"A police chief is non-partisan and not accountable to an electorate, and is more likely to advocate for politically unpopular policies, like gun laws." -- Bill Guman
Actually Police Chiefs tend to be more partisan because they serve at the pleasure of and need to appease the politicians who appointed them. They have repeatedly been shown to not represent the opinions of the rank and file cops. They will support the positions endorsed by any politicians who promise them more money and more manpower.
"It would indeed be interesting if we placed gun laws on a statewide ballot. Opponents of our new gun laws might be surprised at the results."
Given the incredible lack of knowledge about anything regarding firearms by the general public, I would not be surprised if they would support some pretty dumb laws. Remember the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban? Do you know how many of the general public mistakenly thought it banned machine guns? The reality was it had absolutely nothing to do with machine guns. You might find support for banning AR-15s even though rifles of any kind, of which AR-15s are a subset, account for less homicides than hands and feet and less than knives. Many of the general public think hollow-points are illegal.
The bottom line is the laws might pass, but it would be out of sheer ignorance on the part of the public.
Look at the Universal Background Check and the arbitrary magazine capacity limit -- both of these laws are nearly impossible to enforce and there is no evidence that they would be effective at reducing violence involving firearms. They have support because THEY SOUND GOOD. But when you actually take more than five minutes to think about how they would work, they fall apart pretty quickly.
"First, The Assault Weapons Responsibility Act was withdrawn by Sen. Morse and will not be reintroduced. Second, the bill specifically had many exemptions: one being the situation of an intruder coming into your home (i.e., a "Make My Day" exemption); in that case, you could not be held liable. The Act was also intended for cases of negligence in storing or transferring an assault weapon, or for cases where state/federal laws were violated." -- Carol Hoffman
One thing that is true is that the bill would have classified 1870s era single shot rifles as "assault weapons".
I agree with Regina DiPadova...as a conservative I am opposed to redefining marriage but I am not opposed to gay people. And I voted on amendment 2 in whatever way it was that was on side the side of human rights (that was slightly confusing).
The recall of John Morse is certainly a 'hot button' issue. If you are on 'the other side of the fence' and do not see the need to vote for this recall, and would like to volunteer to encourage a NO vote, please sign up - and also voice your opinion on the Marijuana Issue: Allow or Ban? Thank you.
To Regina DiPadova: so you resent being called a "hater", but I'll wager you have no compunction whatsoever calling others "haters" if they have the audacity to disagree with your beliefs. I'm curious if you can see the duplicity and hypocrisy in that? I doubt it.
"The National Rifle Association has decided to throw its weight behind the John Morse recall in Senate District 11 ("NRA is gunning for Morse," IndyBlog, May 17). " -- Jonothan C. Tierce
Only after NYC Michael "32 Oz" Bloomberg started funding ant-recall efforts. The NRA wanted absolutely nothing to do with the recall effort until that happened. And quite frankly the NRA is trying to take undue claim when they say they are coordinating the effort -- the truth is they are not coordinating anything and are late in coming to the table.
"Polls continually show that "responsible gun owners," even within the NRA, support background checks and limits on large-capacity magazines, as well as various other measures designed to limit the ability of criminals and the mentally ill to obtain and wreak havoc with weapons that are far from what a sportsperson or hunter would need, or in most cases even want."
The polls are all over the spectrum regarding support or opposition. And quite frankly most of the polls do not try to ascertain if the people answering the questions even have a clue what they are talking about.
"The gun safety legislation passed under John Morse's tenure as president of the Senate is reasonable to responsible gun owners and non-owners."
Actually it is not reasonable. The laws that were passed are snake oil. They are feel-good measures that even the authors admit will have no impact. And they are nearly impossible to enforce without enacting far more onerous restrictions.
If you are interested in better understanding the laws and their flaws, I will be happy to explain in greater detail.
Stacy, you are referring no doubt to the email controversy. According to Wikipedia:
"In November 2009, hackers obtained a number of Mann's e-mails with climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and published them on the Internet, sparking the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann's research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties."
"The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on 15 August 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct."
"In October, 2010, Mann wrote an op ed in the Washington Post in which he described several past, present and projected attacks on climate science and scientists by politicians, drawing a link between them and 'the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.' Calling them 'not good-faith questioning of scientific research [but] anti-science', he called for all his fellow scientists to stand against the attacks."
Why Mr. K you are right? In the "intervening years" science has gone a long way. Micheal Mann has shown everyone how to cherry pick data and ignore all data that shows anything other than what he wanted. He showed people how to "hide the decline". And now with all these "advancements" the little people have learned how to ignore all other atmospheric measurements except the ones coming out of an observatory on the side of an inactive volcano that is within 10 miles of two active volcanoes. Yeah, "science" has gone a long way, a long way backward that is.
"But the change Dr. James Hanson told us of then was global COOLING. That's right kiddies, we were told there was a coming ice age due to human activity." -- Stacy in Woodland Park
While I will not weigh in on weather or not humans are causing climate change -- the climate has always changed and will always change regardless of human activity -- I will point out that we are due to have another ice age. The most likely culprit will be the disruption of the "Atlantic conveyor belt" AKA Atlantic meridional overturning circulation AKA the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic Ocean. This disruption will likely be triggered by a warming trend. Basically what this means is that both global warming and global cooling predictions could be true.
Indeed, who would be foolish enough to think that science has actually advanced, and become more accurate, in the intervening years?
"I started thinking about the commercials Morse supporters were running," -- Jill Coleman
And remember that those commercials are being partially funded by his buddy Michael "32 oz" Bloomberg from NYC.
"I don't agree with Sen. Morse on every issue but I know he cares about our community and passes laws that make sense." -- Mike Maday
The gun control laws he helped ramrod thru the Senate actually do not make sense. He flat out stated that he ignored and told his fellow legislators to ignore feedback from the community.
only a fool would confuse peer reviewed science with a newsweek article regarding a person "wondering" about something. sounds like your education was from a red state where much mis-information is distributed... on purpose.
Andrea - the CO2 level did not reach an "average" record last week. The only place where this was reported was at the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii as per this LA Times article http://www.latimes.com/news/science/scienc… if you are basing your CO2 PPM "average" on one atmospheric station THAT IS WITHIN TEN MILES OF TWO ACTIVE VOLCANOES then you are somewhat delusional. Yes, you might find some fluctuations in the CO2 level with two volcanoes spewing it out all over the place. But here is the real problem with your argument. I was born in 1968 and attended grade school during the 70's. What we got told was that man-made climate change was going to destroy the planet. But the change Dr. James Hanson told us of then was global COOLING. That's right kiddies, we were told there was a coming ice age due to human activity. Here is a Newsweek article from 1975 wondering "Is global cooling causing the recent rash of tornadoes" http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm I am 45 years old now. And what I hear climate change people saying is, "we know when you were a kid we told you that you had to drastically change how you live your life to avoid a new ice age. Well, we were wrong. Not just a little wrong, not just a smidgen wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. So with that in mind, we now want you to drastically change how you live your life to avoid our latest predicition. And this time we're right, promise, pinky swear." Fool me once........
The 05/16/2013 at 3:34 PM post is in error
"Being shot at close range by an automatic weapon"
Semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull = 1 bang. Much the same as a revolver. Full-autos (1 trigger pull = bang, bang, bang, ...) are already highly restricted items and have not been used in any of the recent shootings.
"with a 30 round clip "
Magazine. The difference may seem insignificant to many, but to those who know about firearms it is like the difference between shoes and socks.
"Asking people, some of whom may not be mentally stabl,e to submit to a background check - - and limiting clip capacity to 15 rounds (or 10 or 7) seems prudent in an increasingly violent society. "
At first glance, universal background checks and arbitrary mag capacity limits might sound like a great idea, but even a little bit of closer scrutiny reveal them to be nothing more than snake oil and these ideas fall apart. BTW, firearm related violence has been going down for some time.
"Yes, the argument is often made there are already 250 million guns in private hands."
Over 300 million.
The truth is that for 75+ years we have passed increasing restrictions on what firearms and ammo can be owned, who can own them, and how to buy them and there is no evidence that these laws have reduced the violence problem. In fact, in the years since some of these laws expired and the number of firearms in circulation has dramatically increased, the rate of violence with firearms has dramatically decreased. So clearly focusing on the object used does not work.
We need to break this paradigm of obsessing over the object used and start addressing the behaviors and their root causes (examples: education, ethics, economics, glorification of violence). Until we do that, the problems will persist regardless of how many gun control laws we pass.
The recall effort is the appropriate action to take. When an elected official passes bad laws, stifles debate, ramrods legislation through, publicly flips the finger at the people of Colorado by refusing to even look at or listen to our voices on the issues, and is subservient to DC and NYC, then we need to send a clear message to him and others that this will not be tolerated. By making excuses about expense or that he is term limited and will be gone in a year anyway, you are giving people like him a pass to do what ever they want without fear of being held accountable.
Well golly staci, your "give and take" appears to be directing folks to a highly politicized web site or two. So where is your "expression"? You didn't "encourage lively debate" and it was only a "subject of interest" to you and yours. I certainly didn't "discourage opposing views" because you offered none. All you offered was SPAM.
And thanks for the advice. I generally disregard your posts as pablum.
Thanks. I choose to regard the two posts you refer to as participating in the give and take of expression in the comment section of a local press organ which appears to be a well-managed paper encouraging lively debate on subjects of interest and one that does not discourage opposing views. One option that appears available is that when you see my name attached to a comment, you could just skip on by and read the next one?
Staci: your above two posts come much too close to SPAM!
It appears as the link to volunteer to assist in stopping the John Morse recall did not 'take'. My apologies. One can email the coordinator at: email@example.com Thank you!
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation