I apologize to all for a personal note to Lil Mick.
“LibertyforAll” at one time used a different name. Don’t know why he changed it, (have my suspicions) but he hasn’t changed his modus operandi, which is mostly to insult. It is a compulsion he seems incapable of setting aside, and beyond which he has little to offer in the way of civil discourse. Once I realized with whom I was arguing, I dropped it. He will deflect, change the subject, but mostly he’ll insult.
We’d all do well to ignore his postings.
As for your Second Amendment question, I have an opinion:
Our Founders, who wrote the definitive Document of the Enlightenment, had good reasons for writing the Second Amendment as they did. I’ve come around to believing that it would NEVER have entered their minds that citizens should NOT have the right to possess a firearm. I don’t believe that it was ever an issue in their thinking.
Rather, the Second Amendment was written to fill glaring needs of the fledgling nation…a need that well regulated (and armed) militias filled during the War of Independence, a need out on the frontier, a need to combat the threat of southern gangs of escaped slaves, a need for an organized response to possible invasions, a need to combat the threat of pirates that were invading coastal settlements, the need to establish an arms industry to meet the demands of an expanding nation. I am of the notion that it would have NEVER occurred to them that some sort of threat to personal possession of arms would ever be an issue even in light of the Red Coats’ isolated efforts to seize arms from local “radicals”. So the well regulated militias established armories, and trained their members.
I believe there is, then, an underlying “Spirit” of the Second Amendment which is unspoken and is, perhaps, the source of Second Amendment Absolutism. But it is that absolutism which will end up destroying that very “Spirit” of the Second Amendment with which we might ALL agree. There are MANY aspects of today’s “gun issues” that are not addressed or even considered in the Second Amendment, and what is NOT in the Second Amendment could reasonably be discussed if the absolutists would take a step back and recognize that fact, and work toward resolutions which would serve the common good, rather than the interests of the Corporate arms industry.
We trusted this attorney with a video of a city bus accident. when we asked for it back it had been edited. He kept it for two weeks and led us to believe he would represent us. He took sides with the city instead. DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN
"STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.."
Take your own advice before lecturing others.
If gun safety legislation is introduced, the 2nd amendment is invoked.
When the 2nd amendment is invoked, it's all over but the shouting..
....and unfortunately the shouting is all that continues.
STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.
Just a point that you pro second amendment folks don't seem to understand(this is just one, there are many).
If the second amendment was repealed, nothing would change, the status quo would remain.
Repealing the second amendment does not outlaw guns...
What it does do is eliminate constitutionally protecting ownership of a privately manufactured, privately marketed good.
What it does do is open the door for common sense safety legislation.
Can a pro second amendment supporter respond to the point I am making and not insult me personally?
Can one of you other than LibertyForAll continue this dialog in a mature, intelligent manner?
I will not respond to "LIbertyForAll", all he did was call me names, what a despicable answer to a simple question.
None of his points had any factual content, it was just a Lil Mick bashing.
My point and question is still valid and still unanswered. Is there any of you pro second amendment folks who can answer these questions in an adult and intelligent manner?
We were in on the Gazette concept as a stakeholder but declined the Payne Chapel opportunity. We would be back in for the City Auditorium.
Pizzeria Rustica, Enoteca Rustica, TAPAteria
Wow, Lil' Mick, if there was any question about your total ignorance of and absolute disregard for the Constitution, you've certainly made it obvious here.
I'll dismantle your goofiness by degrees:
"why do you support this amendment?"
Well, because the Founders placed immense importance upon it--look at its rank--and it's part of the Bill or Rights. Didya get that? "Rights", as in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
You may not agree with it--which is fine, if idiotic--but such an opinion stops there, as what you believe has no bearing upon what I'm allowed to do.
Do you think the 1st Amendment should be abolished? The 4th? Any others, or does your selectivity only single-out one? And since when did you become the arbiter over which amendments we should support or negate?
"We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good"
Again, this isn't about the manufacture of a "good", it's about a right inherent to us all. Don't like guns? Great, don't own one, but please cease in trying to prevent me from choosing the option to do so.
Here's a tangential question: Do you support the ACA/Obamacare? If so, then how can the Feds force the citizenry to purcahse a private commodity and/or service under penalty-of-law? Is this ability in the Constitution, or is there a double-standard regarding what things legislation applies to? (I'm gonna pop some corn while you attempt some dizzy regressive spin).
"This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way"
So says a hypocritical, hyperbolic, subservient, self-righteous, faux-indignant, neophyte who would pick and choose what suits them as opposed to simply allowing others to do so for themsleves.
Bottom line: you--and your ilk mindless enough to "Like" such sleepy ideological malaise here--are on the losing end of this debate, and it shall remain so into perpetuity, as such brash, infantile, utterly doomed proposals simply underscore how behind-the-times and legislatively ignorant many liberals choose to be, thus making logical, common-sensical positions that much easier to espose and support.
Thanks for posting such a primative, troglodytic view; it's like providing infinite ammunition (pun intended) to the opposing viewpoint, LOL!
The city that I lived in in California actually has more bike lanes than Colorado Springs does. There are bike lanes everywhere in CA, and when there isn't, they have signs reminding drivers to "Share the Road".
I have a question for all of you who support the second amendment, actually, I have two questions.
My first question is why, why do you support this amendment?
My Second question is why should guns be the only privately manufactured, privately marketed consumer good which its ownership is a constitutionally protected right?
We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good, to my knowledge, why this one?
Both the gun lobby and gun manufacturers have had windfall profits, become billionaires because they produce and sell a product we constitutionally protect the ownership of.
I think that is just wrong!
My thought, there is no reason for this amendment anymore. It was originally adopted to maintain a civilian army, militia's. We don't do that, or need that anymore.
There is no reason this privately manufactured and marketed consumer good should continue to be constitutionally protected.
This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way.
Well, ASA, there's an amazingly simple solution to your dislike of these weapons: Don't own one, but please cease from telling others they don't have the option to do so.
You see, "freedom-of-choice" may be too heady a concept for an admitted Socialist such as yourself, but it's still in effect on these shores, and your personal likes and dislikes have no bearing on what others can decide for themselves, and just because you require an omnipotent federal entity to provide your thoughts, words and deeds, doesn't mean we all do
Tell us how the regs that the regressives are trotting out--yet again--would have prevented this tragedy, or San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Ft. Hood.
Extreme regulations on "assault" weapons--an utter misnomer, as "assault" is a verb, not a noun--were enacted in '94, but were allowed to expire--even by your beloved, Big Daddy Dems--in 2004, because they were ineffective.
And tell us how the regressives recent proposals are faring, LOL!!!
This isnt about hunks of steel and plastic, it's about individual intent and ideology, and since we can't account for every whack-job trotting around this big, blue marble, perhaps you should worry about yourself, and leave me and my fellow citizens alone, or do you know what's best for others, and feel compelled to save them from themselves?
"I am NOT a victim of enough denial" - Sadly, this is but a microcosm of what composes a multitude of victimizations and self-imposed masochism; please seek help so that your ego and psyche may become more fully formed; as for your intellect, I'm not sure much can be done to even lay a foundation, much less bolster it.
Of course there are many different kinds of guns for different purposes, not all being to kill people in a rapid fire manner. Your Second Amendment Absolutism is showing.
I am writing specifically about a specific type of weapon which is manufactured for the specific purpose of unleashing deadly bullets “as fast as a trigger finger can twitch” (a semi-automatic weapon). If you doubt that the Orlando murderer CHOSE his weapon for THAT express purpose, you can view the manufacturer’s video of the Sig Saur MCX here: ( http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx ) and get back to us when you can realistically argue that the guy in the video is “hunting” or “defending himself”, and not engaged in assualting and shooting “as fast as his trigger finger can twitch”…at targets, the size and shape of humans, with images of rounds penetrating the stylized bodies…and smoke and darkness through which the victorious masculine hero exits.
I am NOT a victim of enough denial to prevent me from recognizing PRECISELY what that weapon is designed to do.
And I don’t think I’ve engaged in any hyperbole. It is what it is.
And not that I expect an answer, but do you have a comment about the actual subject of my original post?
"a tool, the purposefully designed function of which is to kill as many people as fast as a trigger finger can twitch"
Yet again, ASA resorts to tired, trite, sloppy hyperbole as he ideologically trips and rhetorically falls/fails.
So, guns can't be used for hunting? Target practice? Self-defense? Law-enforcement?
They're only constructed for one, singular purpose?
Suggestions like that are what keep regressives from actually being taken seriously, and some helpful advice: when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging...
Mr. Wyman challenges:
“Just what is the ‘common good’ exactly and I mean exactly.”
I have often, likewise, wished that I could ask the Founders about what they meant when they wrote: “We The People, …in order to form a more perfect union…”.
But, should I ask them thus:
Just what IS a “perfect union” “exactly and I mean exactly”?
I try/hope to better understand statements of ASPIRATION, and I think that terms like “common good” and “perfect union” are aspirational, NOT defining. I've come to the notion that the aspiration for a “perfect union” is closely linked to the maintenance and expansion of the “common good”.
What, then, is the “common good”? The common good is that very thing that maintains, protects and expands our individual freedoms which include not just the Bill of Rights, but also life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (maybe even the aspiration of FDR’s four freedoms).
Society is constantly evolving by questioning what serves the “common good” and what doesn’t.
Today, simply put, there is disagreement as to whether or not Second Amendment ABSOLUTISM serves the “common good”.
Currently, (the argument over terminological ephemera aside) there seems to be a segment of our population that DOESN’T believe that the common good (or any other human aspiration) is served by being able to obtain a tool, the purposefully designed function of which is to kill as many people as fast as a trigger finger can twitch. I can’t say that I disagree with them.
"It's bad enough that we have someone as ignorant, vile, bigoted and totally unqualified running for president, someone who makes us look like a joke"
Lemme guess; you're going to choose a lying, untrustowrthy, hypocritical, out-of-touch, geriatric, elitist, rapist-enabling 1%er in Nov.
"someone who makes us look a joke", indeed...
Primaries and caucuses are the candidate selection processes of the respective political parties. Those parties are private entities, not government agencies and should, therefore, be the full responsibility of the parties, not the taxpayers -- full responsibility meaning both financial and administrative. Open primaries, primaries versus caucuses, and "top-two" primaries all address a problem that is not a problem for the state to resolve. For one thing, there are political parties other than the two major parties. Also, there are independent candidates with no party affiliation. Given those potential alternatives plus the liklihood that many eligible voters find no candidate in a given election cycle will represent their concerns and interests, it is little more than hubris -- as well as demonstrably ignorant -- to accuse those prospective voters of "apathy" if they don't choose to participate in either the Democratic or Republican party candidate selection processes.
Very disappointed in Cruz's endorsement of Darryl Glenn. Mr Glenn is all talk and no results to back his rhetoric up. Combined with a reluctance to respond to constituents emails, phone calls, letters, etc., which approaches Doug Lamborn-like levels of evasiveness, I cannot see how anyone who wants a results-oriented, truthful, representative of this State can cast a vote for Glenn.
If you're not advocating then you're not helping. Attend meetings on road 'right sizing' and bike lanes, email and call your city council and mayor. Bike lanes in downtown are currently on hold and being pushed off due to lack of support. The only way to get more infrastructure is to advocate for it, its up to you!
Open primaries would be a step in the right direction, but a "top two" primary would be problematic. Anytime there are more than two candidates a single vote to single candidate process cannot be guaranteed to accurately reflect the will of the electorate. While no voting system is perfect, a ranking system alleviates many deficiencies in such cases. See the Scientific American article "Ranking Candidates Is More Accurate Than Voting" by Dasgupta and Maskin. One of its first examples is from the results of a similarly styled "top two" contest in the 2002 French presidential election.
I would love to see the primary process completely remove itself from the party affiliation requirement, as in that all potential candidates for a post would be on the same ballot. To me, the current primary voting system lifts up political parties as gatekeepers to the political process instead of leveling them as the (useful) outside agitators and organizers that they are.
I would absolutely love to commute to work every day throughout the summer. I generally trail hop now that the base of the Templeton Trail was repaved and the Santa Fe was repaved where it connects with Nevada... However crossing Nevada at Mount View is a very daunting endeavor.
As similar to the author of the article, going through Mountain Shadows & up Flying W is such a peaceful, beautiful ride. The moment you come down Vindicator to head to Rockrimmon though, the ride becomes absolutely terrifying. The bike lane narrows to be non-existent with the smallest shoulder and the worst road conditions. You try your hardest to be vigilant of pot holes or debris in the street that over take the shoulder but cars speed down vindicator at 50 MPH without changing lanes or observing a 3 foot distance. Safety in traffic is always the rider's largest concern, but the city should absolutely be doing more to alleviate the stresses that are controllable. If there are popular cycling spaces, bring out the street sweeper within 48 hours of a storm to clear the lanes. (If there even ARE lanes. If not, then lanes should be clearly marked.) Kate Brady needs to connect with each bike shop within the region and see where their group rides go (including Chik-Fil-A for their rides) to map where the popular cycling areas are.
Our city shouldn't just place a priority on these things when the USA Pro Challenge makes an appearance.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation