Recent Comments
Re: “Different look at Gary Flakes”
In your column of December 19th you laid the horrific murders at Sandy Hook at the feet of gun owners and their supporters. Yet here you give one of the participants in a firearms killing that was just as senseless and evil a full pass.
Gary Flakes has not yet reached out to the families of Andrew Westbay and Scott Hawrysiak, and was not apparently planning to until asked about it by the "pro-gun nut" Gazette. The first act of someone seeking forgiveness would be to do that one simple thing. You don't mention those families either I noticed, and yet on the 19th you wrote "And think of their parents. Not one will ever come all the way back."
It may be that Gary Flakes is seeking redemption for his actions on that bloody day. But seeking redemption does not qualify a person for public office. And by trying to reform the reputation of a man convicted in the deaths of their children in order to promote his campaign, you have undoubtedly added to the pain of their loss. Perhaps you should spend some time looking in the mirror yourself Mr. Tosches.
Posted by
Richard M. Shirley
on 01/10/2013 at 9:34 AM
Re: “Flakes goes national”
What in the world makes this man think he is in any way acceptable to the people of Colorado Springs as an elected official? His actions 16 years ago in taking part of a senseless pair of killings should put him totally beyond the pale politically. But apparently former Rep. Dennis Apuan and former NAACP President Rosemary Harris Lytle believe that those who murder children deserve a position to make city policy.
Posted by
Richard M. Shirley
on 01/06/2013 at 8:48 AM
Re: “Bach: Meet the new Boss”
Steve Bach needs to learn the difference between being strong and being a bully.
Posted by
Richard M. Shirley
on 10/07/2011 at 7:33 AM
Re: “Magpul's next move”
Right from the start you lose the argument. If you have to demean those whose position is opposed to yours in order to set up your talking points, you automatically create the perception that the argument is too weak to stand on its own merits.
Of course you can argue that you were just using "humor" to make your point. Here is a tip for you. Humor is generally regarded as being, you know, FUNNY. You might want to keep that in mind.
The only proposed law running frantically through the panic driven Colorado Legislature that could possibly have any effect on future shootings is the bill requiring mental health care providers to inform the authorities if they believe a patient is a possible danger to the public. That certainly could have prevented the Aurora theater shooting. The rest of it is just feelgood foolishness that will do nothing to the criminal and mentally ill segments of society. But they aren't the ones your afraid of, are they?