Beaufort, N.C.
Jan. 17, 2013

TO THE EDITOR:

Republicans and “so-called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?
We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don't know the exact statistics, but I'm quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer that Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I'd say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that's just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don't want to get crank calls.

PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Why do they put "deer crossings" on the interstate instead of lightly-traveled roads?

“It seems to me that it's so irresponsible of us to allow these deer crossings to be in an area where these deer are so likely to be struck by oncoming traffic,” she said. “Wouldn't you agree?”


Finally, one host attempts to explain that the deer crossing signs aren't strategically placed to encourage the animals to cross at a particular location. Instead, the signs serve as a warning to drivers to be cautious on roadways where deer populations are large.


This explanation was apparently lost on Donna, who makes it clear that she is operating under the assumption that deer do indeed heed directives on traffic signs. She then offered a solution to the deer crossing epidemic she believes is plaguing the upper Midwest.


Relocate the deer crossing signs to nearby schools, Donna said, so that both the animals and children can safely cross the road together.


“The government can direct the deer population anywhere they want to” she said. “All they have to do is move that deer crossing sign.”

Commissar Wahoo wrote: mink liberation...

Beaufort, N.C. wrote:But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way."

I.M. Craptek wrote:...is that dangling thingy a brain stem, or pull cord that activates the LIV?

I.M. Craptek wrote:Fraulein Pulloskies,

I wonder...in the image you provided...is that dangling thingy a brain stem, or pull cord that activates the LIV?