Bill W. 
Member since Aug 23, 2011

click to enlarge bill_sunglasses_jpg-magnum.jpg

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Links to Me

Retired attorney and full time theater fan. Former Henry Judge for the Colorado Theater Guild. Reviews are posted at theatercolorado.blogspot.com. Favorite film: "2001: A Space Odyssey." Favorite novel: "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevesky.

Recent Comments

Re: “Indy's 2018 midterm election endorsements

Corn:

From your post:

"The reason why the left cannot propose a law which would solve the problem is it's not a gun control problem it's a societal problem -- of which guns are the symptom not the cause."

Red herring. We all know that there is no one solution to the problem. For you to require legislation that "solves" the problem is bogus. Legislation that mitigates the problem is incremental but valuable change.

Don't reply with the standard "what part of 'shall not infringe' do you not understand.' Gun rights are subject to regulation that doesn't amount to infringement. It's not just me that says so. SCOTUS says so:


"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

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

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 11/04/2018 at 8:21 AM

Re: “Indy's 2018 midterm election endorsements

Corn:

"The reason why the left cannot propose a law which would solve the problem is it's not a gun control problem it's a societal problem -- of which guns are the symptom not the cause."

That's a red herring. There is no one solution to the problem, and we all know it. "The left" is proposing to mitigate the problem, not eliminate it. Since you take the unreasonable position that mitigation is worthless, you are endorsing the status quo. Incremental change is still change; the status quo puts too many weapons in the hands of those who are unlikely to use them for sporting, hunting, or self defense.

Don't reply with a with a "what part of 'shall not infringe' do I not understand. There is NO unlimited Constitutional right to own guns. It's not just me that says so...it's SCOTUS:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

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

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Bill W. on 11/04/2018 at 8:15 AM

Re: “Stephany Rose Spaulding talks gun safety with Moms Demand Action founder

Mr. Kidd:

You seem very confident:

"What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand!"

Your confidence is not justified. Let's put SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in it's proper context.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is in conflict with the US Supreme Court interpretation. Their most recent decision on the 2nd Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) includes the following language:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. "

The 2nd Amendment is NOT an unlimited license justifying owning, bearing, or using any weapon at any time.

You can have your own opinion, but it is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution and subordinate laws mean.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 10/03/2018 at 9:04 AM

Re: “Stephany Rose Spaulding talks gun safety with Moms Demand Action founder

Frank:

"Guns are harmless."

Nice try, but just saying it doesn't make it true. The body count is staggering, so apparently you believe those we have lost to gun violence were not harmed by guns.

Seriously. Put some thought into what you post here. If you want to convince people of your opinions, don't insult their intelligence with this drivel.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 10/03/2018 at 8:49 AM

Re: “Brett Kavanaugh is proof that elections matter

Pat Holden:

" Antifa is every bit as violent as the white supremacists."

I forget. How many fatalities in Charlottesville were the result of the Antifa demonstrators?

Last I heard, that number was zero. Your white supremacists held the body count to just one, but that's still one more than all the other groups protesting that day. Including Antifa.

Stop the equivalency argument. "Both sides are bad." It's pretty clear where the violence and carnage came from that day.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Bill W. on 09/17/2018 at 9:02 AM

Re: “Reader: Why we voted for Trump, in reality

Frank:

"America has been on a Debt Binge for 40 years, Citizens have no idea
how to cope with a 40 % Revaluation of the $ Dollar."

You do realize that the President has NOT reduced the debt, right? He has added roughly a trillion dollars to it.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/…

And don't tell me this is fake news. The Washington Times is a very conservative publication.

17 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 09/10/2018 at 9:29 AM

Re: “EPA’s stormwater lawsuit against city has begun, and residents could be the biggest losers.

Frank:

"Sales Tax now almost double from 1975."

That's a rate of increase of approximately 2% per year. Average wages in 1975 were $8, 630.92. In 2016, average wages were $48,642.15. That's an increase of 600%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Inde…

The median cost of a house in 1975 was $42,100. In 2011, it was $212,300. That's also about a 600% increase in cost.

https://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pd…

The average cost of a new car in 1975 was $4,951.00. The average cost of a new car in 2016 was $25,449.00. That's an increase of approximately 500%.

https://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2016/…

If you cherry pick the data, your credibility is severely diminished. Based on a range of factors, an increase of 100% in the sales tax between 1975 and 2018 is a BARGAIN.

You clearly oppose growth. There is no steady state in a fluid environment. A city either grows, or shrinks. Would you rather live in a growing environment, like Salt Lake City?

https://www.templesquare.com/blog/slc-econ…

Or in a rust belt city like Detroit?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archi…

Both are valid options. If you prefer the Detroit mode., just say so. But don't mischaracterize the facts by pretending that the only valid metric is sales tax.

6 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 09/06/2018 at 8:39 AM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation