Comments by Endeavor_to_Persevere

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments
Written on Letter to the Editor: One shot will do:

in response to Trapper:

What is the mistake? Our Government has been killing people every since this Nation was formed. Our government made treaty after treaty with the American Indian, and broke every one of them in the name of progress.
Sand Creek, Nov. 1864, Black Kettle's Camp on Sand Creek was attacked by 700 men and 169 Indians killed, two thirds of them women and children.
Washita River, Lt. Col. G.A. Custer killed 50 Indians who were returning to the Cheyenne reservation, and took 53 women and children hostage.
The history of our government includes instance after instance like these.

Check the facts of Ruby Ridge.

You know what happened at Waco, what makes you or anyone else think that our Government would not attack and kill other Americans?

Trap, I think you realize it now, but I was being sarcastic. Those that say a government will never turn on it's own people are either oblivious to what has already happened, or just stupid.

Now, as for Ruby Ridge. EVERYBODY knows that Lon Horiuchi (FBI HRT sniper) was justified in shooting Randy Weaver's wife. She could have run out of that cabin and hit him with that baby she was holding when he shot her. (more sarcasm)

Written on Letter to the Editor: One shot will do:

in response to Trapper:

Actually, I am talking about Dec. 29, 1890, WOUNDED KNEE, SOUTH DAKOTA. 290 MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN shot down by the US 7th Calvary. Many killed while trying to run and hide from the massive fire being directed at them. Most of them UNARMED.

Waco resulted in only 76 killed by the Government.

I think you must be mistaken about Wounded Knee and Waco. Everybody that supports gun control promises me that I don't need a weapon capable of defending myself against the Government because they would NEVER turn against their own citizens......

Written on Letter to the Editor: One shot will do:

in response to WFFL:

The 2nd amendment is outdated in the sense that we no longer have the same fears of invasion or need for militia.

It has been rendered impractical in the context of protecting ourselves from our own government due to advances in weaponry. I don't care how big your mag is, it isn't stopping a drone or a tank.

The only real purpose of the 2nd amendment that remains intact is the protection of self, family, and property. For this purpose it would seem reasonable to debate the benefit of a 30 round magazine over a 10 round, or even the benefit of a rifle or hand gun over a shotgun of some type.

I am not in favor of the government taking guns away from the public, but this has hardly been the debate. Keeping the most efficient ways of killing people out of the hands of the public and insuring that no clear red flags exist before ownership are the issues that are being discussed. It seems to me that this has been politicized to a point of two extremes and leaves no ground for the middle thinker. Either you hate the constitution and our rights, or you are a gun toting violence monger.

The ability to compromise and change is exactly why the founding fathers were such revolutionaries, and the inability for Americans to follow in their footsteps is why our country is falling apart.

Sir, I disagree with your first paragraph. No, we do not need a militia at this very moment, but the possibility exists that one may be needed in the future. That is why the Second Amendment will never be outdated.

I do agree with you in the last part of paragraph four, about the lack of civility to each other in our discussions. However, you are dead wrong when you say that the government taking away people's guns has not been the debate, and I'll use two examples. Look at the recent law passed in New York. They passed it so fast that they didn't even realize that they made a criminal out of every Police Officer who carried a magazine with a capacity of more than seven rounds. This same law prohibited a large number of weapons, and by process of elimination, if you can't have something, it has been taken away from you.

Second, I have read Diane Feinstein's pending Senate bill. It will prohibit, on a national level, a large number of firearms. While existing ones will be grandfathered, they will have to be destroyed upon the death of the owner. Once again, the government has taken a firearm from a citizen.

Which leads me to my biggest fear. EVERY single government effort or program, under the Administration of BOTH parties, has spiraled out of control after it's inception. So once it starts, where does it end?

Written on Local lawmakers balk:

in response to bellaella:

you are great (lol).. so you're going to protect me from our President. You may want to get that narcissistic paranoia checked out....
ps. quote/scripture.....just semantics. And it would be hard to take the same road out of Texas since I was born right here. Yes there actually are Texans who don't agree with you.

I understand fully that there are some who disagree, and that's fine, since life would be boring if all the ice cream was vanilla.

As for narcissistic paranoia, I hate to bust your bubble, but it doesn't exist. Mandatory psychiatric evals to be in law enforcement said all is fine.

So, lets break out the history books. From 1915 to 1981, 56 million people were exterminated by their own government in seven countries (Turkey, USSR, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia). This was done only after each country implemented gun control. So, IF (never said I WOULD, just if) I have to protect you from your own government, I will.

I understand you don't like me and that's okay; I never asked you to. The sheep don't like the sheepdog, because he looks like the wolf, and they can't understand that he uses his fangs and claws for the protection of the herd instead of harm. George Orwell hit the nail on the head when he said: "people sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

Written on Local lawmakers balk:

in response to middleground:

I get tired of the second amendment excuse being used. I support the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean the right to have any weapon you choose. Banning assault weapons is not infringing on your rights.

Do you want any average Joe on the street being able to buy a weapon such as an RPG? As long as everyone else has an RPG it's safe right? That's terrible logic.

When the constitution was written there were no assualt weapons and it was intended to allow militias to bear arms. Times change.

I never said I wanted people to have RPG's, land mines, Army tanks, or anything else. We are discussing FIREARMS.

And in reference to you stating that I am using flawed logic, I refer to the old term "physician, heal thyself". You saying that you support the 2nd Amendment, but only for certain weapons, is equivalent to me saying "I support the First Amendment, but you can't say THAT...." You're comparing apples to oranges.

You said that when it was written, "there were no assault weapons and it was intended to allow militias to bear arms; times change". I'll go over this once more, but slower this time so please pay attention. When it was written, everybody had the same weapon: both the Governmental army, and the people's army (militia). It was written so the the people shall always have the right to band together and resist any tyrannical oppression, and do so with similar armament. Case closed.

Written on Local lawmakers balk:

in response to bellaella:

you're using a quote from the bible to justify backing the sale of military assault rifles? Only in Texas.... just priceless

first of all, it isn't a "quote" from the Bible, it's Scripture. And it isn't to justify anything; it simply demonstrates the warrior mindset that the 1% of us in society (the sheepdogs) have to protect the 98% of you (the sheep, who can't/won't protect themselves) from the last 1% (the wolf).

Next, please learn the facts; they will serve you much better in discussions than repeating what you hear from a biased media. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon", unless EVERYTHING is an assault weapon. My rifle has assaulted nothing, but if I strike you with my hammer, then it has to be an assault hammer. Also, they are not military rifles. There are many differences, even though they may look the same.

Finally, if it's so bad here in Texas, the same road that brought you here will also take you back out.

Written on Local lawmakers balk:

in response to Doc42:

The answer to the question above is,yes. These people are elected by the puplic to uphold the law. Now they are saying if these gun laws become law they will not uphold the law. What kind of jokers have we elected. I,am so sick and tired of hearing about the second amendment, and their rights. Read the amendment and study it and understand what it means. When this amendment was ratified in 1791 we just got done fighting the British for freedom.Back then we had muskets that it took two to three minutes to load. We did not have guns that fire number of rounds per second. So if these elected people want to go by the second amendment so be it. Single shot guns. On second thougt lets not elect such loosers.

Doc, I think the "loosers" (your spelling, not mine) are the ones who don't understand what the 2nd Amendment is for. You're exactly right, it was written at a time when we fought the King (aka tyrannical government) with breech loading, single shot muskets or rifles, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ENEMY HAD.

The "militia" referred to in the Amendment is the people's army, and is provided so that the people shall always retain the right to assemble such in order to protect themselves from the government's army, if their government ever becomes tyrannical again (I don't have enough time or space to give all the examples in which that has occured since 1776). I'm not saying that WILL happen (I don't think I'm going to get a flat tire either, but I carry a spare in my trunk just in case), but if it does, then the people shall once again be allowed to protect themselves with the same armament as the enemy. If you and I fist fight, why would I put one hand behind my back?

As for those "loosers" vowing not to enforce a federal law, when ANY person becomes a law enforcement officer, we took an oath to defend the Constitution first and foremost. That is what they are saying they will do. And I am pretty sure an elected Sheriff (or City or State Police Officer) cannot enforce a federal law. Hasn't your beloved federal Administration vilified Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, telling him he can't enforce federal immiagration statutes?

Please understand that I do agree with President Obama on some of his wishes, such as increased prosecution of straw purchasers of firearms, and people who falsify the documents when purchasing firearms. However, this is something which that evil old NRA has been requesting for years. And I also have no problem with requiring a background check on purchases made from individuals, IF it is destroyed within the time frame that the law requires. I do believe that certain people should not be allowed to own a weapon, but I also believe that the government has no legal authority to tell a law abiding, qualifed person what weapon they can have.

Exodus 15:3 - "The Lord is a Warrior, the Lord is his name"

Written on Local lawmakers balk:

in response to wrencher:

You guys are dreaming about another country or enemy coming into the US and attacking us in a conventional means. By that line of thinking that we need to do the militarys job to defend the US, then we should just give everyone an attack helicopter, maybe an Abrahms tank. Or how about some stinger missles to shoot down those pesky enemy.

The average citizen doesnt need an assualt rifle with 30+ round magazines. Those should be reserved for the military. There is no way our founding fathers could have foreseen how powerful weapons would be become. I really dont think there intention was to have the common citizen as well armed as our military is today. Back then it made sense, but not now.

I dont think we should take peoples guns away. There should just not be assualt rifles with high capacity magazines. Weapons should be used for hunting and self defense, not fighting a made up enemy or our own military. If we really need defense from our military, dont you just think the soldiers would disobey there orders. This isnt Germany in the 30s.

"this isn't Germany in the '30s" is exactly right....and as long as we have the ability to protect ourselves, it never will be. BUT, those that forget (or deny) history are destined to repeat it.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Keeping dealers in business:

in response to Citizen:

Kiss your guns good bye.

ummm, I think not. Come to take my gun and you can kiss your arse goodbye.....

Written on Letter to the Editor: No brainer:

in response to Melkor:

Take some time off of your throne and look at the answers I gave you about keeping your guns but locking those in a safe that you aren't using to protect yourself. I also keep suggesting that you place locks ON the firearms you have out. Now, you can't say you haven't got an answer.

You can lose the extended clips and assault rifles though. Unless you think you need them against some stray dog or cat in your yard.

I will only use the term "assault weapon" because that's your term (in reality, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon").

And no, I don't need one for a stray dog or cat in my yard; you're being asinine. The Second Amendment gives me the right to possess the weapon OF MY CHOICE to defend my other rights from an oppressive/tyrannical government. End of story, case closed. If you and your other liberal friends don't want to defend your rights, that's fine, we'll do it for you.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Tired of 'stupid':

in response to georgebush:

Charlie Dudley! You are acting Stupid and Paranoid and Creating Fear in some People, Nobody wants to take anybody guns.

GB, the whistle you just heard was the referee calling time out and throwing the BS flag on your "nobody wants to take anybody guns" statement. On Diane Feinstein's own website, there is a copy of a bill she will introduce next year to eliminate various weapons and accessories. Sale and transfer will be illegal, and the current ones will be grandfathered but only if owner jumps through numerous hoops to keep what is rightfully and legally theirs.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Check your history book, for those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.


Mr. Dudley, if you're the same Charlie Dudley from Iowa Park that rides around in a city-owned truck writing people citations for their grass being too tall or any other heinous violations you find, then aren't your words "I can think and live on my own without Government telling me how" hypocritical?

And no, I am not a crybaby bleeding heart liberal; you will find no stronger supporter of the the Second Amendment than myself.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Tragic waste of life:

in response to Wasp:

The NRA has trashed its own reputation. ALL police organizations want to ban assault weapons and multi-shot clips over 10. The NRA, whatever it was setup to be is nothing more than a way to raise money and make money and money and more money. Regardless of what misinformation the NRA puts out, membership is shrinking rapidly. No sane retired military person or police wants Americans armed to the teeth with assault weapons. Attempts to link assault weapons to our constitution is as ignorant as having assault weapons at every school house door in America.

Please tell me what an "assault weapon" is. My AK47 has never assaulted anything but tin cans and paper targets, and I killed my first deer, and many feral hogs since, with an AR15. "Assault weapon" is simply terminology (created during the Clinton administration, I believe) used as a scare tactic to create bias towards firearms. So, to be honest, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", unless EVERYTHING is an assault weapon, such as an "assault hammer" because you hit me with it, or an "assault rock", because I hit you back.

And since we're being honest with each other, the Second Amendment DOES exist to protect all types of firearms. The only thing ignorant is people (no names mentioned, it's Christmas) that think that they can pick and choose what is protected and what is not. Since you have forgotten history and are therefore doomed to repeat it, I will explain. The Second Amendment exists to allow free men to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical, oppressive king/government - it never has been, nor will it ever be, about hunting, target shooting, or anything else. It is solely about remaining free. If I have to defend myself from you in a fist fight, I am allowed the use of both fists, same as you, instead of being required to fight with one hand behind my back. If I have to defend myself from a tyrannical government, the Second Amendment guarantees me the use of the same weapons that are used against me. If you remember, the Colonists were said to be fighting unfairly, as they used rifles while the British Army used smooth-bore muskets. If we allow the Second Amendment to be comprised in any way, we have no way of protecting the next right that officials decide to curtail. The Second Amendment is the rock-solid foundation that the remainder of the Bill of Rights rests upon.

And please don't drag out the tired old cliche of "why would anyone need a weapon like that?" My friend doesn't NEED a 200 mph Corvette, but he has the right to buy it, and if he misuses it, he is held accountable. My neighbor doesn't NEED to smoke, but he has the right to, and when he is dying from cancer, he will understand why. It is not your, or any government official's, position to tell me what I need. I am a free man, protected by The Bill of Rights. The decision of what I need is mine, and mine alone, and with that right, also comes the responsibility of being held accountable for that same decision.

Written on Ex-firefighter ends 4-year ALS battle:

Knew Kelly from High School. Great guy, even greater loss.

Written on Strip club sued in fatal '10 crash:

dram shop liability does not apply to a social host at a residence; it only applies to situations in which alcohol is served under the authority of a permit or license issued by the State of Texas (Alcoholic Beverage Code)

Written on Details of fatal crash unfolding:

From one comment: "almost had to be speeding at a high rate of speed to do that much damage. If not enroute why was he speeding like that?" From another: "clearly but unfortunately was speeding".....from a third: "Cops do a lot in the name of the law that is not legal. It is not right though. This time it went bad".....all of you are very quick to crucify the Officer for something that has not even been examined yet, much less proven...please acquire some facts before you rattle your head

Written on Letters to the Editor (Dec. 5) :

in response to XKSBoy:

A question for all the internet readers out there. Have any of you received from the Dept. of Commerce the American Community Survey? I recently received one in the mail and was instructed to fill it out and return it, as it is required by law. They first asked the same questions that were in the census, then they wanted all the information we sent in on our tax returns to the I.R.S.. They then wanted to know how much we paid on our utility bells on a monthly basis. Then they wanted to know how much our property taxes were, then they wanted to know how much we thought our house would sell for. They also wanted to know how big our house was, how many bedrooms how many faucets there were, bathtubs, showers etc. They then ask what time we leave for work each morning and how long it took to get there, I felt that these questions were already at their disposal, even our own community, The survey was addressed to Resident at my home. Even after talking to Mac T's office I still was uncomfortable. I just sent it back with a note saying I felt that their questions were to intrusive and that if my community wanted all those questions answered they could ask them. Just wondering ?

sent it back? you just wasted your time and our tax money on return postage......mine would have gone straight to the trash

Written on Raiders roll to state quarterfinals:

blah blah blah....doesn't matter if it's boys or girls, or what sport, or what school..your kids all put in the same time and sweat as mine, so as long as they're not playing my team, I'll support yours

Written on Police arrest man at bank:

in response to Wichita_Willie:

Maybe he was trying to obtain a small business loan so he could open up his own home decorator/high dollar consulting firm?

he already HAS a home redcorating business...he breaks in, steals your stuff to support his habit, thus your home is redecorated...

Written on MSU spends $304,000 on Taft home:

The problem is not that a professor lives in a house rent/utility free, as part of their copensation. It happens elsewhere. The problem lies in the fact that MSU filed paperwork with the THECB saying the Taft House would be "useful to students, accomodating their needs, and for temporary housing of faculty", and then put a professor in it permanently. Bottom line: they lied. What else are they lying about?

It all comes from the elitist attitude "I"m above the rules and the little people". Just like when Rodgers' wife had the street in front of the Coliseum rebuilt because she was too important to wait in line behind people waiting to turn left; she wanted to turn right to go to her mansion, and she is better than they are. So, we rework the street (at what cost?), everyone turns right, and she goes on her merry way.

Written on Gholson: Film shows why game turned ugly on, off field:

in response to eldeviousone:

Brownwood scored 88 points against the hawks defense ? Wow, much like the Dallas Cowboys giving up on Wade. Ponder should have just taken his team off the field and into the locker room.

Did you watch the game? I did, and watched Iowa Park score more on Brownwood has all year. They played hard until the end, and didn't give up in any way. Brownwood was just that good that night.

  • Older Comments
  • Page 1 of 1
  • Newer Comments