Prevent criminals from getting guns
Dan Thomasson maligns former U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords for being an "enthusiastic" gun owner despite being shot in the head by a psychopath.
He bemoans the fact that this is a representative constitutional republic that deliberately eschews adopting the whims and caprices of popular public opinion as sound public policy, all without acknowledging that a few polls and a very vocal minority does not a majority make, much less a supermajority that would be required to amend away the Second Amendment.
Then he dances on the graves of the Sandy Hook victims while maligning the NRA which, he claims, "opposes every effort (at gun control)...no matter how sensible."
Then he wails that someone needs to bring "sanity into the fight to restrain the widespread distribution of firearms..." as if it's a fault in our republic.
It's not a fault, it's a feature, and an important one that the founders understood as vital to the continued freedom of all of us and the endurance of the union.
If Thomasson and his anti-liberty, anti-gun ilk in Congress would propose strong measures that would actually prevent "psychopaths and criminals" from getting guns, rather than devious and mendacious measures intended to debase and infringe on the rights of the law abiding, perhaps gun owners and the NRA would cooperate.
I'm not holding my breath for that.
Seth Richardson, Monument
Had things been different that night
The incident that happened that fateful night, Feb. 26, 2011, many claim could have been avoided, and they're right. Some will claim that this would never have happened if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car. Others will claim it would never have happened if the two people involved had simply talked. Instead, case evidence states Trayvon Martin started beating on Zimmerman, the situation was escalated resulting in the death of a teenager.
I'd like to present three outcomes, had things been different.
First, if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, what then? Let me ask what is the effectiveness of a neighborhood watch if the members don't observe and report? If Zimmerman saw someone he considered suspicious wandering around, possibly casing houses that had been burglarized in the previous months, why would he not keep an eye on the person? I'm not a member of a neighborhood watch, but I have approached strangers in my neighborhood and asked about their intentions. I would consider it good neighbors watching out for each other. Perhaps he set out with malice in his heart to go kill a kid, but that sounds unlikely. What happened could not have been reasonably anticipated.
Second, if Trayvon had not thrown a punch at a stranger who was following him, what then? Now imagine your child is being followed by a stranger, what would you teach him or her to do? Trayvon had a cellphone. Wouldn't it be prudent to call the police and report your stalker? That's not what happened.
He decided to commit assault and battery and escalate the situation into a physical confrontation. He should have called the police, avoiding confrontation. The two men could have simply spoken to each other.
Looking at a third option, if Zimmerman been unarmed or decided to not pull out his firearm, what then? Perhaps we would be watching a completely different murder trial, but that's also unlikely.
Trayvon was a 17-year- old minor. Had he killed Zimmerman, like he reportedly said he would do, Trayvon would probably not be tried as an adult. The Zimmerman family might be mourning.
After watching the court proceedings online, I cannot honestly see how the jury could have come to any other verdict. In any event, this tragedy could have been avoided.
Let's teach our children to act appropriately. Let's be good neighbors. Let's be more civil to each other, speak to each other instead of engaging in hostility.
Brian Frank, Colorado Springs
We must adjust our expectations
To the folks complaining about the water here:
My wife and I live (by choice) in a community that has a private water system. We pay $19.99 per one thousand gallons. City residents are restricted to 2,000 cubic feet equaling 14,960 gallons. If we used that amount it would cost us $299. I say if because we have not even been allowed to use any water outside our home for the last 18 months because our well output is very low or none. When it's none, our community has to buy water and truck it in. Then it costs $39.50 per thousand gallons. That $598.00 for your 2,000 CF.
We have had to totally give up our lawns and most shrubs. We purchase outside water to try and save our trees. Our normal usage averages right at 1,000 gals per month. As you can see, our yearly usage doesn't even equal what you are allowed per month.
Consider that this area is classified as High Plains Desert. That means that here the water supply is a finite, not unlimited resource. Living here requires that we must adjust our expectations to meet that fact and plan our properties and lives to meet local conditions. According to precipitation records, this area has received above average amounts of water for the past few decades.
We cannot assume that precipitation will return to that level. We need to assume that it will not and plan accordingly. So far the city has been able to meet the current demand for water. Think though, if the rainfall continues at the present rate, how long will that be that case.
It is time to quit complaining and realize that to live here we must do all we can to reduce our water use and demand that our city leaders do all they can to reduce the needs of the city. Of course, you can ignore all that and go find another place to live where water is plentiful.
Garry Dykes-Modlens, Colorado Springs