Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Last 30 Days

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

The right is not dependent on the militia, the militia is dependent on the right.

Posted by Odin on 11/20/2017 at 6:59 PM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

"OK Dave H. Since you want to cite the Militia Act of 1790, when are you called to muster?" - Dave T.

Doesn't matter. The right to arms belongs to the people. Participation in a militia is not a prerequisite to the right. The Militia Act I cited simply gives an idea as to what "arms" consist of and has no bearing on who has the right.


"Hint: Look up the Militia Act of 1903. It states who the Well Regulated Militia is."

Nope. It states who the organized and reserve militia is. The term "well regulated" appears nowhere in it. But again, the right is not reserved to the militia, it belongs to the people.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 11/20/2017 at 2:42 PM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

OK Dave H. Since you want to cite the Militia Act of 1790, when are you called to muster?

Hint: Look up the Militia Act of 1903. It states who the Well Regulated Militia is.

Another hint: It's not you. Or Holmes. Or Richard Nascak. Or Jay Whynotaskme. Or Oath Keepers. Or the idiot at the Bundy Ranch pointing his gun at BLM agents.

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Dave T. on 11/20/2017 at 1:14 PM

Re: “Reader: Notary misconduct is not unique

Notarization is a relic and has no purpose in modern society. Fortunately the affidavits in question did not require notarization in the first place!

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Holmes on 11/19/2017 at 10:03 AM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

Liberals are so precious!! Needy, intolerant, deviant and self-absorbed, but still precious! :)

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Holmes on 11/19/2017 at 9:56 AM

Re: “One chronicle of street (and other sexual) harassment in Colorado Springs

I feel very sorry for any woman who suffers this type of abuse. As a woman who is 5`8" and strong I don't suffer as much because I adopt an intimidating persona in public places and if someone is rude or out of line I address it immediately and forcefully. I would suggest that small or frail women carry a stun gun.

Posted by Shannon Simmons on 11/19/2017 at 12:20 AM

Re: “Reader: Progressives want to steal America as we know it

Odin;
Your insult notwithstanding, I would NOT be charged with a crime if I smashed an AK-47 or some Bushmaster xm15 model. The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, NOT the rights of inanimate objects.
I agree that keeping and bearing arms IS protected, BUT, there is NO provision in the Constitution protecting some imaginary right to manufacture a SPECIFIC kind of weapon, and there are laws currently regulating and/or banning the importation of any number of manufactured products. If Im not mistaken, there are laws on the books now concerning gun running. And banning the transfer of ownership of semi-automatic weapons in no way violates the owners right to keep a legally owned semi-automatic weapon or to bear it in some manner.
Youre going to have to come up with something better than an insult to justify the seemingly unlimited proliferation of semi-automatic weaponry.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by asawatcher on 11/18/2017 at 11:32 AM

Re: “Reader: Progressives want to steal America as we know it

Wow. That is a very big leap - from citing an example of a country that has implemented gun control laws to there being a domestic conspiracy of progressive boogeymen plotting to steal the government, take all the guns and/or kill everyone. Besides the fact that the enemy you fear doesnt exist, stealing the governments already been done, so try to think of a more novel approach.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by rangesaf on 11/17/2017 at 11:32 PM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

To Dave H. - Thank you. That was the best explanation of the defining terms of the 2nd amendment I have read. The 2nd amendment, as with the rest of of the constitution, was the product of thoughtful consideration, experience, and historical precedent. I wish more people would take the time to understand these fundamental principles.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by rangesaf on 11/17/2017 at 11:16 PM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 3536 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Key words - "bearable arms".

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Richard Nascak on 11/17/2017 at 10:11 PM

Re: “Reader: We are killing ourselves

"I continue to wait for Second Amendment proponents to provide positive constructive proposals to at least decrease the shootings of our citizens. " -- Michael Fitzgibbons

Then you are apparently not listening because we provide positive constructive proposals all the time. Enforce the laws we have, fix our mental health system, and so on. Heck, background checks were actually an idea first proposed by the pro-Second Amendment side. Look up Project Exile while you are at it.

"because any gun control probably will not help"

In the cases of most mass shootings, you are correct, most gun control laws would be ineffective. Take for example the dumb "expanded" background checks, which doesn't make the background checks any more stringent, but rather applies the to all transfers including private ones -- as Colorado unadvisedly passed several years ago. In nearly all the mass shootings that have captured headlines, the gunman PASSED a background check, often several of them. So why people think making this apply to all transfers will prevent such shootings is beyond me, it is just pure folly. Yet that is exactly what Bloomberg, the groups he funds (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Everytown for Gun Safety) and Mark Kelly/Gabby Giffords' group Americans for Responsible Solutions (now called Giffords, and at least partially financially tied to Bloomberg) call for all the time.

"the Constitution protects our right to any weapon of mass destruction "

No the Constitution does not. But many people misuse the term "weapons of mass destruction" to apply to firearms. WMDs are defined as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons or very high yield conventional explosives (think MOAB).

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 11/17/2017 at 12:10 PM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

"Well, a nuclear weapon qualifies as arms." -- Dave Tintle

Ah yes, the infamous "nuke argument" gets trotted out yet again. We have been seeing uninformed people bringing out this argument for decades and it is just as defective now as it always has been.

No, nuclear weapons do not count as "arms" under the Second Amendment.

First of all, the Second protects our ability to keep and bear arms. That means they are items which an average individual can afford, safely store, and properly maintain (keep), and to transport, carry, serve, and operate (bear) all by their lonesome. Nukes are quite beyond that definition.

Second, the term "arms" used in the Second Amendment relies on the definition from English Common Law (most people are unaware that ECL is the basis of most of our jurisprudence in the US). In this case ECL, via Sir Edward Coke, defined arms as being those items of common use by individuals for one on one personal combat. A nuke fails to meet that definition as it is not of common use, it takes a team of people to use them, and they are not used in one on one personal combat -- they are area effect, indiscriminate ordnance.

This definition is why we can have special restrictions on area effect and crew served items explosives, artillery, and machine guns -- they do not qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment.

Evidence of this can also be found in the Militia Acts of the 1790s, contemporaneous with the penning of the Second Amendment. In these acts, we can see that people were required to come bearing their own arms:

"provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder ; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger (a type of short sword), and espontoon (a short pike like weapon)"

All the items they are expected to have are things and average individual can afford, safely store, and properly maintain, and to transport, carry, serve, and operate, and are items of common use by individuals for one on one personal combat. Noticeably absent are area effect items and crew served weapons like grenades (yes, they existed back then) and other explosive devices, artillery (even though many people owned their own cannon/howitzers). If needed, those would be provided by the government.

So, Dave, the answer to your question, "Aren't nuclear weapons arms? " is no, they are not.

12 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave H on 11/17/2017 at 11:53 AM

Re: “Reader: Aren't nuclear weapons arms?

that's military hardware....some are available with a class A permit. but those are not.......the brain power it took to come up with that nonsense is overwhelming!!!

11 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Jay Whynotaskme on 11/17/2017 at 8:30 AM

Re: “Reader: We are killing ourselves

Maybe if the government agents to whom we pay our taxes did their jobs? The latest California shooter was not legally eligible to possess firearms. Yet when his neighbors (including one he killed) called police on multiple occasions to complain about him target practicing at all hours the local law enforcement failed to take action. Merely enforcing the tough laws passed in California would have prevented this attack by returning the shooter to jail.

Then there's the Texas church killer. If those federal employees in the Air Force had done their jobs, he wouldn't have been able to buy the weapons he used that bloody day.

If you can show me that I can rely on the government agencies that gun grabbers like yourself maintain is all we need to protect us, I might consider relinquishing the firearms I posses for self defense. But to say that we don't need them now is total foolishness.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Richard M. Shirley on 11/16/2017 at 4:49 PM

Re: “Reader: Progressives want to steal America as we know it

asawatcher, your ignorance is completely astounding. The protection for firearms is contained in the right. As in individuals have the right to firearms. Furthermore, the term "arms" refers to items of common use for individuals. Semi-autos are very much "common use", so no, you cannot ban all semi-autos.

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Odin on 11/16/2017 at 4:24 PM

Re: “Reader: Progressives want to steal America as we know it

Odin;
There is NO protection for firearms themselves. There IS protection for the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.
But Jasmine would be correct were she to point out that there is no protection in the Second Amendment for the manufacture of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons, or the importation of such, or the transfer of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weaponry.
It would be no violation of Second Amendment rights if we were to BAN the manufacture, importation, and the transferring of ownership of ALL automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by asawatcher on 11/16/2017 at 10:21 AM

Re: “Reader: Prayers and concealed guns won't change a thing

Mikeb45 lists the liberal, Democrats that were mass killers, so I just took one name at random:
I had forgotten the name of the shooter at Virginia Tech, so I decided to check out Seung-Hui Chos political affiliations.
Hmmm, seems Seung-Hui Cho was a Korean national, NOT even a US citizen. It is quite doubtful, then, that he was ever registered to vote, much less as a Democrat in Virginia, which doesnt even record party affiliation on voter registrations; yet, Mikeb45 makes the claim that he was a registered Democrat.
Im wondering how many more on Mikeb45's list of evil mass killers were in no way motivated by partisan considerations or would pass muster as a Liberal or a Socialist or a left-winger, much less a Democrat.
For example:
Nidal Hasan, Ft Hood Shooter was NOT a registered Democrat.
James Holmes was neither a registered Democrat nor any of the other attributes Mikeb45 claims of him.
And I dont think Harris and Klebold celebrated Hitler's birthday the way they did because their parents were "progressive leftists".
Mass shooters are alienated individuals, not individuals who felt they were a part of a political organization, much less a political ideology that generally opposes unregulated access to the unlimited proliferation of weaponry which enabled their actions.

Posted by asawatcher on 11/16/2017 at 10:04 AM

Re: “The politics of the “terrorist” label

The fact that you call all Americans racists is repugnant, hateful and WRONG.

You are what you claim everyone else to be, a hateful racist.

Dave :-)

Posted by William David Beadles on 11/15/2017 at 6:15 PM

Re: “Reader: Progressives want to steal America as we know it

"Nothing in the bill of Rights or the Constitution call out any rights to possess ammunition for firearms. " - Jasmine

Oh great, another m0r0n trolling that !d!ot!c thought process.

WRONG!!! Ammo is needed to have a functioning firearm and is afforded the same protections as firearms themselves.

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Odin on 11/15/2017 at 4:45 PM

Re: “Reader: The parks department should reread its mission statement

This city has sold itself out. Parks department, transportation, all of it a joke

Posted by KyleJS on 11/15/2017 at 3:55 PM

Today | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun
This Is Home

This Is Home @ Ivywild School

Mon., Nov. 20, 6:30-9 p.m.

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation