Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Today
Re: “A history of Colorado Springs' secret tourism proposal”
"The exasperated folks driving this deal..."
"Their impatience is understandable."
I feel their pain, and there is a name for it: TABOR.
Dealings described above are an attempt by yet another mayor to escape the coffin of TABOR, which destroys the abilities of city leaders to lead and do what they need to do.
Posted by
OldCrank
on 06/19/2013 at 12:21 PM
Re: “Lamborn and the Black Forest Fire, meat-free living, gun control and more”
David Justice, the Colorado National Guard is good enough for you, eh? Would that be the same Colorado National Guard the machine gunned women and children during the Ludlow Massacre? No thanks, I'll keep my rifles. And your opinion on the second amendment is worthless. Supreme court already said that owning a gun is an individual right and that there are no "collective" rights, too bad for an authoritarian collectivist such as yourself.
Posted by
Stacy in Woodland Park
on 06/19/2013 at 12:01 PM
Re: “A history of Colorado Springs' secret tourism proposal”
"...nobody involved cares what you think" should have been in bold caps. That really sums it all up.
Posted by
gregR
on 06/19/2013 at 10:20 AM
Re: “Lamborn and the Black Forest Fire, meat-free living, gun control and more”
Mr. Justice. The milita to which the Second Amendment refers is the whole of the people. ALL of us. There is evidence aplenty in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and other quotations from the founders that clearly state this fact. Justice Scalia referred to this fact in his landmark D.C. v. Heller majority opinion.
Additionally, even the earlier SCOTUS precedent, U.S. v. Miller (1939) supported this fact. In addition to defining the types of weapons protected under the amendment (arms in common use that have a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militi), the Court said this:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
This, also, was cited in the Heller opinion.
Mr. Justice, there is no sane argument to be made that military-pattern semiautomatic rifles and their component parts don’t meet both prongs of the Miller test. This test exists to clarify what weapons are protected, and why.
All of this is included in the Heller precedent that establishes once and for all that the right is an individual right of the people, that the primary reason for guaranteeing the right is to enable them to respond with their own weapons in cases of emergency, and that the right exists independent of both the Constitution and any requirement for formal membership in any military organization.
Add to this the fact that all of these issues covered in both precedents were established well after the National Guard was created under Congress's Article 1 powers, which proves that your assertion that the National Guard is that to which the amendment refers holds no water.
You can't rewrite history, Mr. Justice. We won't allow you to get away with it.