We just had this conversation on our Facebook group of Ex Pat Brits living in the USA. Some of us got ourselves into very difficult situations because of our vocabulary upon our arrival from across the pond, often causing daggers to be directed at us, and guffaws from others. Great article.
Loved it mate. It's the dog's bollocks!
steevy is a waste I completely cut off the gazette while he was / is in control. this opinions are toxic at best.
"My work here is done..."
Up, up, and away!
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...
Just for the record, I am not a liberal. Also for the record, you accused me of supporting the president's policies, and of being too vain to repudiate those policies because it would involve admitting I had been wrong. When I demonstrated that I do not support those policies and never have, you quietly let the whole matter drop. Apparently, you are the one who is too vain to admit when you make a mistake or take back a false accusation. And to top it all off you still believe that you have damaged my credibility.
City Leaders are determined to get Collins off the city council and out of politics for good because she is a "problem". She (1) opposes using future sales tax revenue to build a downtown stadium without the citizens voting on whether or not they want to spend $200M local dollars on a useless stadium instead of on fixing the roads (2) opposes closing Drake in the near term (3) opposes eminent domain to take property for economic development (4) PROposes reducing fees and regulations that strangle small business and startups.
Bruce is not the villain in this story. But there is a villain. WHO is funding the recall? WHO wants this "problem" councilor removed? My guess is that it's the same person that spent nearly $1M to change the form of city govt that resulted in the Strong Mayor we now have. WHO is paying to get rid of Collins and WHY is the big story. How about investigating that?
"I won't even try to back up my assertion because it is already a generally accepted proposition"
Of course you won't--because you can't--and generally accepted by whom; your fellow liberals?, LOL!
So, just for the record, you've floated a rather serious accusation that you're unable to elaborate upon or definitively substantiate; thanks for yet another example of leftist double-standards (i.e. I'll expect conservatives to prove anything proposed, but won;t hold myself to that standard).
The rest of this thread is yours, as my work here is done...
Hey "Ion" why don't you stop ghost writing for Wayne Laugesen? You and Dede have got a great gig going. How much is the development community paying the two of you anyway? Hope you're both happy with where your eternal salvation is going. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liberty-for-COS/1583237188590349
Sigh. More of Doug Bruce's tedious—if momentarily entertaining—ghost writing for Helen "Condo" Collins. Hair splitting in place of reasoning; endless, loopy tangents rather than tackling the allegations against Collins head-on. Vintage Doug. Heck, the guy could have been a criminal lawyer. Oh, wait; he was. A prosecutor, as I recall. Long ago—long before he was himself a convicted criminal. Come to think of it, he's the ideal consigliere for Helen.
There is one tie-in between Iraq and your arguments against Iran. The same advisers and experts who were convinced that Iraq would transform itself into a democratic paradise once Saddam was toppled, are the same people who are now trying to torpedo the talks with Iran, so they can push a plan to start bombing there, because--you guessed it!--Iran will transform itself into a democratic paradise once the leadership is toppled!
By the way, you are aware that ISIS was driven out of Tikrit recently by Iranian forces under Iranian leadership, who celebrated their victory by slaughtering native Sunni non-combatants.
I won't even try to back up my assertion because it is already a generally accepted proposition, but I will resurrect an old charge of treason I once made against John Boehner, since no one else has ever heard anything like it.
Early in the president's first term, John Boehner was asked in a television interview if he believed the president is not an American citizen and has no American birth certificate. To his credit, Boehner said in no uncertain terms that he thought the "birther" controversy was nonsense. He was then asked if he would help set the record straight before the American people. His response was that it was not his problem. In other words, "Am I my brother's keeper?" That was an act of treason.
As an elected official and member of Congress, Boehner has a positive duty to support and defend our form of government. Yet, when the stability of our Republic was seriously threatened by lies and ignorance, Boehner chose to stand aside, hoping to gain some slight political advantage from the chaos, instead of speaking out what he knew in his heart to be the truth.
I wish I subscribed to the Gazette so I could drop my subscription!
"You are trying to spin and dodge (when was Iraq even mentioned in this thread), yet I'M 'desperate to change the subject'?"
Yes, indeed! You changed the subject from the treasonous letter to the evil nature of Iran, as if that justifies the conduct of the American traitors. I never claimed my views on Iraq were in any way related to that question.
On the other hand, you accuse me of supporting the president's policies in the Middle East, so my bringing up Iraq is completely justified as a response to that charge.
I expect that this distinction is probably too subtle for you to understand, but I would not want anyone else to think you have a point or that I could not easily dismiss it. Speaking of "anyone else," I don't think anyone else, besides you, needs for me to explain why signing and sending the notorious letter is an act of treason, and I don't care a fig for your opinion, so I will not waste my time.
Is that seriously a smiley face(Colon, dash, D) in a official statement? WTF
Let's walk through this, happyfew.
I have a revolver. You want to buy it. So, we go down to the dealer and you fill out the 4473. The 4473 asks a series of questions such as "Are you a convicted felon" in order to determine if you are a prohibited person or not. After you get it filled out, the dealer calls it in for the background check, which basically just verifies that you answered those questions correctly. When he does this, he gives your information, but all he tells the people on the phone is if the firearm is a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. He never tells them the make, model, serial number, or caliber of the revolver. The dealer will be told "Approved", "Delayed", or "Denied" and is given a background check sequence number -- that is all. If the transfer is approved, the CBI and the FBI destroy all information except the sequence number, the dealer's FFL number, and the date. They do not record your name or anything about the firearm. So, you are approved, the dealer completes the transfer and enters the information in his bound books. We walk away, never to see one another again.
Five years from now, you do something stupid, who knows what, but the police find the revolver. They do a trace from the point of origin to me as I was the first owner. They knock on my door and ask me if I owned such a revolver, to which I say "Yes, but I sold it." They will ask "Did you do a background check?" I will say "Yes." And that is the end of the conversation.
So now let's say that instead of getting the check done, I just sold you the revolver cash on the barrelhead, no background check. Same situation occurs in five years. They do a trace from the point of origin to me as I was the first owner. They knock on my door and ask me if I owned such a revolver, to which I say "Yes, but I sold it." They will ask "Did you do a background check?" I will say "Yes." And that is the end of the conversation.
Either way, they can't really prove I did or didn't have one done. The CBI and FBI were never told anything about the firearm during the background check and even if they were, they destroyed the records after the approval was given. They don't know which of 1700 dealers to go to and will never be able to get a warrant to search 1700 dealers across the state.
And that is one of the reasons this is a flipping idiotic law, passed by people who have no clue what they are doing and supported by people whose thought process never makes it past "gee that sounds like a good idea" -- the same kind of people who look at the bottle of snake oil and say "Gee, it says it cures gout, constipation, impotence, and grey hair ... that sounds great, I'll buy two!"
" they are definitely keeping guns out of peoples hands that cannot legally obtain them."
The mandated universal checks are not. Before we go too much further, let's make sure you understand that there are two different things, 1) background checks, which we have had at dealer sales for many years and which the NRA actually backed and 2) mandatory universal background checks which Colorado recently passed. The focus of what we are talking are the mandated universal checks.
We know there was an estimated number of "private sales" which occurred in Colorado prior to the new law. We also know that the number of checks done for other than dealer sales since the law passed is nowhere near what the estimated number of private sales are. So that right there tells us the law is not working. And again, this is exactly what was seen in California when they passed a similar law for handguns.
We also know that the number of these non-dealer sales background checks did not increase after the law was passed, in fact they dropped some. This means that more people were voluntarily getting these checks done before the laws mandated them. So again, this shows the law is not working.
Despite the non-compliance with the new law, we are unaware of any prosecution under the new law, so yet again, it isn't working.
And anyone who is a prohibited person and knows they are a prohibited person isn't going to fill out a form and pay for a background check to be done just so they can be told "No". The most you might be able to hope for is a few people who are not aware that they are a prohibited person goes through the process -- of course the form asks all the questions which should prompt a person that they might be prohibited before the background check is ever done, so frequently you end up with someone who doesn't know there is a bench warrant out for unpaid parking tickets or who has a ten year old RO still on the books from an old divorce and the RO should have expired 9 years ago but the clerk forgot to file it (yes, I have seen both those things happen to people).
And the brutal truth is that it is very difficult for the police to prove that a background check was not done. If Becky sells a firearm to Kathy, how are the police going to know if a check was done? There is no firearm registration, the CBI does not keep records, the FBI does not keep records, the BATFE does not keep records. The people who keep records are the individual dealers and there are 1,700 of them in Colorado!
So any assertion that these universal background checks on private sales are preventing bad people from getting firearms is completely and utterly ludicrous. Anyone who tries to tell you that this law works is a snake oil salesman, pure and simple.
Long live Finch! My favorite band.
WHHHAAAA????? Buckets of biased bull from the Gag-zette??? Next thing ya'll know they're gonna do a "news" piece on the benefits of drinking a plastic 2 liter bottle of vodka a day.
Marijana collective, city wide. Get paid in solar panels. Get visitor to pay for it by buying cheap weed, the cheapest in the world! Have several festivals to get the tourists here. People would like a town to go green, and would patronize it, but only if we get the jerk out of District 15. He represents us, and makes the city look evil.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation