URWrongAgain 2 years, 5 months ago on 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.



URWrongAgain 2 years, 5 months ago on 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 2 years, 5 months ago on 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 2 years, 6 months ago on 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.

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.


URWrongAgain 2 years, 6 months ago on Cookie Shoppe a downtown success story

Best Reuben Sandwich anywhere and then you get to take home some delicious baklava. 2Die4.


URWrongAgain 2 years, 6 months ago on 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.