published Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

'Changing times mean new weapons' and more Letters to the editors

Changing times mean new weapons

The NRA soon will outlive its usefulness. We will need a new organization for these changing, dangerous times. Let's call it the National Tactical Nuclear Weapons Association (NTNWA). After all, when the "big nasty government" deprives us all of our liberties, what use will assault weapons be against tanks and planes?

We all should have personal anti-tank weapons and shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles in our closets. And why not personal tactical nuclear weapons? It's the only way to assure our freedom!

In the meantime, we would only use them for recreational purposes, of course. Just think of deer hunting with your own TNW. What a blast!

After all, in all my vast experience, I have never been acquainted with a nuclear bomb that got up all by itself, walked into a crowded city and detonated itself. It's people that do bad things, not weapons.

One more thing: don't listen to the closet liberals who dare oppose this idea. They're only interested in depriving you of your Second Amendment rights.

HERBERT K. LEA

Chickamauga, Ga.

Premiums already higher for smokers

The front-page article on Friday, Jan. 25, "Law may leave smokers without insurance," was not worth the space.

For years, the insurance companies have been charging larger premiums for smokers. Most applicants for insurance have to take a physical.

For the writer to insinuate that the Affordable Care Act is going to create higher premiums is not entirely true. I would think before you print some of the data from the Associated Press, and its writers, you would research it a little more.

We non-smokers have been paying for the health care of smokers for years.

NORMAN DAVIS

Sewanee, Tenn.

We know what the president said

I am highly offended by the editorial on the Free Press page Jan. 23 titled "What Obama Really Meant." It sinks to a level of inappropriate and dumbed-down journalism!

I listened to Mr. Obama's speech. I heard what this man said, I don't need an editor to explain to me.

What Obama really meant. Is the editor so esteemed that he can interpret the words of another? Does he know more than the speaker about what the speaker was saying? I don't think so! This is not how communication works.

Communication involves speaking and listening. When this is done, hopefully there is a "light" burning upstairs and the gist of the message registers with the listener and a message has been exchanged. We do not need others to instruct us how to hear what we already heard!

To top it all off, the editor says in the last paragraph: When you take the time to "read into" what Obama was actually saying in his inaugural address ... don't listen or hear what is said, read into it what you want it to say to suit your interests.

CAROL VANDENBOSCH

Sewanee, Tenn.

Fighting billboards offends our rights

Appreciating -- or at least accepting -- billboards is an act of grace. Better that we tolerate these silent heralds with cheer than to huff upon our rights. To war against billboards, as cities such as Knoxville have, one offends real property rights of free speech and the right to make a living. Being subject to "visual pollution" is not a tort. If I extend grace to others, I am able to be won by billboard jostlings. I become, if you will, open. I absorb their staccato because they tell of me human industry. In cacophony I perceive human effort, the genius of my fellow man.

To our unhappy esthetes, I recommend the virtue of forbearance. People who complain about billboards tend to favor the art of prohibition. That's all we need -- one more lawful activity put under the heel. Our refined friends might want to be careful pursuing limits to freedom, especially if they come off looking priggish and precious. In contrast, ordinary supporters of these liberties may be more manly and more liberal in the end.

DAVID TULIS

Story clears up weapons confusion

Congratulations on running the article on Jan. 20, "What are assault weapons?"

I have seen so many people making comments about these weapons that you can almost tell they have no idea of what is really considered to be an "assault weapon." Your article gave some clear definitions.

It also explained that some of these weapons have already been declared illegal in some seven states, but each state uses different criteria for "assault weapon."

I notice that the federal "Brady Assault Weapon Ban" was not mentioned. It was allowed to expire when the Columbine, Colo., shooting occurred in 1999 and did not stop the shootings.

I hope you will rerun this article so that more people can become informed.

Maybe on the front page of the Metro section.

GENE HAY

Mall runoff hurts area properties

I live downstream from Hamilton Place mall and have suffered from its stormwater runoff since the mall was built and have had thousands of dollars in losses since the flooding started. Mayor Roberts was told of this problem, and every mayor since was made aware of the problem.

Over the years, city officials have made many promises which they did not keep. In some cases they have outright lied. They have continued to allow rich, greedy developers to build without building holding ponds, thereby, increasing the value of their property while diminishing the value of the less-well-off property owners.

If the city is going to continue using my property as a holding pond for the wealthy, then the least it could is raise the affected buildings.

Mayor Littlefield and Ann Coulter both promised at a meeting in 2005 that they would fix this problem. I am still waiting for the fix. I did notice that they acted very quickly to spend around $600,000 to fix a problem at the Chattanooga Country Club.

If the stormwater people cannot, or will not, do their job, then the city needs to privatize this work. It couldn't possible get any worse.

HOMER GOINS

Social Security is a fraud

The Free Press' interpretation of Obama's inauguration speech (editorial, Jan. 23) was spot on and necessary because of President Obama's obfuscation. However, the editor's prescription for fixing Social Security and Medicare misses the mark, and is only marginally better than the president's idea of taxing us more to prop up failing programs. Drew's view: "A responsible leader would make rational responsible improvements to entitlement programs." In truth, the only responsible treatment of fraudulent programs is to kill them, not make them solvent.

Social Security was dishonest from its inception. It was sold to Americans as "insurance."

However, if any insurance company ever sold a policy with the same parameters as Social Security, its executives would be imprisoned. Both programs are more like Ponzi schemes than insurance -- with one big difference: Ponzi never forced his pigeons to buy into his fraudulent scheme. Most Americans would never voluntarily buy into Social Security or Medicare. Evidently they perceive the politicians' dishonesty. Ponzi's victims could say no. Uncle Sam's victims are forced to pay.

Social Security is called the third rail of politics because criticizing it is supposed to be politically fatal. It is the jewel in FDR's crumbling legacy, the Democratic Party's crowning achievement.

It is nevertheless a fraud.

NED NETTERVILLE

Lone Oak, Tenn.

6
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.
Easy123 said...

I bet Ned Netterville will send all his Social Security benefits right back to where they came from considering his view on the subject! Oh wait...

January 29, 2013 at 12:13 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Maybe Ned failed to pay into the system, and now hates everyone who did.

January 29, 2013 at 7:35 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

NED NETTERVILLE...I'm wondering if you are collecting SS as we speak. If not, then you will no doubt be collecting from it eventually. If you're feeling so victimized by it, let me ask you this: would your rather be a "victim" of Social Security (as you're collecting your payments from it each month)? Or would you rather have been a victim of someone like Bernie Madoff and ended up losing everything, including maybe even your home?

You people who keep calling SS a Ponzi scheme could not do or say anything that makes you look any more idiotic - you're on a par with the creationists and the birthers. There is nothing the least bit fraudulent about it. We all know how it works and we've known how it works from day one. If it doesn't fit your exact definition of what you call "insurance," well, BIG EFFIN' DEAL. It works! When we reach retirement age, we actually have money that comes to us each and every month until the day we die. And while it might not be a fortune, it has meant that hundreds of millions of Americans have been able to live out their older years with some kind of dignity and comfort. It has worked flawlessly for over 70 years. That's a pretty damn good track record - especially for a "Ponzi scheme."

January 29, 2013 at 12:30 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Being subject to 'visual pollution' is not a tort. If I extend grace to others, I am able to be won by billboard jostlings. I become, if you will, open. I absorb their staccato because they tell of me human industry. In cacophony I perceive human effort, the genius of my fellow man." - David Tulis

WTF?? If you are trying to impress with the floweriness of your language, well, you did a great job of it. I'm impressed all they way to spasms of laughter. I've never seen anyone attempt to defend the eye-sore of billboards in such an ostentatiously poetic (?) way.

Look, we have way too many damn billboards. Most of them are ugly and tacky and are little more than visual litter. A few of them in well chosen places would serve their purpose well, perhaps, but when they reach the level of over-kill (and they reached that level here a long time ago), they cease to serve any useful purpose. Like the "cacophony" of campaign signage that crops up in various places around town at election time, they only cancel themselves out by just contributing to the clutter. I daresay, industry and business will still thrive without them, or with at least some sensible regulation as to their placement.

I never thought of billboard lovers as being "more manly and more liberal," but if that's how you see yourself, then whoop-dee-friggin'-doo. I guess I'll just have to accept the fact that I'm one of those "priggish and precious" aesthetes. I can live with that.

January 29, 2013 at 2:02 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

David Tulis wove every thing into his little sermonette except how much God loves billboards (except billboards that advertise beer, adult book shops, liquor, abortion-clinics, casinos, all that freedom to choose stuff he calls "sin").

Tulis is another Christian Reconstructionist posing as a lover of liberty, as long as it's his liberty to turn America into a Christian Theocracy.

http://nooganomics.com/2012/09/of-imbeciles-and-the-unborn/

Tennesse's Taliban at work.

January 29, 2013 at 2:59 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Here's some quotes from R. J. Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstuction. Here's the ideas espoused by Lohr, Tulis, Orr, and others. Before you believe that they're some form of liberty-minded Christian people, think again.

"God in His law requires the death penalty for homosexuals."

"The state is a bankrupt institution. The only alternative to this bankrupt 'humanistic' system is a God-centered government."

"Segregation or separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator. Toleration is the excuse under which this leveling is undertaken, but the concept of toleration conceals a radical intolerance. In the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions as though no differences existed."

"Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence . . . The law is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so."

"All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They are thus idolaters, and are, in our generation, when our world is idolatrous and our states also, to be objects of missionary activity. They must be called out of their idolatry into the service of the living God."

"God's covenant with Adam required him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it (Gen. 1:26 ff) under God according to God's law-word. The restoration of that covenant relationship was the work of Christ, His grace to His elect people.The fulfillment of that covenant is their great commission: to subdue all things and all nations to Christ and His law-word.

Does this sound like America? Does this sound like liberty for all? This is what these Christian fanatics offer. American freedoms crushed by their desire to turn America into a dictatorial Christian Theocracy.

What's the difference between these Christian fanatics and Muslim fanatics wanting Sharia law?

More of Rushdoony's intolerance and craziness can be found here.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_RRushdoony.htm

Beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing. More doubly aware when they carry a cross — the Christian noose isn't far behind.

January 29, 2013 at 8:11 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.