Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 5 days, 10 hours ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

Brian, We are already fully certified with numerous dives, but this trip is more about the Snorkeling due to the family aspect. You nailed it though, what a different world when you are under the water.

0

Chris Hadlock 6 days, 19 hours ago on Ken Collins: A scary scenario

How many letters have you written Jerry? Do you think it is the Pilot censoring what they receive, or are they just receiving more letters with opinions that you disagree with?

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week ago on Middle East expert talks 'ISIS crisis' and Orlando massacre

Personal attacks and liable should not be allowed. If you are unable to discuss your viewpoints without resorting to those kinds of tactics then you should not be allowed to post.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week ago on Murphy Roberts: Make America change again

Joe, you are hilarious as in Bwahahahahaha! 27 Amendments to the US Constitution with 5 of them passed since 1960 gives lie to your assertion that it is not a "Living Document" . The very process of amending proves that it can in fact be changed to reflect the current beliefs and desires of America.

In fact, even your arguments that it is not prove the opposite.

Well written Murphy, do not let these old curmudgeons dampen your enthusiasm.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week, 5 days ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Sorry, but I will have to table this conversation until I return to Colorado. All my attention next week will be focused on breathing underwater and communing with the fishes.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week, 5 days ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Ken, my apologies if I stuck any words in your mouth, that was not intended. Those words have come at me from other contributors to this forum, and if I mistakenly applied them to you, that was wrong. I appreciate your intelligence and reasoned responses.

What would you consider to be "Reasonable Restrictions" in the environment of 2016? The previous assault weapons ban that was signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986 was challenged repeatedly but was held up as constitutional by multiple federal courts.

It seems to me that the same would hold true today.

Personally, I am more in favor of "Castle Doctrine" than in "Stand Your Ground" and would argue that the individuals 1st responsibility is to de-escalate when in the public sphere and not to stand your ground and open fire.

How far does the right to self-defense extend and how much firepower is necessary to fulfill the requirements of defense? These are serious questions that deserve serious discussion and solutions. Putting higher capacity weapons in the public arena is not a good option IMO, and I would argue that those kind of advanced tools should require a higher level of scrutiny and training.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 week, 5 days ago on Brodie Farquhar: What's going on down under?

Ken, I know you cite the Heller Vs. DC case frequently and that case did in fact uphold the 2nd amendment as applying to the individual. However, they justices (Scalia) also wrote:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Admittedly, the court’s follow-up firearms case, McDonald v. Chicago, did contain some dicta about a broader “right to self-defense.” But in no way did it extend Heller’s logic to guarantee a right to self-defense outside of the home."

How can you say your rights are unlimited when the court decision you most frequently cite manifestly disagrees with your opinion?

In addition, the previous assault rifle ban signed by Ronald Reagan was upheld multiple times in Federal Courts. How can you explain that if you have an unlimited right to any weapon you so desire? These decisions would seem to be in direct conflict with the older US v. Miller (1939) .

0

Chris Hadlock 2 weeks ago on Coloradans ponder Amendment 69's ColoradoCare

"Wow, this thing equates to another 10% in income taxes?"

I would gladly pay a 10% income tax if my health insurance premiums went away. How many of you out there can say that you are paying 10% or less of your annual income for health insurance?

In my family, that would take a combined income of about $140,000 annually for the two of us to maintain health insurance and keep the premiums at less that 10% of income. However, if you need any actual healthcare, they add another $10,000 deductible on top of those premiums leaving that income requirement closer to $250,000 annually.

That leaves my families annual healthcare costs somewhere north of $20,000 per year and neither one of us has any medical problems to speak of. Yes, I would say that 10% is the best deal going, where do I sign up!

0

Prev