Friday, April 18, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Gun rant

EDITOR:

Mr. Riordan, you go on and on in your diatribe about gun control blaming the unknowing liberals for wanting to confiscate and destroy all guns. I have another opinion on this subject. All the recent articles I have read on this all refer to assault rifles and oversize magazine clips.

To some extent your definition of gun control is correct but in my opinion assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket launchers, are not authorized by the Second Amendment.

Why don’t you move to Oakland or East LA and strut down the street with your AK 47?

By the way I am a 20-year retired NCO and own several hand guns.

PAUL BADO
Rescue

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 121 comments

  • Chuck HollandDecember 27, 2012 - 9:21 pm

    Mr. Riordan's "diatribe" is on base in my opinion. With the possible exception of a "rocket launcher" both machine guns and assault riffles ARE protected under the 2nd Amendment. Rocket launchers are prohibited under the National Firearms Act.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Wilfred MonahanDecember 28, 2012 - 9:33 am

    Mr. Holland, would you please explain how the "National Firearms Act" is not unconstitutional? Machine guns are illegal also, but you just stated that you think you have the right to have one. By your logic, rocket launchers, grenades, and land mines are your constitutional right also.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rob JacksonDecember 28, 2012 - 9:44 am

    The second amendment does not say little guns, big guns, machine guns, assault rifles, or land mines. The right is absolute and unlimited. I can't wait to get my nuke. Then lets see those kids trample my flowers!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Alan ManderDecember 28, 2012 - 10:54 am

    Repeal all gun regulations! They are unconstitutional! Repeal the National Firearms Act! Support the NRA! The government is coming to take away our rights!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • arnold langeDecember 29, 2012 - 8:51 pm

    the second ammendment was written at the time of the muscat. ask anyone who has used one and he will tell you the reload time for one ball is upward to 2 minutes. personally i prefer my grenade launcher but am saving up for a SAM(just in case our government starts carpet bombing apple hill}. added: if you think OUR government is your enemy, you have a serious problem.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureDecember 30, 2012 - 12:14 pm

    Mr. Lange, OUR government has given itself the authority through the NDAA to imprison indefinitely without trial anyone it wishes. It also is in the business of killing civilians in other countries (some of whom are Americans) through seemingly anonymous drone strikes-and these same drones now fly over US soil. And then, of course, there's Fast & Furious...With all this in mind, to quote your last sentence with a modification "if you **DON'T** think OUR government is your **potential** enemy, you have a serious problem". The Peace Prize Prez is a murdering bastard.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MarineDecember 30, 2012 - 11:10 pm

    I agree Paul,"assault rifles, machine guns, and rocket launchers, are not authorized by the Second Amendment. S/F

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJanuary 02, 2013 - 4:38 am

    As usually, CowPaddy has nothing of value to add... The Peace Prize Prez is a murdering bastard.? Really? More people (US and Overseas) have died under under Bush. Lets get some body counts and stop the BS. CowPaddy is full of it...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 04, 2013 - 8:50 am

    3,000 US troops secretly return to Iraq via Kuwait; ... Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports. ... According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province. ... Reports say the troops include US Army officers and almost 17,000 more are set to secretly return to Iraq via the same route. ... All US troops left Iraq by the end of 2011, after nine years of occupation, as required by a 2008 bilateral security agreement between the two countries. The troops left Iraq for the neighboring Kuwait. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 9:06 am

    Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was "worth it" (May 12, 1996, 60 Minutes) - HERE.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • InternistJanuary 04, 2013 - 9:28 am

    Interesting how the right wing flamers cannot address the issue at hand but instead try to deflect into a debate about which party's president is more bloodthirsty.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 9:58 am

    People, the real issue here is 'we the people' of the 21st century are trying to adhere to the Constitution, a document written over 200 years ago by a small group of self serving men, creating a new country with vastly different challenges and directions than the one of today. It is crazy that we still speak in hushed tones and mindless reverence of this document. It needs an overhaul. Much of the Constitution should be left intact (preamble) but much needs to be completely scrapped.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:11 am

    chrispytahoe, which parts of the Constitution do you recommend scrapping?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:19 am

    Oh Gosh...most of it. Too much to detail in a blog. I would look at the pretext and preamble and let the states interpret and construct individual amendments. The founding fathers had 13 small colonies to govern, all in the same geopolitical and geographic area. Things are much different today. It is almost comical that we try to interpret this document and apply it to today’s world. Even constitutional scholars get flustered trying to do this.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:26 am

    Identify some suggested ethical and legal principles that you would like to see put in place, chrispy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Above (9:06) I referenced Madeline Albright’s expendable 500,000 dead Iraqi children. That was a 1996 figure about sanctions (primarily during George HW Bush’s term) leveled against Iraq. The continuing overseas WAR AGAINST CHILDREN is never reported, never lamented. If one single person has the courage to look at THESE photos of Iraqi babies born with birth defects due to our use of depleted uranium, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:29 am

    Yes Chrispy, where do we start with the rewriting of the Constitution? And who should be entrusted with such a monumental task? I would dare say there isn't a politician or military serviceman alive who would be eligible, for the specific reason that:::when they were sworn in, they swore an OATH-"I, _____, ...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." So how do you take an oath "to support and defend the constitution" and then turn around and try to alter it? Seems like that would be breaking your oath. ??? There's one for discussion.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:38 am

    Well Paddy, my family is a military family. We get deployed next year, prob to the African Congo it looks like. So to your point; Lets start the rewrite with the 14th Amendment: "Section 1. Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States." Most of our families forefathers were immigrants. A huge number of our fellow soldiers are first generation citizens, they were born to illegal immigrants, so I suppose they should be kicked out of the armed forces and deported? We have to start somewhere.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:40 am

    And further; OATH-"I, _____, ...do solemnly swear.. Many amendments were enacted after this was written, so you discussion point here is null.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:47 am

    And I love quotes. Here is a good one... "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -Patrick Henry

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 10:57 am

    chrispy: Great Patrick Henry quote. ********** ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU (Please note: this is an article “title”) @ http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3271/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:07 am

    chrispy, I'm wondering if there isn't an in principle difference between amending the Constitution vs. scrapping it. But scrapping and rewriting it certainly would be a lobbyist's dream! Just THINK of the possibilities. Placing that responsibility into hands of our present power structure strikes fear in my heart.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:22 am

    Can't pass up the Patrick Henry quote; almost everything the government does today with regard to legislation puts more restraints on the people. And to give politicians the power to rewrite the constitution? They would surely remove as much constitutional restraint on themselves as possible, and then place even more on us (does anybody here really trust the average politician?). That is their history. Perfect example being the 2nd Amendment; the reason it existed was so WE could (physically, if need be) restrain THEM if they get out of hand. They want to abolish or at the very least severely restrict that ability. "Does the 2nd Am allow people to have machine guns?" Well, what was the original intent of the 2nd Am? For US to be ABLE restrain THEM. But, if only THEY have machine guns, and WE are limited to single-shot .22's, how is that not an infringement? You've made other good points but I'll stop there for now.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • chrispytahoeJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:25 am

    Evelyn, I totally agree! Our leaders today would botch that exercise. I am just speaking esoterically about scrapping the constitution I guess. It needs a rework tho!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:29 am

    Assault rifles, Machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, bazookas, and rocket launchers are legal to own in our country. But not in California. I find it interesting that Paul Bado challenges Mr Riordan to strut around Oakland and East L.A. with an AK-47. A law abiding sane person would have no reason to. Why would Mr Bado want to?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Sid GrahamJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:34 am

    Yes, Paddy, by all means, I want defectives like you to have machine guns. Flamethrowers and land mines as well.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 04, 2013 - 11:44 am

    Evelyn, I remember the 500,000 children statement. Disgusting to do it and disgusting to say it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 04, 2013 - 11:48 am

    We don't scrap the Constitution, we amend it if necessary --27 times so far and there is no Amendment limit.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 04, 2013 - 11:52 am

    So, with regard to scrapping parts of, or rewriting the Constitution, the method must be done according to the allowance of the document itself. This is done either by the Constitutional Convention (never done yet) or by the method used to created the current list of amendments, which is for a bill to introduced and passed by a 2/3 majority, then to be sent on the to the states for ratification by at least ¾ of them. These are the legal procedures. Any other way is illegal. And to unilaterally pass laws conflicting with the Constitution of the Amendments is illegal. Yet, it is done. And it is being attempted as we speak. You want to “Infringe upon” the right of the people “to keep and bear arms”, try doing it the legal way; a Constitutional amendment. Anything else is a violation of the Oath of Office and should be a hangin’ offense. Like it or not, it is what it is.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 04, 2013 - 11:53 am

    Any person born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. It is a bright line rule and never be changed. Propose it as an Amendment to the Constitution -- it will never fly because only fringe groups want it (actually, they are saying we don't want any Mexicans born in the U.S., and if they are just toss them back over the fence).

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 04, 2013 - 11:58 am

    OK, like Paddy, I have to go do stuff. Later.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jim RiordanJanuary 04, 2013 - 12:51 pm

    To all of you who have responded to this quack “BAD-O“,I thank you. I must say I thought I might be the first to respond to this ridiculously stupid twisting of all I have written, but then to see 31 responses, WOW. Now to Bado . . First, if all the articles you have read refer to “ assault rifles and oversize clips” then your reading material list is certainly minimal at best. Further your lack of reading comprehension amazes me. I never once said I owned an assault rifle and I do not. I would support other’s rights to own them. I suggest you reread my letters over and over until you understand what I was conveying in EVERY one. The fact that I repeated many times for the benefit of those who can actually read and understand text, was that NO one will ever remove all guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, you name it , since ANY GOOD MACHINIST CAN MAKE THEM. Perhaps not Mil. Spec, but workable just the same. I never said I wanted one, I never said I would use one I only stated the facts for those “unknowing liberals” as YOU called them so they could understand WHY there will never be a totally gun-free environment in this nation. Politicos can make all the rules they want. Good machinists can make anything we want. Get it now mushbrain? Reread my letters . Or better yet have someone read them to you out loud and slowly so you truly understand. What you are seeing is a people problem, not a gun problem. Lastly, just because you, “own several handguns” does not demonstrate to me that you can use them competently, safely and under duress.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • pamJanuary 04, 2013 - 3:20 pm

    Oh James--you need to get a life! surely I'm reading you wrong. Do you really believe that most of us are racial bigots? When conservatives don't agree with the liberals we are referred to as bigots or whatever else they can come up with. When all I would like to see us do is follow the rule of law and that's upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. An interesting book: Who Killed the Constitution?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 04, 2013 - 3:23 pm

    Oh, Pam -- I didn't call everyone bigots. I was talking about fringe groups. Are you suggesting that fringe groups don't even have one bigot in their membership. If so, they are 100% pure. I doubt it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®January 04, 2013 - 3:53 pm

    that's not my real granny pam because she never said get a life she always said get over it, god love her sole. RIP granny, we stil love you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DeeJanuary 04, 2013 - 5:34 pm

    Crispy-We don't need an Amendment for military serving immigrants to become citizens. From Iraq and Afganistan Veterans Of America----"Bush's July 2002 executive order, which officially declared the time since 9/11 as a "period of hostilities," paved the way for noncitizens in the military – about 24,000 are now on active duty – to immediately apply for citizenship. Before the order, they had to have at least three years of honorable service before applying. Thanks to a 2003 law, the wait during peacetime will be reduced to one year once the war is over. Immigrants not in the military have to be permanent residents for five years, three if married to a citizen, to become eligible. Also, those in the military don't have to physically be in the United States, and don't have to pay fees to apply. Military and immigration officials try to smooth the process."------This is another Bush war policy that Obama has kept and encouraged as we all should. -------from the USCIS "Qualifications A member of the U.S. armed forces must meet the requirements and qualifications to become a citizen of the United States. He or she must demonstrate: Good moral character Knowledge of the English language Knowledge of U.S. government and history (civics), and Attachment to the United States by taking an Oath of Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution Qualified members of the U.S. armed forces are exempt from other naturalization requirements, including residence and physical presence in the United States."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 4:47 am

    gun control from THE TIMES OF ISRAEL: HERE.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 05, 2013 - 8:21 am

    Gabby Giffords, Columbine, The Batman Movie, Virginia Tech, Connecticut Kindergarden, all acts of horrific violence by students with a history of mental illness. To blame the 2nd Ammendment is ignorant. To label gun owners as criminals is insulting. To ignore the mental illness problem in America and to utilize the cause and effect reasoning of, eliminate guns and there won't be murder, is dangerous.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 05, 2013 - 9:26 am

    * San Antonio Theater Shooting- "On Sunday December 16, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming" ---Why didn't we hear about this on CNN? http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 05, 2013 - 10:08 am

    Alaska Updated as of Wednesday, December 07, 2011. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION “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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or political subdivision of the State.” Article 1, Section 19. Arizona STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.” Article 2, Section 26. Alabama STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Article 1, Section 26. Arkansas STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION “The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep for their common defense.” Article 2, Section 5. Colorado STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.” Article II, Section 13. Connecticut STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Article 1, Section 15. It goes on and on. The point being that the only 3 States that do not grant the right to bear arms are New Jersey, Minnesota and California. Paul Bado should with cause and affect reasoning conclude that the citizens of our fair state should feel safe walking the streets of East L.A. and Oakland.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Lemme guessJanuary 05, 2013 - 10:19 am

    Paddy O: Answer - because it couldn't be stage managed?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 4:09 pm

    A comment is being rejected on another MD thread. It doesn't even contain any prohibited words (like D*ick!). I'll try again after this, but apologies if it finally lands in both places.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 4:12 pm

    Nope. One more try; this time without the link.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 4:12 pm

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AREN'T LAWS : ”Senator Dianne Feinstein, I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.” ~ Joshua Boston, Former U.S. Marine

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 05, 2013 - 5:55 pm

    Some woman? Where's Dee and Cookie to bite his head off? She does carry a concealed weapon. Wonder if she is proficient?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 6:01 pm

    James, I was tickled pink to see Feinstein dismissed as "some woman"!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 05, 2013 - 6:02 pm

    P.S. Now if that cheeky marine had said "some liberal" . . .

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 05, 2013 - 6:14 pm

    I think I recall a time from DiFi’s mayoral days when she took a press crew out on the bay and threw her sidearm into the water. Some enterprising reporter revealed she still maintained a gun in the desk.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 05, 2013 - 6:21 pm

    DЇCK

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerryJanuary 05, 2013 - 8:40 pm

    Chrispytahoe, so you agree with Prof. Seidman’s recent NYT editorial that the Constitution should be scraped. It was written over two hundred years ago by wealthy gentlemen to fit their purposes and therefore severely flawed. It does not reflect our modern complex technological society. So we should find and call together a modern select panel of citizens to rewrite the Constitution to fit our modern society. What are the requirements for this august group of citizens? Should they be scholars, holy men, businessmen, tradesmen, landowner, bankers? How about a group of 30 lawyers, 11 merchants, 5 politicians, 2 MDs, 2 soldiers, 2 scholars, 1 farmer, 1 minister, and 1 scientist? Many of these men speak and read multiple languages including Greek and Latin. Many have studied carefully the governmental systems of the Greeks, Romans, Swiss, Dutch, English and Iroquois, and know well their successes and failures. They are conversant with the latest economic theories. They are also conversant with military strategy, finance of large military operations and international diplomacy. Many are veterans. Many have previous experience in local, state and national government and experience at writing constitutions. They range in age from 27 to 81. They have direct experience with despotic and imperial government as well as decades of experience with democratic representative government. They know the frailties of human nature well. This was the makeup of the constitutional convention of 1787. I doubt very much that you will find a group of citizens that will produce a better document than they did. Much of the Constitution is structured to protect the people from individuals or groups that would abuse the powers that government can yield. Hence the separations of powers into three equal branches with the legislature divided into two houses, one to represent the people and one to represent the states. They gave us a republic not a democracy. They made every effort to isolate the federal government from having direct authority over the people. They severely limited its power. Unfortunately, we have deviated from the plan by making the Senate report to the people and not the states. We further deviated by allow the federal government to have direct taxing authority over individuals. Prior to that, they could raise money by customs duties, land sales, excise taxes, or a per capita levy on the states. We granted a private institution our sovereign right to print money. These reforms were instituted in the early part of the 20th century. For many decades, we have taught our children that the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted as we see fit. Unfortunately, by so doing we have greatly reduced its authority, thus leading to this discussion. Many of our current problems can be traced to lack of adherence to this ancient and venerated document. Our Federal government has more than demonstrated its ability to reach into the lives of every citizen. It taxes us, then makes us depended on its largess. It has the ability to listen in on our phone conversations, read our emails, view our medical records, locate us via our cell phones, etc. The latest offense is to restrict our right of gun ownership via legislation rather than via constitutional amendment. Rather than scrap this document, I would prefer we enforce it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RickJanuary 06, 2013 - 1:59 am

    NRA sentiment: “The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said. I see it differently: About the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing into a classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen leaping around firing their pistols at the killer, which is to say really at each other and every bystander. It’s a police officer’s nightmare. In the movies, the bad guys can empty 200 rounds at the Green Hornet and miss every time, while the good guys can knock a man off a fire escape from 200 feet with a rusty pistol, but here are a few facts from the real world: In 1999, New York police officers who were actually trained to use their weapons when seconds count (i.e., unlike civilians), fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo and missed 22 times. Last August, two New York police officers fired 16 rounds in an altercation with an armed man outside the Empire State Building. Ten people were hit – the gunman and nine bystanders. Does anyone think armed civilians without training would do better?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 6:23 am

    There is something to be said about the chronological order of the bill of rights in regards to the thinking of those who wrote it. They understood from personal experience that the first sign of a tyanical government was an attempt to control speech and religion. The knew the second sign of a tyranical government was to confiscate the citizens right to protect themselves. They understood that the only way to protect the 1st amendment was the 2nd amendment. And I trust their thinking more than I trust the thinking of any modern day politician.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 8:25 am

    I am always curious about the inclusion of military history or background from the authors of these letters. First off, THANK YOU for your service. But I am not sure how it has anything to do with the subject. I have always suspected it is one of two things. 1. the author believes it gives more weight to his/her opinion (which it does not). 2. it is some kind of an identity crisis or a combination of the two.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 8:55 am

    Rick, your argument is purely hypothetical and basically fiction. There have been numerous attempted mass shootings (one just the day after Sandy Hook-referenced above) where the shooter was stopped cold by an armed civilian. With regard to the story of the NY cops, there are 2 key points here; 1) Cops are law enforcement officers, not necessarily marksmen. Shooting is not their sole business. Just because they carry a gun for work doesn't mean they're more proficient than any other gun owner. Many of these guys shoot fewer round of ammo on a monthly basis than the averege gun owner. 2) Someone who takes firearms seriously enough to get a CCW and carry, is also serious about his shooting skills and practices accordingly. There are thousands of private citizens who are qualified marksmen and are extremely good shots. There are just the kind of people you'd want carrying concealed in the theater you're going to watch a movie in. Regardless of how much you despise their right to carry, they'd probably save your life anyway.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MikeJanuary 06, 2013 - 9:10 am

    So you think that armed civilians without training would do better than trained former military like Bando, active military and police officers who are actually trained to use their weapons when seconds count? All who understand tactics, airpower, many with experience killing who are disciplined and well supplied? You’ve been watching too many Chuck Norris movies.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 9:29 am

    I agree with you Mike. The small minority of gun fanatics who helped the republician party lose the election, are going to lose the argument on gun control for many of the same reasons. As opponents of gun control—of even the most reasonable, basic safeguards like background checks or limits on the size of ammunition clips—you-all were silent directly after the Newtown shooting. But you’re starting to emerge from hiding, and most of what you have to say suggests you’ve learned little, if anything, from the killings.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 06, 2013 - 9:48 am

    Rich says, " . . . most of what you have to say suggests you’ve learned little, if anything, from the killings." Bologna. We've learned that if we have a kid that needs to be institutionalized do it. Prior to doing it secure your guns. Don’t ask the kid. Don’t threaten the kid. Don’t ask. Don’t tell. Just do it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Rich, Paul Bado and Mike are absolutely correct in everything they say. They live in California, a State that does not list the right to bear arms as a right. A State that is completely run by the Progressive Socialists. There is no Opposition or any form of balance of power from the Republicans. California has voted and the Progressive Socialist have clearly won. To argue with them is to be a subversive, anti-establishment, contrarion. Here in California we have our own version of the American dream. The California Dream. We have a well documented history of our own unique type of democracy. To tax certain individuals based on geography, Political affiliation or race like the Cal Fire, or mental health tax is not new to our fair state. We have had a long history of imposing harsh punishment taxes on our citizens to let them know they were not wanted. California has even imprisoned people, men, women and children, based on being a certain nationality. Even others who in California's mind looked like they were of similar ancestry their lands and possessions were seized and their whole family was imprisoned. It only makes sense that a State with such a past would not want it's citizens to be able to defend themselves.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 9:58 am

    Cookie, the military history/background was in my comment because I was commenting in response to Phil's military history/background comment. You will never see me suddenly going off on my military/history/background with no reason. So seldom that it's never. Do I detect just a tad of envy that you and yours (other Tea Party nuts) have no military/history to recount? Is it too late for you to enlist? Phil, never again comment on your military service -- it makes Cookie uncomfortable, and she doesn't like it and she must be obeyed.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DeeJanuary 06, 2013 - 9:59 am

    Terry-BRAVO!! Well done!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:03 am

    I don’t believe there is any way to curb the epidemic of gun violence unless we to some degree “erode the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie56January 06, 2013 - 10:06 am

    good ....... curb the 2nd am. rights of law abiding citizens

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:08 am

    Actually Phil, your advice would be easier to do if these mentally ill murders were kids. But they are not. The ACLU has performed yeoman's work by insuring that the mentally ill be treated as a "special class" of "protected" citizens. To go to their homes as a citizen and confiscate their guns would leave one exposed to being charged with a felony. The progressives talk that the citizenry should expect the law enforcement to protect society in the advent that a mentally ill person starts shooting our children. My question is. Why is law enforcement not focused on prevention than the impossible form of reaction?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 10:13 am

    Wait, what am I doing? If Cookie doesn't like it, then I'm going to do what she doesn't like. Guess what, not known to many, but I was in the Army. Can I tell you a story about when I was a private in the Infantry and had to pull KP (kitchen police defined for the Tea Party nuts who didn't serve). And the cook told me to put some sugar into the orange juice because it was too tart, and I goofed up and put in salt. That got me seven more days of KP and I was no longer allowed near the sugar or salt. It was pots and pans for the rest of the week -- my fingers were so wrinkled. Oh, I have so many stories Cookie, I know you will enjoy them even though you have a tinge of military service envy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 10:18 am

    OK, got to go do stuff while Cookie comes up with her response that she respects my military service, but really doesn't. Be back later.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:20 am

    To those who are ignorant to the CCW law. One has to take an extensive classed focused on the application and use of a firearm as well as test proficient in the handling the pistol, as well as the passing a marksmanship course. Then after this is done and a back ground check is completed, you must convince our Sheriff that you have an actual need to have a CCW. Leaving the person who has the CCW to not have access to an ignorance excuse if a handgun is illegally used in their possession.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 10:25 am

    James, my comment, if you read it again is directed soley at the author/s of this letter and/or any letter. Not every comment here is centered around James E. Maybe my comment about an identity crisis covered more people than I intended. Sometimes you shouldn't raise your hand some people learned that in the military and some people didn't. As I have said before I am an opinion on the internet. Take it or leave it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 10:28 am

    Cookie56, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie56January 06, 2013 - 10:29 am

    65..............bring the minutes of new years midnight meeting and larger supply of black balls..........venue change, see you at groucho's place around the corner............

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'funitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:35 am

    Ken raises the points most gun-phobes miss; training is a part of owning a gun. And it is mandatory for carrying a gun. I am a CCW holder and had to take a handgun course just to buy one, and then more training to be permitted to carry. Think about it fellas, if I'm serious enough to carry, I'm serious enough to be proficient at it. The point is not be a tough guy and go heeled on my trips to Home Depot (yes, Garon, you're safer if I'm around), the point is to have a tool and be as skilled and proficient as possible and training and practice bring this about. Did you know that there are over 2 dozen private firearms trainers in this county? Did you know that there are large private training centers around the country that charge $1,000 or more for a week of various training and they are booked out to 2 years in most cases? What does that tell you boys and girls? It should tell you that serious gun owners are serious about skill and proficiency (of which safety is an integral part). Again, these are the kinds of people you want sitting near you in the theater, ball game, church, or other places a crazy might want to take out a bunch of people. Unfortunately, I can't protect you at a high school ball game because it's a gun free zone. But that's only for legal carriers like me-the crazies won't pay attention to those neat little signs.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:43 am

    Information for the discussion - COMPARE TEN BIG “KILLERS” IN THE U.S. (stats from FBI, CDC & Fed Gov) : • Tobacco use 529,000 • Medical errors 195,000 • Unintentional injuries 118,021 • Alcohol abuse 107,400 • Motor vehicle accidents 34,485 • Unintentional poisoning 31,758 • Drug abuse 25,500 • Unintentional falls 24,792 • Non-firearm homicides (knives, bats, hammers, poisons, etc) 16,799 • Firearm homicides 11,493

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 10:45 am

    James, lots of people have been pearl divers or pealed potato's like Bettle Baily. It has nothing to do with the intention of the 2nd amendment.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 10:48 am

    56, living in your head rent-free.... you should know there is room in there for a racetrack.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 10:53 am

    Evelyn, I appreciate your effort to post this information and it is very important to any discussion. But you should know by now that the people who want to use any means necessary to disarm American citizens are not interested in facts.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 11:01 am

    Cookie, I didn't peel potatoes -- they had a potato peeling machine. So, you objected because my military responses to Phil had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment? Did I imply that they did? Did Phil? No, of course not, just your diversion away from your military envy. ADDED: Please cite any of 2nd Amendment comments, pro or con. Cannot find them, can you? Because I previously said I don't know the answer, so why would I join in the running 2nd Amendment comments? Tell me again you respect my military service, but you really don't.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:06 am

    You're probably right about that cookie, but nevertheless we absolutely must not stop using facts. Medical errors cause 17x more deaths annually than firearms. That elicits a number of logical follow on statements, but I'll refrain.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:16 am

    Cookie and Evelyn, an interesting fact regarding gang related murder in our country. Very hard to find, for 2010 roughly 1200 murders nationally. Great Britain? Very strict gun controls. You can't even fly via Heathrow London airport to points beyond with your checked in firearms. 16000 gang related murders reported. Whew! Just think how many it would be if they didn't have all those strict gun laws?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:23 am

    I have to bite my tongue while typing. I can't help but visualize a pin up poster of one of you two, "Shawshank Redemption", on a prison wall while some poor convicted sole lie in his prison cell. It's obvious that someone is smitten.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:37 am

    Veerkamp, you’ve learned little, if anything, from the killings. I do agree with you, "we've learned that if we have a person who needs to be institutionalized do it,” put them in one of those public health care programs that you and your ink fight so hard against. How you determine they need to be committed? I guess you would need to use other public services like legal aid and mental health programs, again those dam give away programs you and your ink fight so hard against. “Prior to doing it secure your guns.” I thought all of you well trained conscious nra gun owners follow the law and would already have your guns secured. “Don’t ask the person,” this is good advice. "Don’t threaten the person,” also good advice. Don’t tell. Just do it,” again good advice if your guns aren’t already secure, may save your life should the occasion accrue. Would it not be easier and safer for you and your family to just get rid of the guns, your hunting days are over anyway, just get rid of the damn things, set the example for your family, friends and community. And Veerkamp, if the feds do attack you can always have that screw-ball Riordan make you a gun, what a mush-brain for being such a successful guy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 11:39 am

    James, I had no objection to anything you had said. I hadn't read anything you said. I commented on the writer of the letter attempting to use military experience as some way of giving their opinion more credibility and you brought me into your own persona grief about it making all kinds of accusations when my only point is the writers military experience, good, bad or indifferent has nothing to do with the intentions of the second amendment. Get over it. If you want to use military experience as qualification for having an opinion on the 2nd amendment you may want to direct your limitation at the Whitehouse.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 11:42 am

    Cookie, so your comment wasn't directed towards me. In that case I withdraw my comments (except for the sugar/salt orange juice story -- I know you enjoyed that one). Let's be pals. Am I the sun around which you rotate? Think about it, if we become pals, I'll let you be the sun sometimes.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 11:47 am

    Cookie, again, you must be talking about someone else reference using military experience to comment on the Second Amendment. I'm thinking that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Regular Army/Marines/Air Force, so why would would you include me in that group? No need to answer, but if you are a woman let's never get married.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:50 am

    Reading Rich, it is becoming clear that it just might be best he doesn't have access to a firearm. I feel I should be allowed to have a say regarding the mental health issue considering I pay a "special tax" just for this particular reason. Alas the Progressives now place these monies in the general fund instead of what we voted for. Phil do you have some ink gland that I'm not privy to? Also FYI, a home protection device i.e. pistol or shotgun only needs to be locked up to avoid access to children. If children are grown then not an issue.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 12:00 pm

    According to FBI data, hammers and clubs are used to kill more people than rifles (including the dreaded "assault rifle"). So would the gun-phobes in the crowd be happy if we banned handguns and left the rifles alone? If you want the rifles too, maybe we should just go ahead and ban clubs and hammers too. Or at least do background checks, and then only sell them to licensed contractors. I mean, who NEEDS a Vaughan 24 oz Framing Hammer? Seriously, where does a proposed gun ban begin and end end.......? http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 12:02 pm

    "Ink gland"...now that's funny, right there...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    We could be pals James, variety is the spice of life. I have many relatives long gone who shared with me some military stories way beyond which kind of salute to use depending which cover you are wearing. From driving a tank for Patton, the liberation of the phillipines, the skipper of a pt boat, ditching 3 PBY's in the pacific, and even iwo jima. First hand accounts. My family name is even on the monument at little bighorn. There is plenty we could find to talk about.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 06, 2013 - 12:19 pm

    The new potus seal. http://www.parkplaque.com/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 12:45 pm

    Yes indeed, our Republican controlled El Dorado County BOS did just that with a lot of the funding in 2001-12 budget. As for the ink-gland”, ( inkus pineal gland) also called the addictive, whatstobeheardgland, or the “forth eye,” is a small endocrine gland in the vertebrate brain. It produces the ink, a derivative resulting in a desire to own a gun and constant bashing of the federal government which affects the modulation of wake/sleep patterns and common sense functions. Its shape resembles a tiny pine-cone hence its name), and it is located near the centre of the brain, between the two hemispheres in a groove that only republicans have, near where the two rounded thalamic bodies join some where between religion and gun control. As for, "home protection device i.e. pistol or shotgun only needs to be locked up to avoid access to children. If children are grown then not an issue." Maybe you should have read your post before sending it, that’s really a stupid statement, guns should be secured all the time when not attended, common sense.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 12:48 pm

    Oh, and James, you asked for a citation of you supporting the 2nd amendment; a while back, you mentioned Ronnie Barrett in a post (neutrally, I think). Just the mention of this legend in firearms development and manufacturing would lead anyone to think you might be just a little 2A supportive? Of course, most of what he sells is not the GenPub, so maybe not.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 12:59 pm

    THERE’S ONE THING BOTH SIDES IN THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE CAN AGREE ON: "The federal government has recently purchased hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition for use within the United States. (And purchases are allegedly ongoing.) Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have carried concealed weapons to protect themselves. And the newspaper which published the names and addresses of gun owners has itself hired armed guards to protect it. So folks within government who are advocating gun control are only advocating that the American people be disarmed. Liberals tend to trust government more than conservatives … but with the merger of state and big corporations, that distinction has lost real meaning. But let’s all be honest about one issue … and admit that we are being asked to trust our government – working hand in glove with the big banks – as they arm themselves to the teeth." ********** http://tinyurl.com/b85emmy

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 1:26 pm

    Rich you speak about subjects you do not know or understand. Read Kamala Harris's site regarding gun storage. You are trying to "boil the frog" a little too quickly. One can and should possess a fire arm in one's house hold with easy access for personal defense. I believe that it should be mandatory that every home owner who is sane person, don't worry Richard, you and you "star children", would be disqualified, be required to own a fire arm for home protection.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:23 pm

    Steers, being third generation of law enforcement, military and more as land owners in California, I agree, “ we speak about subjects we do not know or understand.” Gun storage is common sense for most, when your paranoid it’s a little harder to understand. Your concept that "everyone should possess a fire arm in one’s house hold with easy access for personal defense," why’ll it gives kind of a warm a fuzzy feeling when said aloud its not sensible, guns are not for everyone. As for my star children, seems I recall someone named Steers giving 30k to the losing republican tea party and nothing to my old alma-mater where your son attends, says a lot about a person of means, its obvious your new money.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:34 pm

    Rich what is your Alma mater?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:35 pm

    What is new money?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:39 pm

    Do you want to compare pedigrees, status, Philanthropic contributions, education or penis sizes? You go first dumb***

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®January 06, 2013 - 2:46 pm

    New money is not just any old money.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:49 pm

    Rich, I'm born and raised Californian, proud of it. I never gave the Republican Party 30K. How much have you given the Democrat Socialist party? I really don't care. You claim you family has a history in law enforcement. So do I. That still doesn't make you educated to our laws. But alas You are a Democrat Socialist so you control our state entirely. Have A ball with that.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Ken SteersJanuary 06, 2013 - 2:53 pm

    Rich you are sounding like Thurstan Howell III. (New Money). "Lovey this Ken character sounds as if he's of new money". Only not as intelligent and a whole lot crazier.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 5:28 pm

    The .2223-caliber Bush-master Semi auto assault rifle, like Steers claims to own for hunting, was used in the Newtown school massacre and is the same weapon used in the Washington, DC area sniper shootings that left 10 dead and three injured. Bushmaster once promoted the rifle in a magazine ad that showed the menacing weapon under the words; 'CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED'. As a weapon it rates very poorly among the US infantry as those of us who were forced to use it for years learned, but the gun manufactures found locative market in the US among the wannabe population preparing to fight a nonexistent tyrannical government.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foamie Mouth®January 06, 2013 - 5:46 pm

    splutter splutter .. a nonexistent tyrannical government .. splutter splutter .. The SAME Unaccountable Government Agency Which Spies on All Americans Also Decides Who Gets Assassinated by Drones .. splutter splutter ..good luck Rich, now we know you're not paying attention .. splutter splutter close the shutter

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 5:50 pm

    (.223) It seems thousands of people, I would guess many in El Dorado County; believe President Obama, being the liberal gun-hating Democrat that he is, plans to bring gun sales to a halt this year. They're determined to stock up before Obama can cut them off. I don't know if that's funny or sad, but the action of these few wannbes reflects poorly on America's gun-carrying community as a whole.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 6:10 pm

    Paddy, I don't know who Ronnie Barrett is so I couldn't have mentioned him. Has to be someone else. I do support the Second Amendment for home defense. I also recognize that some people are hunters and should be armed appropriately (I am not a hunter, as I don't need the food or enjoy the hunt when not needed for food). I have only one pistol, haven't fired it in 20 years and hope to never have to fire it, unless some crazed nut decides to visit at 3AM. No fancy head or leg shots, just center of mass. And, as I have said previously I don't know the answer to the current 2nd Amendment debate, so I won't be contributing. Somewhere there is balance, but I don't know where it is.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 6:27 pm

    "...but the action of these few wannbes reflects poorly on America's gun-carrying community as a whole". So Rich, in your opinion, what would reflect well on gun owners? If we just handed them in? What would make you happy?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    Sorry James. My mistake. Could have sworn it was you. I tried to search and find it but contents of these threads don't seem to register on a search. You still get points for your stance on home defense.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 6:33 pm

    Found it;;;James E.December 21, 2012 - 5:09 pm I note that a Mr. Ronnie Barrett has developed a .50 cal sniper rifle which is available for sale in the civilian market. It is one mean looking weapon -- in Vietnam, I fired the .50 off the top of tanks and it put out maximum fire power. Except for hunting elephant (who would kill such a magnificent animal?), or killing enemy soldiers I cannot imagine a need for a .50 cal sniper rifle in civilian life.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 6:37 pm

    Cookie, the Battle of the Little Big Horn, or as the Indians called it the Battle of the Greasy Grass. I am quite interested in Custer who went looking for a fight and found one. Have studied it and walked the terrain at the Little Big Horn. Thinking he could spook the Indians who would withdraw while he had his way with the women and children, he was fatally wrong. Reno's attack was to get the Indian braves to run while Custer went around the back to decimate the women and children (He's quite the military hero). The Indians said the battle was over in about the time it took to eat lunch (not the three hour lunches I enjoyed in DC). And, the Indians also claimed that about 90% of those remaining in Custer's group committed suicide rather than be captured -- the Indians didn't say this until 40 years after the event because they didn't think massive suicide would set well with the white man. They considered it very dishonorable. Custer's body was found with a wound to the side of his chest and a bullet in his head above the ear. His was the only body not mutilated except for what the Indian women did to him -- inserting an arrow into his penis -- the Indian women said this was done to get his attention in the afterlife. While it doesn't seem possible, one had to remember the greatest fear was being captured by the Indians and tortured to death. The saying was "save the last bullet for yourself." The military moral here is to take care not to attack an overwhelming force with only around 220 men. Custer is buried at West Point under a most elaborate tombstone. Last man in his graduating class, first to make Brigadier General, and the only one to return to West Point under such an elaborate tombstone. Many West Pointers have returned to be buried there, but none with such an elaborate tombstone.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 6:48 pm

    Paddy, thanks for refreshing my memory, I had no recall. But, reading it now it doesn't advocate pro or con 2nd Amendment. Just noting that this guy developed a mean looking .50 cal sniper rifle and that I couldn't see how one would be needed in civilian life unless one hunts elephant. Now, more important, I just finished an elaborate comment concerning Cookie and the Little Big Horn. It has disappeared and apparently has been deleted by the Mt.Democrat naughty word person. Thinking back on it I know my error -- I used the legal term for ----- cannot say it or this one will disappear too. Let me try to recall the sentence. "Custer's body was the only one not mutilated -- he had a wound in the side of his chest and a bullet wound to his head just above the ear. However, the Indian women stuck an arrow into his p----. They said this was to get his attention in the after life." I have long been a student of the Battle of the Little Big Horn, known by the Indians as the Battle of the Greasy Grass. I regret the Mt.Democrat readers cannot be exposed to the p word, as my comment was most informative to those not aware of the details of the battle.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 7:17 pm

    Yeah, I reckon an arrow in your wang would indeed get your attention-in this life or any other.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 7:21 pm

    No, I cannot rewrite the Little Big Horn comment. It was long and the second draft never matches the first draft. Just a shame that the p word would cause it to disappear. Hey, Mt.Democrat, every man has one, but I guess the word made you blush. Sad. I know this is a family newspaper, but even fourth graders learn the word in their health class. Maybe it's the adults who cannot take the word?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 06, 2013 - 7:23 pm

    Paddy, I should have used the word wang or wanger. Wang or wanger are probably not on the naughty word list.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 06, 2013 - 8:27 pm

    Seriously? You can't use the bio-term for a man's unit here? What did this paper for news do during the Clinton Administration?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 8:49 pm

    Gentlemen!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 8:57 pm

    I fear that us old-fashioned gun owners are rapidly being replaced in our nation by real as can be, "gun fanatics." Growing up our reasons for owning guns were at one time honorable. Some wanted them for sport and many like my dad and brother wanted them for personal protection as police officers, some for display, economic reasons and collections. But nowadays guns sales have been higher than ever do to greed and marketing skills of the manufactories, encouraged by the disgruntled GOP and greased by millions in political campaign donations brokered by the nra, simply by suggesting that someone else doesn't want them to have guns, childish but effective. I’m very happy to have my guns, while gun fanatics dont seem to be happy unless telling someone about their guns or waving them in someone's frightened face. I proudly tell my daughters the stories behind the weapons passed down from my great grand father, my dads service revolver, my Vietnam 45, all handed down through the generations. Modern gun fanatics use every means possible to inform all using every available podium, "they'll get my gun when they pry it from my dead hands or the classic, over my dead body.” all the time using the second amendment to defend their actions and statements. In reality the only thing that’s happening is hundreds of millions in gun sales to the delight of the manufactories. We all know how the rhetoric goes -- and many of us who treasure our guns for those mostly forgotten reasons, cringe every time someone starts warning us about out tyrannical government or pending collapse. Gun fanatics often make themselves look silly without making much of an argument at all. I think the only solutions is to tax, license, insist on annual medical reviews of all gun owners, list of all multiply gun owners, which isn’t currently done and remove assault weapons capability of 10 or more rounds without reloading. This way law enforcement will have the opportunity, and means to defend themselves and the general public.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • billzzJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:05 pm

    111 comments so far, so I might as well make it 112. It is a good strategic defense to announce a strategy that makes the "enemy" re-plan any course of action. So the announcement that all airline pilots will be armed is a good course of action. The reason is that the pilots may not be armed but the "enemy" does not know that, and so has to plan as though that were the situation. The AR-15 (or M-16) was developed with the high velocity .223 round to get around the Geneva Convention which prohibited "dum-dum" or hollow point projectiles against enemies in combat. The "full-metal jacket" was meant to stay whole and not disintegrate in the human body, but go straight through. The .223 tumbles when it hits and explodes the victim. I was present, at Fort Benning, Georgia when Colt demonstrated the M-16 versus the Garand M-1 (the standard at the time.) They put out a bunch of #10 cans of tomatoes and fired the M-1. The bullet went straight through, and the two holes bled tomato juice. They fired the M-16 and the cans exploded. And that is why the ordinary civilian should not have an AR-15. The gun is also built for automatic fire, which means, even if the sear spring is replaced with one that only allows semi-automatic fire, one can pull the trigger, one after another, and the gun will not overheat. So it is the same as having a full automatic. And if one knew something one could easily convert it to full automatic anyway. The old "elephant gun" was a Weatherby Mark V, an old bolt-action rifle that only did one round at a time - and the boast was that a good hunter only needed one round. Anyway, I qualified expert with most army weapons, even qualified for the Olympics, and ran many ranges including the Eighth US Army / Republic of Korea pistol matches. I am fully on the side of people having arms, but I am fully on the side of banning military weapons, military magazines, and clips, and even military ammo. As an aside the Department of Homeland Security is ordering many thousands of hollow-point bullets. I guess the Geneva Convention only applies to foreign soldiers and not to Americans.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:06 pm

    Rich, have you read any of information provided in this thread about causes of death other than firearms? For example, what is your response to the fact that annual fatalities resulting from medical error are 17 times greater than those from firearms?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • RichJanuary 06, 2013 - 10:47 pm

    Good evening Evelyn, I guess I would question the accuracy of that number. Studies in the past have been criticized for the statistical handling of measurement errors in published reports for determining which deaths were "avoidable" or due to medical error. And an erroneous assumption that 100% of patients would have survived if optimal care had been provided. Gun deaths are mostly preventable by limiting the availability of guns

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 06, 2013 - 11:48 pm

    Rich: a repeat (in full) of my 10:43 am comment ********** Information for the discussion - COMPARE TEN BIG “KILLERS” IN THE U.S. (stats from FBI, CDC & Fed Gov) : • Tobacco use 529,000 • Medical errors 195,000 • Unintentional injuries 118,021 • Alcohol abuse 107,400 • Motor vehicle accidents 34,485 • Unintentional poisoning 31,758 • Drug abuse 25,500 • Unintentional falls 24,792 • Non-firearm homicides (knives, bats, hammers, poisons, etc) 16,799 • Firearm homicides 11,493

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jethro McSwiftJanuary 07, 2013 - 4:03 am

    *^*

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureJanuary 07, 2013 - 6:52 am

    Rich's quote: "Good evening Evelyn, I guess I would question the accuracy of that number". So, it's that easy, is it Rich? The data doesn't jive with your viewpoint so you throw it out? Very unscientific. These stats Evelyn mentioned are on the CDC's website; www.cdc.gov. A government website which you wouldn't think would be biased toward the gun lobby. If you refuse to acknowledge certifiable data that refutes your bias, your opinion can't be worth much.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 08, 2013 - 5:44 am

    A Russian writes, "Americans never give up your guns" - This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. . . . This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently. Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. ********** http://tinyurl.com/cgxdae2

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJanuary 08, 2013 - 5:58 am

    Language is everything. DON'T CALL IT gun control. Rather, talk about assault weapons. California Rep. Mike Thompson (D) says "A lot of times when you talk about gun control, you turn off more than half of your audience." ********* http://tinyurl.com/b2lru4k

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Posts

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • .

    News

    Goodbye LUPPU, hello LRPU

    By Chris Daley | From Page: A1

     
    Past due state taxes bring arrest

    By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1

     
    Sanford trial: Prosecution, defense rest

    By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

    Woman, dog back from Oso

    By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1, 6 Comments | Gallery

     
     
     
    DA candidate to remain on ballot

    By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A9

    Dog talk with Uncle Matty: Benji and the Bickersons

    By Matthew Margolis | From Page: A10

     
    CPCSD seat unfilled

    By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A14

    Lew Uhler backs Ranalli

    By News Release | From Page: A14

     
    .

    Opinion

    Something to think about: Teach your children well

    By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A6

     
    Retain Bill Schultz as Recorder-Clerk

    By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A6, 1 Comment

     
    .

    Letters

    District 4 candidate

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A7, 1 Comment

     
    Open meetings

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A7

    Volunteers and homeless camps

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A7

     
    Bicycle events and traffic control

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A7

    Evacuation

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A7, 7 Comments

     
    .

    Sports

    Savannah Stephens can swing the bat

    By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A11 | Gallery

     
    King of the West roars into Placerville

    By Gary Thomas | From Page: A11

    First and goal: Bunt etiquette

    By Mike Bush | From Page: A11

     
    Oak Ridge suffers tough 2-1 setback

    By Mike Bush | From Page: A11

    Jennings wins national title

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: A11 | Gallery

     
    Roundup: April 17, 2014

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: A12 | Gallery

    .

    Prospecting

    Plantastic sale this Saturday

    By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

     
    Spring art brightens government center

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B2 | Gallery

    Things to do: April 18, 2014

    By Democrat Calendar | From Page: B2

     
    Time out: A grand time at Grand China

    By Earle Camembert | From Page: B3 | Gallery

    Temple Kol Shalom hosts Passover Seder

    By News Release | From Page: B3

     
    Student art featured for Third Saturday

    By News Release | From Page: B3

    Promenade in high style

    By Historic Old Sacramento | From Page: B4

     
    Sac State Presents ‘Gypsy’

    By California State Unversity, Sacramento | From Page: B4

    Friday nights are engaging at the de Young

    By Fine Arts | From Page: B5

     
    Hats On For the Kids raises money for children

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B6

    See what is inside the vault

    By Center For Sacramento History | From Page: B6

     
    Eggstravaganza

    By Fairytale Town | From Page: B6

    Museum presents ‘Diesel Days’

    By California State Railroad Museum | From Page: B7

     
    Gallery tips a hat to Dr. Seuss

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B7

    Engagement: Adam Frega and Wednesday Bienusa

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B8

     
    Duty: Air Force Airman Brian Polk

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B8

    Cal Stage presents a season of challenging productions

    By California Stage | From Page: B8

     
    Duty: Army Pfc. Kyle W. Beasy

    By Democrat Staff | From Page: B8

    KVIE calls for artists

    By Kvie | From Page: B9

     
    A Couple of Blaguards tell tales

    By Harris Center for the Arts | From Page: B9

    America’s ClayFest II celebrates a rich history

    By Blue Line Arts | From Page: B14

     
    Fine Arts Museums feature two shows

    By Fine Arts | From Page: B15

    See wildflowers on train ride

    By Railtown | From Page: B15

     
    Easter at Northstar is family friendly

    By Northstar California | From Page: B15

    .

    Essentials

    Crime Log: March 28-30

    By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

     
    .

    Obituaries

    Frederick Wilbur Heymann

    By Contributor | From Page: A2

     
    Arthur W. Cornell

    By Contributor | From Page: A2

    Frank “Bud” Kraus Jr.

    By Contributor | From Page: A2

     
    Roy Cluness Chaix

    By Contributor | From Page: A2

    .

    Real Estate

    Faster sales with spring staging

    By Ken Calhoon | From Page: HS4

     
    Coldwell Banker outsells the competition

    Press Release | From Page: HS7

    Handsome Redmond suits modern families

    Press Release | From Page: HS11

     
    Growing your own

    By Marni Jameson | From Page: HS14

     
    Fraud workshop scheduled

    Press Release | From Page: HS21

    HCD launches assistance program

    Press Release | From Page: HS22, 1 Comment

     
    EZ Mortgages Inc. opens Placerville office

    By News Release | From Page: HS22, 1 Comment

    .

    Comics

    Sudoku

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

     
    Speed Bump

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

    Working It Out

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

     
    Shoe

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

    Rubes

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

     
    Tundra

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

    TV Listings

    By Contributor | From Page: A13

     
    .

    Home Source

    Faster sales with spring staging

    By Ken Calhoon | From Page: HS4

    Coldwell Banker outsells the competition

    Press Release | From Page: HS7

    Handsome Redmond suits modern families

    Press Release | From Page: HS11

    Growing your own

    By Marni Jameson | From Page: HS14

    Fraud workshop scheduled

    Press Release | From Page: HS21

    HCD launches assistance program

    Press Release | From Page: HS22, 1 Comment

    EZ Mortgages Inc. opens Placerville office

    By News Release | From Page: HS22, 1 Comment