Today's Weather


Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast


On Your Mind


Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 - 06:14:41 am MST




On Your Mind is the Herald/Review’s telephone opinion line and is intended as a public forum for our readers. Comments represent the opinions of callers and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the newspaper or any specific knowledge that we have. Readers may share their opinions by calling 458-0332, or by e-mail to svhoym@transedge.com or regular mail at 102 Fab Ave., Sierra Vista AZ 85635. Please keep comments less than 90 seconds. Comments are edited.




Dec. 13



I have a double car wide driveway. One half is empty of car the other half has a car parked on it. My yard is a 25-foot square rock covered area. Plenty of area for delivery wouldn’t you think? Not so! The newspaper is delivered nearly every morning under the car sitting in the other half of the driveway making it necessary to carry a broom to sweep the paper out from under the car. What gives?

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t know the exact situation with the carrier who delivers your newspaper, but we encourage you to contact circulation manager Aimee Fabre at 515-4642 to discuss the problem.

I found the Dec. 13 Herald editorial, “Bush and dealing with Iran,” to have the appearance of being a fairly sober assessment, with this qualification. I was surprised the Herald did not mention that both British and Israeli intelligence services strongly take issue with the latest National Intelligence Estimate, put together by our 16 intelligence agencies. British and Israeli intelligence consider the NIE to be a deliberately watered-down, politically compromised report. It is common knowledge that we have some intelligence analysts in our 16 intelligence agencies who do not hesitate to allow their personal sentiments influence their analysis of the daily bits and pieces of intelligence information they see. My common sense tells me to side with the British and Israeli intelligence services, which believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. I find it hard to understand why Iran, the world’s second largest oil producer, needs nuclear power. Also, I find it hard to explain why Iran would bother to stock long- range missiles, which it now has, unless they are meant to carry nuclear warheads. Iran does not need long-range missiles to reach nearby Israel, which the Iranian government has called for its annihilation. However, to reach Europe and the U.S., Iran would require long-range missiles.

In reference to a letter to the editor on Dec. 13, “The God that I worship is different”: Well, praise Jesus that you were all born to the one true religion! How blessed is that? Sarcasm aside, you know that Muslims born into Islam feel the same way — to the death. Buddhists born into Buddhism feel the same way. Hindus born into Hinduism feel the same way. And the ancient Greeks felt the same way about Zeus. Thousands of gods and religions have been created from humans from the beginning of mankind to include Christianity. The only common thing all religions have is that none of their gods ever really show themselves to be real. It’s all a blind faith game! “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen F. Roberts.

I just finished reading Ruth Neleski’s letter in today’s newspaper about calling the season what it is — Christmas. She has really got the right idea. She knows what Christmas is and understands it even though she is Jewish. It’s a shame it has to be “holiday” season. Why can’t we leave Christ in Christmas? Christ is the reason for the season. Are we afraid of offending agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.? This is our Christmas season. It’s time we acknowledge that and get back to our basic Christian fundamentals.

The Iranians have been testing missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. At the same time, we know they are enriching uranium for nuclear bombs. What is the matter with our military and our government? They need to stop the Iranian nuclear program today, or tomorrow, or this week. They need to get that little twerp in Iran who claims to be president and tell him we will nuke his facilities if necessary. It’s better to do it today than wait two years when they can wreak havoc on the world.

I’m calling about Ruth Neleski, who in her letter questions what happened to the word Christmas in Sierra Vista? It’s easy to see that all the way from the chamber of commerce taking out the word Christmas and substituting “holiday” that it truly tells what type of town this is. Do you ever see a church pastor questioning the word holiday instead of Christmas? Or any business with Christian owners saying they want it called a Christmas parade instead of holiday parade? Ruth asked a very good question. What happened to Christmas tree instead of holiday tree? That’s Janet Napolitano, the Democratic dictator governor, who made a mandate that it would be called a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree. That’s what happened to the word Christmas, which means birth of Christ. All you have to do is ask the chamber what happened to the word Christmas. They are the ones who deleted it. Thank you for the letter.

I attended the Cochise College band concert at the mall last night and it was great. It’s too bad that the mall didn’t allow the concert to be held in the food court. It was by Dillard’s, and there was nowhere to sit. But the concert was great.

I want to thank you for your new column on TV and the upcoming sports for the week in your sports section. It used to take me more than once going through the sports pages to find out what was coming up during the next week. Thanks and cheers!

Kudos to the woman who designed and created the Coronado National Memorial Christmas ornament. It is beautiful, and she should be very proud.

Dec. 14

Ms. (Jacqueline) O’Connor made some grand assumptions and generalizations about Democrats in her recent letter to the editor: “Democrats are using immigration by urging open borders and amnesty for millions to gain voters and increase union membership.” If O’Connor has some pertinent, substantiated research that brought her to this conclusion, I’m sure the readers would appreciate seeing it. In the meantime, I must say that never, not even once, have I heard any Democrat promote open borders, nor amnesty. Democrats I know favor comprehensive immigration reform to strengthen security on our borders. Democrats have been and will continue to advocate stopping the political games that divide us. Democrats encourage bipartisan legislation that will solve immigration problems. I hardly think O’Connor can be considered a confidante to, nor an expert on, Democrats’ opinions, policies or intentions.

Hey, what’s with this? In previous years when the politically correct crud being shoved down our throats, store employees were instructed to say “happy holidays” if any sort of reference was to be made to the season. Never mind the fact that the stores have been decorated to the hilt for months. I don’t know about you, but when I’m holiday shopping I get in the mood and like that sort of thing. But nowadays it seems the store employees I bump into don’t make any reference at all. “Have a nice day” is about the best I get. Heck, PC was better than nothing! So ya know what I do? I say “Merry Christmas” almost every chance I get and loud enough for others to hear. I usually then get a smile and a return greeting. That’s a good thing. Try it and lets get’em back in the habit of the good old days. Merry Christmas, folks! Pass it on.

How long has the city been trying to install its “plastic bag” recycling system, almost a year? Can we really say that it is a success when at last report, there were only about 750 users out of how many homes in Sierra Vista? I have lived here going on 20 years. When we first came, there was a Dumpster in the parking lot at Seventh and Fry, and I believe it was managed by one of the local service organizations. Later there were bins at several locations around town and also managed by service organizations. For some reason, the city took over managing the bins and they were full to overflowing, and the area was a mess. So the city decided to do away with all of this work and mess and just have curbside recycling. There is probably less than a fraction of the recyclables collected today that were gathered in the old bins. Why? I know I used to collect my newspapers and magazines and aluminum cans and recycle them. Now they just go into the garbage and end up in that landfill that they are always proclaiming to want to protect. When the money for tipping fees is weighed against the cost of recycling, recycling is the loser.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The city has been conducting a recycling survey. We encourage you to go to city hall or call 458-3315 to see how you might participate in giving your viewpoint.

I wholeheartedly agree with the article about the people from the south coming over and buying up all of the goods before we in Sierra Vista even have a chance to get anything. We are the ones who support Sierra Vista all year and should have the right to be able to get in on the good sales. I tried to find some things at Big Lots the other day and to no avail I could not find anything. This is a little bit ridiculous. We can’t get items we need because of people coming from the south. Can’t something be done? They should have a lock down.

Kudos to Ron Murray and his letter to the editor about education funding. He hit the nail on the head. All our educators and school board want is more money, more money. Funding does not equate to excellence. Thank you, Ron, for putting out the very important statistics. Right on.

On pages 13 and 14 of today’s Stocking Stuffer the print is almost completely unreadable. On pages 16 of the TV section the white print on the dark background is illegible. The ad for Premier Homes on page 18 is hard to read. These are paid for but they’re unreadable ads. I’m sure it’s not intentional. But perhaps the Herald could make better ads for the advertisers and more readable for the customers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, it’s not intentional. We’re guessing you may have got a copy that was when the press wasn’t fully up to speed. If you’d like another copy, see our circulation department at our 102 Fab Ave. office.

Dec. 15

I want to remind people to please not leave their dogs and cats outside in the freezing cold. The other night we heard dogs howling, and some sounded like pups. They were freezing. Temperatures were below normal. If you can’t take care of them please call animal control. You wouldn’t want to be left out like that.

I am deployed to Iraq from Fort Huachuca. Whenever possible, I enjoy keeping in touch with events back home by reading your newspaper online. It was interesting reading the article about the West Gate and how funding was “appropriated” for it to remain open 24 hours a day, seven days a week through the remainder of the fiscal year. It’s amazing what happens when a community (i.e., special interest groups, a politician) comes together! Hogwash, we (post residents) were sold out! Last year the post library was closed because it was not up to standard. Truth is, it was neglected and became an easy target. We were told the future Army will tap into resources with adjacent communities and form “partnerships” to save money. How is it we can deploy soldiers, leave their families behind and still take away our facilities? During deployments, it is important that a military community comes together and provides support. This is what sets us apart from our civilian neighbors. Fort Huachuca has room for improvement. As a career soldier, I am appalled the Army can pour billions of dollars into Iraq, but can’t fund something as important as a library. Somehow money is found to keep a gate open that does not directly impact the young soldier and his family who, quite possibly, would like to walk to the library.

I read in the Dec. 15 Herald the front page article “Fort gets funds to help keep gate open” till next September. As a citizen and taxpayer, I consider the $327,000 in federal money that will be used to keep the West Gate open for the convenience of the 600 residents living outside the gate to be a boondoggle. I always thought the original offer by the fort to meet their emergency medical needs was a reasonable solution. But it was not enough to satisfy them. We always decry all the “pork” the federal government spends and wastes elsewhere in the country. But when the “pork” is wasted in our own back yard, it’s perfectly OK. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Dec. 16

It was interesting this past week to see Nancy Pelosi get up and vow to not give President Bush any more money this year for the war on terrorism. One has to wonder what country she plans to live in that is immune from terrorist attacks. The war is expensive as all wars are, but to deny our troops the best that money can buy is verging on the edge of treason. The congress just passed a Farm Subsidy Bill in the amount of $286 billion, most of which will end up in the pockets of the wealthy big agribusiness companies. If Congress was serious, they could clean up the waste and corruption in our own government spending and still have more than enough to fight the war and for legitimate domestic programs without breaking the bank and raising taxes.

The Herald editorial (Dec. 16) “Busy week on climate issues” is slanted reporting. It gives the impression that scientists believe global climate change is man-caused. The truth is many scientists believe global climate change is cyclical. For example, scientists have debunked the idea that the Arctic ice is melting as a result of human activity. The warming is mainly the result of ocean currents. The Arctic seems to be undergoing a warming phase, similar to the one it experienced between 1920 and 1950. This was followed by a cooling phase between 1950 and 1990. There is the claim that polar bears will go extinct. Earlier this year a Canadian Press Newswire story reported that in three Arctic villages polar bears are so abundant there’s a public safety crisis. And for the Herald to use Al Gore as an authority on global climate change is ludicrous. Scientists have riddled holes through his recent book on global warming, classifying it as pseudo-science. Furthermore, the science on global climate change is changing at such a fast clip that so-called scientific reports are outdated by the time they are published. The data in them may not be reliable. I wish the Herald would try to give readers the balanced reporting it pretends to practice.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The reference is to an editorial, which is supposed to be slanted to give a point of view. It is not a news article.

Dec. 17

People need to read the U.S. Constitution. Amendment 14 says you become a citizen in two ways: being born to American citizens abroad or being born in the U.S. It doesn’t matter where your parents’ home is. America has survived 200 years because of that document. To say people who are here illegally but are born here are not citizens is wrong.

I think Sen. (Barack) Obama is wasting his time trading barbs with the Clinton camp. The few men in this country who would vote for Sen. (Hillary) Clinton may be those who view her as a mother figure, and there are certainly not sufficient numbers of women to cover the loss in male votes. All that aside, no woman would be capable of handling the war against Islamic terror, and the number of men who might be able to wear those shoes one could count on one hand. Even the male presidential candidates are going to have to step up to the plate and spell out their proposed plans for protecting the country and quit acting like a bunch of pussycats with worries about the other guy’s religion, his position on taxes, and whether he was tough on crime.

The Santas of the World display in the park is beautiful and inspiring. If you, your family and friends have not seen it do take time from the season’s commercialism and enjoy the nostalgia. Thank you to the volunteers who worked so hard to create this Sierra Vista tradition. Especially thank you to the city employees who did a professional job putting up the display. Merry Christmas.

School will soon be out for the holiday. In the past, our schools have been vandalized during this vacation time. It is hoped that school administrations have a security plan in place. More important, parents, be aware of your children’s activities and whereabouts during the holidays. You are responsible for their behavior. Thanks.

LOOK FOR more On Your Mind in Friday’s edition of the Herald/Review.



Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   





    My opinon wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:24 PM:

    " Jay is a nut. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:18 PM:

    " Ed it really doesn't matter what your job was or is. The fact that you wanted to call people "socialists" then in turn mock someone else, lessens your credibility. Thanks Connie/Cassie, but I got this one. Neither a job nor an education make a man. His words and actions are the true promise of character. You have only diminshed yours Mr. Tilton. Oh guess what? Anyone here can question anything you say or do. It's called freedom. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:23 PM:

    " To umm... You couldn't be more wrong about the Patriot Act if you tried. Why don't you try to educate yourself on the matter by checking out http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm You want to talk about disrespect, then for the sake of argument educate yourself before you open your food trap. Your lack of knowledge is an insult to americans who actually care about freedom and preserving our liberties. Uncle Sam doesn't care about some idiot in SV calling their buds on the phone. The government doesn't have time. The government cares about preventing another 9-11, which is what the Act does. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:42 PM:

    " Cassie or Connie, whichever, when you find out what a Supervisory POST is you can question my background. "

    umm... Patriot is it... wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:49 PM:

    " The US Patriot act... which was signed and enacted by people who didnt even read it... allows the government to do what it wants when it wants and mask it under the "We are looking for terrorists." and the "in the best interest." reasoning for doing what officials please, when they please. And as someone who was at and in NYC-9/11, please don't disrespect because we differ on this matter. If you really are a patriot of democracy, then realize that not only entitled to my stand, but still guaranteed the right to say it. That hasnt changed, yet. "

    Cassie wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:12 PM:

    " Ed You were calling people "socialists" earlier, how soon you forget. Now someone gives you a taste of your own medicine, and you want to have a fit? I guess your "certification" was not in diplomacy. Also, your presumption that "anyone in Arizona can strap on a gun and carry it openly" is false. There are many restrictions on a persons privilege to own and carry a weapon. Try to accert your belief in an airport, and Ed goes to jail. Convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence, and mentally handicap people are just a few that may not. "

    Connie wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:11 AM:

    " Ed you started it by calling people "socialists". So you got a taste of your own medicine. How soon we forget. Appearently your "certifications" are not in diplomacy. Ed the Court has ruled against what YOU belief is your right. So the only person who is misinterpreting the Bill of Rights is yourself. You are not what I would consider to be a good American. You insult people then mock them for insulting you back. Then you distort the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How dare you. "

    Patriot wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM:

    " How exactly has the Patriot Act deminished any right you have? It hasn't. Do some research. Almost everything granted under the Patriot Act already existed. It existed for other crimes, but did not include terrorism. The Patriot Act including terrorism into things that the government already did. Wow, it is amazing how uninformed people are on this. Actually it is somewhat embarassing to think Americans do even know what their rights actually are. No wonder why we are falling behind other democratic societies with people not even knowing about what their "rights" are here at home. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:15 PM:

    " Jay, I don't have a blog and my "lack of education" includes a degree and POST Certification in both Pennsylvania and California. So your insults are ungrounded. We live in a state where you can openly carry ba gun. If you are too timid to live in a free society you are free to find one you like. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 7, 2008 5:07 PM:

    " Jay if you are resorting to insults perhaps it is your lack of maturity that is making your argument silly. Don't put words in my mouth. Anyone in Arizona can strap on a gun and carry it openly. Every time you attack one of the Bill of Rights you attack them all.
    If you are too timid to live in a free society find one to your liking and leave mine alone. "

    again...... wrote on Jan 7, 2008 12:26 PM:

    " Gun issues again? Why do people continue to beat a shot dead horse? The right to bear arms will always be, nothing will ever change that, so get over it already. Why not take up issues that can be fixed, like child abuse laws, cancers, sex offenders, these people continually pray on the innocent of our society, so why whine about gun control? It won't change anytime soon, I can guarantee you that, for the simple facts, gun company's=money to the senators/congressmen of our nation, any moron knows that, so why fight something that more people than not enjoy. "

    Jay I hear you but... wrote on Jan 7, 2008 10:27 AM:

    " Where will the control end? The US Patriot Act already shows that when you give the government the right to take your freedom "for the good of the nation", they make all kinds of concessions with your liberities, for their best interest and the interest of those like them. So in the end what is good for Sierra Vista may not be good for Sierra Vistans! Jay, I can sincerely appreciate your desire for some sanity and peace, but giving up more freedom only results in the death of democracy and the birth of a totalitarian nation. "

    Bree Angle wrote on Jan 7, 2008 9:25 AM:

    " I want to know why we continue to cater to the non english speakers by "requiring" or "prefering" our job applicants to speak spanish. This leaves alot of us out as well as our kids and grandkids that are not taught spanish at home and then english in our schools. People that do not speak english should be required to bring thier owe interpreters or learn English. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:35 PM:

    " Here is one for you BK http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_wi_070604_guns_everywhere_3f_the.htm There has to be a better way. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 6, 2008 9:54 PM:

    " BK I don't question responsible owners. Unfortunately they are not part of the majority. I question the need to for guns as they only serve to reduce our civil society to a lawless nation. What can we do as a city to reduce gun violence? How about getting the state to allow city's to envoke their own laws of necessity? The federal government does this with states so why not states with it's city's? What is good for Phoenix is not always good for Sierra Vista and vice versa. Will you contact our politicians advocating that? "

    BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 8:29 PM:

    " Jay, I thought you might find the response to the blog on this liberal website useful in better understanding the view that responsible gun owners have. http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/002723.php
    "

    Jay & BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 7:54 PM:

    " Why don't you two just go out have a beer, or a joint and discuss this. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:34 PM:

    " Ed if you don't know then look it up. Your blog makes you sound like an extremist. So you offer no solutions, and are okay with the violence. Way to spike your credibility. Are you republican by the way? Do you want to do away with all laws and live in a lawless barbaric nation? Why don't you move to Iraq because appearently you don't like living in a civilized country where laws protect us. Laws are necessary for civilization. I am sure your lack of education helps to guide your opinions. "

    BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:39 PM:

    " Conintued...You may want to check your facts again on the DC Ban though. The DC ban was ruled illegal: The US Court of Appeals struck down that law, stating that it infringes on the individual's right to own a weapon. This was a law abiding citizen who was denied an application for a gun registration. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue." He will be reviewing this case. "

    BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:27 PM:

    " Conintued...The Lautenberg Act had an impact on soldiers in the military when first implemented. Those that were affected were no longer deployable. When a soldier is no longer deployable he can no longer complete the mission. Again this is a gun control measure aimed at people who are convicted of violent crimes. I believe when someone is convicted of a crime they forfeit many of their rights as a citizen...so you won't find an arguement with me on that point. "

    BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 5:21 PM:

    " Jay, I do appreciate your dialog on this subject. I still disagree with you on the matter of our rights to bear arms. Please remember that the AZ constitution also affords us that right. I am familiar with the Launtenberg Act, it is an Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, which makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 6, 2008 2:18 PM:

    " BK you do not have a right to bear arms according to the Constitution. The Constitution also does not limit your ability to own a gun. However, under the Lautenberg Act and others, certain people no longer have that entitlement. Also, in DC no one has the right to buy and own new hand gun. This is allowable because the Court said nobody has a "right" to own a gun. The government has a duty to restrict gun ownership. Stricter gun control is the answer to reduce violence. Write your politicians as I have to increase gun control measures. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 6, 2008 1:21 PM:

    " Jay, I don't know that crime involving guns is on the increase unless I use your opinion as fact. How many of these offenders were using drugs, so drug related crime is increasing. How many wore blue jeans, so blue jean realated crime is increasing.
    "The Congress Shall make NO Law" is good enough for me. We have plenty of laws, we need to enforce them. If you are too timid to live in a free society I can't help you. "

    BK wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:28 AM:

    " It is people on the extreme left and right that have no credibility. Those people that wish to introduce gun BAN regulations are extremist. I would be happy to discuss serious solutions to the problem of violent crimes, but I'm not standing idle while people spread distortions or try to minimize individual rights. The Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of gun BANs...only gun controls...your argument has a fundamental flaw when you try to ban a US citizen from owning a gun. "

    To Jay wrote on Jan 6, 2008 10:21 AM:

    " To Jay, I've never mocked gun control! Please don't be stupid and pay attention to the issues I've raised. I've been very consistent in my assertion that I have a right to bear arms. This individual right is protected by the Arizona State Constitution (Article 2; Section 26) and the US Constitution (Article 2). I have no issues with gun control regulations, the 2nd Amendment supports gun CONTROL, it doesn't support gun BANS. "

    You first. wrote on Jan 6, 2008 7:48 AM:

    " Jay, how can you ask BK an Ed to explain their plans, without doing it yourself? What's your plan? "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:29 PM:

    " Jay...that also still doesn't diminish the fact that the Arizona State Constitution also confirms my right to bear arms..."The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired" (Article 2, Section 26) "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:26 PM:

    " Actually if the Supreme Court had decided not to review the case, the lower court ruling would stand as is. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, we can expect additional rulings on the case. I'm confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the individual's right to bear arms as it is stated in the 2nd Amendment. This will be the first time Supreme Court will review individual's right to bear arm clause in the 2nd Amendment. "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:21 PM:

    " Continued To Jay...I only raised an issue because people incorrectly state that we don't have a right to own a gun or to bear arms. That is simply not true! The Arizona constitution (Article 2; section 26) protects my rights as well as the US constitution. I hate it when people on either side of the political spectrum spout partisan views. I don't conduct my research on left wing or right wing websites. I look for credible information. "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 10:15 PM:

    " To Jay, I've never mocked gun control, I have no issues with gun control regulations, the 2nd Amendment supports gun control, it doesn't support gun bans. Please don't be stupid. I've been consistant in my arguement to point out that the right to arms exists, when you and others incorrectly state otherwise. I would be happy to discuss serious solutions to the problem, but I'm not standing idle while people spread distortions or try to minimize individual rights. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:19 PM:

    " Continued to BK and Ed... How do expect people to take you seriously when you offer no solutions? You make legal claims that skip key parts to give a false interpretation of the truth. Your lack of completness just deminishes your credibility. So unless you can offer solutions, most people I have talked to in town regard your opinions has worthless. You speak from your heart, but not from legal facts. Shame on you both. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:14 PM:

    " BK and Ed why don't you right an editorial out lining how you would reduce gun violence in Sierra Vista/Arizona? Your status quo position obviously is seriously flawed. Violent crime committed with a gun is on the rise here. What are you going to do to fix the problem? Incarcerate offenders for their life for a gun violation? That would never become law. What are you going to do? Gun control is the only logical way to reduce the violence. You sit back and mock gun control, but conveniently offer no solutions to the violence. "

    Jay wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:06 PM:

    " Actually until the Supreme Court rules against it's previous rulingthe ban remains in effect. BK you are not 100% accurate in your findings. Also, every single challenge to the 1939 ruling has been turned down. The Supreme Court has never "upheld the individual's right". It has always favored the 1939 ruling, which was in favor of the state right. It stated "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view" which referred to the state right. Next time get your facts straight. "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:45 PM:

    " To those of you who would like to Ban Guns and infringe on our right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is protected by Article 2 of the US Constitution and Article 2; Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution. "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired." Please research your rights before trying to infringe upon my rights. "

    That's just silly wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:36 PM:

    " To the anonomous poster, who doesn't think I have a right to bear arms. It is you who are not smarter than a 5th grader and cannot conduct your own research and must rely on your extremist websites to provide you guidance. The Federal US Court of Appeals have upheld my individual right to bear arms. Parker v. District of Columbia, 2007. "

    To Cassie wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:29 PM:

    " I have individual rights that you can't take away. I can own a weapon (right to bear arms), you may not like it but it's my right. I can pray to my God (right to religious freedom), you may not like it but it's my right. I can speak out against those of you who want to infringe on my rights (freedom of speech), you might not like it but it's my right. I can pursue life, liberty and happiness, you may not like it, but it's my right. "

    Right to bear arms wrote on Jan 5, 2008 6:14 PM:

    " BK speaks the truth. The Federal appealate court has stated that gun bans infringe on the individual's right to bear arms. This ruling was made in Mar 07...not 1939. Look it up you gun ban nuts. "

    To That's just silly wrote on Jan 5, 2008 1:36 PM:

    " If the only thing that came out of the 1939 ruling was that you couldn't have sawed off shotguns then why has it been the basis for over a dozen of cases since then? Why has then been the justification for ban's over the years? Because it is about more than shotguns. If you can't figure that out then you are in the wrong forum. I think there is a 3rd grade learning forum you should go back to and oh by the way, you are NOT smarter than a fith grader! What's your sign? "

    BK wrote on Jan 5, 2008 12:10 PM:

    " To Cassie, Joann and Jay...you are wrong...the US Court of Appeals ruled in Mar 07 that the District of Columbia's law banning registration of handguns violated an individual's right to bear arms. I'm sorry, but this is law according to our court systems. The Supreme Court has agreed to review this case this year and should make a judgement by Jul 08. It will most likely uphold the individual's right as it traditionally does in it's rulings. Jay pointed me to this ruling...Thanks. http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1290294 "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 5, 2008 8:34 AM:

    " I see the legislator want to slash Parks, Veterans, and Schools to "Balance" the budget. About 30 years ago the US Supreme Court mandated that State Senates had to be based on Population, since then they have become as useful as a second navel. Many states have eliinated them entirely.
    How much could we save by eliminating the State Senate. "

    That's just silly wrote on Jan 5, 2008 7:54 AM:

    " To Cassie, The Supreme Court ruling in 1939 doesn't take away or prohibit the people the right from keeping and bearing arms. It only upholds a gun control law that prohibits me from having a sawed-off shot gun. Sorry...your're wrong. "

    On your mind too? wrote on Jan 5, 2008 1:28 AM:

    " http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/god-bless-poster2006.pdf This is how gun control works. Fact: gun control works. "

    Native to AZ wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:03 PM:

    " Gun control does not restrict law abiding people from owning a gun. Gun control protects children from accidents by requiring people to have safety locks on them. Gun control is about having a database to see if people like the latest shooter have other guns. That way they can be confiscated. Gun control says you don't need a fully automatic weapon to shoot a deer. Gun control preserves the your ability to own a gun. It just does it in a more responsible way. Just like vehicle laws, people still break them, but can you imagine society without speed limits? "

    To Cassie wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:43 PM:

    " If we were to believe you then we should also make stupid statements like the constitution doesn't prevent the State from depriving any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It doesn't protect freedom of speech or religion. We are free to strip American citizens of their basic individual rights. The link is our Bill of Writes on the Library of Congress website. Please read it. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144 "

    BK wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:29 PM:

    " To Cassie, I disagree with you on that point. The 1939 ruling supports my assertions that every able bodied citizen has the right to bear arms. The courts defined militia as ALL males (citizens) physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, bearing arms supplied by themselves. It's in black and white. The Dick Act of 1903 defined militias as two groups. The organized militia (National Guard) and the unorganized militia, the 18-25 age males eligible for conscript. "

    Cassie wrote on Jan 4, 2008 8:38 PM:

    " The Bill of Rights do not give you the right to own a weapon. That is what the Supreme Court said in 1939 and has held ever since. It does not deny you the ability to own weapons, but it certainly doesn't give you the right. Perhaps you need to understand what your "rights" are before you spout off and make yourself sound silly. "

    Just wanted to add... wrote on Jan 4, 2008 6:39 PM:

    " The fact that most of you can have a "mostly" decent conversation about guns and the constitutional interpretations surrounding them, shows that it is not you people are really worried about. Does someone have a right to own a gun? I don't know what the new changes were made and in what year, but in truth, people (and I am not talking about criminals, but commonfolk) will do what they must to protect their family and to survive and I could never take that away from anyone. You want to stop criminals, then realize-that-stopping people from protecting themselves is not-the-answer,-in-fact-it-makes-criminals-happy. "

    Interesting wrote on Jan 4, 2008 6:19 PM:

    " It is interesting that some people are OK with introducing panic legislation that will retrict's one's individual right when it suits them but are up in arms when legislation is introduced that affects their civil liberty beliefs...such as the Patriot Act. Any legislation that restricts the indivual rights of American Citizens should be discourages and fought...this includes the 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. "

    It's Election Time wrote on Jan 4, 2008 5:45 PM:

    " It is election time. Look at those issues that concern you the most and look to those candidates that promote the issues that are most important to you. Look to those politicians that are interested in preserving individual rights of all Americans (not intruding on those rights)...Look to those politicians that stand strong on issues affecting American today and have impacts on your community. (Judging from these comments illegal immigration control and 2nd Amendment rights are important) "

    Silly Snow Birds wrote on Jan 4, 2008 5:36 PM:

    " It is funny to listen to the panic of a few Snow Birds try to influence our southwest culture here in Arizona. Americans should never let their individual rights be taken away. Panic causes people to let the government at time interfere with those individual rights by allowing extreme policies like the Patriot Act and Gun Bans to exist. Elections are nice because politicians play to the people senses of individual rights. As long as we keep voting we will continue to protect our individual rights. "

    I'm perfectly fine in AZ wrote on Jan 4, 2008 4:24 PM:

    " I'm perfectly fine in AZ. I have the right to own a weapon and maintain it as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. There is no gun ban that prevents me from owning one and I will continue to live my life and exercise my rights. Gun controls only effect those that lose their privilage as a citizen (the criminal element). It doesn't affect me because I'm a law abiding citizen who maintains might right to bear arms. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 4, 2008 3:54 PM:

    " Why is it that people who have so much faith in the government to protect them need to hide behind anonymity to post messages?
    Reminds me of the LA Riots when Korean Businessmen had to take up arms to protect thier stores.
    "

    People are just so stupid it hurts. wrote on Jan 4, 2008 1:09 PM:

    " So, let's say guns were banned. In much the same way as alcohol for minors, many drugs, rape, murder, child molestation, etc etc. How do you propose to keep them out of the hands of people who don't care what the law says they can or can't have or do? Seriously, you complain we aren't defining our rights, well you define how you expect to remove guns from our society. Maybe we could put your great plan to work with some of those other banned things. "

    What rights wrote on Jan 4, 2008 8:41 AM:

    " Let's see you have no rights to own a gun according to the Constitution, so what right are the pro-gun mongers talking about? They can not even define where their "right" is that they try to hang onto so dearly. If a gun ban was put into effect, your rights would still be the same as they are today because you do not have a right to own guns in this country. If you want to own a gun then peole like Ed and BK should move to Switzerland. "

    Isn't not just domestic threats. wrote on Jan 4, 2008 6:43 AM:

    " The idea of an armed citizenry isn't just to defend ourselves against our own government (though...you gotta wonder), but to defend ourselves against a *foreign* invasion. I suppose if there were some way (there isn't) that you could actually get rid of all the guns in the USA, that might be okay. However, what are you going to do about guns in Mexico and Canada (and yes, much of Canada is armed!)? Do you think the guns will just mysteriously disappear at our borders? Don't you think the illegals and/or (insert nearly any country) would love an unarmed USA? "

    I like Coctailer wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:28 PM:

    " Your is about one of the most well thought of comment, in answer to the anti-gun/giving up our right nuts. And makes about as much sense. "

    To Ed wrote on Jan 3, 2008 5:18 PM:

    " You are one of a kind. A bit of a hypocrit too. Why do you think it is okay to compare modern day American society to a foreign society some 200 plus years ago? Do you really think we haven't matured as a nation. I guess I believe in our country and it's leaders a lot more than you. Do you really call yourself American? "

    Coctailer wrote on Jan 3, 2008 12:26 PM:

    " I have a great idea...Why dont the mothers against drunk driving start a new project; "mothers against morbid obesity", or MAMO (or is that a whale's name, like Shamu) Given their nazi-like zeal and promotion of Draconian ordinances against those who operate a car, even after one beer or a glass of wine, the fat and extra-fat would slim down in no time! Think of it! mandatory fat-camp for first-time offenders, or compulsory liposuction for those repeat offenders or persons "convicted" of weighing over 350 lbs. But on second thought it wouldn't work... They'd have to start with themselves... "

    To Ed wrote on Jan 3, 2008 9:45 AM:

    " Thanks for the history lesson. Now that we have progressed 250 years past then it is time for you to realize, that you do not have a right to own a gun. Do you really fear Bush becoming a menace to society that you would need to defend yourself from the U.S. military? Times have changed. Your point is unrealistic. Do you have anything else? "

    BK wrote on Jan 3, 2008 9:33 AM:

    " The National Guard was formalized during the Dick Act of 1903. This law recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia (you and me), the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription. The 1939 law stated militia, meaning the organized, funded by US and unorganized militia, who appear bearing arms supplied by THEMSELVES and of the kind in common use at the time. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 2, 2008 5:24 PM:

    " General Burgoyne, who was captured at Saratoga, returned to England and as a member of Parliment became a leading opponent of the war. His Army was captured by local Militias, not the Colonial Army. It was his belief no foriegn power could occupy America as long as it's population was armed. "

    Amen wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:34 PM:

    " You got that right Vern. No one has a right to own a gun. There are few laws that ban having a gun, but it is not a right under the Bill of Rights. "

    TB wrote on Jan 2, 2008 2:10 PM:

    " Vern...you could not be more wrong. It is NOT illegal to own a gun in Arizona. You can walk down the street and have a gun visible, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You are the one who needs a history lesson. "

    To Do we really want an unarmed nation wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:45 PM:

    " The answer is YES! In other words do we want a safer more peaceful nation? YES! Do we want to live a more dangerous more violent nation by allowing people to have guns? NO! "

    Joann wrote on Jan 2, 2008 12:34 PM:

    " Vern...where is this ocean front property, glad to have it in this desert. I belong to the NRA and I own a gun, know how to keep it safe, use it properly and it is LEGAL, repeat LEGAL. It is LEGALLY MY RIGHT!!! "

    Vern wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:04 AM:

    " Joann obviously you are the one in need of a history lesson. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state means that it is a state right to arm it's militia and not an individual right. The Supreme Court also ruled to that fact in 1939. Any other spin is simply NRA/right winged rhetoric. The Constitution has nothing to do with an individual right to own weapons. So "leave the Constitution alone". If you believe you have a right to own a weapon I have some ocean front property in AZ to sell you. "

    Do we really want an unarmed nation? wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:38 AM:

    " "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens .... from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams

    "Only an armed people can be truly free.
    Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."
    - Aristotle

    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
    - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
    (Japanese Navy) "

    He was an Extremist wrote on Jan 1, 2008 10:19 PM:

    " Randy Weaver was an extremist. He brought trouble upon himself by his actions and his associations. Just as any extremist does. Most law abiding citizens aren't looking for a fight, they just want to protect themselves and their families from criminals. "

    COPS wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:33 PM:

    " Why do pro-gun people refuse to resd the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment? It is like you people are in denial. Let me qoute it for you "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not have a right to own a weapon. Why do pro-gun people who distrust their givernment so much want to change the Bill of Rights to read retards in Sierra Vista have a right to own guns? Pro-gun idiots do not have the right to own guns. Never did! "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:17 PM:

    " Isn't it great how the anti gun people think you can pick and choose from the Bill of Rights. Isn't that what allowed the "Patriot Act".
    Ask Rand Weaver about sawed off shotguns. The government supplied the shotguns, paid him to saw them off, and then murdered his family for complying.
    Leave the Constitution alone. If life so frightens you find a nice socialist haven. "

    TO BK wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:43 AM:

    " You sound funny. Thanks for the chuckle for the day, you have a great sense of humor it seems on your distorted view of Cochise County, thanks again. "

    Joann wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:34 AM:

    " This is getting ridiculous!!! All you anti-gun people, get a life and READ the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights. If you would be right, READ.
    As for the anti-gun and pro-gun people coming together on ANYTHING? "Never the twain shall meet". "

    BK wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:52 PM:

    " To "Can't wait", that is pretty inhumane to wish that on someone. I do agree with Ed's statement, though, the founding fathers knew that government is inherently corrupt, and the best way to keep the government in check was to keep the power with the people. When the government takes your rights to bear arms away...look out...you are about to have someone like Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin or Stalin, or Saddam Hussain as your permanent president. "

    Can't wait wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:07 PM:

    " I am waiting for one of these anti gun nuts to have a problem with an illegal, robber, rapist, to break into their home, then they will call 911, and about 20 minutes the police will arrive and take your statement. While your wife has lost her virginty. "

    BK wrote on Dec 31, 2007 3:32 PM:

    " To Lisa, if you read the context of the ruling you will find that the 1939 ruling only upheld the gun control law of the state to prevent the individual from owning a sawed-off shotgun. The ruling defined the militia as "ALL males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It did not state National Guard males. Besides the National Guard are regulated at the federal level and not at the state level. This is why our National Guard deploys to Iraq. "

    BK wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:08 AM:

    " To "Jay" and to "To Ed Tilton and Proud" you all are just blowing smoke...I assume you are smoking dope or something. Nothing prevents Ed or Proud or anyone else from walking down town with their hand gun strapped to their waste. It isn't illegal and nothing will come of it. So stop your whining and try that baloney on someone from California that cares. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:17 AM:

    " Dear anonymous socialist, we'll have agree to disagree, and I guess i will still have to rely on my 30 plus years of Police Experience for legal advice on my right to own a weapon.
    You want to depend on a benevolent government to act in loco parentis and protect you, good luck. Government is not the solution it is the problem. All government is inherently evil and must be limited by inalienble individual rights. "

    Lisa wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:09 AM:

    " BK you are wrong. The Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment was for the state not the individual. Nice try, but next time stick to the facts and not your right winged spin of lies. "

    To Ed Tilton and PROUD wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:44 AM:

    " It is not what I am saying. It is what the Supreme Court said. The court ruled that you do not have an indiviual right to own a gun. Sorry you don't like the facts, but that is the truth of the matter. I guess you will be living illegaly and in denial. The government provides protection for all. Sounds like the both of you do not trust the government. Are you guys part of a militia that the FBI needs to be made aware of? I think the government needs to trace your blogs and watch you. "

    BK wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:03 AM:

    " Sorry Jay...the 1939 ruling, upheld the constitutionality of a gun law (in Arkansas I believe), which prohibited interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun on grounds that this particular weapon had no reasonable relationship to militia service or common defense. It does not prohibit me from owning a hand gun. It doesn't even prevent me from owning an assault rifle, even though I think that would be foolish. An assault rifle is a common weapon used in militia service or common defense. "

    BK wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:51 AM:

    " To "Jay" read the US vs Miller (1939) ruling again. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." US vs Miller doesn't define militia as national guard it defines the "Militia comprised ALL males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." "...when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by THEMSELVES and of the kind in common use at the time." "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 30, 2007 5:23 PM:

    " You had better read over the Constitution again, or move to Denmark or one of those other Socialist Havens where the conquerers ride through unchallenged.
    All I have to do in Arizona is strap on a gun and go outside. If you stand behind your opinions sign your name. "

    PROUD wrote on Dec 30, 2007 10:09 AM:

    " Proud owner of many guns, come from a gun owning family, that believe in protecting our family. Some people may willingly give up their family members to be a victim of a crim, but not me, I would prefer to have the peace of mind of trying to protect my family, rather than give them up for god knows what, but that's just me. "

    JB wrote on Dec 30, 2007 8:51 AM:

    " To "what are you talking about"...I am a legal gun owner with right to carry permit. You'd better hope someone who is legally armed the day you are in a place where a CRIMINAL has a gun and wants to shoot YOU. You also need to recheck your information about owning a gun. "

    Jay wrote on Dec 30, 2007 7:17 AM:

    " Ed you are crazy! The Bill of Rights does not give you any right to own guns. The Bill of Rights gives the states a right to arm it's militia. That is what the court ruled like it or not. If you don't like it, then take it back to the Supreme Court. Every challenge since 1939 has upheld the 1939 opinion. So technically, if you own a gun you are breaking the law. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 29, 2007 5:42 PM:

    " In 1939 the "New Deal" had this country closer to Socialism than we have ever been. Every law that cheapens one of the Bill of Rights, cheapens them all.
    Is "The Congress Shall Make NO LAW" that hard to understand. "

    To Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 29, 2007 8:26 AM:

    " What are you talking about? It was in 1939 that the Supreme court ruled that the right to own guns was a state right not an individual right. That is what the government says. Pro-gun lobbyists are ruining the Bill of Rights by misinterpreting what the court said. You never had an individual right. You never had that right and never should get that right. Gun owners are simply a menace to society and breaking the law. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 PM:

    " Don't worry Carrie, our leaders will do something about gun violence soon, they are busy destreoying the Bill of Rights as quickly as they can. You truly are one of thoise who would give up a measure of freedom for a promise of security. Therefore you deserve neither. "

    West Gate wrote on Dec 28, 2007 6:15 PM:

    " I agree with the soldier who wrote in, it amazes me that the goverment wants these guys up front and in the line of fire, but can't seem to give their families in time of need a few give-me's, like a library, and a decent, clean base to live on, the base commander needs to show some pride and back bone, and do whats right for the whole base, not for a extra pat on the back, by taking more and more away from our military, just by saying "look how much we saved", it's a sad state of affairs. "

    You're right, Carrie. wrote on Dec 28, 2007 3:57 PM:

    " We definitely need to do something about gun violence. We need to get more guns into the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens and stop all the ridiculous litigious nonsense that comes up when those citizens use them against criminals. Let me ask, would you be more or less inclined to commit a crime if you thought everyone around you were armed and prepared to shoot you? Keep in mind a ton of things are banned or illegal, and it doesn't stop the use of them even a little. I'm asking seriously here: why do you think guns would be different? "

    I'm Hispanic but... wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:49 PM:

    " I don't behave like that in a store or a restuarant and neither do my kids. I was raised better and I am raising my children the same. Lumping all Hispanics into one lump group is slightly ignorant, but your perogative. I don't like the behavior anymore than you do becuase I find it offensive, but white and brown and black all act the same. Trash is trash no matter the color. Get the picture? "

    Craziness.... wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:34 PM:

    " ..I think it's totally fine that someone doesn't like characteristics of a certain group of people and to call them racist is incorrect and plain dumb. I don't like that certain law enforcement and military personnel that I've had the displeasure of sharing the road with find the need to speed (and I've run into QUITE a few!!). Since there are so many many cultural and ethnic backgrounds that are employed by these groups, what kind of "ism" am I guilty of? I guess I just hate everybody! "

    Carrie wrote on Dec 28, 2007 12:13 PM:

    " When is AZ going to do something about all the increased gun violence. Things get worse here every year. It is time to take away everybody's guns for not playing nice. "

    JB wrote on Dec 28, 2007 9:40 AM:

    " To Can....Giffords did NOT talk to the citizens OF THE POST...my point. She listened to the few on the other side, most of whom are not connected to the post, except for convenience. Please remember that the GATES are there for the protection of the fort. Also remember that the original decisions were based on a study, which found not sufficient traffic through the west gate. Perhaps the pampered few can afford to pay the private company guards. "

    Vern wrote on Dec 28, 2007 6:53 AM:

    " To the Editors... Please keep us informed about what Rep Giffords is doing this new year ahead. I think it is a great public service that you do in keeping the public informed and in a non-bias way. "

    Racism?! Ah Ha ha ha! wrote on Dec 27, 2007 12:23 PM:

    " I think you're confusing not liking the traits of a particular group of people with racism. BTW, neither Mexicans or Hispanics are a race. Why is it people seem to think we need to embrace all people and everything they do? If I say I don't like behaviors that I've observed the majority of the members of a group participating in, how is that racism or any other 'ism'? Can't I just not like some cultural characteristics of certain groups and wish I didn't have to be exposed to them? You're reading way to much into this. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 27, 2007 8:09 AM:

    " Putting aside the issue of illegal immigrants, forty percent of the illegal drugs smuggled into the US come through Arizona. The government would be neglegent not to interdict them. The drug dealers are pouring a lot of money into confusing the issue. "

    Pauly wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:41 AM:

    " Me Thinks is more better. Don't you agree? "

    Those who dislike Hispanics wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:27 AM:

    " Give me a break...there are kids of all color/nationality that run thru stores, there are store clerks/customers of all color/nationality that converse in line. It is sad that in today's society people are so racist. The people from the "south" are not tax free therefore they support our tax revenues in this state. If you don't like the people from the "south" beating you to all of the sales then go to the store earlier...QUIT YOUR WHINING "

    Can wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:13 AM:

    " I am glad that Rep Giffords DID talk to the residents who live outside of the West Gate area. I am glad she took their opinion and that of the post officials to successfully keep the gate open. Not only did the people want the gate to stay open but so did the post. They only were going to close it because they were being forced to. Same thing for the east gate on the weekends. Before the DOD got involved it was open. "

    To Me Thinks wrote on Dec 26, 2007 5:52 PM:

    " Me thinks that using 'Me Thinks' shows a lack of knowledge of the English language. Me Thinks you need to give it a break. "

    Angry wrote on Dec 26, 2007 3:56 PM:

    " To "Just WOndering" - We don't like the way Mexicans come into the store and talk their garbarge language at the top of their lungs. We don't like the way the mexicans open their box's and leave the trash in the parking lot - we know they do this so they don't have to pay import tax at the border. We don't like the way the mexicans eat at our resturants and throw food on the floor and let their little kids run wild and scream and yell... would you like to know more? "

    Tell Ya wrote on Dec 26, 2007 2:57 PM:

    " To Just wondering: For one thing you let your kids run wild in the stores. "

    Hispanics wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:00 PM:

    " Hispanics aren't doing anything 'wrong', per se, or offensive by definition. I just don't like that so many stand in hordes in isles, apparently unable to be aware that people are trying to get by. Additionally, they chat at length to any Hispanic sales clerk (while I'm waiting). That's not a fault, it's just their culture to be effusive. It annoys me when anyone does this, but Hispanics seem more inclined to chat a lot and ignore others (that's my own observation). I don't think Hispanics should change, nor would I ever ask them to, but those traits annoy me. "

    Just wondering wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:13 AM:

    " To "Southern shoppers": Please define "Hispanic behavior". I would like to know what is I am doing/not doing that you find offensive. "

    Ed Tilton wrote on Dec 26, 2007 10:57 AM:

    " So how does a young AIT who has no car, get to the Library? One of the greatest problems in America right now is that everything is planned too far away to walk. My Grandfather could not have concieved of driving to work, school, or shopping, much less to the library. "

    JB wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:39 AM:

    " Re the west gate debacle....perhaps Ms. Giffords should talk to the RESIDENTS on the post and get their opinion. Read the note above from the soldier in Iraq and ask again if the money for the west gate is really worth it. It's all about politics and "being a good neighbor" to those few...never mind the impact on the military families. I hope that changes come next September. "

    Pauly wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:19 AM:

    " I noticed that too. What's the matter? Is Saying Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings not PC any longer? Now we just ignore it all together? If the stores wont get in the sprit then maybe they shouldn't start decorating as early as they do. Tit for tat! "

    Global warming is real wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:55 AM:

    " And yes, cyclical. The problem is, because of several factors including humans, it is happening at a much faster rate than in past cycles. This time-frame does not allow animals to adjust, as they would over a thousand year warming cycle. *That's* the problem. No one is arguing that it's not cyclical. Animals have a way of surviving that happens with the seasons, ice melts, plant growth, etc. If the ice suddenly (over 50 years) melts two months earlier than a bear is conditioned to survive at, that's a problem. "

    Southern shoppers wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:48 AM:

    " I really don't get the argument about shoppers from the south beating Sierra Vistans to the sales. How does that make sense? They have to come further. Do the store owners open the sales to Mexicans first? I'd like to see them stay over there, too, just because I don't like the Hispanic behavior much. But good Lord, at least I'm upfront about that and don't make some sorry argument that, though they have to drive further, they still beat me to the stores! If you don't want them here, just be honest and say you don't like them. "

    Open your ears! wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:41 AM:

    " I think all of you people insisting 'Christmas' is being substituted by 'holiday' need to wake up and open your ears. I couldn't care less what people great me with, but I NEVER experienced a lack of 'Merry Christmases' in stores, during any year. Why is it I hear it all the time and you don't? Me thinks you are just being too sensitive and hearing only what you want to hear, so you have something to complain about. "

    Christmas wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:37 AM:

    " Sorry, folks, but Christmas was ours way before it was yours. Just because you steal something, doesn't make it yours. "

    re: religion wrote on Dec 26, 2007 6:59 AM:

    " It's odd that people become such sheeple that they can't even think for themselves. Take 'miracles' for instance. If we have free will, there can't be miracles. Miracles are a God-created factor that change the course of events and influence decisions. If God is going to fiddle with our lives, then we don't really have free will. It's like a parent saying to a child, "It's your decision to go out late on a school night" and then going out and slashing their tires so they can't leave. I don't care if people believe, but for your sake, *think* first! "

Community Videos



Additional recent videos can be viewed here


Use the arrows on each side of the player to for the next/previous video

Lastest U.S. Videos


In Tomorrow's Herald


Local news from your community.

Subscribe Today!

Photo Galleries

Contact Us


Staff Directory

Advertisement




Reader Poll



Calendar

Upcoming Events:

Faith and Spirituality