Probably a good use of the funds, but a bad idea to reapportion. Very Bad precedent. As someone indicated, they are called Special Purpose for a reason. Some people may not agree that a new roof on the library is appropriate, but would never have any say in the matter if Commissioners move in this direction.
Unless you're a fan of the most vile part of the Rap game (please don't use that as a criticism of all Rap music or any particular culture or ethnic group), you call the law. Basically follow the directions of the person above who gave the phone number, and we can all move on to tomorrow's squawk.
I said the same thing about the recent attempts at voter suppression. My exact quote, "It is 2012, can someone explain to me why some states and politicians are trying to implement voter suppression laws or practices."
Please read the entire post before you attribute this an argument against the Herald's editorial.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared up the
question of whether a U.S. citizen has
the constitutional right to keep a
handgun in the home when it struck
down the District of Columbia’s
blanket prohibition of handgun
possession in 2008. That ruling by the
high court made it clear that the
right to bear arms as spelled out in
the Second Amendment is a right of the
individual.
True, but the Herald left out Scalia's (one of if not the most conservative judges and a strict interpreter of Constitution) contention that there is a limitation on weapon ownership. He went on to say ""We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons',"
He also wrote for the majority that nothing in that ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Remember Scalia said all that during the same handgun ban ruling that this editorial cites as definitive right of an individual to bear arms. The example this paper cites was a very narrow law that banned handguns. It had nothing to do with rifles or shotguns, which were allowed by Washington DC law, abeit with certain restrictions.
That being said, I actually agree with the premise of this editorial and like the Herald find myself as one of those who fall somewhere in between the extremes on both sides of this argument. However, I don't think that discussion of assault weapon bans and gun clip restrictions are a non-starter. Every idea, even the ones I consider dumb as postulated by NRA LEADERSHIP (I recently realized that there NRA Leadership and NRA Membership don't necessarily jibe with each other), ARE and SHOULD BE on the table.
If you say so, but my argument was to defend your ability to hang on to your rifles that you use for sport and hunting, but if you want to make an argument for the lethal ability of a shotgun, then feel free to add it to the conversation of weapons that need to be discussed. As i said before, these comparisons don't impress or convince me in any of my beliefs that LEGITIMATE conversation is needed on this issue and your attempt to defend the AR against a shotgun just made me stronger in my resolve.
URWrongAgain 4 weeks, 1 day ago on Squawk of the day - April 24, 2013
Squawk of the day - April 24, 2013
LOL, Best post of the week.
URWrongAgain 1 month ago on Squawk of the day - April 18, 2013
Squawk of the day - April 18, 2013
@trudy2, They don't like anybody INSIDE of Albany.
URWrongAgain 1 month, 3 weeks ago on School Board approves tribunals and E-rate payment plan to WG&L
School Board approves tribunals and E-rate payment plan to WG&L
Just curious. What was the federal finding regarding the e-rate investigation? Still ongoing?
URWrongAgain 2 months, 1 week ago on Battle Color ceremony canceled
Battle Color ceremony canceled
What @dingleberry said. Hit the proverbial nail on the head.
URWrongAgain 2 months, 3 weeks ago on County wants to reappropriate SPLOST funds
County wants to reappropriate SPLOST funds
Probably a good use of the funds, but a bad idea to reapportion. Very Bad precedent. As someone indicated, they are called Special Purpose for a reason. Some people may not agree that a new roof on the library is appropriate, but would never have any say in the matter if Commissioners move in this direction.
Out.
URWrongAgain 3 months, 1 week ago on Squawk of the Day - Feb. 12, 2013
Squawk of the Day - Feb. 12, 2013
Unless you're a fan of the most vile part of the Rap game (please don't use that as a criticism of all Rap music or any particular culture or ethnic group), you call the law. Basically follow the directions of the person above who gave the phone number, and we can all move on to tomorrow's squawk.
URWrongAgain 3 months, 1 week ago on Albany NAACP names interim leadership
Albany NAACP names interim leadership
I said the same thing about the recent attempts at voter suppression. My exact quote, "It is 2012, can someone explain to me why some states and politicians are trying to implement voter suppression laws or practices."
Crazy ain't it?
URWrongAgain 4 months ago on The gun control debate will be with us for some time
The gun control debate will be with us for some time
Please read the entire post before you attribute this an argument against the Herald's editorial.
True, but the Herald left out Scalia's (one of if not the most conservative judges and a strict interpreter of Constitution) contention that there is a limitation on weapon ownership. He went on to say ""We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons',"
He also wrote for the majority that nothing in that ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Remember Scalia said all that during the same handgun ban ruling that this editorial cites as definitive right of an individual to bear arms. The example this paper cites was a very narrow law that banned handguns. It had nothing to do with rifles or shotguns, which were allowed by Washington DC law, abeit with certain restrictions.
That being said, I actually agree with the premise of this editorial and like the Herald find myself as one of those who fall somewhere in between the extremes on both sides of this argument. However, I don't think that discussion of assault weapon bans and gun clip restrictions are a non-starter. Every idea, even the ones I consider dumb as postulated by NRA LEADERSHIP (I recently realized that there NRA Leadership and NRA Membership don't necessarily jibe with each other), ARE and SHOULD BE on the table.
URWrongAgain 4 months, 1 week ago on Cookie Shoppe a downtown success story
Cookie Shoppe a downtown success story
Best Reuben Sandwich anywhere and then you get to take home some delicious baklava. 2Die4.
URWrongAgain 4 months, 1 week ago on Squawk of the Day 11 Jan 2013
Squawk of the Day 11 Jan 2013
If you say so, but my argument was to defend your ability to hang on to your rifles that you use for sport and hunting, but if you want to make an argument for the lethal ability of a shotgun, then feel free to add it to the conversation of weapons that need to be discussed. As i said before, these comparisons don't impress or convince me in any of my beliefs that LEGITIMATE conversation is needed on this issue and your attempt to defend the AR against a shotgun just made me stronger in my resolve.
Thanks for the info.