Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Has questions for Tom Shaw

January 21, 2013

To the editor: The other day I noted an article in The Messenger concerning legislation that state Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, will or has introduced....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

TAXEDENOUGH

Jan-21-13 1:31 AM

This is just another King junior. It must be the water up in that area that creates these off the wall politicians and the people that vote them in.

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-21-13 4:38 AM

That's sad to hear if it's true. It's funny that just days after hearing about Brandstad's new plan to spend money to pay off other's(doctors) school loans as an incentive to get them to actually come to Iowa, it's really members of his own pary like King & this goon that are making it a less desirable state to consider moving to. Oh well.

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-21-13 8:52 AM

ColB: You never responded to my question as to whether Branstad's subsidization of physicians' education for services they render is not a better idea than that of Obama to do precisely the same for those who become bureaucrats? Just can't have too many of those bureaucrats. eh?

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FtDlover

Jan-21-13 10:22 AM

No one ran against Shaw. That is a very sad statement about that district. Shaw is so extreme that he cannot work with other legislators so his constituents do not receive good representation. When he was on the capitol steps screaming for more guns, I thought Shaw looked and sounded a lot like Ted Nugent(crazy).

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Mrcoozy

Jan-21-13 10:46 AM

Liberals liberals everywhere crying about someone who has obviously read the constitution and actually following it.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

6 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FtDlover

Jan-21-13 11:24 AM

We have many years of case law to help us interpret our constitution. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean unlimited.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bububud

Jan-21-13 11:39 AM

Taxedenough...It's not the water, it's the intolerance and bigotry so prevalant in much of Iowa, especially western Iowa! Sadly, most opposition to common sense gun legislation look upon the blood of the 20 children in Connecticut as nothing more than an unfortunate sacrifice in the name of "liberty"...time will erase their memory of massacre after massacre because, you know, it's all about government tyranny...so sad!

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrankyGrandma

Jan-21-13 12:39 PM

Shaw is a repulsive little bagger who has been a blight on his district. He's not smart, he's not personable and he's a worthless representative. His big agenda items are more guns and NO to every thing else.

His only contributions so far have been about guns and abortion.

12 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tiredofbs

Jan-21-13 8:15 PM

Common sense gun legislation would include making my child safe at school and not to make law abiding citizens out to be criminals. Funny how these killings seem to happen in gun free zones.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Need6letters

Jan-22-13 9:53 AM

Cranky's back with the name calling. Why didn't you run against Tom?

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-22-13 10:27 AM

Simple solutions for simple minds, perhaps?

With the draconian ban on hand guns in DC, homicides involving same acturlly rose from 188 in 1976 to 369 in 1988 and to 454 in 1993. Then, they declined steadily until the ban was found unconstitutional in 2007, but thereafter they ALSO continued to decline, to 186 in 2008 and just 88 in 2012, the lowest level since the ban was enacted 32 years earlier. Should it not then have gone up? Clearly, other factors were at work. As former DC criminal prosecutor J. C. Shapiro has surmised, based on that experience, any sense of safety and security based on a simple, knee-jerk restriction of firearms is likely to be a false one.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Jan-22-13 12:00 PM

So anderson you are always so quick for putdowns and meaningless facts and figures, what pray tell is the real solution from a non-simpleton. Please no simple solutions either...

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FDTROOPER

Jan-22-13 12:59 PM

Shaw and King are the worst that Iowa can produce.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-22-13 6:07 PM

Perhaps you could tell me, Brucee, just how something so SIMPLE as a ban on weapons didn't seem to have your predictive effect in DC or, for example, in Norway, where gun controls are very stringent? Observation tells me that diversity, pervasive promotion of a sense of "victimhood" and feelings of entitlement, plus SCOTUS's civil rights restrictions re commitment for mental illness, may have had more to do with Columbine, Aurora and Newtown than SIMPLY availability of the weapons used.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bububud

Jan-23-13 12:06 AM

Access is the killer..."law abiding" shooters angered for some reason or under the influence of alcohol or drugs is just as capable in wiping away human life as the mentally troubled! Another school shooting reported, this time in gun heaven Texas! An entire family in New Mexico blown away yesterday! How much blood is enough before the real problem (access) is addressed?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Jan-23-13 9:52 AM

anderson thats your non-simple approach ? mental illness. wow. Guns are part of the problem, there are TOO many, mental health is part of the problem, no process in place, background checks are part of the problem, no real follow-up, lots of parts which you dont touch. All would help, as this problem gets worse by the day, but like so much of the process today, your repubs will consume to the lobby power and nothing will get done, meanwhile go out and by some more guns and ammo - the sky is falling again..

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-23-13 11:49 AM

Should have added the absence of fathers in their children' - especially their sons' - lives as a principal cause of violence in society today. We see this particularly in the murder rates in our inner cities but also within the Messenger area it might be noted, and that is certainly not a problem susceptible to a SIMPLE solution either, not least when personal responsibility has been and continues to be constantly eroded through public policy, programs and political pandering to every claim of govt neglect by every cohort of a diverse body politic. Perhaps there maybe some validity to Obama's statement that Americans do not expect govt to solve every problem, which was otherwise lost in his paean to collective vs. individual accomplishment.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Jan-23-13 3:46 PM

We has Americans have the right to bare arms, but as a citzen in a free state and right to be free and safe find it ridiculous to defend the all out arms supply that some people claim to have and need to defend or hunt or collect or whatever. Like I have said in the past if we all load up on all the weapons we want or need then it will be a disaster waiting to happen - trust me. I do not want to be going out on a given night for a social event and have to carry a weapon just to feel safe, and I do not want such people around me as well, it just isnt civil for people. Fear is not a healthy reason for guns and that is what it is in a nut shell. I dont need a weapon to feel free and safe, and nobody I consider "normal" should either. Now scream all u want.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-23-13 4:53 PM

And you ain't normal in south Chicago, Brucee - Nice to live in Dodge even if it has had some of the attributes of a "Little Chicago," eh? Or was that not a drive-by shooting I read about down there in the flats? Mind you, Brucee, if you break down on I-195 in DC Northeast, keep the doors locked, the windows up and pray (hope, in your case, I suppose) that the police come by before the car is completely stripped!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tiredofbs

Jan-23-13 9:56 PM

You all would s your pants if you knew how many around you were legally carrying. However, you will never know because people who have gone through the proper legal avenues to carry are likely to be responsible and don't care to advertise(these are the people who are ticked). Criminals don't care. criminals don't obey the law.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FtDlover

Jan-24-13 12:44 AM

Actually, hbockhoven, it does mean limited. We have a common definition of our laws and constitution that is derived through case law. Otherwise we would all interpret each law differently. You may want to read the Heller case where the Supreme Ct did say that the right is limited.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Jan-24-13 9:15 AM

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: Think about it - anderson and u gun toting cowboys..We dont need more guns and I dont need your d-m guns to protect myself - trust me..

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-24-13 10:35 AM

Typical "one-size-fits-all" mentality. Brucee! Just trying to point out that what fits Dodge and Iowa may not fit a country as vast and pluralistic as the US. We do not need another giant, overfed and overpaid federal gun control bureaucracy - and neither you nor they will get my d...d guns.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brucee

Jan-24-13 10:58 AM

Always sniping anderson - I dont want your d-m guns and there isnt a place in this country that needs more guns - ur fear mentality is such a poor excuse for this and a lot of problems in this country to do with defense, the world has caught up and we need to go beyond fighting everything with more power, it just isnt going to work anymore O man..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bububud

Jan-24-13 5:09 PM

Hmmm...Was the killer with his killing machine at Aurora a criminal?..NO! How about Virginia Tech?..NO! Connecticut?..NO! Columbine?..NO! New Mexico?..NO! Michigan Sihk temple?..NO! Tucson?..NO! Fort Hood?..NO! Portland Mall?..NO! Were any of the dead robbed or raped?..NO! The killer with his trusty killing machine was just content with killing! Not criminals...just the guy who lived next door who had access...apparently no amount of blood will satisfy some people!

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for: