Allen Bergstrazer 
Member since Jun 13, 2016


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Gibbes Museum leader Angela Mack dissects Pelosi/Trump photo for Vogue

The Vogue story is load of pretentious tripe. The only people saying this photo has an iota of similarity to da Vinci's Last Supper are ideologues desperate to prove the rectitude of their continual hysteria. If anyone has been politically beheaded inside the beltway, its Ms. Pelosi, who has lost control of her caucus to a handful of young freshmen women. The proof is that she had her finger wagging screed, walked out, and the rest of the people gathered went about their business and actually accomplished something besides a grandstanding photo-op.

5 of 14 people like this.
Posted by Allen Bergstrazer on October 21, 2019 at 6:08 PM

Re: “The Agenda: FBI releases killer's sketch of supposed Charleston-area victim; Graham criticizes Trump on Monday, coddles him on Tuesday

There was a segment on this past Sunday's "60 minutes" program about Samuel Hill, its a chilling story that a Texas Ranger was able to uncover.

Posted by Allen Bergstrazer on October 8, 2019 at 5:20 PM

Re: “School shootings sparked my activism. Now, I support Beto O'Rourke's plan to pull AR-15s off our streets.

While I applaud your interest in public policy, I respectfully think you're backing the wrong horse, or maybe that's horses. Beto hit rock bottom in July of this year polling 0.0% in New Hampshire, and his desperate admission to wanting to outlaw certain firearms will be the stake through the heart of his flagging campaign. Buy back is another term for confiscation of property that is legitimately owned. Most people who are pro 2nd Amendment and who do own their rifles legally and responsibly will see Mr. O'Rourke's declaration as government overreach and infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. If by some fluke of fate you were able to remove every AR-15/AK-47 from public ownership it would do little to reduce gun violence in the U.S. This is because most deaths caused by firearms are perpetrated with handguns NOT AR-15/AK-47 type rifles. If you don't believe me, contact the Charleston county coroner or SLED and see which firearms are most likely to be used in a violent crime. And while you're at it, ask which WEAPON is most likely to be used in a homicide. You'll find its not an AR-15, its not a handgun either, its knives. And you will also find that the major contributor to violent crimes of all kinds is not the possession of instruments to cause others harm, but poverty, poor education, the break down of the nuclear family and the influence of organized crime such as gangs. Mass shootings get the headlines, and the common thread in them isn't the choice of weapon but the mental health of the perpetrator, which for some reason no one (i.e., politician) is willing to address in any meaningful way. The profile is typically a relatively young person, male, loner, perhaps bullied or marginalized in social circles, who blames others for their troubles and fantasizes about paying 'them' back. Is the problem the gun, or is the problem that their anger, and self loathing exceeds their respect for the value of life? Do we want to fiddle around with the means used in a crime or deal with the cause? I present these comments as food for thought Jacob, to propose to you that the problem of the numbers you present are more complex than banning a particular type of weapon, they go to the root of our culture, what is it anchored in? I submit to you the problem is that life is cheap, and its cheapest where there's no hope, no prospect of improving your life beyond existing from day to day.

9 of 12 people like this.
Posted by Allen Bergstrazer on October 7, 2019 at 11:01 AM

Re: “Stegelin: Primarily dismissed

Nice to see that Steglein is so concerned about the SC GOP. In 2004 then South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford approved of not having a Republican Presidential Primary because he considered it a waste of taxpayer money. Now he's running for President and has no problem with wasting 1.4 million on a primary that he has no chance of winning. Typical Sanford. BTW, the Democrat party in Arizona did not have a presidential primary when Barack Obama and Bill Clinton ran for second terms, does that mean they're good at silencing voters too?

4 of 5 people like this.
Posted by Allen Bergstrazer on September 23, 2019 at 11:25 AM

Re: “S.C. Republicans step away from democracy by canceling 2020 primary

When 95 percent of those who are going to vote Republican say they'll vote for Mr. Trump, a primary is a bit of a waste of money-1.2 million dollars worth. It is not unprecedented for states to cancel primary elections in years when an incumbent president of their party is sitting in the White House. Arizona didn't hold a Democratic primary in 2012 when President Barack Obama was running for his second term or in 1996, when President Bill Clinton was. No one was bellyaching that it was undemocratic then. South Carolina didn't hold primaries in 1984 when President Ronald Reagan was running or in 2004 for George W. Bush's second run. It's disingenuous to say the least for, Mark Sanford to be complaining about it and even hinting he'll sue. When South Carolina didn't have a primary in 2004, Mark Sanford was THE GOVERNOR of our great state! THEN, he didn't want the state paying for a primary that was a foregone conclusion, but NOW Mr. fiscal responsibility wants the tax payers to pony up for a primary because he's running President! In case you've forgotten, that's Mr. Sanford in a nutshell.

6 of 8 people like this.
Posted by Allen Bergstrazer on September 21, 2019 at 4:10 PM

All Comments »

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2019, Charleston City Paper   RSS