We were in on the Gazette concept as a stakeholder but declined the Payne Chapel opportunity. We would be back in for the City Auditorium.
Pizzeria Rustica, Enoteca Rustica, TAPAteria
Wow, Lil' Mick, if there was any question about your total ignorance of and absolute disregard for the Constitution, you've certainly made it obvious here.
I'll dismantle your goofiness by degrees:
"why do you support this amendment?"
Well, because the Founders placed immense importance upon it--look at its rank--and it's part of the Bill or Rights. Didya get that? "Rights", as in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
You may not agree with it--which is fine, if idiotic--but such an opinion stops there, as what you believe has no bearing upon what I'm allowed to do.
Do you think the 1st Amendment should be abolished? The 4th? Any others, or does your selectivity only single-out one? And since when did you become the arbiter over which amendments we should support or negate?
"We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good"
Again, this isn't about the manufacture of a "good", it's about a right inherent to us all. Don't like guns? Great, don't own one, but please cease in trying to prevent me from choosing the option to do so.
Here's a tangential question: Do you support the ACA/Obamacare? If so, then how can the Feds force the citizenry to purcahse a private commodity and/or service under penalty-of-law? Is this ability in the Constitution, or is there a double-standard regarding what things legislation applies to? (I'm gonna pop some corn while you attempt some dizzy regressive spin).
"This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way"
So says a hypocritical, hyperbolic, subservient, self-righteous, faux-indignant, neophyte who would pick and choose what suits them as opposed to simply allowing others to do so for themsleves.
Bottom line: you--and your ilk mindless enough to "Like" such sleepy ideological malaise here--are on the losing end of this debate, and it shall remain so into perpetuity, as such brash, infantile, utterly doomed proposals simply underscore how behind-the-times and legislatively ignorant many liberals choose to be, thus making logical, common-sensical positions that much easier to espose and support.
Thanks for posting such a primative, troglodytic view; it's like providing infinite ammunition (pun intended) to the opposing viewpoint, LOL!
The city that I lived in in California actually has more bike lanes than Colorado Springs does. There are bike lanes everywhere in CA, and when there isn't, they have signs reminding drivers to "Share the Road".
I have a question for all of you who support the second amendment, actually, I have two questions.
My first question is why, why do you support this amendment?
My Second question is why should guns be the only privately manufactured, privately marketed consumer good which its ownership is a constitutionally protected right?
We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good, to my knowledge, why this one?
Both the gun lobby and gun manufacturers have had windfall profits, become billionaires because they produce and sell a product we constitutionally protect the ownership of.
I think that is just wrong!
My thought, there is no reason for this amendment anymore. It was originally adopted to maintain a civilian army, militia's. We don't do that, or need that anymore.
There is no reason this privately manufactured and marketed consumer good should continue to be constitutionally protected.
This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way.
Well, ASA, there's an amazingly simple solution to your dislike of these weapons: Don't own one, but please cease from telling others they don't have the option to do so.
You see, "freedom-of-choice" may be too heady a concept for an admitted Socialist such as yourself, but it's still in effect on these shores, and your personal likes and dislikes have no bearing on what others can decide for themselves, and just because you require an omnipotent federal entity to provide your thoughts, words and deeds, doesn't mean we all do
Tell us how the regs that the regressives are trotting out--yet again--would have prevented this tragedy, or San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Ft. Hood.
Extreme regulations on "assault" weapons--an utter misnomer, as "assault" is a verb, not a noun--were enacted in '94, but were allowed to expire--even by your beloved, Big Daddy Dems--in 2004, because they were ineffective.
And tell us how the regressives recent proposals are faring, LOL!!!
This isnt about hunks of steel and plastic, it's about individual intent and ideology, and since we can't account for every whack-job trotting around this big, blue marble, perhaps you should worry about yourself, and leave me and my fellow citizens alone, or do you know what's best for others, and feel compelled to save them from themselves?
"I am NOT a victim of enough denial" - Sadly, this is but a microcosm of what composes a multitude of victimizations and self-imposed masochism; please seek help so that your ego and psyche may become more fully formed; as for your intellect, I'm not sure much can be done to even lay a foundation, much less bolster it.
Of course there are many different kinds of guns for different purposes, not all being to kill people in a rapid fire manner. Your Second Amendment Absolutism is showing.
I am writing specifically about a specific type of weapon which is manufactured for the specific purpose of unleashing deadly bullets “as fast as a trigger finger can twitch” (a semi-automatic weapon). If you doubt that the Orlando murderer CHOSE his weapon for THAT express purpose, you can view the manufacturer’s video of the Sig Saur MCX here: ( http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx ) and get back to us when you can realistically argue that the guy in the video is “hunting” or “defending himself”, and not engaged in assualting and shooting “as fast as his trigger finger can twitch”…at targets, the size and shape of humans, with images of rounds penetrating the stylized bodies…and smoke and darkness through which the victorious masculine hero exits.
I am NOT a victim of enough denial to prevent me from recognizing PRECISELY what that weapon is designed to do.
And I don’t think I’ve engaged in any hyperbole. It is what it is.
And not that I expect an answer, but do you have a comment about the actual subject of my original post?
"a tool, the purposefully designed function of which is to kill as many people as fast as a trigger finger can twitch"
Yet again, ASA resorts to tired, trite, sloppy hyperbole as he ideologically trips and rhetorically falls/fails.
So, guns can't be used for hunting? Target practice? Self-defense? Law-enforcement?
They're only constructed for one, singular purpose?
Suggestions like that are what keep regressives from actually being taken seriously, and some helpful advice: when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging...
Mr. Wyman challenges:
“Just what is the ‘common good’ exactly and I mean exactly.”
I have often, likewise, wished that I could ask the Founders about what they meant when they wrote: “We The People, …in order to form a more perfect union…”.
But, should I ask them thus:
Just what IS a “perfect union” “exactly and I mean exactly”?
I try/hope to better understand statements of ASPIRATION, and I think that terms like “common good” and “perfect union” are aspirational, NOT defining. I've come to the notion that the aspiration for a “perfect union” is closely linked to the maintenance and expansion of the “common good”.
What, then, is the “common good”? The common good is that very thing that maintains, protects and expands our individual freedoms which include not just the Bill of Rights, but also life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (maybe even the aspiration of FDR’s four freedoms).
Society is constantly evolving by questioning what serves the “common good” and what doesn’t.
Today, simply put, there is disagreement as to whether or not Second Amendment ABSOLUTISM serves the “common good”.
Currently, (the argument over terminological ephemera aside) there seems to be a segment of our population that DOESN’T believe that the common good (or any other human aspiration) is served by being able to obtain a tool, the purposefully designed function of which is to kill as many people as fast as a trigger finger can twitch. I can’t say that I disagree with them.
"It's bad enough that we have someone as ignorant, vile, bigoted and totally unqualified running for president, someone who makes us look like a joke"
Lemme guess; you're going to choose a lying, untrustowrthy, hypocritical, out-of-touch, geriatric, elitist, rapist-enabling 1%er in Nov.
"someone who makes us look a joke", indeed...
Primaries and caucuses are the candidate selection processes of the respective political parties. Those parties are private entities, not government agencies and should, therefore, be the full responsibility of the parties, not the taxpayers -- full responsibility meaning both financial and administrative. Open primaries, primaries versus caucuses, and "top-two" primaries all address a problem that is not a problem for the state to resolve. For one thing, there are political parties other than the two major parties. Also, there are independent candidates with no party affiliation. Given those potential alternatives plus the liklihood that many eligible voters find no candidate in a given election cycle will represent their concerns and interests, it is little more than hubris -- as well as demonstrably ignorant -- to accuse those prospective voters of "apathy" if they don't choose to participate in either the Democratic or Republican party candidate selection processes.
Very disappointed in Cruz's endorsement of Darryl Glenn. Mr Glenn is all talk and no results to back his rhetoric up. Combined with a reluctance to respond to constituents emails, phone calls, letters, etc., which approaches Doug Lamborn-like levels of evasiveness, I cannot see how anyone who wants a results-oriented, truthful, representative of this State can cast a vote for Glenn.
If you're not advocating then you're not helping. Attend meetings on road 'right sizing' and bike lanes, email and call your city council and mayor. Bike lanes in downtown are currently on hold and being pushed off due to lack of support. The only way to get more infrastructure is to advocate for it, its up to you!
Open primaries would be a step in the right direction, but a "top two" primary would be problematic. Anytime there are more than two candidates a single vote to single candidate process cannot be guaranteed to accurately reflect the will of the electorate. While no voting system is perfect, a ranking system alleviates many deficiencies in such cases. See the Scientific American article "Ranking Candidates Is More Accurate Than Voting" by Dasgupta and Maskin. One of its first examples is from the results of a similarly styled "top two" contest in the 2002 French presidential election.
I would love to see the primary process completely remove itself from the party affiliation requirement, as in that all potential candidates for a post would be on the same ballot. To me, the current primary voting system lifts up political parties as gatekeepers to the political process instead of leveling them as the (useful) outside agitators and organizers that they are.
I would absolutely love to commute to work every day throughout the summer. I generally trail hop now that the base of the Templeton Trail was repaved and the Santa Fe was repaved where it connects with Nevada... However crossing Nevada at Mount View is a very daunting endeavor.
As similar to the author of the article, going through Mountain Shadows & up Flying W is such a peaceful, beautiful ride. The moment you come down Vindicator to head to Rockrimmon though, the ride becomes absolutely terrifying. The bike lane narrows to be non-existent with the smallest shoulder and the worst road conditions. You try your hardest to be vigilant of pot holes or debris in the street that over take the shoulder but cars speed down vindicator at 50 MPH without changing lanes or observing a 3 foot distance. Safety in traffic is always the rider's largest concern, but the city should absolutely be doing more to alleviate the stresses that are controllable. If there are popular cycling spaces, bring out the street sweeper within 48 hours of a storm to clear the lanes. (If there even ARE lanes. If not, then lanes should be clearly marked.) Kate Brady needs to connect with each bike shop within the region and see where their group rides go (including Chik-Fil-A for their rides) to map where the popular cycling areas are.
Our city shouldn't just place a priority on these things when the USA Pro Challenge makes an appearance.
Chris Donahue is the typical gun control advocate-knows nothing about guns, wishes to turn others into helpless victims, and states it would be "in order to help the common good". Just what is the "common good" exactly and I mean exactly. That there is only one true assault rifle that was commissioned by the military prior to WWII thus makes any other definition of "assault" invalid in regard to firearms. It is also shows the complete ignorance and arrogance of your President past and present. Hillary wishes to hold manufacturers liable knowing that it will drive them out of business but not realizing that the military would have to buy weapons from ???? If someone wants to do something for the common good then go out and do volunteer work.
Gun control advocates misspeak, fantasize, lie and quote stats that are meaningless, non-existent or impossible to even quantify. They wish for an outcome that will be a disaster and tragic for many years simply because they are afraid of firearms and attempt to hide that fact. They are also failures at history and it surprises me that they are given any credence at all or that their public school teachers were even employed in the first place. Frank Zappa said it best stating that stupidity was the most common element in the universe, not hydrogen.
Mr. Donahue trots out the same trite, tired rhetoric that has proven ineffectual time and time again as regressives seek to punish the law-abiding for the actions of criminals:
"people will not be legally allowed to own assault weapons" - If you mean full-auto, they already can't, but since you don't provide a proper definition, your intentional ambiguity further scuttles an already shaky premise, and by the way, no such thing actually exists, as "assault" is a verb, not a noun.
"Lots of innocent people have been killed with assault rifles" - Again, "lots" is (intentionally?) open to interpretation, but regardless, multitudes have been killed with handguns, shotguns, long-rifles, knives, bats, stones, cars, etc.
"We should at least give ourselves the opportunity to try it and see if it works" - As "Dave H" explained, we already did, and even the Dems in office at the time allowed the legislation to expire because it was so ineffective:
When in doubt, fewer laws always trump (no allusion to a goofball intended) more, unless you need guidance regarding your thoughts, words and deeds.
"Let's try to care" - Spare us the hyperbolic, "I am more concerned than you because I support restrictions" nonsense; we ALL mourn for those killed, but the solution isn't in more intrusive, "feel good, do nothing" laws and regulations.
"Worth a try" -- Chris Donahue
You have a short memory. We tried it before. It failed. Multiple studies showed it failed. We predicted the failure, but no one listened. Even the gun controllers whined about what a spectacular failure it was.
I also noted you mix up so-called "assault weapons" and assault rifles -- they are NOT the same thing.
Furthermore, people are 1.6 times more likely to be killed by an attacker using blunt objects like bats, 2.3 times more likely to be killed by unarmed attackers, and 5.3 times more likely to be stabbed/cut to death by an attacker than you are to be killed by an attacker using a rifle of any kind. (FBI CIUS/UCR, 2014, Table 8)
"People ride their bikes for fun. So, they look at their cars for when they want to go somewhere, and go to their bikes when they want to have fun." This is a self-fulfilling statement. Yes, I drive my bike to the trails. Because I don't want to get killed trying to ride to work. I am currently trying to figure out if there is a series of trails I could take to work without adding too much mileage. I would LOVE a plan for a bike-able city, but if our official person who gets paid to make decisions basically blows off the commuter bikers, what hope is there?
Lawrence Martinez, would you mind defining "Capitol insanity"? I am sure it means different things to different people, but unless we know what it means to you, it is difficult to understand why you endorse a particular candidate. Thanks!
Brent, that was an awesome...awesome letter.
I lived in Colorado Springs when Manitou was making it's decision. I figured it would / should be a financial windfall for Manitou. Especially with Colorado Springs turning it down, I think something like 5 votes determined it, certainly not the will of the people.
So, tell me, does Colorado Springs or any of these right wing cities along the front range get any of the windfall of state tax dollars from weed for their city?
They should not!
Right wingers are all about "earning" things, well, they haven't earned this.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation