I am curious, anymom. Where did you pick up this piece of information?
Sally, the "insanity" that the recent mass shooters have in common is....wait for it....LIBERALISM! EVERY, no exception, one of them self identified as a liberal/progressive. The "SANE" solution, therefore, is to outlaw liberal/progressive gun possession. Problem solved.
Gee Sally you talk about your version of sanity. Where is the sanity in the rest of this world where vile people kill others with any means of disposal whether it's with guns, knives or pressure cookiers. You really think you can stop them with more regulations? Only thing that is being accomplished is making more people not able to defend themselves when the need arises. If you and your like-minded audience prefer to be victims then by all means be victims, the rest of us will protect ourselves and our own. When you get time on your hands go out and make the cartels get a background check that is already required.
20,000 firearms requlations are within the confines of the US and you people are talking about more. Put a little more effort into getting James Holmes executed and you would send a better message.
To the two of you - Sally and Happy few - you ignore all the gun laws that currently exist - some 2000 of them. Isn't that and having a background check done when you guy a gun from a store enough for you? Or do you want to be the type of citizen the founding fathers feared - idiots who don't think or evaluate. background checks are done EVERY TIME someone buys a gun at a gun show or store. Have you ever bought a gun? Go try it and see if you can just walk out with the gun - go on I DARE YOU!!
The second thing is to educate YOURSELVES. You ignore all the research that has been done on gun violence which has been going down these last ten years according to the FBI and many other sources and stop being afraid of guns. Go get Lott's book and read it. Then think about what you have read.
Again - you ignore that any mentally ill person will use whatever he can find to create chaos - guns are ONE small part of that equation. In the three instances above, not one gun was used to kill another. And if it came to being boiled alive with hot water and bleach, a gun would be a quick and less painful way to go don't you think? that happened here in the Springs. The other night a homeless man died in one of our parks - a gun wasn't used. He died from exposure and probably health conditions. Why aren't your panties in a tightwad about that Sally?
Third, understand that most gunners are law abiding folks - they are YOUR neighbors, church members, teachers, etc. When they sell a gun they don't sell to scumbags - they sell to friends and others who know how to use a gun safely. Most scumbags cannot afford the prices folks charge for their guns. Those prices run in the hundreds of dollars to buy from someone who has one. And consider that the Boston bombers used a pressure cooker - would you make folks get a background check to buy those? Hey - why not a background check to get a car! Cars kill more than guns anytime!
AND for you two, you both ignore the defensive use of weapons. Over two million times a year guns are used for SELF DEFENSE. If three men were breaking into your home and threatening your loved ones, I am sure you don't want to tell them, "Wait - I am going to call the police."
NOW go learn some things about guns and wake up! Stop being afraid of them and buy one and learn to use it properly.
the gunuts argument against background checks is mentally ill people will just run you over in a car? WOW! how about we keep legally obtained guns out of mentally ill people's hands and avoid many of the thousands of murders occurring every year. it's not guns that kill people, it's those darn copper alloy encased lead bullets. the bullets that result from a PERSON pulling a trigger. lets make sure the people with the fingers on the triggers understand when to pull that trigger.
Sally Alberts asks, "Can we not bring some sanity into this situation?" Yes we can, as soon as legislators and folks like you stop proposing feel-good/do nothing legislation.
Since you consider yourself intelligent--judging by your past op/eds, I'm not convinced--, just what do you suggest would be effective measures to implement and enforce?
This is in reply to Sally Alberts, Tues. Nov 7 – Its Insanity.
Sorry Sally - there are tons of regulations concerning guns now. We do not need more. Gun owners are NOT fighting to keep safety measures from being taken – they already have been in place. What they are fighting for is their second amendment rights.
And guns are threatened – look at the actions of the Colorado State legislature this past year. Those members swore to up hold the constitution of the state and the nation and have done neither. They trampled on the Second Amendment to the point that the county sheriffs are suing them and citizens recalled two of the most egregious abusers of it.
And as far as no place is safe – you are correct. Anytime a mentally ill person wants to kill someone, they will. And they don’t have to use guns to do it either. Look at the woman who scalded and killed her mother with hot water and bleach. Look at the man who used his car to run down tourists in California. And look at the mentally ill Asian wacko who used a knife to hack an entire family to death.
Sally you need to read the book, More Guns, Less Crime 3rd edition by John Lott and get some common sense to back up your supposed intelligence. Then you need to go research who abuses guns – hint: Its not the lawful gun owners but the mentally ill. Finally you need to realize that a person who wants to kill another will find a way and a weapon to do so. Why don’t you use your time to work on getting funding for the mentally ill instead of wasting it showing us you are sadly misinformed?
Peter, I agree with you for the most part. As a non-smoker (okay, I'll enjoy the occassional cigar), I find the stench of "poop sticks" horrendous and intrusive, and fully support their banishment from indoor public spaces (private property owners should have the right to choose policy, and if their choice is to allow smoking on their premises, your choice then becomes whether to patronize or not).
Outside spaces however, allow for a far greater dispersion of the offensive odor and toxic bouillabaisse and until they ban automobiles, industrial machinery, and even restaurants that belch their fatty emmisions (ever drive by a burger joint when they're experiencing heavy volume?), cigarette smoke is a relatively minor contributor.
"We complain about fracking, but set our thermostats at 72-plus degrees in the winter. Our concern about unfriendly oil-producing countries worries us, but we drive SUVs 25 or more miles to and from work." -- Steven Seidner
I don't complain about fracking, my thermostat is set to 68 in the day and 66 at night in the winter, I drive a Subaru coupe and live seven miles from work.
"we shop online for goods that are made and sold by companies based out of state. We all want a diverse economic base, but shop at big-box national or international chains while going through the self-checkout lane. We scream about big heartless bankers creating the last recession, "
I shop locally when possible to save shipping and to get things immediately instead of waiting. I avoid Walmart like the plague and absolutely hate self-checkout lanes. I do not scream about the banks, I curse at the idiots who bought homes really thinking they could afford a $500,000 home with three mortgages on $50,000 a year salary.
"We decry what our politicians do, but we are single-issue voters and don't go to town hall meetings."
Unfortunately it is hard to find a politician who agrees with any given person on all the issues, meaning they have to vote for a politician based on just a few issues, sometimes just one. I do go to town hall meetings either online or in person and I frequently communicate with my elected officials via various means.
I read, with much mirth, about how many Indy hipsters believe that the tea party standing against raising the debt ceiling are against the middle class. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! In what way does increasing the national debt and devaluing the currency help the poor or the middle class? Answer- it doesn't! It only helps the banksters that trade treasury bonds that are worth nothing. It devalues the currency by creating too much of it. Thus, the $20 you had in 2009 is actuaaly worth $10 now. Want proof? Here you go, when Obama took office the price of a barrel of oil was $105 and the price of gas was $1.85 a gallon. Today the cost of a barrel of oil is $107.25 but the cost of a gallon of gas is $3.40 a gallon. Of course an Indy hipster would say "it's the evil corporations, oil companies, blah blah blah" but that isn't the answer. The answer is inflation, your money is worth less than it was before. The Consumer Price Index was created by the Clinton administration, it doesn't count energy or food in it's calculation (amazingly enough, the stuff we buy the most of). So, as this whole pile gets ready to collapse, and you are holding worthless pieces of paper, remember, you were warned.
Mr. K yes ill agree they print money they print stamps sure do they provide a service that American taxpayers pay for and need. With out a doubt and maybe I miss spoke but the point I was making was a loss in productivity on the private side of America. The Government is also a huge consumer of goods and services from the free market exchange that depends on a profit. Mr. Bently is another one of those that cant see the whole picture because of a failure to look past the center piece. So I brought up the center piece in order for him to understand. Kind of like welfare when that subject is brought up all they see is a freeloader they dont see the Corporations, the Huge conglomerations that own most of the farms and the millions of people in other country's that we supply aid to. See what Im doing speaking to there level.
I must beg to differ with you, Mr. Smith. The federal government does indeed produce valuable goods, including arguably the most valuable: money. In addition to money, the government prints postage stamps and runs the Government Printing Office. Furthermore, productivity is measured in services as well as goods. The productivity lost due to furloughing of Forest Service personnel has been well documented during this shutdown.
The government also performs annual studies vital to a variety of industries. The government also funds basic research and development.
The only thing the government does not do is make a profit.
Mr. Bently dont grasp the fact that while our Government does not produce anything they sure buy a whole lot of things that are produced. Thats where the shut down harms production. Also while yes we are a Republic we govern under a Democratic form of Government. We stay true to our Republic by using the Electoral college when we vote. All that was changed in 1787 so its nothing new its just a more BS from the Republicans. If we were a firm Republic we would not have a Country wide vote for President. The House would do our bidding or voting for President and the Senate would for Vice President. Now think about what a mess that would be and if you disagree with me go get an Encyclopedia and look it up. Its Fact while we live in a Republic but we Govern under a Democracy.
Excuse me, thinker. I should not have written earlier, "you do not seem to know all of the services performed by the government." I should have written, Len Bentley, the original letter writer, whose point of view you defend, does not seem to know etc."
One thing that extremists on both the Left and the Right have in common is a desire to see the government go into default, triggering a collapse of the world economic system, because they know the only way they can succeed will be to impose their will upon the majority in times of chaos and uncertainty.
Yes, thinker, I get the point, but you missed it. Of course I know that banks do all these things. I was being facetious and sarcastic. My point is that you do not seem to know all of the services performed by the government, many of which are so vital to the banking industry that the banks have been shrill and strident in their call to end the shutdown asap before it damages their productive industry any further.
By the way, did you notice how your simplistic argument against the government began to sound like Marxist propaganda when applied almost verbatim to banks?
gurudori, it is a pleasure to see someone who knows what he is talking about. When you consider the problem at the ACA website, which is higher than anticipated volume, the timeouts and delays are inconvenient, but not severe errors. The problem was handled gracefully. A true error would have been for the website to gather the info from consumers and pretend to process it while actually dropping it and losing it.
thinker, you should not attempt to explain engineering to an engineer. In common parlance, terms like "fine tuning" and "troubleshooting" may be more or less equivalent, but in engineering these two terms have precise definitions and they refer to two entirely different processes.
I see you have switched over to a new argument in your reply. Since when does the Republi-Cant Party get veto power over legislation? This must be some new amendment that has not made it into the Constitution yet. The ACA must be implemented because it was enacted and the Extreme Right Fringe cannot manage to get it repealed, though the repeal of the ACA is the only legislation they have been willing to engage in since its passage.
I assume when you write "the people don't want it" you are using the same polling methods that predicted a landslide for Romney in the last election. Even Ted Cruz said that the ACA must be stopped before implementation because once the people actually get to use it they will never give it up. What he did not say, but is implied by his statement, is that the people will see through the tissue of lies he and his ilk have been circulating for all these years--in particular, the lie that the program will be a total disaster once implemented. If the opponents of the ACA really believed that themselves they would not be so desperate to kill it now. They would just stand back and watch the president fall flat on his face.
Everything isn't as easy and instantaneous as internet email, and the new ACA website will have its issues at first. Interesting that everyone thinks it’s so easy to launch a website that has to cover millions users at the same time with multiple applications and programs.
At work, we launched a new website to replace our 18 year old one so that it would work with the new technology like Ipads & smart phones, and had to convert over 15,000 pages. Yes, there were many link problems that had to be corrected and it has taken over a year to complete the process, so I think the ACA website will need time to work out the NORMAL kinks with launching such a website.
Mr. K, if you're Engineering/producing a "widget", a field test and/or beta is fine, but when you're dealing with a sixth of the economy, it's far too risky a proposition to roll it out prior to full trouble-shooting. But it's what Obama and the Left wants (gotta have something in the way of a legacy!), so it's to be implemented, even though the GOP doesn't want it, the people dont want it, and even some Democratic legislators don't want it.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation