Jump to content
Not to spoil your joy, but the data is from 2012. Recreational MJ, as you know, didn't start till 2014. I do suspect the numbers, when tallied, will reflect an upswing in usage since legalization, but these numbers do not do that. Just an aside, if you want to see real increase, look at heroin usage. Up 80% since 2007…… script oxy appears to be the leading cause as heroin is cheaper than oxy on the street. Haven't we had a few heroin bust in SBS/Craig over the past year or so?
I don't have a pony in this race. I will continue to own what I own regardless. I do have to question a couple of Renee's comments however. The constitution is not written so any reasonably educated person can understand it. The language used is convoluted and arcane. I recently read it front to back and found myself shaking my head various times. (I have a masters degree and was in the educational field for 35+ yrs, so I asume that meets your definition of reasonably educated.). If the constitution was as clear as you stated, there would be no need for a Supreme Court. I understand you feel you know our founders' motives and the underlying meanings of their writings, but that we disagree on many aspect shows it may not be as clear as you think.
Lastly, do you really want any right totally unfettered? It's okay with you if I own a tactical nuke? Is it really okay for me to threaten someone because we have a 1st ammendment? The examples go on and on.
I agree many topics need a national conversation, the purpose of weapons in our society being one of them. However, whenever someone starts a conversation with an absolute, that conversation will fail and our country will continue to divide instead of being united.
I guess we can agree to disagree. We do not hold corporations or their individuals accountable to any significant degree, never have, never will. (except for some sacraficial lambs) I do not have faith that any "market" that is driven by maximizing profits will result in anything good for the earth or living things. How do you hold a mult-national corporation accountable for producing a product for 50+ yrs (cigarettes/fracking for example) that is found to adversely effect the health of folks or the environment? How do you undo thousands of deaths or a compromised water source that was the result of the seach for higher profits? For a glaring example of what can go wrong with a "market" provider left free of meaningful oversight one simply needs to look at Monsanto.
I do agree that the government allowed itself to be influenced unduely by the corn growers (another example) that has lead to a food chain that is predominately corn based and extremely unhealthy..... but it was the market that influenced the government, not the other way around. I do agree, shame on both.
I will never be a fan of Montessori (I was in the Ed field for 35+ yrs), but do agree that our approach to education needs redirection. The emphasis on traditional college and lack of status for the skilled trades is to the detriment of our country and our children. Being able to think critically is very important, as is the ability to do something with that knowledge. That is one of the gaps I see in the way we approach education. However, even the ability to think critically can not overcome information that is absent or distorted. For example, if the ingredients of a product are not listed accurately, all the critical thinking skills in the world will not change the fact that an informed decision can not be made. Few, if any, food producers would willingly list their ingredients. This distortion/absence of accurate information is everywhere in our "connected" society..... with no one held accountable.
Much of the government at all levels needs to be reconsidered, as do our values regarding the place of maximized profit motive in our lives. As long as we allow profit and material gain to be our leading values, we as individuals and as a nation will not reach our potential and large segments of our nation will struggle to have even life's most basic needs. Shame on us.
John-The flaw in your stance is the assumption that the "markets" will not do anything that is detrimental to the earth and it's occupants and are in no need of oversight. I think history has shown that this is not the case. In your modal, who/what will protect us against products/services that will do us and/or the earth harm? It's difficult to protect your body when the "market" produces and sells food that is not created because it's healthy, but rather is created to produce the highest profit margin. The statement "markets" are not selfish may or may not be true, but the players in those markets are self serving. I would also have to disagree that we are jealous of what other's have. When this exist, it is a creation of those controlling the markets (advertising) and is not a natural human condition. Cooperation is the natural state of social beings.
Who will insure that our children will be taught information that is based on science/facts rather than religious superstition (such as what's happening in Texas and Tenn. right now)?
Who will keep the financial markets honest? I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
There's is little doubt that our government has many aspects that are not working well and need to be fixed, but dismantling it is not the answer. Someone/something has to balance the greed of captialism (esp corporate capitalism) with the interest of the people and the planet. Effective government can provide this. It is up to the people to demand this.
It does not have to be business or government. The relationship does not have to be adversarial, it can be complimentary. I suspect the conflict is promoted by both sides because it is profitable to both. This conflict is a values issue, not a natural state. We as a nation can overcome this, the question is will we?
Just have to do it..... tried to ignore it...... just couldn't do it. Mark... go to Teapartypatriots.com. There you will be able to read their stance on the 2nd amendment-comments section to the NRA article is particularly enlightening. Their postion is very clear..... the government has no jurisdiction over a person's "right" to bear arms..... carry a weapon, concealed or not. I think this qualifies my position that they promote "everyone" carry a weapon as truth, not "a lie".
Scott-so true. I don't mean to sound off topic, but I can't believe the DA did not pursue the weapon charge more vigorously. A tragic situation was a second from becoming a reality, yet that seems to be okay. The situation was very emotionally charged, a weapon ( I assume loaded) was taken from a secure place (which means it was handled-could be discharged) and put in a place accessable to both parties. One emotional based action and someone is dead. If that had happened, the community would be sadden, outraged and left wondering how something like that could happen in their protected bubble. The mentality that carrying a lethal weapon is okay, having laws that make it legal to use lethal force if you feel threatened is okay, that there are unpatriotic, non-Americans in our mist that we must defend against.... these attitudes lead to tragedies that we narrowly avoided...... this time. With the current mentality in our country, a Trayvon Martin situation could happen anywhere..... including our beautiful SBS. Unfortunately, hate and fear is in every community in America...... thanks, in part, to the media fear machine and a segment of our society that draws us/them lines. We are all Americans and are all in this together-despite what some factions would have us believe. Citizens carrying guns is not something that will unite us, or protect us. As long as the us/them mentality exist we will not feel safe, no matter how many guns we carry.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The "second amendment" is a t-baggie focal point (at least their interpetation of it) and they have been known to prove their point by wearing weapons to rallies and the infamous "from my dead fingers" comment. You are right, they don't say "everyone", just everyone they approve of should carry.
Your example of the justification for the stand your ground law is touching..... not quite as touching as a young man walking thru a neighborhood minding his own business, being confronted by an armed, gung-ho neighborhood watch patrol like he's doing something wrong, standing HIS ground, then being shot to death for standing his ground against an unjustified confrontation.
When is the last time your example happened in SBS? Routt County? Colorado?
Lastly, why is it you assume that the wife can't protect herself? (are women so weak/incapable?)..... that the intruder is on God-knows what drug? (only drugged up folks break into houses?) It is this type of stereotyping rhetoric that the fear mongers rely on.....
Mark.... I am far from anti-gun. I hunt and own many guns. That being said, I find the t-baggie mentality that society would somehow be safer if everyone carried a weapon to be absurd. I know many folks that carry 24/7, but if they are ever in the situation where they feel they have to use their weapon, I want to be far, far away. Most folks that carry are not trained to use it under duress. It's one thing to hit a target at the range, it's quite another to point it at a human and squeeze the trigger, esp if one is excited and/or or feels threatened. (ever had buck fever?)
That mentality, combined with their promotion of legalized murder (stand you ground laws) in no way makes for a safer society. The baggies seem to feel that this mentality somehow makes them a more patriotic American or some such thing. For me, it only makes them dangerous to their fellow Americans.
Let me get this straight..... a gun is in a secure holster in a purse, there's an altercation, the gun is removed from the secure holster and purse and put on a table "functionally removing it from the equation". Seems to me that a gun left in a holster in a purse is "functionally removed from the equation" and a gun put on the table is functionally in play. This woman having a conceal permit to begin with makes me want our state to rethink it's conceal law. A "what if" question..... what if Colorado had a "Stand you Ground" law like Florida? These types of laws are promoted by T-baggies and their like. I suspect Victory and those like her have never been around lead flying threw the air. It has a habit of hitting unintended targets. I for one feel a lot safer knowing at least one "crazy's" conceal permit has been removed.
Last login: Sunday, December 28, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.