The 05/16/2013 at 3:34 PM post is in error
"Being shot at close range by an automatic weapon"
Semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull = 1 bang. Much the same as a revolver. Full-autos (1 trigger pull = bang, bang, bang, ...) are already highly restricted items and have not been used in any of the recent shootings.
"with a 30 round clip "
Magazine. The difference may seem insignificant to many, but to those who know about firearms it is like the difference between shoes and socks.
"Asking people, some of whom may not be mentally stabl,e to submit to a background check - - and limiting clip capacity to 15 rounds (or 10 or 7) seems prudent in an increasingly violent society. "
At first glance, universal background checks and arbitrary mag capacity limits might sound like a great idea, but even a little bit of closer scrutiny reveal them to be nothing more than snake oil and these ideas fall apart. BTW, firearm related violence has been going down for some time.
"Yes, the argument is often made there are already 250 million guns in private hands."
Over 300 million.
The truth is that for 75+ years we have passed increasing restrictions on what firearms and ammo can be owned, who can own them, and how to buy them and there is no evidence that these laws have reduced the violence problem. In fact, in the years since some of these laws expired and the number of firearms in circulation has dramatically increased, the rate of violence with firearms has dramatically decreased. So clearly focusing on the object used does not work.
We need to break this paradigm of obsessing over the object used and start addressing the behaviors and their root causes (examples: education, ethics, economics, glorification of violence). Until we do that, the problems will persist regardless of how many gun control laws we pass.
The recall effort is the appropriate action to take. When an elected official passes bad laws, stifles debate, ramrods legislation through, publicly flips the finger at the people of Colorado by refusing to even look at or listen to our voices on the issues, and is subservient to DC and NYC, then we need to send a clear message to him and others that this will not be tolerated. By making excuses about expense or that he is term limited and will be gone in a year anyway, you are giving people like him a pass to do what ever they want without fear of being held accountable.
Well golly staci, your "give and take" appears to be directing folks to a highly politicized web site or two. So where is your "expression"? You didn't "encourage lively debate" and it was only a "subject of interest" to you and yours. I certainly didn't "discourage opposing views" because you offered none. All you offered was SPAM.
And thanks for the advice. I generally disregard your posts as pablum.
Thanks. I choose to regard the two posts you refer to as participating in the give and take of expression in the comment section of a local press organ which appears to be a well-managed paper encouraging lively debate on subjects of interest and one that does not discourage opposing views. One option that appears available is that when you see my name attached to a comment, you could just skip on by and read the next one?
Staci: your above two posts come much too close to SPAM!
It appears as the link to volunteer to assist in stopping the John Morse recall did not 'take'. My apologies. One can email the coordinator at: email@example.com Thank you!
Our system of government was created in such fashion that laws could be changed as the norms, values and mores of society change. Also, to adapt to changing physical conditions or situations that could pose a threat to human life.
Being shot at close range by an automatic weapon with a 30 round clip often results in multiple grief for victims and families. Equally often, in death. Asking people, some of whom may not be mentally stabl,e to submit to a background check - - and limiting clip capacity to 15 rounds (or 10 or 7) seems prudent in an increasingly violent society. Yes, the argument is often made there are already 250 million guns in private hands. But you cannot make corn flakes without first planting the seeds. If we do not begin now to curtail violent individuals from owning these weapons, when will we? Is that really a violation of our rights? We do have the 'right' to live and the right to alter conditions which will keep us from living!
Our system of government also is one that creates spirited debate on many issues, which is healthy. Our side of the current gun control legislation, and the resultant recall effort against Senator John Morse is that this is not an appropriate action to take, it is quite expensive to field special elections, there are fewer than 14 months to a term limit and it is likely this seat cannot be taken over by a member of the opposite party in a special election. Therefore, is it prudent to spend perhaps a quarter of a million dollars to recall what has been a good public servant to date, with 14 months to go?
If you feel as we do - please sign up to volunteer with us to halt this recall effort. Everybody has rights!
You obviously do not hunt much. Many REAL hunters use semi-auto firearms.
BTW, your bolt-action rifle? That was a "war weapon" too.
NONE of the laws passed or proposed at the Colorado or federal level for the last 20 years affect full-auto firearms, which are already highly restricted items.
Why is it brave and courageous to brag about your sexual exploits? We used to consider that sort of kiss and tell to be ill mannered and not what honorable men would do.
At best his adolescent sexual behavior outside of moral norms is simply immature. His having to tell us about it is just plain pathetic.
I grew up with guns (rifles & shotguns) and hunting - accompanying father and his dogs duck hunting and rabit hunting at age 3 and deer hunting at 11. Father's hunting put food on our table in our poverty, and he cried with every success for the beautiful creature that gave it's life that we might live. As a teenage girl I lost interest in hunting. That interest returned 25 years later in the 90's when the economy started going south for many of us here in the USA and free range, organic meat at $2.00/pound became worth the time, work and stink of hunting and gutting - and the pain of watching the life leave those eyes that I might have some protein on my table. One young doe a year and maybe a turkey is plenty for two people in my opinion.
Hunting is far more about learning, tracking and patience than it is about shooting. Real Hunters have nothing but disdain for idiots with high power, high-tech weapons that know nothing about hunting, are a danger to themselves and other hunters, and have no respect for the hunted. It is the fools with War Weapons that are most likely to kill and leave the meat to rot. Most of the Real Hunters I know joke about shooting these fools and leaving them to rot - but are all too moral to actually follow through.
If you know how to hunt and meat is what you are after, one bullet does the job. And if you are not going to eat it - you should not shoot it.
I don't know any Real Hunters that use automatic or semi-automatic weapons. All the Real Hunters I know want those War Weapons out of the woods and fields.
Anti gunners, one more time, listen up. You have been lied to. If 90% of Americans wanted new gun laws, there would be new gun laws, it's called "representitive government". If our elected reps don't vote the way the majority wants, they don't get re-elected, pretty simple. As for Morse, just this week the guy tried to re-criminalize marijuana, HE HAS TO GO! Spare me your knee-jerk defense of all that is Democrat. Morse is puposely and without shame, ignoring the voices of the voters, sign the recall, get your voice back.
Dear Mrs Hickey. Morse has to go because he has disdain and contempt for the voting public. Last night, he tried to make marijuana ILLEGAL again! So when the voters speak, he listens and does the opposite. You see, like all progressive, marxist democrats, he believes you are an idiot and that you don't know what's good for you. And since you support this monstrosity of a politician, I am thinking he is right.
"I am writing to debunk an argument used sometimes against the use of federal tax dollars to provide adequate female health care, such as contraceptive care and abortion, and social justice, such as the right to adopt by non-traditional couples." uhhhm, because it's against the law.
K: your fiscal ignorance is astonishing. If SS was privatized, the overwhelming majority of the money would go into mutual funds (and bonds) held for the long term. Individual stock ownership and frequent trading is a fools game.
I would recommend annuities with a guaranteed floor. Anything would be a much better return than money sitting stagnant in a government account earning nothing. Not to mention, the government can't keep their greedy little hands off of the money. There is your real envy and theft.
siggie, you misunderstood Steve Milligan. He was referring back to a previous line of his letter, "The amount of financial duress the fund is now experiencing has been exaggerated by Wall Street shills who want to get their hands on that money."
Those "Wall Street shills" are the brokers who want Social Security privatized so they can earn fees on every transaction, whether it wins or loses. Obviously, they do believe that rest of us 99%-ers have a few pennies left in our pockets worth the picking. Talk about envy and theft, indeed!
I suspect it would depend on whether one is describing something convoluted or something painful. Mr. Palan's sad offering was both.
Torturous or tortuous?
To Steve Milligan: Your letter is hilarious as are your reasoning skills. This is my personal favorite: "We don't really need to shift more income to the 1 percent." This presupposes that 'you' have the income in the first place and that the 1% don't.
The reality is the 1% already have the income because they earned it. You do know that envy is one of the seven deadly sins? Theft is right up there as well.
To John Palan: I believe that is called torturous logic.
siggie, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. I am not debating you. I am correcting you. I am not doing it for your benefit. I am doing it for the benefit of any reader who might make the mistake of believing you know what you are talking about.
You write, "I suspect that since you read something..." If I had only read one study of the subject, that would still be one more than you have ever read, but I happen to have made a study of it. On the other hand, you also began your original statement with the same silly phrase, "I suspect..." and now you wonder why your opinions are automatically dismissed! An opinion is only worth something when the opiner actually knows something about the subject. Since you know nothing about the subject your opinion is as worthless as your suspicions.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation