شكر كبير لDR.AGBEBAKU الرجل الذي ساعدني عندما كان مريضا جدا، وكان لي وزوجي حيث بفيروس نقص المناعة البشرية وابنتي الصغيرة ذلك أيضا، ولدي محاولة كل ما عندي ممكن أفضل للحصول على الشفاء ولكن لم أستطع الخروج مع أي شيء، أنا من الكونغو متزوج ويعيش في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية لقد ذهبت إلى مستشفى آخر ولكن لا يوجد علاج، وعندما اكتشفت أنني لم أفقد عقلي بسبب التفكير سوف يموت قريبا، أبلغت أسرتي في بلدي، وقدم سيئة ولكن أخبرني عن علاج في أفريقيا، أعطوني الاتصال DR.AGBEBAKU، اتصلت به وسألته ما يمكن القيام به بالنسبة لي للحصول على الشفاء، وقال لي ماذا أفعل، وماذا يكون المطلوب للعلاج، أنني يجب أن تعطي تفاصيل الدخول إليه والرجل طلب لبنود علاج ط وزوجي قدمت كل ما له مساء ذلك انه اتصل بي وقال لي ما يجب القيام به بعد أسبوعين أنا وزوجي ذهب للاختبار و ونحن حيث جاءت سلبية، على مقربة من خمسة أشهر حتى الآن لم الاسبوع أنا لا أذهب لاختبار لمجرد أن يكون هناك بالتأكيد أنا بخير، ولكن كل ما يظهر النتائج انا بخير تماما، ويمكنك الكتابة له الآن من خلال firstname.lastname@example.org أو يدعوه على +2349035850834 أو إضافة له على موقعه ما عدد التطبيقات في +2349053099479.
TOPS is flawed. What kind of land acquisition program fails to consider future maintenance and upkeep? Time to take TOPS back to the drawing board before it bankrupts us all to pay for its own shortcomings.
"Let's establish a funding mechanism for permanent dedicated sustainable funding for our parks system."
That's code for more taxes, y'all.
"Colorado Springs ranks in the bottom third of Front Range cities for parks land per person."
Acreage per person is irrelevant. Colorado Springs has a jeweled necklace of great parks: Palmer Park, Ute Valley Park, Bear Creek, Red Rock Canyon, Monument Valley, and of course Garden of the Gods, with plenty of smaller and pocket parks all over town.
If the goal is to preserve and protect our parks, then the Council simply needs to address it in the budget better. That's on them, not on the taxpayers.
Once again, Morse simply doesn't understand why he was fired--twice.
Once again, Morse blames the firearm.
Once again, he's wrong.
Morse tries to engage in political skullduggery by claiming that Scalia wrote that there is no right to have what Morse repeatedly and incorrectly calls "military-style assault" rifles (which is NOT a semi-auto rifle, despite what Morse thinks, and he should know better since he was a cop before he got fired from that job, too!). To quote the actual Heller ruling in Holding 3:
"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster."
In short, because a semi-auto rifle is a class of arms, it can't be banned, and we have a right to them, both under the Second AND Fourth Amendments. Morse seems to forget that the peaceable acquisition, possession, use, and disposal of private property, including firearms, is not only a fundamental right, but protected by both Amendments and is none of government's (or his!) damned business.
Instead he wants to hold third parties, gun sellers responsible for the actions people take with the products that people buy once they buy them, as if the sellers are somehow mind readers and can act like Radar O'Reilly. Sorry, Johnny, but that's crap. By your standard, I should hold YOU responsible for laws that you passed that criminals ignored that harmed me and violated my rights--like the magazine ban that violated my property rights and the background checks that violated my privacy rights.
No, you can't sue gun makers for their products working correctly, even if the user was a deranged nut case, or a flaming liberal (but I repeat myself), or a hyper-religious conservative (again, I repeat myself). When will you learn, Johnny, that the responsibility for one's actions lie with the individual alone and not someone else? I'm sure that was taught to you in pre-Kindergarten. Were you absent that day?
You were fired from at least two jobs because you have been repeatedly shown to be unable to cope with adult reality, as most liberals are similarly unable to do so. When you decide to join the adults in the real world, then maybe you'll be listened to, but you've got a long, long road to travel before then.
Right on gentlemen! Improved funding for our parks, trails and open space is something we can all support.
We trusted this attorney with a video of a city bus accident. when we asked for it back it had been edited. He kept it for two weeks and led us to believe he would represent us. He took sides with the city instead. DO NOT TRUST THIS MAN
Oh, you fricking hack!! You committed permanent political suicide and now you keep squawking. Why don't you just run for office again and see whether or not you get elected!!
No. We must fix the US hating foreigner and self-identifying foreigners who represent a danger to our country. We Are Americans.
Let's face it, folks, loons on the left want to get rid of ALL guns. They won't say that up front just like their president wouldn't say we could keep our doctors. They use incrementalism as a tactic. Yell and scream over this and that. Two steps forward, one step back. Lie, come to wrong conclusions, whatever it takes to achieve their goal. The John Morses in the world might get recalled, but like a bad penny and the Eveready bunny they just keep coming back and back and back. They beat the same old drum again and again because it's the only instrument they can play. Sooooo predictable.
Happyfew, you said: "The most common .223 caliber is not suggested for most hunting."
The .223 comes in a variety of loads, all easily available. The .223 is suitable for hunting: Rats, sand/sage rats, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, marmots, foxes, coyotes, bobcats and deer.
"looking at the links provided, the most common .223 caliber is not suggested for most hunting."
It is not suggested for most larger game like elk and such and in this state cannot be used for deer, though in several other states it can be. It is suggested for a lot of hunting including varmints, predators, and pigs.
" the links do specify that the recoil is less with the AR which lead to quicker follow up shots."
When used with the smaller calibers.
"I don't think any legitimate hunter is going to take an assault rifle into the woods.."
Many legitimate hunters take AR-15s and AR-10s into the woods and they are NOT assault rifles. Assault rifles are a type of machine gun, meaning they fire multiple shots per trigger pull. The hunting ARs I showed you are all semi-auto only, meaning one trigger pull fires only one shot. Semi-auto hunting rifles have been sold commercially in the US for over a century.
It is pretty clear you have very limited knowledge of firearms or of hunting.
looking at the links provided, the most common .223 caliber is not suggested for most hunting. the links do specify that the recoil is less with the AR which lead to quicker follow up shots. this is the benefit listed by YOUR link. most of the people buying the AR are not spending the $2500 for the bigger caliber units that are necessary for most hunting. the one I shot was a .223 like the vast majority of people shooting these. sorry, but only the gun manufacturers are trying to get these into the hunting market. I don't think any legitimate hunter is going to take an assault rifle into the woods.
Happyfew, you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge and experience concerning firearms.
You said: "They are easier to use at close range and have much less 'kick' than hunting rifles."
1.) Recoil.. "Kick"... is a function of caliber size and the weight of the firearm. Hunting rifles are available in the same caliber as 'assault rifles', and are almost always heavier than the lightweight assault rifle. Therefore, recoil is usually less in a hunting rifle of the same caliber used in 'assault rifles'.
2.) Hunting rifles are just as easy to fire at close range, if you hold them at your hip and fire like the mass murderers do.
You admitted your lack of experience when you said; "At least the 'ONE' I shot". Shooting ONE 'assault rifle' doesn't qualify you to generalize about 'assault' and hunting rifles.
I could go on, but I think you will get the picture.
A comment has been posted claiming that Assault weapons " are easier to use at close range and have much less kick than hunting rifles and are very accurate... AT LEAST THE ONE I SHOT. This makes them much more effective at multiple quick accurate shots at close range."
This is all wrong and the result of little knowledge of, or experience with, firearms.
1.) "Much less kick than hunting rifles". WRONG! Felt recoil is the result of the caliber of the cartridge, and the weight of the gun. Hunting rifles can be bought in any number of calibers, including the caliber the 'assault rifles' use. Hunting rifles are almost always heavier than the lightweight assault rifle. Therefore, felt recoil in a hunting rifle would be less than in an assault rifle. You would know this if you had any experience with firearms.
2.) "They are easier to use at close range, "at least the ONE I shot". WRONG! Many hunting and sporting semi-auto rifles are almost the same length as assault rifles and just as easy to fire at close range. It all depends on how you hold the gun.
happyfew, the previous AWB was a failure in reducing the number of deaths via firearms. Study after study has shown this. The only place where it was a success was in creating a demand for these firearms. They were NOT used at Ft Hood. And yes, they are the same as a hunting rifle and many are used for exactly that. The low recoil is due to the small caliber, low power of the cartridge.
The assault weapon ban was not a failure. How many of these type weapons have been sold since the ban was lifted? How many were sold before? How many more mass shootings will involve these weapons? sandy hook, fort hood, Orlando and many others have used them with horrific results. they are easier to use at close range and have much less kick than hunting rifles and are very accurate... at least the one I shot. this makes them much more effective at multiple quick accurate shots at close range. they are fun to shoot but don't say they are the same as a hunting rifle, they are not.
The article misinforms you. The AR15 and other Assault Rifles sold to the public shoot no faster or better than almost every semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle or pistol made since 1903. They shoot one bullet each time you pull the trigger, and only one bullet.
Some Assault Rifles and pistols sold to the public come with large capacity magazines. Large capacity magazines have been available for hundreds of semi-auto hunting/sporting rifles/pistols for decades. If a rifle is not designed to accept large capacity magazines, kits have been widely available for decades that will convert a rifle to accept large capacity magazines. All it takes is a screwdriver and 10 minutes.
Legal kits have also been on the market for decades that allow you to convert a semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle to look and feel exactly like the “Assault Rifles” sold to the public. All you need is a screwdriver and 30 minutes.
The lunatics who have used AR15s and other publicly sold “Assault Rifles” to commit their mass murders, could have accomplished the same results just as efficiently with almost any semi-auto hunting/sporting rifle or pistol.
And, the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a FAILURE according the the Justice Department. A 2004 Justice Department-funded evaluation found NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE BAN SAVED ANY LIVES. The guns categorized as "assault weapons" had only been used in about 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. "Should it be renewed," the report concluded, "the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."
"We must fix the assault weapon problem" - John Morse
The "assault weapon problem" is that people like you have no clue what they are talking about.
"military-style weapons" - John Morse
You know, when I was in the military, we carried .38 caliber revolvers. So I supposed in your mind that makes them "military style".
"We will hear that this isn't about guns." - John Morse
And it isn't. Whenever these things happen, people like you make it about the guns. You are obsessed about the object used and completely ignore the behavior, the causes of the behavior, and the person's responsibility. This is the problem.
"When we fall short, as even the best of people do, the person we miss can go to the local Cabela's, purchase an AR-15 and more ammunition than will ever be needed. He/she will be required to wait three days. " - John Morse
Not in this state. No waiting period. And waiting periods are pretty useless as it is pretty uncommon for a firearm to be used in a crime within 15 days of purchase -- the average time of possession to criminal use is over a year.
"Americans have the right to a handgun in their home for their own protection. They don't have the "right" to military-style assault rifles. Scalia says so, right in the opinion." - John Morse
You misread the opinion. He doesn't say that they don't have a right to them, he says that is a separate question from the one being decided.
"Can we hold bars responsible for drunk-driving accidents? Yes." - John Morse
Only if they know the person was impaired. And the same holds true for firearm dealers -- by federal law they can be held responsible if they sell a firearm to someone they think is impaired or intends to use them in a crime. So you are barking at the moon with this argument.
"Knives serve many very useful purposes in everyday life. Military-style assault weapons don't. " - John Morse
The firearms you speak of are very popular for recreational shooting, competition, personal/home defense, and hunting.
"Military-style assault weapons don't. They belong on the battlefield, " - John Morse
Then please explain why the military does not use the semi-auto AR-15 or the semi-auto version of the AK-47.
"It is illegal to sue a gun manufacturer or gun seller for any shooting involving their gun. It shouldn't be." - John Morse
Yes, it should be.
And switching back to knives for a minute, are you aware that you are more than 5 times as likely to be killed by an attacker using a knife or other stabbing/cutting instrument than to be killed by an attacker using one of these so-called "assault weapons".
Also, multiple studies have shown that the previous AWB had no demonstrable reduction on deaths involving firearms. In fact, it had the unintended consequence of people buying more effective calibers, higher power ammo, and more effective bullets.
In short, you continue to show the same ignorance that cost you your Senate seat.
The left just doesn't get it. For crying out loud, use some logic. Looks aside, there's little difference between a (so-called) assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Both fire when the trigger is pulled. Both have magazines that can be replaced quickly. True, some magazines hold 30 rounds and no hunter needs 30 rounds to kill animals, but if so-called assault rifles are banned, how long will it be before the left goes after all rifles?
Final question and I quote from this article: what does a "deranged man (in Orlando who) declared his allegiance to ISIS and (hates) gays" have to do with millions of Americans here and elsewhere, who own one or more (so-called) assault rifles? Do these millions of law-abiding citizens constitute a danger to society? Do their rifles suddenly jump out of the safes and mow down innocent people? The problem isn't guns; it's who owns or gets possession of them.
Loons like John Morse won't agree with me because they are after guns. If it were not guns they would be after something else because that's what loons do -- they look for solutions in all the wrong places. The logical answer lies in identifying crackpots and having a better system to keep guns out of their hands.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation