights didn't give any of us anything new. It protects our liberties and freedoms already in place for centuries before that. Heller clarified that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right, and that right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions." All explained in those Heller and McDonald links posted above.
And having "a professional poloce [sic] force and a professional army to keep us safe" are even more reasons for respecting those liberties, particularly when they come under the control of tyrants.
"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." -- President Harry Truman
I want guns for everyone. Enough guns so when the Next George Zimmerman is calling 911 he will wait for the police to respond.
"The bigger problem is that the NRA sees no limit to the second amendment"
Please provide one link to support this lie.
"I want guns for everyone. Enough guns so when the Next George Zimmerman is calling 911 he will wait for the police to respond."
Facts always get in the way of fiction.
"Zimmerman bought his gun to ward off dogs
Zimmerman received firearms training and bought a gun in 2009, after a police officer said it would be the best way to deal with a pit bull that was menacing the community. Zimmerman later brought the gun with him on his patrols around Retreat at Twin Lakes, a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines, but not a crime."
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
Are you saying Zimmerman thought Trayvon -- a 6' 4" teenager was a dog you are crazier than I thought.
Why do people who apparently love the Bill of Rights always shun or give lip service to the 2nd Amendment?
It's 2nd for a reason. The reasons our founding fathers had then still apply now. Are the police able to respond instantly to a call if you have home invaders? It takes mere minutes for something bad to happen before the police show up.
Also, what is the plan to get all the guns out there in America? Does someone have a magic wand that can magically make them go away? Because that's what it would take. Who are you going to send to take the guns away too? The police? What cop wants to sign up for that duty? Not one I know.
Educating the public on guns and their safe handling would help but we can't do that because exposing kids to guns is taboo.
Brian. I think every kid should be issued an AK47 at childbirth with their birth certificate, gun safety should be taught pre kindergarten.
I am as progressive as they come. I am sick of arguing with right wingers, done trying to beat em. Shootin em if they get near me is so much more satisfying.
I won't back down.
Gonna Stand My Ground.
JeffFromVegas states "I think every kid should be issued an AK47 at childbirth with their birth certificate, gun safety should be taught pre kindergarten."
Jeff, you have a bad habit of using extreme cases/thoughts when you lose the debate. Face it, liberals tried to ban circumcision last year in San Fransisco and failed. Liberals are control freaks who want to make decisions for all Americans and that will not happen. From guns, to Happy Meals, to circumcision. Amazing.
RefNV
I am dead serious. No bluster in any of it. The ONLY way to get rid of your sides intimidation tactics is to arm every red blooded American. The only thing that makes you guys, in your numerical minority at all feared is that you are all crazy. We will have to, temporarily out-crazy you.
The occupy movement was the peaceful start of this. We saw the difference between the way the police protected the retarded TeaBaggers, and attacked the peaceful occupiers...
We will defeat you.
Then we will return to normalcy.
JeffFRomVegas,
A gun is for protecting oneself, nothing more. I guess you would prefer Americans to be sitting ducks while you liberals continue to allow good and bad to cross our borders freely. What a shame.
RefNV:
Once again, I am for guns. I just like an even playing field. retardlicans count on the dems/libs/progressives to be peace-nics and it is what allows you to be relatively uninformed and decidedly less intelligent but you intimidate with your guns and macho posturing.
If you guys see a long haired guy, a young black kid, or a young mother when we are 90% armed you will be more polite. I don't need to be more polite, I already am.
It is the same logic as the countries with nuclear power, once they get the bomb, everyone respects them and doesn't spit in their face, like Israel.
Capiche?
We are the number one proponents of giving life without parole to employers of illegals. To go one by one with the employers is a republican scheme that has gotten us where we are now. Choke off the paycheck, see if these workers are necessary, if they are, give em a place to call home and give em a gun to keep you off their backs.
Correction: "To go one by one with the employers is a republican scheme that has gotten us where we are now. "
Employers should read "EMPLOYEES"
Apologies to all.
JeffFromVegas,
I appreciate you sharing your liberal views. :)
RefNV:
I ain't no librul. A'm a 'Merican that's sick of the danged rednecks in this here country messin it all up.
JeffFromVegas,
You know, Archie Bunker had a similar gun control approach as you. Give everyone guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54G...
RefNV:
That's the first thing you've posted that is funny.
Here's my favorite Gun Control Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFe72VvKB...
When I read the comments posted about the Democrats trying to take guns away from America's population, I think we're taking about an alternate reality. I've spent the day canvasing homes and registering voters in the north east and getting ready for the George Lopez event at Rancho HS Sunday,3:30 pm, very much Democratic party activities, and did plan to go shooting tomorrow morning. That was until I couldn't find my favorite ammo in stock, a pity. I've found many of my fellow volunteers enjoy a trip out in our beautiful state and enjoy responsible shooting, one notable shooter being Senator Reid.
Of course some are dead set against guns, and make valid points on how dangerous guns can be. And almost everyone of them aren't from Nevada. I think anyone well versed in the western culture understands the role gun ownership plays, in our family gun safety and shooting skills were taught at an early age. But the correct moral course in using them was well covered too. All skills that served to benefit our country when I was in the military.
The point here is this: if your try to lump everyone together who may disagree with you as a liberal, communist, socialist or whatever into a cohesive monolithic group your wrong! If you are as Gov. Rommny calls himself severely conservative you are not the numerical majority of the nation. Most disagree with your positions, yet most, even Democrats, support and enjoy gun ownership, especially in Nevada. Maybe this is why the Democrats are the big tent, the Republicans now are the small tent.
"Maybe this is why the Democrats are the big tent, the Republicans now are the small tent."
I wonder why Obama then is not even attempting to pull in independents. Could it be he went too far left? Liberals don't like the fact that Americans are asking the right questions. Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago? $15.6 trillion national debt now compared to $10 trillion. 58.5% of Americans employed versus 63% pre-recession, 12 to 14 million Americans out of work compared to four years ago. Is Obama's anti-business, anti-religion, anti-bank, anti-big oil, anti-wealthy, anti-military/guns and anti-state rights approach dividing us? Does it represent us as Americans, to be dividers as opposed to uniters? Has Obama and the Occupiers anti-business rhetoric gone too far? Can Obama/occupiers get you a job or do businesses hire? Can Obama, an Occupier or a liberal get you a job by redistributing our tax dollars to government managed by a congress with a 14% approval rating? Did the $867 billion dollar stimulus make you better off personally? Will conservative, center-right consumers with means continue to hold onto their money until they see better management of our nations finances? With 12 to 14 million Americans out of work and with over half the college graduates not being able to secure a job in their chosen degree, can we really afford four more years of economic despair? Will Americans further rein in spending when they see our economic demise continue with no hope in sight? I think Americans will vote for a better, more prosperous America than what we've seen these last four years. Americans are tired of not having money, not having a job and they're tired of the excuses.
"Carmine:
Are you saying Zimmerman thought Trayvon -- a 6' 4" teenager was a dog you are crazier than I thought."
"I want guns for everyone. Enough guns so when the Next George Zimmerman is calling 911 he will wait for the police to respond."
I excerpted and posted to you the facts for Zimmerman having a gun [I quoted you again above]. The facts are Zimmerman was authorized to carry a gun by the local police, and was trained in its use. Why? So he could ward off a pit bull attacking the people in the community that he served as a watch. BTW, carrying a gun for this express purpose, while it was against the neighborhood watch guidelines, is not a crime.
I did so to set the record straight with the facts rather than opinion based on fiction.
Carmine A. DiFazio
BTW, I don't know what Zimmerman was thinking. Ask him. I'm sure he will be asked and then hopefully you'll know and we all will.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"....you are crazier than I thought."
Having read your posts here on this thead, I opine you are in no position to judge others in this regard.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
If Rick (Man on Dog) Santorum were to ever become your parties nominee for President, I hope he picks George Zimmerman (Fearful Dog Shooter wannabee) as his veep.
Your story, even if 100% true does not make Zimmerman a good guy. He still killed a kid walking home from a 7-11 who was lawfully, legally (he wore a hood--ooooooooooooohh!!) obtaining a bag of skittles and an Iced Tea. No amount of any of your constant nagging and whining can change the real facts. He is a killer.
Dwayne--Great comments.
They were responsible, caring, reasonable, and had a tone of civility.
That is why RefNV's head exploded. He or she can't handle calm, intelligent conversation. Don't mind him or her, they must of kicked him or her off the Las Vegas Review Journal commenting sections -- why else would he or she hang out here?
This is a progressive newspaper, it is why I read it. I don't like anyone that hates my gun loving Senator, Harry Reid, like the Review Journal does.
At the age of eight dad sawed-off the stock on a single barrel 20 gauge so I could reach the trigger and become his hunting buddy -- at thirteen dad made be a life member of the NRA -- throughout my life experience, much like an automobile seatbelt (which dad had to install in our vehicles because seatbelts weren't provided features), firearms have become a necessity of survival, as it is best to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it -- such are the realities of survival -- those who seek to "infringe" upon the means which assist our survival by default become targeted threats of our survival while their rhetoric reveals not only an ignorance of history but an inability to grasp reality.
Disarming a nation's individuals makes its citizenry vulnerable to surviving foreign as well as domestic threats -- speaking of domestic threats, where's the amendment which prevents governments from stealing the earnings of its citizenry to assure their enslavement to treasonous debt?
BTW: The interest (service) on the national debt is currently costing Americans $1.16 BILLION daily - such is America's reality?
: {
"He [Zimmerman] is a killer."
Whether or not he is, the trial, not you, will determine.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Sorry pal, he may be killer who is not able to be convicted because the eye witness he killed is dead, but there is nothing wrong with calling a killer a killer.
One would defer honor and respect to a combat veteran who has had to kill while in the service, that respect will never be afforded to a man who killed a kid getting skittles and iced tea and did not bother anyone. If the teenager Trayvon had been old enough to have had a gun at least he'd have had a chance against the cop wannabee Zimmerman.
Zimmerman killed a kid who had no rights to lethally defend himself, the coward.
"Sorry pal, he may be killer who is not able to be convicted because the eye witness he killed is dead.."
Trial by his peers will judge his guilt and/or innocence. Not your opinion which is based on not having the facts.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine, the Police told him to stand down, he ignored the police -- said "These a@@holes always get away with this @@it and a few minutes later he became Judge, Jury and Executioner of a teenage boy.
Do you ever tell the whole truth or always this little sliver of it that semi-supports your case?
"...the coward [Zimmerman].
I don't know him personally. Coward is not a word I would use about another without having all the facts necessary to make that judgement. Why?
Zimmerman was a volunteer, no compensation, who provided a service of time and effort of community watch. For whatever reasons, others didn't/wouldn't, for the common good of their community. He did.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Do you ever tell the whole truth or always this little sliver of it that semi-supports your case?"
This thread is not about me. It's about the right to bear arms. Stay on topic.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine - If you're going to nitpick, then go all the way. Zimmerman IS a killer. The trial will determine if he's a criminal or not. But, since there is no dispute of fact as to whether he killed Trayvon Martin, he is, in fact, a killer.
You say he "provided a service ... for the common good of their community." You'll need to explain how shooting and killing Trayvon Martin was a service to the community.
Jim the Joker:
I'll take Harry Reid over Mitch McConnell all day and all night. That Kentucky hillbilly has done 10 x the damage Harry has ever thought of.
"You'll need to explain how shooting and killing Trayvon Martin was a service to the community."
Those are your words not mine. I said he [Zimmerman] was performing a common good by being a watchman for the community on his own time and expense. He was an unpaid volunteer, risking his own life and limb in the service of others in his community.
Like him or not, Zimmerman is guaranteed by the US Constitution to a fair trial by a jury of his peers based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine the give any gun nut any excuse you can dream of said:
"Those are your words not mine. I said he [Zimmerman] was performing a common good by being a watchman for the community on his own time and expense. He was an unpaid volunteer, risking his own life and limb in the service of others in his community."
I am sure glad Zimmerman wasn't chasing the paper boy, he may have thought the newsboy was throwing bombs. Guess it is better he offed a 17 year old than a 10 year old...
Carmine the give any gun nut any excuse you can dream of said:
"Like him or not, Zimmerman is guaranteed by the US Constitution to a fair trial by a jury of his peers based on the facts and circumstances of the case."
No one is saying otherwise ya goofball. It just took you a REAL long time to realize he needed to be tried at all.
This is the case all you old white guys are hangin your hats on to get even with the O.J. verdict. He may be found not guilty, but he will always be a cold hearted killer to me, no matter what any jury says.
Jim the Joker said:
"Since you can't name one stupidity that Senator McConnell has committed I will accept your silly response as just more hot air."
I say:
Well, Mitch did just win an award:
12 APR 2012
Mitch McConnell wins 2011 Anti-Humanitarian Award from the Josef Mengele Institute
In the closest race since the first winner was announced in 1963 (Albert Desalvo, the Boston Strangler), Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator from Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader, narrowly beat out the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) to win the 2011 Anti-Humanitarian Award, given annually by the Josef Mengele Institute to the "person or organization that does the most harm to humanity".
Why was the competition for the 2011 award so fierce?
"This was not an easy choice", said Fritz Zyklon, director of the Institute, based in Buchenwald, Germany. "It's was difficult to bypass TEPCO, given the destruction they brought to their fellow countrymen. The number of people they will kill over the next 100 years with the cancers they have unleashed shows inhumanity at its' finest. However, in the end, we had to base the award on intent. Were these executives from TEPCO the type of calculating murderers that embodied the true ideals of Dr. Mengele, or were they merely clueless bureaucrats who were a bunch of idiots? Our research proved the later."
"As a side note, we are particularly concerned about what has happened to the Japanese," said Herman Dachau, Associate Director of the Institute. "Their forefathers were capable of sneaking up on and destroying half of the US 7th Fleet, while these dolts can't figure out how to connect a garden hose".
"Getting back to our winner, Senator McConnell. His decision to derail all legislation in the US Congress from 2009 to the present was a most dastardly act that caused immeasurable harm to the US population. And to be able to blame it all on Obama, well, now that is a low-down, conniving, blood-thirsty politician at his worst. I know that Dr. Mengele is smiling up from Hell at this year's selection."
"I'd like to thank the Institute for this honor and gorgeous statue", said McConnell. "When I said in 2008 that my goal was to make Obama a 1-term President, I knew it would give me the power to screw countless poor and disenfranchised Americans. I am glad I am being rewarded for my conniving".
"but he [Zimmerman] will always be a cold hearted killer to me, no matter what any jury says."
At a minimum, this statement indicates a rush to judgment. Worse, it indicates you are closed and narrow minded. Even worst, apparently you know the evil of this mindset and don't care. Hence, the reason that the Constitution guarantees all, not just the people we like, a fair and unbiased trial by a jury of peers. Even when it's made difficult, if not impossible, by people who think like you.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
If I was on his jury, and there was no clear cut evidence, because he killed the evidence, I would be forced to vote not guilty.
I understand the system. The system also allows me, when I have the 911 calls, Mr Zimmerman's 911 call history, and a dead teenager to make a decision based upon those facts. He chose this course of action, He gets to own his results.
You're the problem here, allowing kids killers to go free, you fought like hell to keep Zimmerman from even being charged, hypocrite. Now you want to get all self righteous again? Hypocrite.
Just because he may wiggle out of jail doesn't make him innocent. I hope the prosecutors include the lessor charge of manslaughter too, to reduce his odds of walking away Scot free.
"You're the problem here..."
Really. I haven't made a rush to judgment on the case without knowing all the facts. You have.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Now you want to get all self righteous again? Hypocrite."
Sounds just like you here: A self-righteous hypocrite. You refuse to allow the justice system to take its course before passing judgment and state regardless of the verdict in the case you know better than the jury. One person who thinks like you is one too many. With people who think like you, our justice system would rival those of the third world nations.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Jim the Joker and Carmine:
I was going to give this weeks dumb as a box of rocks to the 2 of you (a tie), but it looks like the award goes to Ed Gillespie, Sorry :(
Like John McCain last week, former Bush aide and current Romney adviser Ed Gillespie is hopping mad that the Obama campaign dared to remind voters that the president was right and Mitt Romney was wrong about Osama bin Laden:
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Gillespie was asked for his reaction to a video clip in which Vice President Joe Biden last week told a campaign audience "Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. You have to ask yourself: If Gov. Romney had been president, could you have used the same slogan in reverse?"
Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman, responded: "This is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event for all Americans -- an event that Gov. Romney congratulated him and the military and the intelligence analysts in our government for completing the mission in terms of killing Osama bin Laden -- and he's managed to turn it into a divisive partisan political attack."
There's really nothing in the world that's easier than rebutting this argument. Republicans milked the horror of 9/11 for everything it was worth, not just to win at the ballot box, but also to justify an entirely unrelated war. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is claiming credit for having brought the guy behind the 9/11 attacks to justice--and pointing to the entirely accurate fact that Mitt Romney severely disagreed with the strategy that brought it about. And unlike Republicans, the Obama campaign isn't turning this into an issue of patriotism, which actually does divide the country: they've raised this as a matter of policy.
But maybe the best response to the howls of outrage from Republicans about "politicizing 9/11" comes from Mitt Romney himself:
Rudy Giuliani will appear at an event with Mitt Romney on Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the assault on Osama bin Laden, a campaign aide confirmed to CNN.
Yeah, Mitt Romney is so desperately against politicizing 9/11 ... that he's going to mark the anniversary of bin Laden's death by campaigning alongside Rudy 911iani.
Gillespie declined the award saying it rightly belongs to the giver: You. I second his motion. And we agreed that your inability to stay on topic, after a few posts, makes you the unanimous winner.
Carmine A. DiFazio