Jump to content
You & Mark are the ones leaping to Guler's defense; suggesting his meltdown was justified; that the "validity" of his actions be viewed sympathetically; that Guler was "avoid[ing] abuse" of his property via fraudulent manipulation or disregard of written law (sans evidence); that he and not Metzger is the aggrieved party (sans evidence); that Guler, not Metzger, has engaged in criminal conduct (sans evidence).
People cheat on their taxes, exceed the speed limit, rob liquor stores, pirate DVDs, steal candy bars, scam senior citizens and shoot up elementary schools. If the possibility of violators is the yardstick for measuring the utility of a given law, then we shouldn't bother legislating standards of conduct for any activity. In light of so many crimes routinely committed on a daily basis, it's interesting how your and Mark's outrageously outrageous outrage is so easily provoked by the off chance a Purple Heart recipient may have abused the ADA simply because the possibility exists. It's just as equitable to suggest that you and Mark are rapists because you're both equipped with the relevant tools and it is therefore possible for you to commit the crime. A ludicrous, egregious, and insulting suggestion. The mud you and Mark have slung in Mr. Metzger's direction is no less so.
And of course you guys have evidence of this abuse. Oh that's right - you don't need evidence, not when you can substitute antipathy for a piece of legislation you find objectionable. You don't like it; it is therefore a conduit for fraud. Which you can't document. And Mr. Metzger is a carpetbagger who came to town peddling a “sob story.” A liar, in other words. You could just as easily accuse him of rape, simply because he's equipped with the necessary genitalia. It's possible, so he's guilty until proven innocent. All of which makes Mr. Guler a libertarian hero (who voted for Ron Paul, no doubt). Clearly we need to replace the Carl Howelsen statue with one of Mr. Guler. The plaque could read “Behold Steamboat's Howard Roark.”
We're fortunate you gentlemen are here to set us straight.
No need to push him anywhere. He's doing a fine job of stepping on his own crank without assistance from anyone. For those of us repelled by his conduct, he's on our respective $&!+ lists. Visiting friends & associates will be warned away from patronizing his business.
John Fielding: if there was evidence of an epidemic of fraudulent pet-boarding in fleabag motels via rampant abuse of the ADA, your hand-wringing might be compelling. But there's not, so it isn't.
Congratulations, Mr. Guler. You've managed to paint yourself as a world class miscreant in the eyes of everyone from granola munching lefties like John St Pierre to knuckle dragging right wingers like me. A breathtaking achievement requiring real talent. It's a talent reserved for drooling halfwits, but talent nonetheless. Well played, sir.
I encourage you to pursue an association with the Westboro Baptist Church, assuming you're not already a proud member. You're sure to find oodles of like-minded reprobates within their congregation.
An 11-year old riding the bike he got for Christmas is rushed to the hospital for surgery after being taken down by a trio of pit bulls. A neighbor runs into his house, retrieves his handgun and opens up on the dogs. A police officer opens fire as well; all three dogs are killed. The District of Columbia is going to give the neighbor a medal - NOT.
"D.C. police said they are reviewing the incident and have left open the possibility that the neighbor could be charged with violating the District’s gun laws. "
Bad neighbor. Should've charged into the fray empty handed shouting "bad dogs!" and hoped for the best. As the kid was torn limb from limb & mauled to death, at least his last moments wouldn't have been upset by the sight & sounds of an evil handgun.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Ms. Ross' point eludes me. Her letter reminds me of the spiral notebooks a high school girlfriend used to fill with similar disjointed feel-good free association. Unicorns and gumdrops signifying very little.
A sheriff speaking truth to those who don't want to hear. He understands that when seconds count, the police are minutes away: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/i-need-you-in-the-game-wis-sheriff-tells-residents-to-learn-how-to-use-a-gun-to-defend-themselves/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons
Actually John, if you'd care to engage the other side re: the Patriot Act, you'd find more agreement than not. "Amazing" how eager you are to (rightly) indict 43 for enacting it, but 44 gets a pass for enforcing its provisions. You must be a-ok with extraordinary rendition. And didn't BHO promise to close Gitmo within a year of his inaugural?...
It's instructive that you've posed such a one sided question, and don't wonder why the police need assault weapons in such a well policed city where guns are effectively banned. If gun control were effective, NYC's murder rate would be well below that per capita number you appear to be so pleased with. The NYC murder rate was one of the worst in the nation during the 80s & early 90's despite some of the most stringent gun control legislation in the country. Policing & enforcement, not gun control, is what precipitated the decline in those numbers. All gun control accomplished was to make it more difficult for the law abiding to protect themselves.
The 2nd amendment wasn’t written to protect anyone's right to shoot skeet or kill a deer. It anchors the right to protect ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the only bulwark against threats to our rights to life, liberty, speech, property, and all the rest. It emanates from the initiative to fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and state - which through all of human history had defined 'citizen' as subservient vassal. If the world is a sufficiently dangerous place that the Routt County Sheriff's Department is equipped with AR-15s, why then should a free citizenry – who are sovereign over the police – not be similarly equipped? Especially since citizens are always the ones facing those dangers long before the police arrive.
There is no constitutional rationale for public servants to be more heavily armed than the public they serve – unless the intent is for government to be in a position to subjugate the people. When the police are the only ones allowed to be armed, then we have – by definition – a police state.
Last login: Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.