So, two days ago I am driving south on 129 when I encounter 2 HWP vehicles that were finishing up a traffic stop. As I approached the area in my vehicle one of the officers managed to pull out in front of me and one of them a couple of cars behind.
As we proceeded in a miniature caravan down 129 we passed two groups of cyclists in the northbound land enjoying their ride. No problem right?
Those two groups of cyclists included a three person, and a four person group of riders. In each case the entire group was all bunched together and riding in a pack that covered almost the entire northbound lane.
My question is: Why did the Highway Patrol ignore that violation not once but twice. I have no problems with the cyclists on our roads and will never be the one pushing them with my vehicle or threatening their space. However, I expect that they will follow the rules of the road just like everyone else and I expect that out local police will enforce those regulations instead of ignoring those violations the way I observed the Highway Patrol doing this week on 129.
I wish there was a way to get this information to those officers management so that they could receive training in the area of bicycle rules and regulations. They clearly need some reminders about what rules the cyclists should be observing.
I agree with you about the registration database and cannot support that. I also agree that much of the proposed and signed legislation is feel-good and will be largely ineffective.
Having said that, do you think that one can be a gun owner and supporter but still be in favor of universal background checks and/or some limitation on capability or firepower?
It seems to me that there could be some common ground here that makes an attempt to try and create a higher level certification to own and use higher capacity weapons. Would that resolve anything in your opinion?
Given the vitriol seen on these blogs, one would think that Routt County citizens were among the most staunch opponents of the Federal Govt' that there have ever been. It astounds me how many of the people I know have read these blogs and approached me in a quiet way to support common sense gun regulation. Many of your neighbors here actually agree that we need to try and do something, they are just not all willing to put their name out there and argue with you.
Most of these mass shootings comes to an end when the shooter is either forced to change weapons or reload. When that happens some heroic joe citizen reacts and puts the guy down not with his concealed weapon but an old-fashioned body slam tackle. It would seem to me that trying to limit the number of rounds the next wacko has in the magazine is not such a bad thing and might help to limit the damage. Can you imagine the chaos in that darkened Aurora theater if there had been 15 armed individuals that each decided to "take out the shooter"?
The opponents of regulation do themselves no favors when they refer to rebelling against the tyrannical government or calls for armed insurrection and outright civil war. How will you react when that Gov't is personified in your friends and neighbors employed at the Sheriff's office? Do you really think that the Gov't takeover will begin with soldiers or might they start with Sheriff Wiggins to try and talk you out of that bunker.
Given that the Supreme court upheld the previous assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, what makes so certain that the current Colorado version is unconstitutional?
I just don' get these people that think an armed insurrection would be better for our country than working together to solve difficult problems. Do you really think that civil war is the right course?
Don't believe that I have expressed a solid opinion anywhere to be automatically labeled a "hand wringing liberal" I have asked some pointed questions and have discussed some of my thinking about ancillary issues but not much more. Quote me and prove me wrong......
My question remains unanswered. What is it about serving in military or Law enforcement that makes your opinion more valuable than those individuals that have chosen other careers?
Brian, I check my clips and found them to be the same as you describe. No stamps, dates or identifying marks and each could be modified to accept more rounds. Does the new law call for all new clips to be marked and identified? That would at least give a starting point to measure from. If not, why bother? The statement that "I bought it years ago" would be sufficient to make every single clip and weapon in Colorado legal with no proof to the contrary.
Our current laws already ban the possession of fully automatic weapons without permits, no surface to air missiles, no bombs, no RPG's etc. Even the most conservative members of the court support these restrictions but have rejected outright bans on other common classes of weaponry like pistols. All of these laws have been tested and found to be Constitutional including the expired Assault Weapons ban from 1994.
General question for all. Do you support existing regulations or are all of them Un-Consitutional in your opinion.
Jerry, what is the basis for your question on these articles? Why does it matter whether an individual has served in that capacity when it comes to discussing these issues? Are the opinions of those individuals somehow less important? Please clarify.
While I may or may not approve of the stance Sheriff Wiggins has taken, he certainly has not violated any oath IMHO. Elected Officials are political creatures and you can expect them to act and speak as such. Before accusing anyone of violating any oaths, perhaps we should hold off passing judgement until we can measure actual actions and policies instead of rhetoric. Discussion is a good thing, we should all practice listening more. Just because an individual advocates a belief different than your own does not make them radical or in violation of their oath of office.
Joe, will you accept these laws if they are found to be Consitutional by the Supreme Court? Do you accept existing firearm regulations, or are you advocating armed insurrection against our democratically elected Gov't.
Chris Hadlock 1 day, 6 hours ago on Rob Douglas: ‘Let’s be careful out there’
Rob Douglas: ‘Let’s be careful out there’
So, two days ago I am driving south on 129 when I encounter 2 HWP vehicles that were finishing up a traffic stop. As I approached the area in my vehicle one of the officers managed to pull out in front of me and one of them a couple of cars behind.
As we proceeded in a miniature caravan down 129 we passed two groups of cyclists in the northbound land enjoying their ride. No problem right?
Those two groups of cyclists included a three person, and a four person group of riders. In each case the entire group was all bunched together and riding in a pack that covered almost the entire northbound lane.
My question is: Why did the Highway Patrol ignore that violation not once but twice. I have no problems with the cyclists on our roads and will never be the one pushing them with my vehicle or threatening their space. However, I expect that they will follow the rules of the road just like everyone else and I expect that out local police will enforce those regulations instead of ignoring those violations the way I observed the Highway Patrol doing this week on 129.
I wish there was a way to get this information to those officers management so that they could receive training in the area of bicycle rules and regulations. They clearly need some reminders about what rules the cyclists should be observing.
Chris Hadlock 1 month, 1 week ago on Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Not sure how I did that but it looks cool.
Chris Hadlock 1 month, 1 week ago on Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
When you refuse to listen to the viewpoints of those that disagree with you, two things happen.
1. You are on a self reinforcing path that continues to validate and strengthen your point of view
2.. You become convinced that everyone in the world thinks like you do.
Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Cindy,
I agree with you about the registration database and cannot support that. I also agree that much of the proposed and signed legislation is feel-good and will be largely ineffective.
Having said that, do you think that one can be a gun owner and supporter but still be in favor of universal background checks and/or some limitation on capability or firepower?
It seems to me that there could be some common ground here that makes an attempt to try and create a higher level certification to own and use higher capacity weapons. Would that resolve anything in your opinion?
Chris Hadlock 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Howard Bashinski: Moving it forward
Given the vitriol seen on these blogs, one would think that Routt County citizens were among the most staunch opponents of the Federal Govt' that there have ever been. It astounds me how many of the people I know have read these blogs and approached me in a quiet way to support common sense gun regulation. Many of your neighbors here actually agree that we need to try and do something, they are just not all willing to put their name out there and argue with you.
Most of these mass shootings comes to an end when the shooter is either forced to change weapons or reload. When that happens some heroic joe citizen reacts and puts the guy down not with his concealed weapon but an old-fashioned body slam tackle. It would seem to me that trying to limit the number of rounds the next wacko has in the magazine is not such a bad thing and might help to limit the damage. Can you imagine the chaos in that darkened Aurora theater if there had been 15 armed individuals that each decided to "take out the shooter"?
The opponents of regulation do themselves no favors when they refer to rebelling against the tyrannical government or calls for armed insurrection and outright civil war. How will you react when that Gov't is personified in your friends and neighbors employed at the Sheriff's office? Do you really think that the Gov't takeover will begin with soldiers or might they start with Sheriff Wiggins to try and talk you out of that bunker.
Given that the Supreme court upheld the previous assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, what makes so certain that the current Colorado version is unconstitutional?
Chris Hadlock 2 months ago on Bob Enever: Rethink decision
Bob Enever: Rethink decision
So if the new laws require that all magazines manufactured from this day forward have identifying marks, problem solved right?
Chris Hadlock 2 months ago on Mike Lederhause: Colorado disgraced
Mike Lederhause: Colorado disgraced
I just don' get these people that think an armed insurrection would be better for our country than working together to solve difficult problems. Do you really think that civil war is the right course?
Chris Hadlock 2 months ago on Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest
Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest
Jerry,
Don't believe that I have expressed a solid opinion anywhere to be automatically labeled a "hand wringing liberal" I have asked some pointed questions and have discussed some of my thinking about ancillary issues but not much more. Quote me and prove me wrong......
My question remains unanswered. What is it about serving in military or Law enforcement that makes your opinion more valuable than those individuals that have chosen other careers?
Chris Hadlock 2 months ago on Routt and Moffat county sheriffs say they won't, and can't, enforce new Colorado gun laws
Routt and Moffat county sheriffs say they won't, and can't, enforce new Colorado gun laws
Brian, I check my clips and found them to be the same as you describe. No stamps, dates or identifying marks and each could be modified to accept more rounds. Does the new law call for all new clips to be marked and identified? That would at least give a starting point to measure from. If not, why bother? The statement that "I bought it years ago" would be sufficient to make every single clip and weapon in Colorado legal with no proof to the contrary.
Our current laws already ban the possession of fully automatic weapons without permits, no surface to air missiles, no bombs, no RPG's etc. Even the most conservative members of the court support these restrictions but have rejected outright bans on other common classes of weaponry like pistols. All of these laws have been tested and found to be Constitutional including the expired Assault Weapons ban from 1994.
General question for all. Do you support existing regulations or are all of them Un-Consitutional in your opinion.
Chris Hadlock 2 months ago on Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest
Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest
Jerry, what is the basis for your question on these articles? Why does it matter whether an individual has served in that capacity when it comes to discussing these issues? Are the opinions of those individuals somehow less important? Please clarify.
While I may or may not approve of the stance Sheriff Wiggins has taken, he certainly has not violated any oath IMHO. Elected Officials are political creatures and you can expect them to act and speak as such. Before accusing anyone of violating any oaths, perhaps we should hold off passing judgement until we can measure actual actions and policies instead of rhetoric. Discussion is a good thing, we should all practice listening more. Just because an individual advocates a belief different than your own does not make them radical or in violation of their oath of office.
Joe, will you accept these laws if they are found to be Consitutional by the Supreme Court? Do you accept existing firearm regulations, or are you advocating armed insurrection against our democratically elected Gov't.