Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Fair and Unbalanced

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

If a judge tells a sheriff to violate a citizen's Rights then the sheriff would have to arrest the judge. Or do judges rise above The Constitution? James Madison I believe said when there are unreasonable searches and seizures then there is tyranny. We have to be secure in our homes and Thomas Jefferson said When we fear government it is tyranny, when government fears us it is liberty. So who were these two guys? One is on a coin and everywhere else because he was a great and wise man. He was a governor at one time and he also wrote The Declaration of Independence. I bet the governor in Denver has never really read those things but he wants everyone to know he is gay!
So how do we deal with citizens who are deemed unworthy? Prison. 2.5 million citizens in prison. That was the total population of the 13 states in 1776 according to the census bureau in 1790. This the result of having police and criminal court systems that we do not need. They gave themselves more and more power and now we are in a stranglehold of thousands of laws and all of them enforced at gunpoint, citizens have no say in what should or should not be. Clear violations of Rights that were to be protected they all said under oath with a hand on the Bible. They lied in front of their Creator, something only sociopaths do...

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Bob Wyman on 04/16/2019 at 12:41 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

The left get an A for effort, but this is old news. Time to organize another socialist coop and focus on Security Clearances now!

Posted by Silky Johnson on 04/03/2019 at 9:21 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

Keep clinging onto this bald faced lie and you will hand us the election in 2020 thank you SO much.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by rightsavage on 04/02/2019 at 10:02 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

Oh my gosh! rightsavage, have you seen the actual Mueller report? My guess is no, so how do you know what the report states. If you're referring the 4 page semi-recap of the almost 400 page report that did say he was not exonerated,, then you're the fool.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jackie Reynolds on 04/01/2019 at 2:30 PM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

right savage:

"The report was conclusive, no collusion."

Read the Barr letter again. You missed the part that said he was not exonerated on obstruction of justice.

I'll say it again. The wealthy and powerful get all the justice they can buy. If you disagree with that, you are naive.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Bill W. on 04/01/2019 at 7:18 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

How so Bill? The report was conclusive, no collusion. You cant handle the truth apparently. Keep living in liberal la la fantasy world buddy.

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by rightsavage on 03/31/2019 at 1:03 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

Right savage:

Just further proof that the wealthy and powerful need not worry about "justice." Different rules for the privileged.

6 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 03/28/2019 at 7:46 AM

Re: “The post-Mueller report slog ahead

That really blew up in the democrats faces huh. I saw this coming from the start. Thats what you get you liars. See you in 2020 ;)

2 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by rightsavage on 03/28/2019 at 2:46 AM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

Protection orders only show on certain levels of Job background checks.
There is absolutely penalty for false report. The person making the extreme protection request will appear in front of a judge and under penalty of perjury swear that their request / report is true.

There is absolutely mention of mental health. It sounds to me that there are only a few who are making valid points that should be considered to be included in a good extreme protection law. The State is going to need to pay for mental health evaluations. A report should not damage a person's job (however there are probably some jobs where is paying for evaluation.

The amount of misinformation people spread about these laws is amazing. The lobby groups get paid.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by TruB on 03/25/2019 at 7:08 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

This is not just something that "amounts to a 14-day timeout ." There is unfortunate potential for abuse, and the information stays on a person's record even when they are found innocent.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Ella Minnow on 03/25/2019 at 5:00 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

One individual in the 40's in Europe did something like this and then many peoples rights were taken away. They were abused, kept from jobs, used as free labor, and many more horrible things are we repeating history? Maybe if we have that many mental people running lose maybe we should put them back in institutions! Also maybe bring back the death penalty we have no consequences for our actions any more because of all the bleeding hearts!

10 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by B.B. on 03/25/2019 at 8:55 AM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

Correct, we will not back down from a horribly crafted law that focuses on firearm confiscation instead of addressing the problem. Even many local governments and law enforcement are adamantly against this bill.

Let's be clear: There have been laws on the books for decades which allow for firearms to be removed from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The problem has been that these laws have not been properly used.

This bill is being pushed by Michael Bloomberg. It is nearly the exact same verbiage as suggested in the suggested firearm law proposals pushed to all states by his advocasy groups like MAIG and Everytown as well as the Giffords group which he heavily contributes to. This is the same guy who tried to ban Big Gulps and to have salt shakers removed from resturant tables. That kind of authoritarian, totalitarian government we don't need.

This bill is very similar to one used in California where it has seen multiple abuses and even resulted in the death of an innocent person. It makes it extremely difficult to get your property back if you are cleared. It puts an undue burnden on the accused to prove they should not be prohibited and can cost innocent people many thousands of dollars that many cannot afford. The average defense against such an accusation will cost between about $6000 to over $10,000.

Thanks to the dumb Universal Background Check law, no longer can a temproarily prohibited person simply give temporary possession of their firearms to a friend or trusted agent for safe keeping until they can legally get them back. Instead they have to either give them to police, who are not equipped for this, or thay have to "transfer" the firearm to an FFL (AKA dealer). The latter means the FFL OWNS the firearm and can do anything they want with it. So what is really being mandated is that the person give the firearms to the police or sell them, even though they might be cleared to get them back in the future.

The bill suspends due process until after the fact under the guise of an emergency. It also completely ignores the actual problem -- the person's mental health. The Sonnenberg Amandment is an attempt to fix that.

So no, we won't back down. We have already begun looking at the recall process and will challange the law in court.

IT IS A BAD LAW

16 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/23/2019 at 2:04 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

GUN DID NOT HARM NO ONE, but AN INDIVIDUAL with a mental health issue or not who must be stop when they are use violence to other and become a threat.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by LIMA-CHARLIE on 03/23/2019 at 12:23 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

The author made no mention of the Sonnenberg amendment, that would turn this bill from a gun grab to a mental health bill. Laws this controversial deserve unbiased journalism.

10 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave Votava on 03/22/2019 at 10:18 AM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

For a law that is supposed to remove firearms from the mentally disturbed, I find no mention of mental health evaluations by professionals. Merely judgement made by law enforcement and jurists. If we're supposed to be confiscating a persons property on the basis of their mental state shouldn't someone trained in that field be involved?

15 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard M. Shirley on 03/21/2019 at 12:53 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

Same day; similar article - "Recognizing the year's worst in government transparency".

Cherry picking transparency topic is poor journalism.

This gun one; with no opportunity to face an accuser in court; reeks of a medieval witch hunt.

Cue the dozens and dozens of angry spouses, exes, rival gang members, disgruntled anybodies; who will come out of nowhere; and remain hidden; while they accuse.

Give it time. People will be PAID to go make accusations. Too easy. Here's a few hundred bucks; go downtown and swear out this particular falsehood. Hearsay covers any defense of the accuser; yet the accused still has to lawyer up, spend money; and waste; absolutely waste; dozens and hundreds of man hours of police and court time.

Ridiculous law; and already guaranteed to waste hundreds of hours of legal time before it is even put into effect a once.

12 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Anthony Springer on 03/21/2019 at 12:49 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

The only thing this law changes is that encourages prior restraint. The gun owner has no opportunity to face his accusers in court and there is no punishment for false reporting. The gun owner is punished for what he might do rather than illegal actions. Current laws allow for legal intervention and no changes are needed.

17 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Gary Benoit on 03/20/2019 at 5:15 PM

Re: “Hickenlooper faces multiple hurdles on path to the White House

Never thought that I'd miss Hickenloser....but I do after Governor Pole Smoker was elected!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Holmes on 03/15/2019 at 4:53 PM

Re: “Trump’s non-emergency national emergency

The bottom line up front is this. The wall will not solve all immigration problems, however, we can NOT solve ANY immigration problem without it. The wall itself is designed to make entrance into the U.S. difficult. Walls work, as they free our Border Patrol to be able to move to the right place, at the right time. Tactical logic (which I happen to know just a little about) demands that you use physical barriers to force the traffic to where you can concentrate your enforcement manpower. Right now, the wall isn't much of a hindrance because federal immigration law isn't designed to send the illegals back when they cross the border when certain conditions, loopholes, etc. are met. And as mentioned in the article, the illegals crossing the border with children are actively seeking out federal officials knowing they will be released in short order to go further into the U.S. while awaiting asylum (or not). That means it is up to Congress to close these loopholes, which would automatically allow the wall to do what it is designed to do, be the hindrance for getting into the U.S. illegally. Unfortunately, Congress is not at all willing at this time to close these loopholes. Trumps request includes a lot more than just the physical barrier. The President asked for 52,000 additional beds and facilities to house illegals during processing; 2500 additional Border Patrol agents and other staff; 92 additional immigration judges and their staff; additional non-invasive scanners at ports of entry; more technology along the rest of the 1952 miles of border; and the 232 miles of physical barrier. Claiming that anyone was expecting ONLY the wall, is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at the worst.

The fact is that this issue has been smoldering for DECADES. The fact is that neither a Democratic nor a Republican House, Senate nor President has had the backbone to address it until now. Reagan, Bush X 2, Clinton, and Obama ALL said that a wall was warranted. 18 TIMES a National Emergency was declared just between Bush JR and Obama. Precedent has been set. Depending upon which "expert" you ask, not being able to adequately defend ones border from people entering illegally does indeed qualify as an emergency.

Article below.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/19/wall-a…

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by wildbillaz on 02/25/2019 at 1:30 PM

Re: “Trump’s non-emergency national emergency

Okay. It's been a festering wound since 1836, grew worse through the Civil War and range wars. Farmers lost the range war in Texas. By law, you must fence your land to keep trespassers out. If there is not a
fence, we're not compliant with our own laws.

Is a festering wound a crisis? I suppose it is not,... Until you die of sepsis.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Karl Ray on 02/25/2019 at 10:51 AM

Today | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue
Monstro, Monstras, Monstrat

Monstro, Monstras, Monstrat @ The Modbo

Through April 26

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation