Jump to content
Y'all know how I hate to agree with Scott. But, yeah, first thought I had reading this was, does the County need new facilities? No? Just Steamboat? But I have to pay? Maybe that property I bought shoulda been a few more miles to the south so I wouldn't need to worry myself about the absurdities resulting from how, after I just decided to move yet another 20 miles further away from Steamboat Springs, I'm still expected to pay for a new police station, there.
F(orget) that. Especially if y'all are serious that Steamboat still needs to be designated as "blighted" even after its recent inclusion in the Economic Zone thing. If I could move closer to Vail without being trapped in the orbit of those people, I would -- except nowadays Steamboat people scare me just as bad, for being in favor of this sort of lunacy.
I was all in favor of a shared facility, before it came about that I was expected to pay for it, despite it not being needed by RCSO.
Srsly, no offense intended. I'm one of those 911 "truthers" myself, but have long wished Alex Jones would just shutup, as he discredits any issue he purports to believe in.
BY DESIGN! Adnan Khashoggi's design. Why do you think infowars is so insistent on the Israelis were behind 911, when 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, just like -- OMG, REALLY? -- Khashoggi. With all the right royal and CIA ties to our government to be the first on the list of people not to believe.
This also applies to their lackies like Alex Jones. Beware agreeing with him on anything -- he only says what he does to discredit you. That's his JOB, man!
Meh, only folks who find Alex Jones a reliable source of information, believe your statistic. Far too few of U.S. mass murders have been perpetrated by anyone formerly believed to have mental issues, let alone were on SSRIs.
As with any statistic, there's all the room in the world for the unscrupulous to twist it to fit their preconceived agenda. Which, seriously dude, is what the infowars website is all about.
I respect you enough, not for having the same name but for other comments you've made here in the past, to suspect you'll get over your current infatuation with Alex Jones.
"The most visible of these registration/ confiscation lessons in history was Adolph Hitler's Germany which made possible the Holocaust as there could be no armed resistance from the Jews or anyone else not in the Natzi party. The second amendment was drafted in order to insure that an armed populace could never be subjugated by it's own government."
No, no, no, no, NO!!!
You may be more brushed up on the details of gun registration/ownership than I am, but I find your other positions to be inherently un-Constitutional, to be polite about it.
Our Founders devised a government of, by, and for the People in which no extremist Fascist faction could ever rise to power, and they were certain enough of that to not need any sort of "second amendment remedies" to prevent it. THAT'S THE POINT OF CITIZENS HAVING THE VOTE.
And the first amendment, as far as being Jewish (and hopefully Muslim, except apparently in Texas) goes. The Constitution, in and of itself, insures that the population cannot be legally subjugated. The second amendment is about oppressing the slaves who made this country great, not empowering the citizens who wanted that (i.e. the ones who wrote the Constitution, like slave-owning Jefferson who voted, along with Madison, to ban guns from the University of Virginia campus) to go on and overthrow the government if they didn't like having their "property" stolen from them.
The reality you espouse, only exists in some parallel universe where the Confederacy prevailed. In my reality, in this universe, the Union victory decisively ended any notion that the second amendment means what you think it means.
No they don't, otherwise y'all would remember the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, and other examples of how the Second Amendment has nothing to do with unconstitutionally taking up arms against what most folks consider to be our rightful government.
While I might agree with some of your points, you lose me when you make them in a misguided effort to prove that the Constitution supports taking up arms against the government, any time enough gun owners band together to do so. Because history proves otherwise, it must also prove post-2008 Supreme Court decisions were not just wrong, but dangerous to the majority of citizens, by postulating that the Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, etc. were righteous causes which should have prevailed in their time.
"Because registration and background checks lead to government abuse. Because government uses such things as tools for manipulation and for targeting."
You're right, that remote possibility absolutely outweighs a mass-killing-by-gun rate in this country of over one per day, now. Clearly, no reason exists to try to do anything about it, because gummint's the real enemy, blah blah blah.
WE THE PEOPLE, are the government. If we've gotten away from that, I still don't think armed insurrection is the answer. We may be getting close, but not close enough for me to support any last-ditch measures like taking up arms against the government because I wish I didn't have to pay my duly-enacted tax bills. Or shoot abortion doctors, because only Christian conservatives should have a say in legislative affairs, in a country founded by Deists.
Planned Parenthood isn't fighting tooth-and-nail for your tax dollars, they're fighting tooth-and-nail for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement that any other non-abortion-providing clinic automatically receives from the government (i.e. our tax dollars, and well-spent at that) without any threat of shutting down government over their providing Constitutionally-protected services.
Nothing special there, certainly nothing illegal. Kinda like Whitewater, or Benghazi. At some point, after failing to convince anyone of anything of the sort that you fantasize might potentially happen yet never does, can't y'all just drop it? Instead of doctoring up videos to promote fake outrage over stuff that actually NEVER HAPPENED in an absurdly desperate attempt to prove your point?
I'm not a Hillary fan either, but sheez.
The number of mass gun killings in the interim?
Honestly, I've lost count, because long ago I became ashamed of my fellow countrymen who think the solution is more people with guns, in more places, without anyone needing to be trained to use one, or respond to any incident with one, or de-escalate, or not outright shoot the victim, or the guy with a gun who turns out to be the good Samaritan who just disarmed the perp.
Keeping count would break my heart. If this is the reality of gun ownership as an individual right post-2008's ill-advised Supreme Court legislating-from-the-bench living-document decisions by CONSERVATIVE justices, then I can only suggest outright repealing the 2nd Amendment which empowers this view, as having nothing to do with it (and everything to do with slave-patrol militias) in any remotely strict-constructionist way, and certainly no relevance to our modern militia-free age, just to do away with the confusion resulting from modern NRA-propaganda definitions of terms like "bear arms" to mean you can bring your gun to freaking church.
No, the gun-toting bystander in the crowd at some horrific event, is clearly the best person to make that call.
Seriously. When that Arizona Judge was killed and the Congresswoman shot in the head, the bystander with the CC permit and a sidearm pulled his piece, then decided not to shoot anyone, thank God.
In his debrief, he said that if he had shot the guy with the gun, he woulda wound up shooting the hero of the day who wrestled that very gun from the perp -- despite he didn't have a gun of his own, I might add.
The next guy with a gun at the scene of a crime? Did shoot! The victim, in the head! Then he policed up his casings and SKEDADDLED!
Can we please come up with a more rational solution, than relying on untrained-but-armed bystanders?
OTOH, if we'd actually provide black children in this country with basic education, maybe we'd have more people like this:
Maybe you're an exception, Mark, but myself and any number of friends and relatives (even my redneck, racist Arkansas cousins) owe our lives to the man every time we, or anyone we know, needs trauma surgery.
What negates your "grievance culture" point, is how many Americans with righteous grievances put that aside for the better good. Not something I find you capable of, who lives for your grievances.
Otherwise, why the anger towards rap music and Hollywood, which are merely reflections of our culture? Or, more particularly, the us-against-them mentality you espouse on any issue, particularly racial?
My opinion, is if any number of generations of poor southern blacks had been provided an education by their governing whites, who knows how many more Dr. Drews this country would have produced? And no, I don't mean the guy on MTV I don't owe shit because I've had a transfusion in my life, during trauma surgery.
Today's conservatives, are yesterday's anarchists. Holding one's breath until blue for being unable to pass any illegal bill of attainder du jour (by which I mean threatening to shut down the government over ACORN, or Planned Parenthood, or anything else before or since, or bound to happen in the future) fits my definition of anarchy. If you don't like it, I'm willing to listen to your re-definition of anarchy that excuses today's GOP base.
Last login: Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.