Morse is pushing anti-gun agenda
Sen. John Morse continually states in his ads, which never mention anything about his anti-gun agenda, that his sole duty is to "serve and protect". What is left out of that statement is what he is really "serving and protecting".
Firstly, Sen. Morse is "serving and protecting anti-gun special interests". The special interests that have given us "Chicago-style gun laws", the same kind of laws that lead to higher levels of gun-related crime, especially when perpetrators are let off with little more than a slap on the wrist, in many cases getting only probation, even when they have a lengthy criminal record. Does Colorado want or need Chicago-style laws? Of course not, but that is indeed what the anti-gun politicians would like to see across all of America. Sen. Morse is pushing that agenda. Remember, the most egregious law Sen. Morse tried to get passed was to make victims of gun theft be responsible for crimes committed with stolen guns. That means that any gun owner that previously owned a gun that was sold at some point, and that gun was recently used in a crime, would be a candidate for a lawsuit. This is the type of anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment politician Sen. Morse is.
Secondly, Sen. Morse is "serving and protecting criminals". By making it harder for the law-abiding to keep and bear arms, the criminals are given a leg up, and the law-abiding are more likely to be victims of crime, if it is harder to own a weapon in a lawful manner.
Finally, what seems to have "faded away" in any discussion of what Sen. Morse has done is the lawsuit that was filed to overturn these laws with 55 out of 62 Colorado county sheriffs signing on to the lawsuit as plaintiffs. This says that 92 percent of Colorado sheriffs (at least), know that these laws are unenforceable and make their jobs harder because criminals can potentially get the upper hand.
Colorado is not Illinois; let's keep it that way.
Thomas Hill, Colorado Springs
Tired of violence of any kind
As a nonmember of any tea party group, and as a nonmember of the NRA, I take issue with the letter penned by Harry Carnahan. He states that people are tired of gun violence. I disagree with that assertion. We're tired of violence of any kind. We're also tired of people labeling violence by the tools used rather than the people involved. Recently, we've seen the video of a brutal school bus beating. I have yet to hear an uprising against fist violence. Over 30,000 people are killed each year on America's roadways, but no mention of automotive violence. One of every three of these fatalities are caused by alcohol and drunken driving, how about that alcohol violence? It's ridiculous to think the Boston Police Department is right now training its officers to deal with the rash of pressure cooker violence. Please stop calling it gun violence, and stop blaming the gun. I've heard it said that fools blame tools. Don't be a fool, or risk sounding foolish. Blame the person. I'm tired of criminal violence, aren't you?
Instead of focusing efforts banning the implements, let's focus on enforcing our current laws that prohibit the behavior, regardless of what tools are used. We do still have laws against murder, assault and battery, don't we? Blaming violence on a gun is ignoring the real problem of human behavior. Misdirection never solved any problem, it only helps politicians get elected, or stay in office. I for one oppose anybody who wishes to restrict our constitutional rights. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, according to the Second Amendment, remember?
Brian Frank, Colorado Springs
Questions about Kum & Go
I am opposed to the Kum & Go in Old Colorado City. Here are my questions:
Why is Goodwill treating its west-side neighbors with such disregard?
Will the proposed land uses be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? Will the proposed development overburden the capacities of existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and other public facilities?
Will the structures be located to minimize the impact of their use and bulk on adjacent properties?
Will landscaping, berms, fences and/or walls be provided to buffer the site from undesirable views, noise, lighting or other off site negative influences and to buffer adjacent properties from negative influences that may be created by the proposed development?
Will vehicular access from the project to streets outside the project be combined, limited, located, designed and controlled to channel traffic to and from such areas conveniently and safely and in such a manner which minimizes traffic friction, noise and pollution and promotes free traffic flow without excessive interruption?
Will all the streets and drives provide logical, safe and convenient vehicular access to the facilities within the project?
Will streets and drives within the project area be connected to streets outside the project area in such a way that discourages their use by through traffic?
Will safe and convenient provision for the access and movement of handicapped persons and parking of vehicles for the handicapped be accommodated in the project design?
Will the design of streets, drives and parking areas within the project result in a minimum of area devoted to asphalt? Will pedestrian walkways be functionally separated from vehicular traffic and landscaped to accomplish this? Will pedestrian walkways be designed and located in combination with other easements that are not used by motor vehicles?
Does the design encourage the preservation of significant natural features such as healthy vegetation, drainage channels, steep slopes and rock outcroppings? Are these significant natural features incorporated into the project design? (Ord. 94-107; Ord. 95-125; Ord. 01-42; Ord. 02-64; Ord. 03-74; Ord. 03-157; Ord. 09-50; Ord. 09-78; Ord. 12-72)
Donna Foster, Colorado Springs