Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: stories: Today

Re: “El Paso County jail is home to people too poor to pay fines or make bail

The ACLU is going to get paid again by the taxpayers of El Paso County.

Posted by .\-. on 11/17/2017 at 5:47 PM

Re: “Sheriff Elder lashes out at Indy reporter

This is nothing. The only crime would have been committed by the notary.

Posted by .\-. on 11/17/2017 at 5:41 PM

Re: “Coal Mine Dragon's punishing lunch buffet

That place is awful. The one on uintah is great.

Posted by roger.butts on 11/17/2017 at 1:28 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).

3 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.

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

Re: “A look at voter turnout across the region

the funny thing is that repubicans always prefer a lower vote turn out... it appears that it didn't help the teabaggers much this last election... also... if you didn't vote... stfu!

Posted by happyfew on 11/17/2017 at 11:29 AM

Re: “A look at voter turnout across the region

no we just understand that no matter what we want the city council does whatever it wants......we want rec pot to pay for all the improvements being done we don't want a raise in taxes...see where that got us? this isn't OUR city this is THEIR city...we don't count. we thought we did, but it seems we were wrong.....even with us not voting in force...they still pass whatever they want and justify it..............and no one says a word......cuz if they did they would become a target....

Posted by Jay Whynotaskme on 11/17/2017 at 8:34 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!!!

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

Today | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu
DJ Chris Diablo

DJ Chris Diablo @ Gasoline Alley

Fridays, Saturdays, 9 p.m. Continues through Jan. 1

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation