published Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

'Let us all have equal weapons' and more letters to the editors

Let us all have equal weapons

Now that the drug cartels have assault weapons, they want to take guns away from us! Is there something wrong with this? Do we really want the antigun left dictating our constitutional rights? As long as there are criminals, drug cartels, gangs, carjackers, etc., then we should be able to protect ourselves with the same amount of firepower that they bring against us. The only thing the bans being considered will do is embolden the criminal elements of society.

Yes, I also believe that we have to put security forces in our schools. I also believe that teachers with carry permits should be allowed to carry but not required to. I just pray that my grandchildren will never be involved in a situation at school, but if this ever happens that there are armed protectors in place.

JAMES B. CASE, Signal Mountain


Middle class aided, despite DesJarlais

Congress, without the help of Rep. Scott DesJarlais, finally came together to protect the middle class.

On Tuesday, (Jan. 1), Congress passed a bipartisan compromise that extends much needed tax cuts for middle-class Tennesseans and local small businesses. And yet, Rep. DesJarlais ignominiously voted against extended tax cuts for middle class Tennesseans who are working hard to make ends meet and small businesses that make up the economic backbone of our economy.

If the fiscal cliff had not been averted, taxes on the middle class would have gone up by an average of $1,600, a hefty price to pay when the economy is struggling and millions are looking for work.

I think this is just another shameful decision in Mr. DesJarlais' political career.

HASSAN MIRZA, Tennessee Fair Share


'Cliff' performance in Senate pitiful

So the dreaded "fiscal cliff" has been averted, but about the only thing we can be thankful for is not to have to hear that hackneyed phrase over and over.

What a pitiful performance! Evidently, most senators got to see the 154-page bill only three hours before they voted. I guess there just was not enough time to notice the $76 billion (with a "b") tax giveaways to the likes of NASCAR, algae and asparagus growers, Hollywood, General Electric, windmill manufacturers, and the usual Wall Street crowd of Goldman Sachs, Citibank and Morgan Stanley. The lobbyists must be rubbing their hands.

As a final poke in the eye to taxpayers, we find we have just paid $7 million so that POTUS can finish his golf game in Hawaii.

Maybe the country's motto should be changed from "In God We Trust" to "God Please Save Us."

TERENCE KNEE, Hixson

37
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
RShultz210 said...

It surprises me that the Times Free Press allowed this letter. They must be getting a fair number of complaints about the anti-gun bias that they usually display. Not only have they published a pro-gun letter, but a sensible one at that. Mr. Case is perfectly right. I would advise anyone who doesn't believe him to try defending themselves against somebody with an AR-15 using only a revolver or a bolt-action rifle with just 3 rounds in it. The guy with the AR-15 will bury you in firepower, and you will have no chance of winning the fight. The ONLY way to defend yourself effectively against someone with a powerful semi-automatic rifle is to HAVE a powerful semi-automatic rifle. Otherwise you're dead.

January 8, 2013 at 10:24 a.m.
LibDem said...

I've heard a rumor that there are places where men are not terrified and wetting their pants. What's that about?

January 8, 2013 at 1:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

LibDem,

Not in the WingNut South!

January 8, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.
LibDem said...

I'm in my 8th decade unarmed and unafraid. It's not a bad life and I don't have to buy all those Depends.

January 8, 2013 at 2:44 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

TERENCE KNEE wrote: Maybe the country's motto should be changed from "In God We Trust" to "God Please Save Us."

I prefer "God is Dead—Save Yourself!"

January 8, 2013 at 2:49 p.m.
rumrunr said...

mr. case... chances are your dead either way. the causal gun "user" will choke and even a 15 round mag will not help him. might kill a few innocent bystanders though. but that shouldn't bother you, your dead.

January 8, 2013 at 3:18 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Liberal Democrats love a Constitution, or, amendment that protects immoral behavior. Yeah. They cry 'foul' when our Constitution gives fundamental rights to morally upright propositions. Did I hear someone say...Hypocrites?

January 8, 2013 at 6:11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"Liberal Democrats love a Constitution, or, amendment that protects immoral behavior."

False. And you have no clue how to use a coma.

"Yeah. They cry 'foul' when our Constitution gives fundamental rights to morally upright propositions."

False. That would be your ilk. You just say the Constitution meant something else when it speaks against your Christian Dominionism i.e. the 1st Amendment.

"Did I hear someone say...Hypocrites?"

Did someone say "LIAR"?

January 8, 2013 at 6:13 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Orr has already declared that he is in favor of a Christian Theocracy in America with himself as King.

Que the Looney Tunes music.

January 8, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123~

I truly believe the American system of grammatic rules is flawed. I've sparred with English teachers/professors about this many times. My use of the comma is superior to the antiquated system from which most of us were taught. kwo

I just cannot agree with so many so-called established facts of this world. Take open and closed systems debates about this universe for an example. Common sense rules when the premier geniuses of physics cannot agree. It seems most believe in the closed universe explanation. I certainly do not! Thermal balance of the earth, atrophy, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics all must bow to common sense. (Back to the comma) Then, certainly, the otherwise acceptable rules of English grammar must also bow to common sense. My use of the comma makes much more sense than the currently taught rules of English grammar. kwo

Science Finds God<<<

January 8, 2013 at 10:35 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

daytonsdarwin~

It will ultimately all come down to a Christian Theocracy anyway. Wouldn't You rather have somebody like me, who has unconditional love for somebody like You, to be King? kwo

Science must bow to metaphysics<<<

January 8, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"I truly believe the American system of grammatic rules is flawed. I've sparred with English teachers/professors about this many times. My use of the comma is superior to the antiquated system from which most of us were taught."

It's incorrect.

"I just cannot agree with so many so-called established facts of this world."

That's your problem.

"Take open and closed systems debates about this universe for an example."

There is no debate.

"Common sense rules when the premier geniuses of physics cannot agree."

All true physicists believe that that the universe is an isolated system.

"It seems most believe in the closed universe explanation."

No, they don't.

continued...

January 8, 2013 at 11:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"Thermal balance of the earth, atrophy, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics all must bow to common sense."

First of all, it's not "atrophy". It's "entropy". Secondly, let me quote from on of my favorite sources:

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder."

"However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

"The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

January 8, 2013 at 11:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"(Back to the comma) Then, certainly, the otherwise acceptable rules of English grammar must also bow to common sense. My use of the comma makes much more sense than the currently taught rules of English grammar."

No, they don't. Not only are you making up stuff about science. Your making up your own grammar rules too!

"It will ultimately all come down to a Christian Theocracy anyway."

No, it won't.

"Wouldn't You rather have somebody like me, who has unconditional love for somebody like You, to be King?"

That is called psycopathy.

January 9, 2013 at midnight
daytonsdarwin said...

A rabid Christian Theocrat, a rabid Nazi (perhaps that's redundant) and a rabid dog — all are dangerous and in need of putting down.

At least the dog was lovable at some point and only kills from disease.

The Christian Theocrat and Nazi kill for the pleasure of evil dogma and to please their psychotic masters.

You fit the bill, Orr. You're a pathological liar in service to a imaginary god/master. You're much like Renfield in "Dracula, but with more drool.

God's great unconditional love has caused deaths and mayhem throughout recorded history. Your love is not wanted or needed and is as perverse as the fairy-tale king you worship.

January 9, 2013 at 8:33 a.m.
RShultz210 said...

How in creation did this devolve into random brainfarts about commas, entropy, and the universe? What planet do you people come from?

January 9, 2013 at 1:16 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

RShultz210 said...

How in creation did this devolve into random brainfarts about commas, entropy, and the universe? What planet do you people come from?

A planet untouched by gods, demons, devils, angels, and other imaginary creations by wacky Christian fundamentalists.

January 9, 2013 at 1:25 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

Whatever. Just as long as you don't include me in any of those categories. I don't want to be involved in your off-topic nonsense.

January 9, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

If I'm not mistaken, it was our buddy Ken Orr who changed the subject on this thread.

January 9, 2013 at 1:45 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

RShultz210 said...

Whatever. Just as long as you don't include me in any of those categories. I don't want to be involved in your off-topic nonsense.

Then don't read, don't post. No one included you. You included yourself. Duh!

January 9, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

To daytonsdarwin:

Actually, if you read the post again you will see I didn't include myself in anything. I just asked a simple question that really didn't warrant your nasty response, but then I suspect from your tone that you probably enjoy being nasty anyway. The question was my response to the frustration I experience when some comment like the one by our overly religious friend Mr. Orr touches off a wildly off-topic, acrimonious argument about things that have nothing to do with the original subject of debate, and everyone seems to feel obligated to join in and contribute to the confusion. It's just like a dog forgetting what he's doing and running after a squirrel that scampers past him and all the other dogs running after him. In dogs it's amusing, but in people it's just sad.

January 9, 2013 at 3:20 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

RShultz210, my apologies. I was wrong inasmuch as you did start the conversation here.

No excuses, I am sorry for my remarks towards you.

January 9, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

I may have have been a bit harsh as well. It wasn't YOUR off-topic nonsense that started this whole thing anyway. It was our friendly neighborhood preacher with the comma fetish who did that.

January 9, 2013 at 5 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy said..."First of all, it's not "atrophy". It's "entropy". Secondly, let me quote from on of my favorite sources:..."

Wow, we might be twins, Easy. You left off the letter 'e' from a word, and, I, well, I left out an 'e', and, used an 'a' instead of an 'n'. As they say, "Powerful minds think alike". kwo

“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion” [Alexander the Great.]<<<

Jesus Christ, The Lion of The Tribe of Judah!

January 9, 2013 at 11:42 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Please offer tolerance. The following is what I meant to write in an earlier post:

Liberal Democrats love a Constitution, or, amendment that protects what the Bible labels immoral behavior. Yeah. They cry 'foul', though, when our Constitution gives fundamental rights to morally upright propositions. Did I hear someone say...Hypocrites?

kwo

January 9, 2013 at 11:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"Liberal Democrats love a Constitution, or, amendment that protects immoral behavior."

False. And you have no clue how to use a coma.

"Yeah. They cry 'foul' when our Constitution gives fundamental rights to morally upright propositions."

False. That would be your ilk. You just say the Constitution meant something else when it speaks against your Christian Dominionism i.e. the 1st Amendment.

"Did I hear someone say...Hypocrites?"

Did someone say "LIAR"?

January 10, 2013 at 1:57 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Please research and determine the number of democratic governments which turned tyrant against their own population. This is why the second amendment allows for gun ownership. This United States of America is flirting with a gateway form of government know as socialism. The gateway to communism/tyranny is socialism. Hey People! Wake Up! It can happen over night. The second amendment to our great Constitution is there for a reason. The right to bear arms is so we of a democratic government (In a Republic)can protect ourselves against a 'gone-wrong' government. kwo

January 10, 2013 at 11:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

Can you be any more paranoid?

January 11, 2013 at 10:02 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

Jon Stewart said it best in regard to your argument:

"Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are ACTUALLY, in reality, HAPPENING in this country every year because "a few of us" must remain vigilant against the rise of "Imaginary Hitler".

January 11, 2013 at 10:08 a.m.
RShultz210 said...

To Easy123: While I don't agree entirely with Mr. Orr's assertion that we are on the brink of total disaster, I do see a threat to our freedom in what Obama and Biden are about to do. Ruling by executive order, and useless, draconian gun bans will not accomplish this administration's stated goal of reducing gun violence. You seem to be a logical individual. Surely you could agree that removing the only means a citizen has of defending himself against some drooling, hydrocephalic case of arrested development with an AR-15 or a similar weapon is a bad idea. While I don't believe Obama is another Hitler,(no one could approach the depravity of that man)neither am I at all comfortable with his and other Socialist Democrats tendencies to throw government at every problem as though it were a universal solution. They are way to close to those of the anti-colonial, Marxist father that he is so fond of writing about.

January 11, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
RShultz210 said...

I really need to say a thing or two to our friendly substitute for Dan Martino(for those readers too young to remember him, Dan Martino was a street preacher who wandered around downtown Chattanooga in the 70's and 80's carrying a wooden cross and haranguing people on the sidewalks during lunch breaks and such). Mr. Orr, why must you publish these longwinded and ill-punctuated religious diatribes in areas where they are completely off topic and inappropriate? You may think that you are called upon to bring the light of Jesus into the world and no one denies that you have that right. The trouble with this is that you are doing it in an entirely inappropriate and, frankly, irritating manner. Not only are you alienating people who might otherwise agree with your religious views, but you are doubly irritating those who do not. Your disregard for the logical and proper rules of grammar and punctuation make your missives painful for those of us with a proper education to read. Your knowledge of scripture is impressive, but your lack of knowledge of, or disregard for, the Harbrace manual is monumentally silly. If your wish is to be taken seriously, then believe me when I tell you that this is NOT the way. If you wish to be considered a thoughtful and serious individual instead of "another one of those Christian fundamentalist whackos" then you must not only cease publishing these religious monlogues in contexts where they are obviously not relevant to the subject, but you must also obey the proper rules of English grammar and punctuation no matter how much you disagree with them. To do otherwise will not get you noticed in the way you wish to be, but only tagged as an inarticulate religious "nutjob". It is my hope that you will accept this as constructive criticism and not as an attack upon you or your beliefs.

January 11, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I admire your attempts to reach Mr. Orr, RShultz. I finally gave up when he would make zany statements about the material world, asked for references when corrected, then proceeded to ignore those provided references. I have no problem with belief systems, especially not Christian, as most of the people in my life subscribe to those beliefs. But when ignorance in science is displayed and defended using those beliefs, it diminishes the message. Ken Orr has displayed ignorance on many matters, and yet returns here (usually in the wee hours) and makes the same errors again. I have given up on him at this point; hopefully even lurkers have learned that he is a loony.

January 11, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

RShultz20,

"I do see a threat to our freedom in what Obama and Biden are about to do."

What freedoms will you lose or have you lost?

"Ruling by executive order, and useless, draconian gun bans will not accomplish this administration's stated goal of reducing gun violence."

How do you know? I guess we shouldn't even try if SOME people don't think it will work, correct?

"Surely you could agree that removing the only means a citizen has of defending himself against some drooling, hydrocephalic case of arrested development with an AR-15 or a similar weapon is a bad idea."

No one is proposing removing all guns. That has never been the issue.

"neither am I at all comfortable with his and other Socialist Democrats tendencies to throw government at every problem as though it were a universal solution."

That's what they get paid to do though. That's just what our government does. What is the alternative?

"They are way to close to those of the anti-colonial, Marxist father that he is so fond of writing about."

How so? Obama never met his father but I guess you probably bought into that 2016: Obama's America deal. I can understand how someone could be weary of a rogue government given events throughout history but do you understand the lengths an American rogue government would have to go to do anything like what Hitler, Stalin, etc. did? What makes you think our government would even get to that point?

January 11, 2013 at 4:58 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

To: Easy123 As to what freedom I may lose in all this, I suspect we may all lose our freedom to decide how we wish to defend ourselves. We don’t need any more options to be denied to us especially not the option of having a weapon capable of actually doing a decent job in self defense. As I said before, it’s extremely difficult to defend oneself against an AR-15 with nothing more than a revolver, and it has been proven that gun bans don’t work because the Clinton “assault weapons” ban had no appreciable effect on gun violence during its very dubious tenure. And I don’t recall ever saying that anyone had proposed removing all guns, but the fact is they are proposing to remove the very ones that are the most effective for self defense against the criminals. And, yes, we do pay politicians to govern us, but not at the expense of ignoring the will of the people and ruling by executive fiat as Biden and Obama propose to do to force their solution to the gun violence problem on us. And for someone who never met his father, Obama has certainly been influenced entirely too much by his Marxist ideals.

January 11, 2013 at 10:20 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

lkeithlu: Greetings to you sir. It was my hope that I could effect some improvement by offering advice and/or criticism to Mr. Orr, but from what I’m hearing it seems I might actually have just been wasting my time. I’m not quite sure what to think of him. I’ve only been reading the comments for a few days, but Mr. Orr seems to be everywhere. He’s quite prolific and holds forth on many subjects that he seems to either lack or have incorrect information on. He certainly has a unique belief system I’ll give him that. I was trained as a teacher at the University of Tennessee and his ideas on punctuation are….well…uhm, “interesting” comes to mind. Tell me, is he like that all the time or does he have lucid moments?

January 11, 2013 at 10:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

RShultz: he is like that all the time. Somewhere in the blather he revealed that he was molested as a child and therefore is obsessed with homosexuals but cannot accept that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same. He repeats bizarre and totally wrong statements about science in spite of corrections. He says he wants to learn but shows no sign of doing so. He asks for reading lists but doesn't understand the basics well enough to comprehend the material, even when the sources are for laypeople. I will say one positive thing-he is not mean, like a couple of other Bible-soaked posters here.

January 12, 2013 at 2:06 a.m.
RShultz210 said...

Ikeithlu: Well that explains quite a bit. I wondered about some of the rather bizarre ideation that I thought I detected, and I suspected there might have been some traumatic event in his formative years. I have a niece who was molested at about 6 years of age, and she exhibits some of the same traits although in her case it did not drive her to religious fundamentalism. Some fundamentalists I've seen are mean as you say, and they give us Christians a bad name. Too much openly expressed piety amounts to conceit, and it's not pretty in Christians OR atheists who worship their "logic" and scorn those who are true, non-hypocritical believers. In my 61 years on this planet, I have come to believe that extremism in EITHER direction is just a bad idea. It's why I prefer discussion to argument.

January 12, 2013 at 12:58 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.