1. Comment by Evel K. (EvilMike)— February 12,2009 @ 6:09AM
Ratings:-6+10
Happy Birthday Mr Lincoln!
This country will forever be beholding to you sir, we owe you our very existence. When we needed a man like you most, someone willing to put the good of the nation above all else, at whatever the cost, you were delivered to us. Maybe someday, as a nation we'll come to our senses restore this day to the place of honor it deserves.
2. Comment by joel t. (harperman)— February 12,2009 @ 6:32AM
Ratings:-19+10
The stimulus bill has worked well as a decoy to turn the American people away from the real danger to our freedom:
FW: OBAMA REGIME ALREADY GOING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS!
Here they come, ready or not. Feel the water getting warmer?
Are you ready for the House Bill titled 'HR 45, Blair Holt Licensing and Record Act of 2009'. It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental and physical health
records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and any ownership changes even if a private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Will we the citizenry be as lucky this time?
Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking
guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place. One last item to note, when assuming power and creating a facist state, Hitler was a proponent of strong gun laws because a disarmed populace was much easier to control than an armed one. The kings of old also outlawed weapons of any kind in any region that they conquered to quell the ability of the citizens to uprise against them.
The Founding Fathers of this nation understood all of the above and because of this they included the second amendment in the constitution. In fact, they knew that at some point in every society's life span that the need for the population to arise came about. To this end they made the right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical state an absolute right that could not be revoked.
They did this because the first thing tyrants and despots do is to remove a population's right to defend themselves When this is done, the tyrants have no problem with the destruction of society as we know it.
Send this on to all true patriots! Protect your Second Amendment!
The following is a summary of the bill as provided by the Congressional Research Service. If you read the whole bill, you'll find it will effectively preclude the ownership of ANY firearms by law-abiding people unless licensed by the Attorney General. How long do you think THAT would take??
Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
3. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— February 12,2009 @ 7:14AM
Ratings:-0+7
re: Political parties are naturally partisan
We the people would not be so much subjected to this if we had instant runoff elections at all levels. That would give third parties and independents a chance to get us around the partisanship debacles.
4. Comment by Fulano D. (Fulano De Tal)— February 12,2009 @ 7:59AM
Ratings:-3+13
Bill Minor, you do not fully understand the photo radar issue. You see, it is the government that first stopped playing by the rules. Private companies are paid to convict you. They install and calibrate the photo radar devices, and they receive a commission for every conviction. In other words, they receive a financial incentive to cheat. (Not to mention the fact that there are constitutional issues with sharing fines with private entities.) Also remember that it took nearly 1000 citizens to convince a judge that they had not received proper service of process. Nobody would believe them until their numbers grew that large. They were presumed guilty, many of them losing their license.
Yes, speeders are dangerous. But are they only catching speeders? We can't know because we cannot trust the devices. The devices themselves are dangerous. How is it that they are there for our safety when they temporarily blind drivers with bright flashing lights?
Bill, when you get a speeding ticket (whether you were actually speeding or not), you will have no defense. That is not fair, and it is not right. The photo radar has to go.
5. Comment by Becky C. (bcorran)— February 12,2009 @ 8:07AM
Ratings:-1+14
Did anyone notice that all but one of the letters come from retired folks?
It seems that working people are too busy in this crazy, terrible economy to read and comment on the paper anymore. Which is rather sad, both for the newspaper and for the folks who likely don't have time to keep informed. Hopefully my fellow workers are getting the news somewhere! (Or perhaps they are just too downtrodden to write in right now?)
6. Comment by Fulano D. (Fulano De Tal)— February 12,2009 @ 8:09AM
Ratings:-2+12
Oh, that's not all that's wrong with photo radar. The vendors operated them illegally (with no FCC license) but DPS thought that was no big deal. Also, the way they are used is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because the devices give tickets to you and me, but not to people from out-of-state, and not to drivers in government vehicles or corporate-owned vehicles. At least one Arizona judge has already ruled that they are unconstitutional.
What else? Well the use of photo radar on our highways has been put to a vote and Arizonans voted no, but the government put them up anyway.
Also, we do not catch drivers with warrants out for their arrest, we don't stop drunk drivers (the real killers on the road), we don't find illegal drugs or illegal weapons or illegal aliens, all because there are no stops being made.
8. Comment by Mack H. (mackhitch)— February 12,2009 @ 8:30AM
Ratings:-6+10
True, the retired do have more time to read and respond, but they have always been readers. The young and middle aged do not read. They view only television and that only leads and entertains. The only questions it asks are those it will answer after the commercial.
9. Comment by Glenn M. (GLM)— February 12,2009 @ 8:36AM
Ratings:-8+8
Evil, you really need an education. Abe was not the man the American myth has turned him into. He was a racist, and held the belief that the negro was not as evolved as whites. Read the Emancapation Proclamation you will see that he freed no slaves held in Northern states. He imprisioned the entire Maryland legislature, and had the military close privately owned newspapers that published articals against him. He also was told by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that his military actions against the Southern states were unconstutitional, his responce: "Would you care to join your friends from Maryland?" (they were in federal prision in DC) All the facts listed above are easy to locate.
10. Comment by David W. (D4liberty)— February 12,2009 @ 9:21AM
Ratings:-11+6
Nobody commented on the insanity of trickle up economics?
Tax cuts are not only for the rich. It's just that when the rich make so much money and pay less taxes, their savings are much bigger.
How are jobs created and how can people possibly get more money to spend how they see fit, WITHOUT tax cuts? Anyone?
Trickle up is called socialism ... Never worked anywhere it's been tried, at any time. Including FDR's New Deal. He was Obama before Obama. You'd think a Harvard law grad would have studied American history PRIOR to his birth. Guess the Harvard history books didn't go back that far.
11. Comment by Jack M. (jmcdtucson)— February 12,2009 @ 11:12AM
Ratings:-3+3
Two real laughers today:
"When I lived in Navajo Hall, there was no alcohol, drugs, partying or loud noises"
Yes, a lot has changed since 1899 Mr. Pall.
"I'm beginning to think the funding is cut to continue the marginalization of minorities"
I didn't know that the funding cuts specified which color skin received the funds. Or is Mr. Kapp implying that being non-white makes you poor and dependent on government funds? That sounds like a rather racist statement.
12. Comment by John F. (John Flanagan)— February 12,2009 @ 12:48PM
Ratings:-7+1
Better to be partisan and up front so the votes know where you stand. Republicans tend to be more up front. The Demcrats tend to try to deceive and spin their true positions on some issues because they are the party that closely resembles the Bolsheviks and tends to be moving in the direction of socialist communists. The Democratic Party's vision for America includes destruction of traditional marriage, continuation and expansion of infanticide(abortion for convenience and including late term), a socialist government dictatorial in nature, hate crimes legislation to halt free speech opposition to same sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle, rigorous control of conservative free speech opposition to the liberal worldview (this will be enacted as soon as possible, as the libs never liked free speech and consider Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity a threat in exposing liberal lies and schemes)......so call me partisan and that I am.
13. Comment by Evel K. (EvilMike)— February 12,2009 @ 5:12PM
Ratings:-4+1
Get off your high mule Glenn M. How in the world could you possibly know what "myth" I see Lincoln in? He was a great man in my eyes because he broke the south and held the union in one piece. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary people, often times people willing to risk everything for a greater good. To that end, what have you done lately Glenn?
If you don't view Lincoln as being as racially enlightened as you'd have had him be, that's your gripe and you're welcome to it but I can't help but wonder how history would judge your views on the cultural issues of the day some 150 years down the road. Of course we'll never know. No one will. History's judgements are reserved for its players, not the armchair quarterbacks.
I amy need an education but you need a little dose of perspective. Not just on history but in where little nit-pickers tend to fit in it.
14. Comment by Steve G. (sgodwin)— February 12,2009 @ 7:34PM
Ratings:-1+4
Glenn, you have a few facts, but you need to put them in context.
Yes, Lincoln closed newspapers and suspended habeas corpus and did a number of things that would normally be considered unconstitutional, except for the fact that there was a war tearing apart the country and he was acting within his rights as a war-time president.
His views on blacks changed over the years -- at the end of his life, he was promoting black suffrage.
You can't take his actions out of context and claim that he was a racist. Promoting equal rights for blacks in any way at that time was highly controversial. If he'd moved faster, he'd have lost all support for his plans. An example is the Emancipation Proclamation -- if he'd included all states, he would surely have lost the remaining border states to the Confederacy.
We've added a feature to the comments pages - the ability to easily add paragraph breaks, boldface type and a few other typographical aids to your comments. Launch toolbar
Use single or double carriage returns to put line breaks or paragraph breaks in your comments.
At the same time, we removed the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.
We've added a story to the site that includes a few tips to resolve common problems. You can use the comment thread attached to that story for practice and testing of the markup tools: Go to story | Go to the practice thread
General Instructions
Welcome to the story comments section of StarNet. Here are some helpful hints with you:
You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our registration system.
All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.
Comment Reporting
You can report other users' comments that are in violation of the StarNet User Guidelines. Users are limited to three (3) reports per day and are not allowed to report their own comments.
Any comment that has been reported will be moderated by StarNet. The comment will either be approved or rejected. Approval or rejection is based solely on the StarNet User Guidelines. Comments are only able to be reported once and are not viewable while awaiting moderation.
If you are a registered site user and are logged in, you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the comments.
The total votes of approval and disapproval on that comment will be updated when you vote — including your vote and any other votes that have been cast since your browser last loaded this page.
Votes by users who have been banned from commenting don't count in the totals.
User Guidelines
We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
Don't violate other publications' copyrights.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. StarNet reserves the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines policy.
Letters to the editor
3 Southern AZ reps insisted on cutsHappy Birthday Mr Lincoln!
This country will forever be beholding to you sir, we owe you our very existence. When we needed a man like you most, someone willing to put the good of the nation above all else, at whatever the cost, you were delivered to us. Maybe someday, as a nation we'll come to our senses restore this day to the place of honor it deserves.
Happy 200th Abe!
Report this comment
The stimulus bill has worked well as a decoy to turn the American people away from the real danger to our freedom:
FW: OBAMA REGIME ALREADY GOING FOR PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS!
Here they come, ready or not. Feel the water getting warmer?
Are you ready for the House Bill titled 'HR 45, Blair Holt Licensing and Record Act of 2009'. It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental and physical health
records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and any ownership changes even if a private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Will we the citizenry be as lucky this time?
Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking
guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place. One last item to note, when assuming power and creating a facist state, Hitler was a proponent of strong gun laws because a disarmed populace was much easier to control than an armed one. The kings of old also outlawed weapons of any kind in any region that they conquered to quell the ability of the citizens to uprise against them.
The Founding Fathers of this nation understood all of the above and because of this they included the second amendment in the constitution. In fact, they knew that at some point in every society's life span that the need for the population to arise came about. To this end they made the right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical state an absolute right that could not be revoked.
They did this because the first thing tyrants and despots do is to remove a population's right to defend themselves When this is done, the tyrants have no problem with the destruction of society as we know it.
Send this on to all true patriots! Protect your Second Amendment!
The following is a summary of the bill as provided by the Congressional Research Service. If you read the whole bill, you'll find it will effectively preclude the ownership of ANY firearms by law-abiding people unless licensed by the Attorney General. How long do you think THAT would take??
Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
Report this comment
re: Political parties are naturally partisan
We the people would not be so much subjected to this if we had instant runoff elections at all levels. That would give third parties and independents a chance to get us around the partisanship debacles.
Report this comment
Bill Minor, you do not fully understand the photo radar issue. You see, it is the government that first stopped playing by the rules. Private companies are paid to convict you. They install and calibrate the photo radar devices, and they receive a commission for every conviction. In other words, they receive a financial incentive to cheat. (Not to mention the fact that there are constitutional issues with sharing fines with private entities.) Also remember that it took nearly 1000 citizens to convince a judge that they had not received proper service of process. Nobody would believe them until their numbers grew that large. They were presumed guilty, many of them losing their license.
Yes, speeders are dangerous. But are they only catching speeders? We can't know because we cannot trust the devices. The devices themselves are dangerous. How is it that they are there for our safety when they temporarily blind drivers with bright flashing lights?
Bill, when you get a speeding ticket (whether you were actually speeding or not), you will have no defense. That is not fair, and it is not right. The photo radar has to go.
Report this comment
Did anyone notice that all but one of the letters come from retired folks?
It seems that working people are too busy in this crazy, terrible economy to read and comment on the paper anymore. Which is rather sad, both for the newspaper and for the folks who likely don't have time to keep informed. Hopefully my fellow workers are getting the news somewhere! (Or perhaps they are just too downtrodden to write in right now?)
What do you all think?
Report this comment
Oh, that's not all that's wrong with photo radar. The vendors operated them illegally (with no FCC license) but DPS thought that was no big deal. Also, the way they are used is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because the devices give tickets to you and me, but not to people from out-of-state, and not to drivers in government vehicles or corporate-owned vehicles. At least one Arizona judge has already ruled that they are unconstitutional.
What else? Well the use of photo radar on our highways has been put to a vote and Arizonans voted no, but the government put them up anyway.
Also, we do not catch drivers with warrants out for their arrest, we don't stop drunk drivers (the real killers on the road), we don't find illegal drugs or illegal weapons or illegal aliens, all because there are no stops being made.
Report this comment
In Alberta Gunther's examples, would the two rich guys have been able to create as many jobs if they paid higher taxes?
Report this comment
True, the retired do have more time to read and respond, but they have always been readers. The young and middle aged do not read. They view only television and that only leads and entertains. The only questions it asks are those it will answer after the commercial.
Report this comment
Evil, you really need an education. Abe was not the man the American myth has turned him into. He was a racist, and held the belief that the negro was not as evolved as whites. Read the Emancapation Proclamation you will see that he freed no slaves held in Northern states. He imprisioned the entire Maryland legislature, and had the military close privately owned newspapers that published articals against him. He also was told by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that his military actions against the Southern states were unconstutitional, his responce: "Would you care to join your friends from Maryland?" (they were in federal prision in DC) All the facts listed above are easy to locate.
Nobody commented on the insanity of trickle up economics?
Tax cuts are not only for the rich. It's just that when the rich make so much money and pay less taxes, their savings are much bigger.
How are jobs created and how can people possibly get more money to spend how they see fit, WITHOUT tax cuts? Anyone?
Trickle up is called socialism ... Never worked anywhere it's been tried, at any time. Including FDR's New Deal. He was Obama before Obama. You'd think a Harvard law grad would have studied American history PRIOR to his birth. Guess the Harvard history books didn't go back that far.
Report this comment
Two real laughers today:
"When I lived in Navajo Hall, there was no alcohol, drugs, partying or loud noises"
Yes, a lot has changed since 1899 Mr. Pall.
"I'm beginning to think the funding is cut to continue the marginalization of minorities"
I didn't know that the funding cuts specified which color skin received the funds. Or is Mr. Kapp implying that being non-white makes you poor and dependent on government funds? That sounds like a rather racist statement.
Report this comment
Better to be partisan and up front so the votes know where you stand. Republicans tend to be more up front. The Demcrats tend to try to deceive and spin their true positions on some issues because they are the party that closely resembles the Bolsheviks and tends to be moving in the direction of socialist communists. The Democratic Party's vision for America includes destruction of traditional marriage, continuation and expansion of infanticide(abortion for convenience and including late term), a socialist government dictatorial in nature, hate crimes legislation to halt free speech opposition to same sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle, rigorous control of conservative free speech opposition to the liberal worldview (this will be enacted as soon as possible, as the libs never liked free speech and consider Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity a threat in exposing liberal lies and schemes)......so call me partisan and that I am.
Report this comment
Get off your high mule Glenn M. How in the world could you possibly know what "myth" I see Lincoln in? He was a great man in my eyes because he broke the south and held the union in one piece. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary people, often times people willing to risk everything for a greater good. To that end, what have you done lately Glenn?
If you don't view Lincoln as being as racially enlightened as you'd have had him be, that's your gripe and you're welcome to it but I can't help but wonder how history would judge your views on the cultural issues of the day some 150 years down the road. Of course we'll never know. No one will. History's judgements are reserved for its players, not the armchair quarterbacks.
I amy need an education but you need a little dose of perspective. Not just on history but in where little nit-pickers tend to fit in it.
Report this comment
Glenn, you have a few facts, but you need to put them in context.
Yes, Lincoln closed newspapers and suspended habeas corpus and did a number of things that would normally be considered unconstitutional, except for the fact that there was a war tearing apart the country and he was acting within his rights as a war-time president.
His views on blacks changed over the years -- at the end of his life, he was promoting black suffrage.
You can't take his actions out of context and claim that he was a racist. Promoting equal rights for blacks in any way at that time was highly controversial. If he'd moved faster, he'd have lost all support for his plans. An example is the Emancipation Proclamation -- if he'd included all states, he would surely have lost the remaining border states to the Confederacy.
Report this comment
"Man arrested in attempted Tucson home invasion caught on video."
Any comments?
Report this comment