Diana Eubank: Take a breath

Advertisement

Wouldn’t it be great if we all could just take a breath and a moment, slow down the hypocrisy and think about things?

As to all the letters against Sheriff Wiggins: I, for one, support him in conducting his department as he should under the law. Where is the outrage that he was not having his department enforce the law making adultery a crime? How many of the outraged citizens complaining about his intention to not enforce the new gun laws are even aware that up until just late March 2013, adultery was still against the law (as far as Colorado law was concerned)? Where is the outrage about his department not enforcing federal drug laws?

Regardless of your political affiliation, race, gender, orientation, religious (or atheistic) views, two rules we can all use to conduct ourselves every moment of our lives are: “Do unto others as they would do unto you,” and “If you cannot say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

I am not happy with the new gun laws, but as a law-abiding citizen, I will follow them while still making my views against them known. If you, as a law-abiding citizen, are happy with them, do your part by following them and by reporting your concerns if you think someone has violated them. I know Steamboat is a community of neighbors who look out for one another and never has a problem with turning a blind eye toward things.

Go out and enjoy a cup of coffee with someone that disagrees with you, as you politely agree to disagree. See what common ground you do share. Work from there.

Diana Eubank

Steamboat Springs

Comments

mark hartless 1 year, 7 months ago

I think it's " do unto others as you would HAVE them do unto you." Not "...as they WOULD do unto you".

If I did unto some people "as they WOULD do unto me" then even a sheriff as discerning as Wiggins would probably lock me up.

I completely agree about the hypocrisy, though. It is staggering the number of pot smokers, adulterers, impaired skiers, law-breaking bike riders, etc, etc, who just LOVED it when THOSE laws were not enforced but are now yammering about "the rule of law".

Intellectually bankrupt... probably from all the weed...

The really revealing thing which shows their character is the fact that most of them CAN NOT see this glaring hypocricy.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 7 months ago

Diane I would never snitch on someone for breaking a gun or drug law. The real criminals are in our State House and in DC aka the District of Criminal activity. The CIA ships in all the Heroin grown from Opium Poppies by troops in the middle east. http://www.naturalnews.com/034289_Afghanistan_opium_trade.html The Big Banks launder the money http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35914759/ and get away with paying a parking ticket size fine compared to the money they made. So if anyone out there thinks turning in your neighbor for having a 30 round clip is the right thing to do then maybe you should move to North Korea.

1

Bob Smith 1 year, 7 months ago

don't forget the goddamn fluoride! if you control the fluoride you control information!

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 7 months ago

The selective outrage is easily understood, and can be expressed in two words:

Preening. Hypocrites.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 7 months ago

Diana,

I liked the latter part of your letter. Thanks for pointing out we do have common ground and civil dialogue is key. Unfortunately, pointing to hypocrisy was not your best path to that message.

Hypocrites. I understand the talking point. I've just never found it very relevant.

In my opinion, hypocrisy is a flaw of the messenger. It is not a flaw of the message. Jon Stewart makes a living showing pundits and politicians reversing their arguments over different issues. It is funny and serves to invalidate the person. But it also dodges the argument that person made. The fact that a Senator loaded his district with sub-critical defense contracts does not make him wrong when he says the national debt is too high.

Besides, aren't we all hypocrites? I am. We care about what we care about, and that is not a consistent rationale.

Brian Kotowski complains of the “preeners” hypocrisy when they abide the federal government failing to enforce border laws and abide “sanctuary cities” that do not enforce immigration laws, but now these preeners are inconsistent by wanting these Colorado gun laws enforced. How is Brian any different if he wants these border and immigration laws enforced but he does not want Colorado’s gun laws enforced?

When my friend Loretta writes that Obama is not fully enforcing our immigration laws and not fully enforcing DOMA, it seems she would like these laws enforced. Should we then expect that Loretta wants Colorado’s gun laws enforced?

Not in my opinion. I think we are all inconsistent. What matters is what you, Brian, and Loretta have to say on the gun and constitution issue. We don’t talk about it much, but gun violence is half of this conversation too.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 7 months ago

Steve

Assuming facts not in evidence in furtherance of your pet dogma. Unsurprising. Very little distinction between you and the idiot who attributed something I said to David Koresh in an identical ploy.

Do I object to the gun control package as unenforceable and therefore ineffectual bureaucratic noise? Absolutely. Do I rail that law enforcement should ignore the new laws? I'll let you troll thru my remarks to find the answer. It could prove a novel exercise for you, as it is such a radical departure from your Pavlovian assumption/pigeonholing drool.

0

Steve Lewis 1 year, 6 months ago

There are many posts on this website advocating against Colorado's gun laws. Many letters to the editor supporting Sheriff Wiggins' dislike of the new gun laws. The Democrat's party-line effort to reduce gun violence has zero Republican support. Seems a good time to take Diana's advice and consider a different approach:

If you have spoken in opposition to these laws, what alternative approach can you offer that would reduce gun violence?

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

What alternative??? You kidding? The bleeding heart leftists don't want the death penalty, want "smack-on-the-wrist" type punishment, put murderers and rapists in better living conditions than many law-abiding citizens, throw every contrived non-sensical law one can imagine into the criminal justice system, protect criminal illegal aliens who prey on US citizens. It is the left and their most powerful lobby: "big law" that has raised "coddling criminals" and evading justice to an art form. And then they have the nerve to ask: "what alternative can you offer to reduce gun violence?" Funny.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

BTW, the not enforcing laws against adultery are clearly following Supreme Court rulings that have said that adultery, sodomy and basically any personal consensual conduct between adults is a constitutional right. (prostitution is illegal not because of the activity itself, but because it is unlicensed illegal business enterprise)

Supreme Court has also clearly stated that background checks for felons and the mentally ill is legal as well as regulating guns.

I wouldn't mind Sheriff Wiggins position if he was acting based upon legal advice from the County Attorney. But it is wrong when a sheriff starts making up his own views of the Constitution to determine what will or will not be enforced.

And for the State's Democrats, these laws are so easy because they are popular in the polls and disliked by Republicans. There is probably not one elected Democrat worried about this hurting them in the next election. The people against background checks and 15 round magazines do not vote Democratic.

2

Mike Isaac 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott you are so wrong about these laws, yes they may have more support in Big cities like Denver and Aurora maybe 55% are Haters and agree with Hitler Mao and Stalin want US disarmed to 45% are Patriots and agree with Washington, Adams and Paul Revere. But here in Routt and Moffat counties its more like 66% Patriots and 33% Haters of the 2nd Amendment. A Democrat from NW Colorado has very little in common with one from Aurora Chicago or San Francisco. Just like a Republican from NW CO has very little in common with one from the Bible Belt where the term "family value" may stir the pot the way the 2nd Amendment will here. Diane could lose her seat over this unlike the Rhonda Fields who is in a VDA "Victim Disarmament Zone" where only thugs and cops have guns unlike Routt, Moffat, Eagle or Grand counties. I know 1 thing I will hold my nose and vote for any NEO Con just to get her out of office, but I would prefer a Patriot from each party run for that seat.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Mike,

Well, Diane Mitsch Bush represents Routt and Eagle counties which is a generally Democratic district carried by Obama and so on. I have no idea where you get these numbers saying her district is some gun loving conservative Republican district.

She doesn't represent Moffat County which is a generally Republican county represented by Republican Rankin.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott you seem to be locked in this thinking that all Democrats or Republicans for that matter are a Borg Collective and think alike. and I never said that District 26 was a Republican district that included Grand or Moffat counties. What I said was when it came to firearms less populated parts of Colorado tend to be far more pro gun regardless of party affiliation than their Front Range counterparts. The online polls and the number of pro gun post out number anti gun post by about 2 to 1. Alot of Democrats in Routt County are very unhappy about her gun votes and did not expect them. However people like Rhonda Fields the pro death penalty gun Hater from Aurora surprised no one with her votes. And how Obama fits into this since Romney and McCain both voted against gun rights as governor or support parts of these laws. As you may know quite a few Bible thumping Republican were not happy with Tom Tancredo' s Pro 64 stance while former Governor Ritter was a strong No on 64. I find it insulting how you lump a entire county into one box based on party affiliation. Once you get passed the 4th grade level in politics you will find that everything is not black or white and you should put down your talking points and I hope you did not waste a lot of money with Thunderhead Training in DC because you are convincing on one and their tactics are very weak to begin with. But I do find your level of reading comprehension sad since it seems very low but I know you are smarter than that and just can not challenge political truth with talking points.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

"...any personal consensual conduct between adults is a constitutional right."

I couldn't agree more. That includes one consenting adult buying a gun from another consenting adult...

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

. That includes one consenting adult buying a gun from another consenting adult...

But that is commerce and Supreme Court has said that government can regulate commerce.

0

rhys jones 1 year, 6 months ago

Adultery just got made legal? Girls, I'm available again!!

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

"It's ok; it's legal."

Never mind right and wrong, so long as the law ( a proven moron and demonstrable ass if there ever was one) says something is legal that's all the morality I need.

We have just been given a perfect example of what Fredrich Bastiat was talking about when he said: "There are people who think that plunder loses all its immorality as soon as it becomes legal. Personally, I can not imagine a more alarming situation."

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 6 months ago

Yeah, the Representative DeGette thing was just stunning. And she made those idiotic remarks after mocking one of her elderly constituents, telling him he'd "probably be dead anyway" if someone broke into his home, and so he doesn't really need a gun. Pretty irritating that she's consuming oxygen that could be more productively used by someone with a clue.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 6 months ago

Hey Scott, In a prior post you said "BTW, the not enforcing laws against adultery are clearly following Supreme Court rulings that have said that adultery, sodomy and basically any personal consensual conduct between adults is a constitutional right " You also said " That includes one consenting adult buying a gun from another consenting adult... But that is commerce and Supreme Court has said that government can regulate commerce." Does that suggest that you would be okay with a consenting adult gifting a firearm to another consenting adult.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago

Dan,

The Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't require selling to affect interstate commerce. In a decision that upheld farming rules the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer using what he was growing still affected interstate commerce since then when he used it then he didn't have to buy it.

So I'd guess that gifting would still be considered a form of commerce.

The DeGetter thing shows remarkable ignorance. Though, that is not typical since most proponents of the law haven't been making similar comments. And she would have voted the same if she had known better.

Though, if new guns come with 15 round magazines and were illegal to buy then over time the old larger magazines would be less common. Not all magazines are interchangeable so some would presumably become obsolete as well with the introduction of newer model guns.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 6 months ago

This is PRECISELY the kind of "lawyer-speak" drivel that the left is so fond of when it can't find any logic whatsoever in its position. What a load of CRAP, Scott. "Interstate commerce" does not occur if all parties to a "gifting" or "transaction" are WITHIN the state line.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 6 months ago

Scott, I did not know that gifting would be considered commerce. Thank you for enlightening me.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.