Dave H 
Member since May 10, 2013


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Links to Me

Recent Comments

Re: “Reader: These times call for public transit

Inter-city public transport is doomed to failure unless really good intra-city public transport is put in place first. The HyperLoop, Front Range fast rail service, etc are all colossal wastes of money unless that critical flaw is fixed first. Every place that has tried it has found this out the hard way and the inter-city transport ends up being a black hole for money relying on government bail-outs (IOW increased taxes) to keep it running. However, the intra-city services do fairly well without the inter-city services.

Having lived overseas (mostly in Europe, including in Italy) for over a decade I can tell you that the reason why the inter-city transport works overseas is because they have excellent intra-city public transport.

I adamantly oppose throwing any money at these inter-city services if the intra-city services are not done first.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 12/04/2017 at 4:37 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.

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

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

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

Within minutes of the shooting in Texas, Sen Bennett starting calling for more gun control without even waiting for any facts to come in. One of his faves -- universal background checks, which take the existing background check system and applies it to private sales.

Except the gunman in Texas passed several background checks because he bought from a dealer. Same for the Vegas gunman. And the Navy Yard gunman, and the Tucson/Giffords gunman, and the Aurora gunman, and so on and so on. And this is why gun controls have very little credibility. They pass laws that are just plain $tup!d.

Take for instance the current proposals to ban "bump stocks". Instead of having the BATFE revisit their Obama era decision that such devices were legal, all the knee jerk reactionaries are trying to pass bills that ban "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle". The problem is that such language could end up unintentionally banning all kinds of things including aftermarket springs, precision trigger kits, etc. that are normal gunsmithing items used to improve the trigger pull of firearms.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave H on 11/07/2017 at 4:25 PM

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

"Actually he had been dishonourably discharged from the military" -- Frank Speaking

Actually it appears it was a BCD, not a Dishonorable.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dave H on 11/07/2017 at 4:05 PM

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

"Dave,In the 18 years before Port Arthur (1996), Australia had 13 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which five or more people were killed. In the 21 years since, there have been none."

Not quite true, but even so, like I said, Australia didn't really have much of a problem before they passed their insane laws.

7 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 11/07/2017 at 4:03 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation