Judith, I did not say just "repeal", I said repeal, and rewrite.
According to you.."That any of the Bill of Rights gets abused is unfortunate, but repealing them shouldn't be on the table. "
...Why not, remember I said rewrite??
According to you..."I'm all for mature discussion on the issue and reasonable limits. I also neither own nor want a gun"
... Mature discussions and reasonable limits arent happening, because you can't the way this one amendment is written, this is EXACTLY the problem.
According to you.. "but it shouldn't just be the government who does, either." I agree with you and I never said this.
You really did not respond to my exact comment, that is not helpful Judith.
We can't repeal the Second Amendment. That any of the Bill of Rights gets abused is unfortunate, but repealing them shouldn't be on the table. I'm all for mature discussion on the issue and reasonable limits. I also neither own nor want a gun -- but it shouldn't just be the government who does, either.
I was keeping an open mind on Rev. Latham's letter until he started talking about "liberals." The conflation of neo-conservatism with Christianity is the reason I stopped going to church years ago, though I miss the good aspects and hope to find one again.
My only worry about New Life coming to Manitou is overreach by mostly well-meaning people but some not so much trying to "save" us. That concern is not the same as trying to extend a secular agenda, but protect our community.
So maybe we could lay the liberal versus RINO arguments at the curb, and try to keep the peace. But this letter kind of confirms my initial fears about a church with not the best history meeting in City Hall of a town it doesn't seem to understand beyond stereotype.
I hope this is not the case, and we can coexist as a community.
I wanted to add one other thought but wanted to keep it separate from my first post.
As in the actual second amendment, the virginia clause (thank you Robert for showing us that, I found it educational). also states a reason for the amendment, it is to maintain a militia ready when called, as opposed to a standing army.
That seems important, but those who oppose any gun legislation ignore this aspect of the amendment and the supreme court has told us to ignore it.
So, we are ignoring the actual purpose of the second amendment in order to make it work...I think that in and of itself is problematic with this amendment.
It is simply outdated and no longer works in this third millennium world.
Seriously Robert, simply stating "The Second Amendment" is not a conversation.
It's not even a complete sentence, let alone a conversation, and that kind of conversation is not helpful at all.
The problem with the second amendment, it is without a doubt the worst worded amendment in the constitution.
No one can define, legally, what an "arms" is.
Plus, the Virginia amendment also states that the reason for this clause is to rafrain from a standing army and use armed citizens as our defense. Can you really imagine that, armed U.S. citizens fighting ISIS, or any other threat we may face, that is a joke.
We will continue to get nowhere fast with this debate, the reason is any time gun legislation is brought up, the second amendment is invoked and the legislation stops. This will continue forever due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the second amendment.
This vagueness and the inability to legislate this issue due to the vagueness of the second amendment really leaves us with two options, the first is to leave the second amendment alone in all it's vagueness and ambiguity and stop attempting any kind of gun safety legislation or repeal and re-write this amendment.
My humble opinion is to repeal and rewrite this amendment to work in the third millennium world.
There it is Robert in your own words "TRAINED TO ARMS" Whos training them and how do you prove it in a society with so much gun play and deaths. Thats the conversation that needs played out. The Second amendment period attitude ant getting anything done. It hinders any type of true liberty for honest folk. Got to use some type of reasonable attitude towards the ownership and rights to something people use to hurt so many others.
Steve Schriener says "let's have the conversation about guns with committed, responsible gun owners". Okay.
"The Second Amendment". End of conversation. Thank you.
In case you need more: The Second Amendment came from The Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776 "Section 13:That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
That was so damn easy, screwing it up will be hard so have yourself a time.
Gertrud Nuhn; The City does it's best to appear as if it is listening and does what it wants. It seems no level of protest or disagreeing with the City Council or BoCC instigates change to what has already been decided for us.
The City now sends out a PR representative to manage the disgruntled neighbors on projects like the Centennial extension. They will collect concerns that will be given no attention at all. Road work like Fillmore that should have been 3 lanes in each direction, on a ballot 80% of voters agreed to even is allowed to change when the City deems 'it isn't cost effective' rather than build just as the ballot issue described.
Preserve the old north end. Protect the view of residents on the Mesa. Give the Broadmoor property without a maintenance agreement. It is because RICH are protected and the poor neighborhoods have homes taken by eminent domain.
"I only read the first three words of a post, to get the feel"
It shows, and is painfully indicative of how you obviously treat all written discourse.
While maintaining a stance of such willful ignorance and self-imposed myopia may save you from any tangible cranial exertion, it does you no favors in a forum of ideas such as this thread.
Again, best of luck in the future, as that's obviously all you rely upon when choosing and navigating a path...
"Trump will get rid of it and NAFTA"
Are you actually suggesting that Dizzy Donald will be decorating an Oval Office next Jan?
Now THAT'S funny!
You realize that most of the uber-rich are self-made, right?
That people advance/decline on the socio-economic ladder all the time, mostly due to what influences they exert upon themselves?
That our "poor" still enjoy luxuries and creature-comforts unheard of elsewhere?
Look, if you're dissatisfied with your financial situation, there's only one person who can change it, and taking steps to do so is FAR more pro-active that grousing about the choices, influences and decisions of others.
Be forewarned, I only read the first three words of a post, to get the feel.
"Your "sovereign" life is a product of global forces, spoiler alert"
My life, with all it's ups and downs, positives and negatives, assets and liabilities, is a construction built and shaped by myself, as is yours, so please spare me the suggestions that we're mere pawns on a global board.
This country is unique in offering opportunities found nowhere else--ask an immigrant--and if you still can't capitalize on the inherent benefits of being on these shores, then you lack the motivation, education, skills, etc. to leverage self-improvement, or do those diabolical, external forces--you know the ones that hire and provide income--conspire to keep you down?
It's far easier to blame others for personal fiscal malaise, but it ultimately serves no purpose or benefit, and just paints you as someone requiring scapegoats to justify your own failure and ineptitude.
Your "sovereign" life is a product of global forces, spoiler alert.
Obama's Pacific trade agreement will prove a decisive death blow to American manufacturing. Trump will get rid of it and NAFTA. PLUS you can get all kinds of protein on your very own! Right? Roadkill4all!
Your stunted, stilted, juvenile view of how macro-Economics works is laughable at best, as there are far more machinations driving a capital-based, entrepreneur-driven national economy than simple taxes, tarrifs and debt manipulation.
Lemme guess: you think the solution to excessive governmental oversight and regulation of the economy is...more government? *sigh*
You're obviously a "1%er", but at the other end of the spectrum. Best wishes in improving your lot in life; you're gonna need a miracle to succeed, but even a rudimentary understanding of fiscal matters would be a fine start, and I hope you undertake such an educational quest.
The government uses tariffs and debt leverage to throttle the economy that produces your paycheck, and it trickles down your face to your lips on the way to your belly. NAFTA not food stamps or whatever you thought, lunkhead.
"the government determines the actual amount of money in your personal wallet and the type of food in your belly"
Perhaps, if you're a subservient, boot-licking regressive, and this will be shocking, but there are still multitudes within the populace that still think, act, do and fend for themselves and who don't rely on the Feds/Big Gov/the Nanny State to care for them from cradle-to-grave.
I'm curious; how does someone else's wealth affect your personal, individual, intrinsic ability to acquire some of your own? Is there some secret cabal of blue-bloods plotting ways to keep you down in a hidden grotto somewhere?
"How will the skill-deficient middle class compete with robots in the workplace? There doesn't seem to be much incentive to work harder for less" - They'll compete by increasing their skill set/s, education levels and core competencies so they're more valuable potential assets and resources, and as for working harder for less; please explain how arbitrary, non-value-added minimum-wage increases help employers.
Sounds like you're contemplating relocating to the "Great White North"; enjoy some Molson, back-bacon and a failed universal health-care system...
"We call a dead cow steak, hamburger, etc., but never a dead cow"
Well Aubrey, essentially, ALL our food is dead, whether it walked around or was rooted in place, and I didn't advance to the top of the food-chain to munch only arugula.
Living, sentient beings consume other ones--that's the way it is--and if we're not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat?
I suppose you'll tell me that you never "Eat anything with a face", but I have it on good authority that if you ask nicely, they'll cut that part off before serving, so let me know if you're ever in town, and I'll treat you to a plate of brisket and/or ribs!
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation