U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-23-2013, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Western, Colorado
1,598 posts, read 2,751,376 times
Reputation: 942

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51 View Post
Are you unable to comprehend that someone can do a mag change in less that 1 second?

So, with that said, what is the difference between someone carrying (2) 15rd magazines, and one 30rd magazine? Less than a second. 30 rounds in 30 seconds, versus 30 rounds in 30.75 seconds.

If you "feel" safer because of this, I have sad news for you - you aren't.
The mag ban, along with the $10 fee to exercise a protected rights, are central to these recall elections, and I'm still waiting for some of the bill proponents here to elaborate on how A. The mag ban is going to protect people given the above, and B. How we can impose a $10 fee to exercise a right, in this case, purchasing a firearm ( which now can only be done through a FFL - eliminating private sales without approval from the state and federal government).

We'll wait.....

 
Old 07-23-2013, 08:59 AM
 
129 posts, read 216,569 times
Reputation: 143
"This man actually said this." - This is NOT what was said. This is paraphrased. Perhaps correctly, perhaps not ... but it cannot be quoted as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak View Post
This man actually said this. And you wonder why we want him gone?
THIS is what was said.

Quote:
Under current law in the United States, gun dealers and manufacturers are immune from liability even when they are negligent. No other industry enjoys this protection.

This immunity is the direct result of a powerful lobby that ironically is subsidized by our own government and taxpayers through the military and police. We have experienced the power of this lobby over the last three months.

In the wake of 6-year old children being shot in the face, the gun lobby has actually argued we need more guns and managed to convince Coloradans that they will lose their guns if we impose even reasonable restrictions on firearms. They have argued that the mental health system is broken and needs to be fixed, but have not introduced a single piece of legislation to address mental health either in Colorado or nationally.

Robert F. Kennedy, after MLK’s assassination, said: “Violence breeds violence, repression breeds retaliation and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.“

Cleansing a sickness from our souls does not come easily. It is gruesome. During the last three months we have experienced hatred and vitriol that I have only seen on the street as a police officer. This has included wishing rape, torture and death on legislators and their families. It reached its height on Monday and Tuesday as our Senators did their jobs in committee.

Sickness.

Change has not ever come quickly in the United States and our system is set up to guarantee it doesn’t.

We have made strides today, strides that will save lives.

Strides that stop bullets piercing more children’s bodies, strides that stop criminals from getting guns, strides that stop domestic abusers from killing their partners with a gun and strides that will stop massacres of 85 more people including our children with a 100 round magazine.

This debate on reducing gun violence in this country needed to happen and it finally is happening.

I am proud to be a Coloradan and represent these Colorado values. We proudly stand here today as Coloradoans who want the killing to stop and the cleansing to start.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion and move that SB 196 be laid over until May 10th.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,217 posts, read 10,306,560 times
Reputation: 20199
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
That's okay, I think I can still go point for point.

On recalls and accountability: There is a difference between getting voted out at the next regularly appointed election and getting recalled. I know impeachment is not the same as a recall, but under your line of thought, Nixon should have been allowed to finish his term despite his involvement in a crime. I don't necessarily view getting voted out as a punishment, but I do see a recall as such. It puts an exclamation point on an elected official's disapproval by the people. Remember George from Seinfeld in the one episode where he is trying to do something to get fired by the Yankees? He insisted it had to be something big. He said, "I want people to say, 'Wow! That guy got CANNED!'" That's how I feel about recalls.

On the Federalist Papers: The reason I like the Federalist Papers so much is they explain WHY the Constitution is important. That was the whole purpose to begin with. They speak conceptually about the Constitution and not on the finer points, hence your complaint they do not support the Bill of Rights. Jefferson described them in 1788 as "the best commentary on the principles of government, which was ever written." They help one understand the state of mind behind the Constitution. It's stunning to me that at least portions of the Federalist Papers are not required reading in our schools these days, but that's a subject for another thread.

On the 2nd Amendment: The key difference is you are focussing on the dependent clause and I focus on the independent clause. You focus on the word "regulated" and many others do as well. But that portion of the Amendment is not even necessary from a grammar and sentence structure perspective. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," It is meaningless because it is a dependent clause. People who get confused about the Framers' intent do so only because they are focussed on the dependent clause. Look at the independent clause, though, and their intent becomes clear: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It stands on its own. It does not need the first half, it is a complete and coherent thought on its own.

Also, keep in mind what the word "militia" meant back in those days. Understand the new nation had a profound lack of trust for standing armies (the tools by which governments were overthrown and dictators enforce their unjust laws over the people) and the Continental Army was not to be "stood" for periods of greater than 2 years unless they were engaged in the act of warfare. This made the "citizen-soldier" the guardian of the new nation. In many cases they were not supplied weapons and expected to keep and maintain their own in support of their obligations to the militia.

Now this brings me to the word "regulated." It is significant to the era in which the document is written, especially if you are familiar with the tactics of the era. You have no doubt seen movies from the Civil War or times prior in which the soldiers lined up and took shots at each other over open fields. Those formations were the prevalent tactics from the Civil War going all the way back pretty much to Alexander the Great and the phalanx. Obviously the invention of guns changed the employment of the formation to a degree, but the concept remained unchanged: move a large group of men by a unit. If you ever get a chance to watch a modern military unit perform close order drill, it is a hold out from this era. Units' discipline was tied to how well they could drill. How a unit was expected to perform in battle was tied to how well it could drill.

Moving a big group of individuals as a unit is not as easy as it looks. It takes discipline and practice to REGULATE them into a unit. The 2nd Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" speaks more to abled bodied men practicing movement as a unit in drills than to the private ownership of firearms. The second portion of the Amendment speaks to firearms, and you already know how I interpret that.

So I hope this helps explain why I read the amendment the way I do and my general point of view overall. I appreciate the kind words, and reciprocate. I certainly don't expect this will change your mind, but hopefully the discussion can continue to be enlightening for both sides as well as future readers.
1. In re Nixon and other similar indiscretions by elected politicians: You conveniently left out something that I posted in the previous thread: "There could be exceptions, but not just because we don't like their vote; exceptions, in my view, would be issues related to graft and collusion, illegal activities, etc." Now in regard to the concept of punishment of politicians and getting fired...2 concepts that Americans seem to relish more and more every day. I've seen Americans want a waitress fired because she brought an order of eggs scrambled instead of sunny side up; parents who wanted a teacher fired because she made a 2 point error in grading a test; and of course, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Fire, punish, fire, punish. Do I recall that you're in the military? My father was lifelong military. I know the mistakes made in the military...sometimes leading to international incidents. Not many military people get fired or even punished. Things get glossed over fairly often. Everyone makes mistakes. Even politicians. Even you. Do you expect to get fired if you make a mistake? Is it necessary to punish you if you make a mistake?

2. We will never the settle the 2nd amendment wording. Proof that the founding fathers didn't always write well. But, if we are going to honor the Constitution, we must take it in its entirety, not dissect out the phrases that we like. But now that we mention the founding fathers, is "recall" mentioned in the Constitution? And when you talk about the founding fathers, which founding fathers? Conservatives always tend speak as if the founding fathers were one cohesive group with carbon copy opinions. But they weren't. Their opinions on government were as diverse as American public thought is today, and the discussion back then was even nastier than it is today.

3. I totally reject your view of what regulated means.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 10:38 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,539,435 times
Reputation: 7604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak View Post
This man actually said this. And you wonder why we want him gone?
His whole little speech on that is on youtube.

I wonder how the jews, eastern europeans and those that were outsiders in the soviet union felt about being "cleansed" by the nazis and soviets.

It is a great example of statism. He demagogues against gun owners and then worships and encourages mass homicide and violence against such gun owners, most likely carried out with gun. Funny idnit?
 
Old 07-23-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,309,007 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
His whole little speech on that is on youtube.

I wonder how the jews, eastern europeans and those that were outsiders in the soviet union felt about being "cleansed" by the nazis and soviets.

It is a great example of statism. He demagogues against gun owners and then worships and encourages mass homicide and violence against such gun owners, most likely carried out with gun. Funny idnit?
This. John Morse, as a former POLICE CHIEF (!!!!), is an unimaginable hypocrite, in regards to his stance on firearms. This sub human pile of less than human filth is an embarrassment to Colorado, El Paso county, and Colorado Springs.

Ya'll can argue this any way you want. He's done, gone, outta here. The people will have their day.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 08:32 PM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,539,435 times
Reputation: 7604
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak View Post
This. John Morse, as a former POLICE CHIEF (!!!!), is an unimaginable hypocrite, in regards to his stance on firearms. This sub human pile of less than human filth is an embarrassment to Colorado, El Paso county, and Colorado Springs.

Ya'll can argue this any way you want. He's done, gone, outta here. The people will have their day.
And just because he was former police doesn't mean anything. I have come across plenty of dumb cops more than eager to intrude on your rights and trample them if need be.
 
Old 07-24-2013, 05:33 AM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,309,007 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
And just because he was former police doesn't mean anything. I have come across plenty of dumb cops more than eager to intrude on your rights and trample them if need be.
We have good cops here, they're hard working rank and file joes that respect your right to bear arms. I've had convos with them before about the Sig I carry, it's never been negative. Most of them were jealous that they didn't get to carry it as a duty weapon.

Fwiw, Springs police just got issued new M&P's that are updated without the oxymoronic "magazine safety"
 
Old 07-24-2013, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Colorado
1,969 posts, read 1,978,651 times
Reputation: 1724
'Subhuman', wow-certainly strong feelings regarding gun control.

Colorado recall efforts grind into gear

It is an interesting time in Colorado related to the issue.
 
Old 07-24-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,309,007 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4 View Post
'Subhuman', wow-certainly strong feelings regarding gun control.

Colorado recall efforts grind into gear

It is an interesting time in Colorado related to the issue.
That's right. Gun rights. Civil rights. Our rights. I take any infringement on the right to bear arms as seriously as an infringement on civil liberties. I'm glad even the ACLU takes notice of it too.
 
Old 07-24-2013, 08:15 PM
Status: "Beach time!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,642 posts, read 11,039,572 times
Reputation: 13872
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. In re Nixon and other similar indiscretions by elected politicians: You conveniently left out something that I posted in the previous thread: "There could be exceptions, but not just because we don't like their vote; exceptions, in my view, would be issues related to graft and collusion, illegal activities, etc." Now in regard to the concept of punishment of politicians and getting fired...2 concepts that Americans seem to relish more and more every day. I've seen Americans want a waitress fired because she brought an order of eggs scrambled instead of sunny side up; parents who wanted a teacher fired because she made a 2 point error in grading a test; and of course, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Fire, punish, fire, punish. Do I recall that you're in the military? My father was lifelong military. I know the mistakes made in the military...sometimes leading to international incidents. Not many military people get fired or even punished. Things get glossed over fairly often. Everyone makes mistakes. Even politicians. Even you. Do you expect to get fired if you make a mistake? Is it necessary to punish you if you make a mistake?
It's funny you would mention the military. Accountability tends to run higher amongst those in ranks because of the amount of public trust bestowed upon the military. Don't believe me? Smoke a joint in the civilian world and see how serious law enforcement takes it. Then try that in the military and see what happens. Elected officials are similar. No, I don't want to see a waitress fired over a bad order. I understand humans are naturally flawed and I am fine with people making mistakes. But where the public trust is breeched, it's time to act. Morse was elected to represent a district, in this case a district in El Paso County. He made a decision that is not in keeping with the will of the people in that district. He is no longer doing that which he was elected to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
2. We will never the settle the 2nd amendment wording. Proof that the founding fathers didn't always write well. But, if we are going to honor the Constitution, we must take it in its entirety, not dissect out the phrases that we like. But now that we mention the founding fathers, is "recall" mentioned in the Constitution? And when you talk about the founding fathers, which founding fathers? Conservatives always tend speak as if the founding fathers were one cohesive group with carbon copy opinions. But they weren't. Their opinions on government were as diverse as American public thought is today, and the discussion back then was even nastier than it is today.

3. I totally reject your view of what regulated means.
I did not dissect it. I actually gave a very logical and informed breakdown of the 2nd Amendment. You happen to disagree, but your idea of what they meant by "regulated" falls far shorter of a plausible explanation and cannot be traced to the context of the time, language and tactics of the day like mine can. Third party readers: Decide for yourself.

Also, regarding the Founding Fathers, I have no delusion they were all on the same page with every little decision they made. I have no doubt; however, they all genuinely wanted what was best for the new nation. This is not a belief I hold regarding today's elected officials of either major party. Today's Republicans and Democrats want what's best for their own personal pocket books and portfolios. I'm sure some of them start out with good intentions, but the longer they remain in office the worse they become. This is also why I favor term limits in the U.S. House and Senate but that's a topic for a different thread.

I saw a bumper sticker that read, "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often. And for the same reason." Truer words have never been spoken.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top