Dave Naumann writes. "I refer to the Rev. Martin Luther King" without the slightest sense of irony, as Dr. King, in his lifetime, was also accused of creating the racial divisions and disharmony he protested against. Dr. King was not elevated to his current position of respect among closet racists until well after his death, and only then so they could use him as a fig leaf to hide their prejudices.
Mr. Naumann, you can no more pin the nations' divisiveness on our president than you can on the Easter Bunny. You forgot all of the other players, conveniently. How about the T-baggers, er, I mean the John Birch Society. Rush, Fox, Jan Brewer, et al.
Mr. Obama reached out to McConnell and the House Republican sot in the beginning and then again only to be shunned and publicly ridiculed. To his credit, our president took the high road.
No, he is anything but accountable for this. For this we will wink and pretend he is not a black man, we'll just disagree with him at every turn, even at our own peril.
Mr. Naumann, I submit to you that ONLY reason we may have a greater rift in race relations in America is because of people like you. My way or the highway, facts be damned.
asawatcher, you make this too easy. Seems like every mass shooting news story has a sidebar about how the darn background check system failed. http://cnn.it/1HSHL6u
It fails all the time. But that's government for you. Or, some federal agent leaves his gun lying around. http://bit.ly/1TNdPN3
Or, criminals steal them. Or a thousand other reasons. You live in fantasy land if you think any law or system is going to be foolproof.
"You wonder why the murder rate is lower in affluent white suburbs than it is in the densely packed, economically and socially depressed, ghetto environment of Chicago? Really? You can’t think of any possible explanation? None at all?"
Another softball question. Let's start with failed progressive Democrat policy. Who's been running these cities for the past 50 years?
And you still haven't commented on any of the Democrat politicians featured in the videos. I know, their statements kind of destroy your whole position. Odin is right on the money.
Fact is, there are no explicit statements in the Constitution regarding automobile speed limits. But there is one about our right to bear arms.
“For starters, firearms transfers are already controlled by laws. Except for when criminals swap their guns.”
Criminals have guns to swap? Do you suppose those guns came from Smith and Wesson or Glock factories earmarked “for criminal swap meets only”? No? You’re right! Every gun in the hands of a criminal has passed through the hands of a so-called “law abiding gun owner”. Let’s see a “reasonable” law to plug THAT pipeline. We need severe universal background checks for EVERY GUN TRANSFER.
And Odin asks:
“So why then do the surrounding areas have a lower rate of homicides with firearms?”
You wonder why the murder rate is lower in affluent white suburbs than it is in the densely packed, economically and socially depressed, ghetto environment of Chicago? Really? You can’t think of any possible explanation? None at all?
"Answer: there are NO reasonable gun laws. That's the problem."
The problem is that every time a shooting happens, the gun control idiots say that there are no laws or that the laws are no good and then pass more laws. Then there is a shooting and the cycle repeats. And when confronted with this, they blame the pro-gun side. We have been playing this scenario over and over again since the 1930s.
" Chicago might try to control the insanity, but surrounding states and counties encourage proliferation. "
So why then do the surrounding areas have a lower rate of homicides with firearms?
John Adams warned "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Perhaps this is why some Indy readers have such problems with it.
"Stop the uncontrolled transfer of firearms with severe universal background checks for EVERY transfer of such weaponry."
For starters, firearms transfers are already controlled by laws. Except for when criminals swap their guns.
I generally avoid the sky is falling Alex Jones types, but he assembled a great video that illustrates why I don't trust people who want to apply 'severe' controls over my Constitutionally-protected natural rights...
In spite of the fact that you chose to ignore my point about firearms transfers and changed the subject, I will address yours:
"asawatcher - Please explain how gun laws you call 'reasonable' mitigated any of the last five mass shootings."
Answer: there are NO reasonable gun laws. That's the problem. Guns seem to be void of reason, and beyond normal law. Laws to regulate the proliferation of today's ever more efficient killing machines can't even get introduced into state or federal legislatures. Chicago might try to control the insanity, but surrounding states and counties encourage proliferation. Other than installing anti-personal barriers at the city limits, and checking everybody who wants to enter Chicago, the solution to Chicago's problem is, of course, unattainable, especially since no universal background check legislation can even get introduced.
Gun free zones are, today, nothing more than polite requests . . . the LAST kind of request gun toters respect. If a bank wants its business to be gun free, they realistically would have to post an armed guard and a metal detector at the door, as would arenas, stadiums, shopping malls, like airports and other government buildings do now. You know, of course, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun………
Of course even speed limit laws didn't "mitigate" the last five tragic automobile accidents with multiple fatalities, but how do you know that speed limit laws HAVEN'T prevented such accidents? Do you have a measurement procedure for that? To ask how many guys haven't killed others because they couldn't get a gun is silly because every guy can get a gun.
Stop the uncontrolled transfer of firearms with severe universal background checks for EVERY transfer of such weaponry. There is no Second Amendment violation in such a law.
Sam Dehne, Lt Col, USAF (ret)
Update from Reno (July, 2015):
1. Col Kaz's "winning formula" owes 78% of its Reno success to his
being able to NOT be scared and jealous of legendary Reno
govt Watchdog Sam DEHNE.
2. This is just the opposite of 99% of the bureaucrats and potentates
in Reno.. and especially the Reno media mouses.. who for decades
have terrified of DEHNE's ubiquitously Documented TRUTHS.
"He (Col Kaz) was (and is) smart, plainspoken and fond of voicing
Sounds like a Sam DEHNE clone (IF YOU REPLACE THE "PLAINSPOKEN"
WITH "LOUDLY OUTSPOKEN")
"To advocate the unfettered proliferation of today’s weapons of ever-increasing killing capacity is just plain irresponsible." Then you must really be upset over the President's nuke deal with Iran.
"... Founders looked askance at transferring firearms to hostile Indians on the frontier, or to pirates raiding colonial settlements on the coastline, or to gangs of escaped slaves." Please cite the laws they passed to address any of the above.
asawatcher - Please explain how gun laws you call 'reasonable' mitigated any of the last five mass shootings. Next, please explain how the most restrictive gun laws in the nation help reduce gun crime in Chicago, Baltimore, Camden, Wash DC and LA. Then, please name the lives that were saved by the gun free zones in Aurora, Navy Ship Yard, Ft Hood, Charlotte and Chattanooga.
Finally, please explain what Mike Martinez meant in addressing the man with the sign in this 38s video:
OR, you can explain to us why Robert Wyman might hold the opinion he expressed.
“Every firearm law is UN-constitutional and background checks are attempts to infringe.”
I respectfully disagree.
There is NOTHING in the single sentence of the Second Amendment that protects an imaginary “right” to transfer a firearm to anybody, any place, any time. I’m sure the Founders looked askance at transferring firearms to hostile Indians on the frontier, or to pirates raiding colonial settlements on the coastline, or to gangs of escaped slaves.
To advocate the unfettered proliferation of today’s weapons of ever-increasing killing capacity is just plain irresponsible.
lektrikwire, is that the twisted distortion of history that gets taught to White Southern children underneath the banner of the Confederate Battle Flag? If so, good riddance to it.
Those 600,00 casualties were the result of the Civil War, not the cause. The Civil War was started by the South to protect the heinous institution of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, not a tyrant.
I thoroughly enjoyed your simplistic analogy, except the husband's "abuse" consisted of verbally chastising his wife for beating the maid, and the wife's idea of a divorce was to pull out a revolver and start shooting at her husband.
Larrimore Nicholl...where even to begin? I can't imagine the hurt and insult your who-cares comment inflicted on any one of the boys and families whose paths had the misfortune of crossing with Carrier's.
Wouldn't it be nice if you were king of the country and pope of the church that considered what Carrier did to those boys mere minor attraction, but would prosecute and punish Coy's having to use the boy's bathroom as a major crime?
Verily, m'Lord, you'd provide perfect leadership for Upisdowningham...but I wouldn't want to live there, much less vacation there with the family.
Maybe Doug Bruce would have been wiser to spend a few dollars on a real lawyer- LMAO!!!
THE BRUCE IS GOING DOWN- LMAO!!!
It is difficult to determine how often a crime has been prevented with a firearm. Since police take 10 minutes to respond to a crime scene it would stand to reason that they will never respond to a "no crime" scene.
One can make any argument they want against firearms but when police are called it is usually because they carry weapons. Try to recall the last time you heard of a police officer saving someone by shooting an assailant. Take your time...
Every firearm law is UN-constitutional and background checks are attempts to infringe. Some can be reckless with firearms just as some are with cars and Rights. Protect yourself and your Rights.
NCVS and NSPOF both prove you incorrect.
This is awesome !!!!!!!!!!!
600,000 dead and sovereign states in ruin is more than enough evidence to show Lincoln's Union was more tyrannical than King George's government.
The South chose to leave Lincoln alone by seceding. His promise to preserve slavery in perpetuity via the Corwin Amendment ... rejected. Any potential future claim on the status of future Western states ... abandoned. The marriage could not be saved and the South wanted out, Lincoln's political trinkets not withstanding. Let the North have it all and let the South have her freedom. But like the abusive husband, Lincoln stalked, battered and beat the South into submission and forced her back into his home.
"Rain, fires, floods, earthquakes, civil disobedience; this is just the beginning!"
do you religious freaks really believe this crap?? all the horrible things that your fairy in the sky has let pass, this is what will draw the invisible man in the clouds wrath??
keep hating on others... it's what your book of mythology says.....right?
Thank you, lektrikwire, for your one-sided history. I guess you never heard of John Brown or Bloody Kansas.
Yes, Lincoln did promise to leave slavery intact in those states that already practiced slavery, but he was elected on the promise of preventing the spread of slavery to any new western states joining the Union. This would have led to the gradual end of slavery, an institution that is now universally condemned.
This "same yearning for independence exercised against England" implies that the Union had grown as tyrannical as Great Britain had been, which is preposterous given the South had a vote in Lincoln's election, and Lincoln's declared intention of leaving the South alone.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation