Mr. Wyman How can NOT voting change anything? If No votes are logged then all who are there stay. Thats called uncontested. Is it not? If a person has no one running against him or no one votes for the one running against him he wins by default. So how does not voting accomplish anything? Besides our Country the one that is loved by you that you want to see changed is built around citizen participation. So I cant see how not will accomplish anything. Please explain the thought behind your statement.
Dean Miller; You make a good point about the PPRTA revision approach. It would be interesting to see how the County Commissioners would respond as they have intertwined it with Pikes Peak Area Governance for distribution. Also they other part of PPRTA tax goes to fund mass transportation.
Gina Douglas! Who protects you from an assailant in your home or in public? Are you 6 foot 5 inches 275 lbs of muscle and workout daily? What is the definition of "terrorism"? A dozen or so Americans are killed each year by terrorists. I will say that is the type of terrorist we read about and not a person who just plain terrorizes others. And feeling sorry for someone as you said you did is the delusion that you are better and are not going to die. Lose that attitude.
No American on earth has ever been or ever will be struck by a meteor.
The fact that many people nowadays carry concealed has made all of us safer. You do not know who is carrying and neither do bad persons. They do not like to take chances so they hunt on Bill Clinton's safe for lunatics zones; public schools!
Our inalienable Rights have a lot of weight and they are all we have. They are guaranteed which means they cannot be changed or adjusted. Any changes that have been made are a violation of Rights but many do not know this out of ignorance. The lack of education is as at the heart of it and guess who runs the schools? See you are already a bit smarter!(if you answered "government")
As for myself I am joining in on the movement that will clean out Washington DC and state houses of all sitting politicians. The movement is asking every voter to not vote. The incumbents will then be asked to clean out their desks. The people will then adhere to The Constitution and elect representatives for a term with the main rule that campaigns must be self-financed with a spending limit and nobody can lobby or contribute a dime. Special interests are gone. Military can return home to protect our borders and our Rights and police can return to walking the beat. If you want a service then you pay a tax for it. The Bill of Rights will no longer be interpreted by anyone over 10 years old. That is a good start unless you like things the way they are...
And in the ballpark:
In a 1939 game, pitcher Bob Feller's mother was cheering her boy on from the stands on Mother's Day. While Feller was pitching, a foul ball was hit into the stands, smacking poor Mrs. Feller in the head and injuring her over the eye.
It seemed strange enough that a foul ball hit by Denard Span
would fly into the stands and hit a woman who was wearing his jersey from the Twins. The woman was Span's mother.
finally just for fun ...
Pete Rose' final at-bat as a major league player on August 17, 1986. Rose, batting as a pinch hitter, struck out. Who was the pitcher?
Rick "Goose" Gossage
old fart teabaggers are what ruined this village. it appears we may have elected some less teabaggery old farts... hopefully. young fart thinking is what is badly needed in this town.
"Dude, you have more chance of being killed by a meteor," -- Gina Douglas
Written by someone who clearly has not looked at the statistics.
Dave Naumann writes. "I refer to the Rev. Martin Luther King" without the slightest sense of irony, as Dr. King, in his lifetime, was also accused of creating the racial divisions and disharmony he protested against. Dr. King was not elevated to his current position of respect among closet racists until well after his death, and only then so they could use him as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.
Mr. Naumann, you can no more pin the nations' divisiveness on our president than you can on the Easter Bunny. You forgot all of the other players, conveniently. How about the T-baggers, er, I mean the John Birch Society. Rush, Fox, Jan Brewer, et al.
Mr. Obama reached out to McConnell and the House Republican sot in the beginning and then again only to be shunned and publicly ridiculed. To his credit, our president took the high road.
No, he is anything but accountable for this. For this we will wink and pretend he is not a black man, we'll just disagree with him at every turn, even at our own peril.
Mr. Naumann, I submit to you that ONLY reason we may have a greater rift in race relations in America is because of people like you. My way or the highway, facts be damned.
asawatcher, you make this too easy. Seems like every mass shooting news story has a sidebar about how the darn background check system failed. http://cnn.it/1HSHL6u
It fails all the time. But that's government for you. Or, some federal agent leaves his gun lying around. http://bit.ly/1TNdPN3
Or, criminals steal them. Or a thousand other reasons. You live in fantasy land if you think any law or system is going to be foolproof.
"You wonder why the murder rate is lower in affluent white suburbs than it is in the densely packed, economically and socially depressed, ghetto environment of Chicago? Really? You can’t think of any possible explanation? None at all?"
Another softball question. Let's start with failed progressive Democrat policy. Who's been running these cities for the past 50 years?
And you still haven't commented on any of the Democrat politicians featured in the videos. I know, their statements kind of destroy your whole position. Odin is right on the money.
Fact is, there are no explicit statements in the Constitution regarding automobile speed limits. But there is one about our right to bear arms.
“For starters, firearms transfers are already controlled by laws. Except for when criminals swap their guns.”
Criminals have guns to swap? Do you suppose those guns came from Smith and Wesson or Glock factories earmarked “for criminal swap meets only”? No? You’re right! Every gun in the hands of a criminal has passed through the hands of a so-called “law abiding gun owner”. Let’s see a “reasonable” law to plug THAT pipeline. We need severe universal background checks for EVERY GUN TRANSFER.
And Odin asks:
“So why then do the surrounding areas have a lower rate of homicides with firearms?”
You wonder why the murder rate is lower in affluent white suburbs than it is in the densely packed, economically and socially depressed, ghetto environment of Chicago? Really? You can’t think of any possible explanation? None at all?
"Answer: there are NO reasonable gun laws. That's the problem."
The problem is that every time a shooting happens, the gun control idiots say that there are no laws or that the laws are no good and then pass more laws. Then there is a shooting and the cycle repeats. And when confronted with this, they blame the pro-gun side. We have been playing this scenario over and over again since the 1930s.
" Chicago might try to control the insanity, but surrounding states and counties encourage proliferation. "
So why then do the surrounding areas have a lower rate of homicides with firearms?
John Adams warned "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Perhaps this is why some Indy readers have such problems with it.
"Stop the uncontrolled transfer of firearms with severe universal background checks for EVERY transfer of such weaponry."
For starters, firearms transfers are already controlled by laws. Except for when criminals swap their guns.
I generally avoid the sky is falling Alex Jones types, but he assembled a great video that illustrates why I don't trust people who want to apply 'severe' controls over my Constitutionally-protected natural rights...
In spite of the fact that you chose to ignore my point about firearms transfers and changed the subject, I will address yours:
"asawatcher - Please explain how gun laws you call 'reasonable' mitigated any of the last five mass shootings."
Answer: there are NO reasonable gun laws. That's the problem. Guns seem to be void of reason, and beyond normal law. Laws to regulate the proliferation of today's ever more efficient killing machines can't even get introduced into state or federal legislatures. Chicago might try to control the insanity, but surrounding states and counties encourage proliferation. Other than installing anti-personal barriers at the city limits, and checking everybody who wants to enter Chicago, the solution to Chicago's problem is, of course, unattainable, especially since no universal background check legislation can even get introduced.
Gun free zones are, today, nothing more than polite requests . . . the LAST kind of request gun toters respect. If a bank wants its business to be gun free, they realistically would have to post an armed guard and a metal detector at the door, as would arenas, stadiums, shopping malls, like airports and other government buildings do now. You know, of course, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun………
Of course even speed limit laws didn't "mitigate" the last five tragic automobile accidents with multiple fatalities, but how do you know that speed limit laws HAVEN'T prevented such accidents? Do you have a measurement procedure for that? To ask how many guys haven't killed others because they couldn't get a gun is silly because every guy can get a gun.
Stop the uncontrolled transfer of firearms with severe universal background checks for EVERY transfer of such weaponry. There is no Second Amendment violation in such a law.
"To advocate the unfettered proliferation of today’s weapons of ever-increasing killing capacity is just plain irresponsible." Then you must really be upset over the President's nuke deal with Iran.
"... Founders looked askance at transferring firearms to hostile Indians on the frontier, or to pirates raiding colonial settlements on the coastline, or to gangs of escaped slaves." Please cite the laws they passed to address any of the above.
asawatcher - Please explain how gun laws you call 'reasonable' mitigated any of the last five mass shootings. Next, please explain how the most restrictive gun laws in the nation help reduce gun crime in Chicago, Baltimore, Camden, Wash DC and LA. Then, please name the lives that were saved by the gun free zones in Aurora, Navy Ship Yard, Ft Hood, Charlotte and Chattanooga.
Finally, please explain what Mike Martinez meant in addressing the man with the sign in this 38s video:
OR, you can explain to us why Robert Wyman might hold the opinion he expressed.
“Every firearm law is UN-constitutional and background checks are attempts to infringe.”
I respectfully disagree.
There is NOTHING in the single sentence of the Second Amendment that protects an imaginary “right” to transfer a firearm to anybody, any place, any time. I’m sure the Founders looked askance at transferring firearms to hostile Indians on the frontier, or to pirates raiding colonial settlements on the coastline, or to gangs of escaped slaves.
To advocate the unfettered proliferation of today’s weapons of ever-increasing killing capacity is just plain irresponsible.
Larrimore Nicholl...where even to begin? I can't imagine the hurt and insult your who-cares comment inflicted on any one of the boys and families whose paths had the misfortune of crossing with Carrier's.
Wouldn't it be nice if you were king of the country and pope of the church that considered what Carrier did to those boys mere minor attraction, but would prosecute and punish Coy's having to use the boy's bathroom as a major crime?
Verily, m'Lord, you'd provide perfect leadership for Upisdowningham...but I wouldn't want to live there, much less vacation there with the family.
Maybe Doug Bruce would have been wiser to spend a few dollars on a real lawyer- LMAO!!!
THE BRUCE IS GOING DOWN- LMAO!!!
It is difficult to determine how often a crime has been prevented with a firearm. Since police take 10 minutes to respond to a crime scene it would stand to reason that they will never respond to a "no crime" scene.
One can make any argument they want against firearms but when police are called it is usually because they carry weapons. Try to recall the last time you heard of a police officer saving someone by shooting an assailant. Take your time...
Every firearm law is UN-constitutional and background checks are attempts to infringe. Some can be reckless with firearms just as some are with cars and Rights. Protect yourself and your Rights.
NCVS and NSPOF both prove you incorrect.
"Rain, fires, floods, earthquakes, civil disobedience; this is just the beginning!"
do you religious freaks really believe this crap?? all the horrible things that your fairy in the sky has let pass, this is what will draw the invisible man in the clouds wrath??
keep hating on others... it's what your book of mythology says.....right?
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation