I lived in Europe for many years. Your call for "inter-city express trains" overlooks one critical thing that Europe has which enables such systems -- GOOD INTRA-CITY MASS TRANSIT.
We don't have that. So if you build your inter-city express trains, once you get to your intended city, it is difficult to get from the station to where you need to be.
IOW, if you build the inter-city express trains right now, few people will use them.
What we need to do first is build up our INTRA-city mass transit, THEN we can talk about building INTER-city mass transit.
Once again, regardless of if he was actually charged or not is pretty darn meaningless. The fact remains that the charges were dismissed. This is simple muckraking and much ado about nothing.
Even had he been charged and convicted, keep in mind that this is only a MISDEMEANOR and the lowest degree of misdemeanor at that, and that 3rd degree assault is exceptionally easy to be charged with -- in fact it is often used as a place holder charge just to allow the cops to investigate or as an add-on charge during the DA's typical attempts to throw noodles at the wall to see what sticks.
As one attorney website states:
"Third Degree Assault
Colorado defines Third Degree Assault as "knowingly," or "recklessly," causing bodily injury to another person. Pain alone satisfies the "injury" requirement, even where there is no actual injury. (Or, Third Degree Assault is defined as negligently, or accidentally, causing actual injury to someone with a deadly weapon.)"
IOW, this is just Pam on yet another anti-conservative vendetta.
Much ado about nothing. Even if this assault charge were not a clerical error (they happen more than you think), the fact is that is it a misdemeanor, not a felony, and as a 3rd degree it is the least significant category of misdemeanors. To quote from one law site, "Colorado defines Third Degree Assault as "knowingly," or "recklessly," causing bodily injury to another person. Pain alone satisfies the "injury" requirement, even where there is no actual injury." It is an extremely easy thing to get charged with.
And the bottom line is the charges were dropped. So it really doesn't matter. This is just another case of Pam's extremely biased muckraking.
"The 2nd amendment is vague and ambiguous," - Lil Mick
Not at all. It is quite clear and concise.
"can you legally and specifically define an "arms" " - Lil Mick
Absolutely! First, we have the descriptors used in the amendment itself -- those items which individual people would be capable of keeping (storing and maintaining) and bearing (transporting, carrying, serving, and operating). This would therefore eliminate any crew served items, and very large or very complicated items. Furthermore, when we look to the legal concepts (jurisprudence) of the time, most of our laws were based on English Common Law. Per ECL of the time, the definition of arms was items of common use for individual combat (ECL based this on the writings of Sir Edward Coke). This would eliminate area effect items such as explosives such as grenades (yes, they existed back then), artillery, and so on. Furthermore, this is borne out by looking at the items that people were and were not expected to provide for themselves under the Militia Acts: they were to come bearing their own firearms, swords, and spears (espontoon), but not cannon. Applying this to modern items, this would mean that semi-auto firearms would most definitely be considered arms, but full-auto (incl burst) AKA machine guns would probably not be.
"it also protects the ownership of a certain privately manufactured and marketed goods and none other." - Lil Mick
"The reason for the amendment, to build an army of civilians (militia) is no longer valid." - Lil Mick
You have it backwards. The Amendment does not use arms to build the militia, it uses the militia as one reason to not infringe the pre-existing right to arms. The body of the Constitution already provides for building the militia, so the idea that the amendment builds the militia is unsupportable.
Not only is the amendment quite clear as to what the right is (to keep and bear arms), but also who has the right (the people). If it were as you aver, it would say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but it does not.
" the wind fall profits due to this amendment to both gun manufacturers, sellers and gun lobby has been in the billions."
Most firearm manufacturers actually operate on pretty tight margins; however, efforts by gun control advocates (you) have certainly increased the demand for firearms and increased their profits during the last 8 years. IOW, you are causing them to make more money than usual.
"then we can move on with common sense gun safety legislation." - Lil Mick
You mean common appeal. What makes sense to some does not make sense to others and in many cases makes no sense what so ever, but people support it because it sounds good (AKA "feel-good" legislation).
"There is nothing factual to this response, this is an opinion. " - Lil Mick
No, it is the statement of many politicians including Hillary Clinton.
"I will stand strong on this as a fact, no one, no politician, no legislature is trying to take hunting rifles." - Lil Mick
There are many types of hunting rifles and yes, politicians have proposed banning some types of them and severely restricting others. Again, see statements by Clinton and others advocating Aussie and UK gun control. Try to own a rifle in the UK. You will find the choices extremely limited and the controls largely prohibitive.
"Right now, it is just background check loopholes, Assault style semi automatic long guns maybe, but not hunting rifles."
There are no background check loopholes. Assault is an action, not a style -- the term "assault style" is completely meaningless and one used by the media because they constantly get assault rifle, assault weapon, and other types of firearms mixed up. Semi-auto hunting rifles have been sold commercially in the US for over a century and are quite popular. But thanks for pointing out a type of hunting rifle you would like to ban, thereby supporting my previous point.
Keep in mind that the fire fighting foam is just one possible source and was listed in the original story to show how prevalent this class of chemicals are and their widespread use in various products including carpets and 100s of other products. It may turn out that the chemicals are leeching in from a landfill or old abandoned site.
"What's so cute about it Odin, " - Lil Mick
Because in the past you have tried to paint yourself as a civil adult by doing exactly the same thing and then immediately started insults and name calling. Then when you got handed your hat, you claimed you were leaving and never coming back. Now, seeing you pull the same stunt again, I have to laugh. Especially since you directed your "rules" at me specifically even before I made any post on this page -- which in itself would be a form of personal attack.
But, I am willing to give you a second chance. So how about you take on my second post?
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation