Ronald Hamric

Ronald Hamric 2 days, 5 hours ago on Successful businessmen invested in the future of news media

Not really sure how one should interpret this article. On the one hand I think the term "successful businessmen" is appropriate to those mentioned. But I was a bit taken aback by the reference to " some of our most respected businessmen". In light of the media's constant attack on everyone successful in this nation, you know "they're all pretty much robber barons", how does the author of this article then suggest that the salvation of the "media" lies in the very hands of those dastardly "successful businessmen". Interesting to me just how hypocritical the media has become in recent times. And I do believe much of the decline they see not only in their public approval rating, but their subscribers also, is tied intimately to the reality that they (media) are not fooling the "average Joe".


Ronald Hamric 3 days, 4 hours ago on SCAM


We received the same call at our home. Needless to say with my background, I knew it was bogus. Since these types of scams persist I can only imagine that they are somewhat successful. It's a shame, since the folks have been warned about these types of schemes for quite some time. But then not everyone is paying attention to the warnings.


Ronald Hamric 4 days, 21 hours ago on 684 It's Your Call. Ever seen a "party bike?"


If the person in the middle is the non-drinking "designated peddler", I see no issue with such a contraption. I personally wouldn't avail myself of such (don't drink at all), but it does seem like a way to get folks from a bar to home without themselves being at the peddles. ;-)


Ronald Hamric 4 days, 21 hours ago on 653 It's Your Call. Choosing an effective punishment.

Tom, A little Google search brought up a number of these:

Now, I know our Constitution speaks of the punishment fitting the crime ( No cruel or unusual punishment), and I chafe when the more overly compassionate among us point to ANYTHING today as cruel and unusual punishment. You can't electrocute them, gas them, hang them, or use a firing squad. And when they started challenging even the "lethal injection" approach, some states have finally said "enough" and have gone back to those old punishment methods. But at some point, and I would leave that to judges, the "state" has to remove these obviously dangerous individuals from society. To do otherwise should make those very judges liable for the deaths caused by some person they repeatedly let off with some lesser punishment . How many is enough to trigger such a punishment? Once again, I leave that to the judges, but there must be some limit and it should not be arbitrary.


Ronald Hamric 4 days, 21 hours ago on 685 It's Your Call. State overrides local background checks. I

I agree with Pat. Anyone who is a prohibited possessor (a felon) knows well and good that they are committing another felony simply trying to buy a firearm. Now, I would suggest these folks by and large are not rocket scientists, but they are fairly street smart and they are "survivors". And as Pat said, they will not take the risk of trying to acquire a firearm via the legal approach. Why should they, when the black market is available to them without any of those risks of exposure? Only those folks that can legally possess a firearm are the only ones who will be encumbered with this law. You know, your average law abiding citizen. To me the extent to which the "gun banners" are going to try and get their ultimate goal of a total ban of personal ownership/possession of any firearms and to basically nullify the 2nd Amendment via a "stacked" Supreme Court, is through these incremental burdens placed upon law abiding citizens. This is NOT Australia nor Great Britain. If they continue in their efforts they will most likely trigger that "hot revolution" I sense is a very great potential.

One other reason I support this new ruling, is we cannot have every town or jurisdiction passing their own unique and varying laws regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms. To do that would invite legal chaos and confusion. Afterall, there is a thing called "States Rights". Don't believe I have ever heard of "City's/Town's Rights " as it impacts upon our US Constitutionally defined "rights".


Ronald Hamric 4 days, 22 hours ago on Population of 38,000 is too many people

Mr. Christensen is correct. There is the very risk he points to if some of the current Federal lands are turned over to the authority of the state. His caution is nat on. Should such a transfer take place, then those of us who want to have input as to how those lands are used, would then be dealing with the state, not the Feds. Since those of us in this state actually elect those who run the state and have very little control or input over those that make decisions regarding Federal lands within our state, I would suggest that the citizens of Arizona could more easily have input as to the use and purposes of such lands. Of course Mr. Christensen and many others are appropriately concerned as to what might happen under a state controlled circumstance. I have some confidence that the citizens of Arizona actually have more appreciation for the land within our state borders than does some person, say in New York or Boston. This is our state and those resources are more important to us than anyone in the other 49 states.


Ronald Hamric 6 days, 22 hours ago on Give me your huddled masses

As to the point made by another poster, one should read the "bibles" of those of the Muslim faith. There are not many versions of the Koran or the Hadith. Those two, although dynamic and changeable at the whim of the Imams, remain pretty much the same throughout the Muslim world as they were when created by Mohammad. If one takes the time and with interest reads these two "bibles" they will quickly learn that Islam is hardly a "Religion of Peace". It was spread via the sword from the beginning as it is today. One point from those two books is the Islamic goal of a worldwide Caliphate. Their means and methods of establishing that Caliphate are clear, and apparent to anyone who has even been paying the slightest bit of attention to what is taking place in the Middle East and many parts of the world.

Personally, I have no issue with people legally immigrating to America, whatever their nationality or culture, if their motives are to assimilate and accept what has been the defining characteristics of Americans from the very founding of this nation. I think, without being too religious" I would refer you to our pledge of allegiance, leaving out the reference to "God" that was put in during the Cold War. “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” If you would be so kind as to avail yourself of those two "bibles" I mentioned above, you should be able to quickly discern that such and "allegiance" is nigh on impossible for one who has accepted and is a true follower Islam. It would be blasphemous for one to take such an oath. Also pay particular attention to the admonition for all Muslims" to lie if it furthers the goals of Islam. "There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. "

Do take the time to enlighten yourself as to the vast differences between those that you remember with fondness that helped make America great, to those that you imply/feel so much empathy for as indicated in your above post.


Ronald Hamric 6 days, 22 hours ago on Give me your huddled masses

Mr. Horne,

Wouldn't it be nice if the America and the world that existed when that plaque was placed was the same as we have today. Back then, people from most parts of the world wanted to come to the US to become "Americans". They came through a very specific and organized process, many via Ellis Island. Yes, they formed cultural enclaves while they assimilated and spread throughout the country. They were proud to actually become US citizens to the point that many effectively learned English, could pass a test on US history, and eventually joined the "melting pot" that America was at the at that time. When we speak of a"melting pot", the idea is that everyone is thrown into the same pot and ALL become a part and parcel of the contents of that pot. As pertains to their "country" indistinguishable one from the other.

Let's look at the situation currently. Although I won't give the exact numbers (because no one really knows what they are) we have as many entering our uncontrolled borders illegally as we do actually being admitted via the "legal" process. And they too form enclaves based upon their country/culture of origin, like some of their predecessors. One of the big differences in these people today is that they want what America has to offer, but a large number of them DO NOT want to be thrown into the "melting pot". They want to retain all aspects of their former culture and their language.Basically creating a microcosm of their culture right here within our shores. Many eschew any semblance of being identified as "Americans". Many will hyphenate that label. They choose to retain their native language, identity and few ever learn the formal language of America, ie English. That is so readily apparent when one learns that it is Americans who have to become bilingual in order to have any type of communication with these folks. Here is a link that addresses that: When we see the flags of their former countries flown over and above the Stars and Stripes, I believe that sends a very strong signal as to where their allegiance remains.


Ronald Hamric 1 week ago on Presidential progress and problems

Mr. Meszar,

I believe myself and any number of others would stand right beside you in that support. I must say, based upon my experience (born in 1942) I simply cannot imagine such happening in the current situation relative to the population polarization on so many socio/political views, of that ever happening . I have oft said that the people of this nation can do pretty much anything if there is a nationalconsensus to do it. Otherwise I see just more of the current status quo. Yours is a very honorable view however.


Ronald Hamric 1 week ago on Population of 38,000 is too many people

One would think that being as close to California as this state is, and observing what happened to that state via unbridled growth beyond the ability of the natural resources to support it, those making these sorts of decisions on the behalf of the current residents, would not be so insistent upon making those same mistakes. It's all a numbers game but the math isn't all that difficult to figure out. The "fly in the ointment" as always is, "we never projected or factored in such a drought"!" This whole region is called the "Desert Southwest" for a very good reason.