en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/794843 Comments by robertchisholm http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520278147 The response was not of a lower level than what was originally posted. Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:11:48 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520278147 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520273377 Really? If I were a fascist I would applaud most of the works of this government not fight to maintain our basic freedoms. Sorry you don't see it that way. By the way please don't try to insult me by calling me a girl. Girls and women have many virtues that are lacking in many males and it is not an insult to call me one. Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:03:11 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520273377 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520266096 You can't see very far or very well. I am not nor have I ever been an architect. When you look up names on the internet please be aware that there is often more than one person with the same name. Also I have never lived or operated a business out of Golden. You frequently refer to legal references that for your information are good till the next one comes along. I have never held myself up as an authority but I do hold opinions that are as valid as most other opinions and usually based in some fact or at least in logic. I look at an executive order that says a president can murder if he so desires and form an opinion of its relationship based on my own ability to read and understand. The same goes for a law that says the president can detain a citizen without trial or real evidence indefinitely. I don't need some other branch of that same government telling me that is not unconstitutional. I know it is. But it is much safer to let those that know more than me decide than to have my own opinion. If I did that I probably would always agree with you and never risk being accused of having a thought different from those in positions of authority. Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:49:39 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520266096 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520248533 Really Johnny. How many ad hominem attacks does one have to endure here before he is allowed to defend himself? Apparently you don't read all of the trash your friends post or since they aren't directed at you you see no harm in them. The only ones I attack are the nastiest of the bunch and you can't tell me their attacks aren't of a personal nature. So just cool your pipes and go back to indoctrinating school kids or whatever you do. Since I haven't posted on here for more than a year I could care less if some whining, complaining authoritarian manages to get me removed from the forum. In other words, your threats mean nothing to me. By the way, I believe I have explained and defended my opinions better than most here. Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:17:15 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520248533 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520243246 Caliber does not actually define the improperly labeled "assault weapon" . These tend to be 223, 308, 30-06, 7.62 x 39 (as a matter of fact most any 30 caliber round. Some pistols can be placed in this category that shoot 45 or 9mm calibers and probably many more. Hunting weapons span the range of all calibers mentioned. A shooter really proficient with his weapon can do as much damage with a high powered hunting rifle. But if you ban calibers larger than 223 you effectively ban hunting deer, elk, bear etc. I am sure many people would love to do this but I don't think it would go over well. Many hunting weapons are semi-automatic and have a high rate of fire. Most have not had very high capacity magazines adapted for them but they still have a high rate of fire. I have to say I believe criminal control beats gun control in most circumstances. I believe America has a certain love for the outlaw mentality and refuses to punish many criminals to the extent of effectively curbing their behavior. Good luck with trying to control the mentally ill gunman or bomb builder. You really cannot maintain a free and open society and manage to control all of these factors. You must have some faith in your fellow citizens and realize that sometimes bad things are going to happen. Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:06:57 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520243246 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520162113 You say there is no mention of gun rights in the Constitution but with any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment investigating all of the evidence from the time it is apparent that is not true. The Federalist Papers do define a right to gun ownership beyond defense of the state. This is why the second amendment is in the so called Bill of Rights. I believe that is Federalist 45. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:35:31 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520162113 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520157582 A ban by type of weapon would be difficult in the sense that there are millions of all types of weapons in circulation. The ban of sales forward of the law is possible as was done in the previous assault weapons ban although as you pointed out this mostly addressed appearances, not capability. The problem is all of those weapons that are already out there. Would you attempt to confiscate them or demand that they be turned in? This would make it illegal to possess a previously legal weapon and criminalize behavior after the fact. This would create an untenable political position for those advocating confiscation and a dangerous confrontational atmosphere between otherwise law abiding people who refuse to comply and government. I believe in the very harsh punishment of those that commit violent acts with or without guns. Get the pot smokers out of jail, put the cartels out of business and make room for those who commit violent acts. We see many violent criminals set free into society where they repeat their offenses. Unfortunately, this does not address the mentally ill gunman who has never committed a violent crime before he butchers innocent people. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:26:32 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520157582 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520142102 You really don't rate a response but this is for you. You very aptly named yourself DimBulbs but don't try to apply that moniker to me. I doubt that you ever have anything positive to contribute to any conversation but I do suspect that my buttocks is truly more intellectual than your brain. Nothin personal, just sayin. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:58:09 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520142102 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520132044 But making mischief at their expense might be. And don't forget the Obama administration with Fast and Furious certainly contributed to the armament of the cartels. As for the Mexican government's armament, I am pretty sure most of it came from the United States. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:38:43 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520132044 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520127097 Let me see bad neighbor _26. Yes, I do get a few dollars a month in social security which I was compelled to pay into for the many years of work I did earning a living and serving in the military. If that is the dole to you, fine. It was simply the law to me and I conformed. Now I intend to collect it as I believe is as it should be. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:29:12 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520127097 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520094336 This, of course, has nothing to do with anything. Just another emotional jerk on our string. I have seen so many children killed by the zealots that support wars against people who really cannot defend themselves by governments of all political stripes that it doesn't work anymore. As far as I am concerned, I am much more concerned about the power of government than the odds of being killed by insane butchers from the general population. Government butchers always prove to be a bigger problem and much more efficient at the killing business. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:26:08 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520094336 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520087186 Very few of these responses actually address what was said in the letter. They are an emotional response to the word secede which I didn't even advocate. The letter actually said as attacks on the Bill of Rights increase so will discontent. I haven't picked a fight, only responded to what I consider mostly irrational attacks on others as well as myself. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:13:18 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520087186 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520079311 Again, just what I was talking about. What do you have against Erie? If you are an example of the"wisdom of the citizenry" outside of the "Emirate of Erie" I would have to say that you think far too highly of yourself. It is hard to have an IQ of less than zero. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:58:57 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520079311 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520075066 You are wrong. They are being removed and it is not paranoia but fact. Free speech zones are but one small example. The two examples mentioned in my letter are not something I invented. As for "gun rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution" that is not worth a reply. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:50:59 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520075066 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520068982 Precisely why there is no reason to communicate here. You took this as an opportunity to attack Texans, obviously a group you hate. As for "those who want to secede may do so with our blessing" , yeah, right. The response of this government will be war. You are right about the cartels having more sophisticated weapons than Texas as the U.S. government supplied them with those weapons. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:40:12 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520068982 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520063461 Again, many of you don't appear capable of any rational thought or at least of understanding the written word. You are free to write what you please but the attacks on others by many of the posters was way over the top and reveals a hatred of those with whom they believe to be different from themselves. As for wanting an unchallenged soap box for my views, on the contrary, I would really like to believe that a few of you are capable of something other than partisan drivel. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:30:25 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment520063461 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment519997154 It has been a long time since i have posted here. Indeed, I don't even read the comments here very often. My letter published today was written and sent before I knew of the events in Connecticut. I would never have written a letter on this subject current with such events as I would have considered it to be in poor taste. Please understand, however, that this only reinforces my decision not to respond in general at this site. Many of your reactions reveal not only a lack of understanding of what I have said but your personal hatred for other Americans and apparently even the people of Erie. Why would the people you trash so freely here want to be in union with you? This letter, like most I have submitted recently, is intended to keep attention focused on actions that directly affect our freedom, in particular the assault on the Bill of Rights. Simply put it says for each violation of those rights there will be more and more Americans who decide they have had enough. Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:42:18 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_22192779/robert-chisholm-gun-control-will-push-states-secede#IDComment519997154 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_16568907#IDComment109054926 Well said! Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:58:19 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_16568907#IDComment109054926 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_16409141#IDComment105853983 Easy to say you are wrong. The problem is untying all those knots you speak of. Just when you think you have one untied you realize there are two more you didn't see before. To make it easy I might just ask exactly which major points you disagree with? 1.) That Congress is responsible for monetary policy 2.) Expansion of the money supply is monetary inflation by definition 3.) Price inflation differs from monetary inflation and is realized when increased monetary supply works through system 4.) Banks have held onto money dumped into system from TARP and Fed window borrowing 5.) Debt is major problem now and cannot be solved by adding more debt 6.) That the future does not bode well for a nation that refuses to ever get its financial house in order 7.) Fed's main purpose is to protect Wall Street major player banks 8.) 2 greatest failures of our system have been under Fed direction of economy 9.) Fed is arrogant because of lack of accountability to American taxpayer 10)That our current debt and financial obligations already almost exceed our ability to finance them. Just list by number which points you disagree with so I can work on it and it shouldn't be so hard for me to come to a more reasoned response when I understand where I am failing. Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:12:51 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_16409141#IDComment105853983 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_16409141#IDComment105848203 "A sluggish economy means unemployment is likely only to decline slowly from its current level of about 10%." Unemployment will not really improve until the changed nature of our economy is acknowledged. The exportation of the industrial infrastructure and high paying manufacturing jobs to "emerging market" countries has resulted in higher unemployment and underemployment and the conversion to a service industry economy with inherently lower paying jobs. Obama recently stated that we need to rebuild our industrial base. I believe he is right but I don't believe he is serious and I believe he means that government must take control and direct industry toward his proverbial promised land of a new green energy economy. The Fed has no real ability to control unemployment. The talking points of their "dual mandate" are attempts to explain why they exist to viewers of CNBC or Bloomberg. Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:17:53 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_16409141#IDComment105848203