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.
Willie Breazell: You are misguided. The Colorado Constitution could be shortened rather easily, not by the misguided Raise the Bar Amendment, which is Californication written all over it, but by a simple amendment. Ready? Here it is:
"All citizen statutory initiatives shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature, and each aforementioned initiative shall contain a statutory section listing the sections of the statues that initiative enacts or amends that shall not be amended or repealed by the Legislature."
That simple: isolate and highlight statutory changes that the people make, and keep the Legislature from undoing what the people decide.
Limiting or restricting the Legislature use of the Health and Safety Clause is a different issue, yet another good idea, since that prevents citizen referenda on bills passed, requiring citizens to turn to the constitutional amendment process in the first place.
As for #78, yes, it's a bad idea. Most liberal ideas that screw with the marketplace are.
Dick Standaert: Correct. Colorado Springs Forward is anything but. The correct solution is to make the CSU Board separate from the City Council and elected separately.
Matt Oalfssen: You are something resembling a whining idiot. Do us all a favor and leave for somewhere else where you'll be appreciated, like Flint, or North Korea.
Larry Lutz: ROFL!
Larimore Nicholl: must you continue to gab about your experiences with ObamaCare?
Tim Wood: Nope. The current system of party nominees making the final ballot is just fine. Top Two has been an unmitigated disaster in California. If you want to fix the system, then work for actual improvements like ranked-choice voting and equal funding of campaigns, including getting the media to pull out their heads and recognize that there are more than D/R candidates in races and cover them equally--or else the media is giving in-kind donations to candidates that must be monetized and recorded for each and every time.
Stephen Shogan: The caucus system isn't broken. The primary system is. Let your political parties fund their own nomination processes without taxpayer subsidy.
Steve Mabon: You're correct about the Lamborn Prayer fiasco and him being a disappointment, but dead wrong on the rest.
"But term-limited Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, showing more allegiance to the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity than his own constituents, used his influence to prevent the bill from reaching the Senate floor."
Bullmanure. Stick to something you're good at, Ralphie, like overeating at stadiums. Doing the Koch thing just shows your intellectual bankruptcy and lack of real argument.
The bill died because it was an end-run around TABOR, and you know it.
As for I-25, the reason it hasn't been widened is due to CDOT's incompetence as much as Denver-based politics. In a better world, it would have been done two decades ago. Both the lanes and bridges in that stretch need improvement, but I-25 also needs widening from Circle Drive to US85 in Fountain as well.
Nice. Let's hear more about diversity, inclusion, and acceptance. We need more stories with positive vibes in our world, so keep them coming! 😎
So you're calling the same party that enacted TARP, and found it did nothing to help the economy out over saying no to more spending on nothing? So it's ok to simply not allow something to come up and be discussed but hear it out and have a vote is bad ? Under Harry Reid that's what happened, and he even put in to actuon the rule you are complaining about. What are you really upset about? That you can't get a spending pass to do what ever you want or that you have no other solutions to the problems facin the country.
Funny how there is money for a road extension that benefits a small few - while the rest of use bounce from pothole to pothole in the rest of town.
To Larimore Nicholl (and the Independent): There you go "sneezing" again. What have we told you about that? Larimore has never met a conspiracy that he couldn't ignore. If he considers Hillary the best candidate for CEO/President of US inc., then that tells me more about his foundation of immorality than any article the Independent has ever published about him. This also tells me he's completely satisfied with Obama's results, even though much of the nation would have him impeached. If I were playing in that 'sandbox' of the phony show "election", I'd support Trump, if only due to Larimore's support of Hillary. Larimore's comparison of Hillary to an MD insults that profession.
Steve Mabon: "Nearly 23 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation, atheists and agnostics make up 7-plus percent,..." That leaves a minimum of 70% of us. That's more than 3-1 ratio. You have the free-will to "believe" whatever you want. The Bible can and does stand on its own.
"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.
Well done Nat Stein. Thank you for your coverage. Hope to see it in print too.
Am I to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were "old coots and codgers"?
Hightower? Is that nasty old bullshit artist really still alive?
Nice!!! Glad to be able to read you again!!!
Amen brother, amen!
Excellent words Laura!
"There's nothing wrong with not knowing. What is wrong is being afraid to admit you don't know, pretending to know OR NOT BEING WILLING TO FIND OUT." That's the one I think we are failing at as a society - complacency instead of curiosity, laziness instead of learning. "Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." Kahlil Gibran
People that complain about Colorado Springs, seriously need an education lesson on perspective.
Liberty...I hope your 4th of July was awesome....mine was, thank you.
The Bern marched in our parade this year, that was a real treat for us Vermonters, he is very loved here, across party lines.
"Are you the authority on what gets debated in this country?"
YOU'RE the one that has decided to arbitrarily decide which amendments are contemporarily appropriate, and which aren't.
"I am certainly debating the 2nd amendment"
No, you're not. You've asked for it to be repealed--shall I provide your verbatim nonsense?--which is just another sloppy, flacid attempt by some to make others behave according to their dictates and what they think is "right" and 'just".
Guess what? Your suggestion has zero traction and support, except from other simpletons that can't stand the idea that their families, friends, neighbors may think differently from them and make alternative decisions for themselves.
"The reason for the amendment, to build an army of civilians (militia) is no longer valid"
Your lack of understanding regarding this amendment would be astounding, were it not totally representative of how utterly ignorant you are regarding personal choice, individual freedom and personal liberty.
Look, it's obvious that you've allowed a detatched, omnipotent, "one size fits all" bureacracy to make your life choices--which is fine, as you obviously can't think for yourself--but I, and a majority of your fellow citizens, can still stand upright and decide what is best for ourselves.
Don't like something? Great; don't buy, support, encourage or contribute to it, but please stop yourself before you tell me what to do, or I'll just trample you underfoot and embarrass you for the simple act of suggesting you know "what's best".
Robert...what does this mean?
"There is no debate on The 2nd Amendment, it stands as is."
Are you the authority on what gets debated in this country?
I am certainly debating the 2nd amendment, and I will continue to do so as my right to do so as an American, just like you. :)
The 2nd amendment is vague and ambiguous, can you legally and specifically define an "arms" , it also protects the ownership of a certain privately manufactured and marketed goods and none other.
The reason for the amendment, to build an army of civilians (militia) is no longer valid.
I don't think we should be constitutionally protecting a particular privately sold good and no other, the wind fall profits due to this amendment to both gun manufacturers, sellers and gun lobby has been in the billions.
I believe this amendment should go, then we can move on with common sense gun safety legislation.
Until then, nothing will happen.
So my friend, let the 2nd amendment debate begin, just keep it respectful. :)
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation