[general]

Jim Spencer Column in Denver Post online (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,10023,36%7E27772%7E,00.html)
Article Published: Friday, May 02, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST
jim spencer
In legislature, peace doesn't get a chance
By Jim Spencer


It's official. Being a peacemaker is not a family value. Carrying a peacemaker is.

I know this because the self-appointed Republican caretakers of morality just killed not one but two attempts to get the Colorado General Assembly to endorse nonviolence at home, in schools and at work.

Earlier, the GOP-dominated legislature voted to gut local restrictions on carrying guns and getting concealed weapons permits.

You may need weapons because last week, the House committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs dumped two versions of a resolution passed in 26 other states. It urged people to use the nonviolent methods of Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "and other great peacemakers."

One nonviolence bill simply got passed over indefinitely. The other came dangerously close to passing out of the committee, threatening Coloradans' right to settle their differences the old-fashioned way.

At first, a majority of committee members voted for the measure, which was symbolic and involved no expenditures, no holiday, no curriculum changes.

Sure, Rep. Mike May, R-Parker, worried that he would no longer be able to watch "The Flintstones" because the measure encouraged families to avoid violent entertainment. But the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, assured May that he could still chill with Fred and Barney. So May said yabba-dabba-do to peaceful problem solving.

"All we're talking about is respecting yourself and others," Veiga said. "I thought these were things we could all agree on."

Thank goodness, committee chairman Bill Cadman halted this dangerous drift toward talk therapy. Cadman, a Republican who represents that bastion of tolerance, Colorado Springs, pulled the measure until he could bring his colleagues to their senses. The committee reconsidered, and every Republican on the GOP-laden panel voted against nonviolence.

Rep. Kevin Lundberg explained his change of heart: "After further reflection, I realize this resolution encourages, at best, a postmodernist view of philosophy that the people who voted to send me here would find repugnant."

I spent Wednesday afternoon in Berthoud, where Lundberg lives, trying to find out why his constituents find "a postmodernist view of philosophy" repugnant.

It would have been a lot easier if any of his constituents knew what "a postmodernist view of philosophy" was.

Standing inside Berthoud Drugs, one of the low-rise brick structures that make up Berthoud's four-block downtown, 18-year-old high school senior Sam Schleiger confessed his ignorance.

"I have no idea what that is," Schleiger said.

Sipping on ginger beer outside Berthoud Candy Shop, 62-year-old Jim Miller and 64-year-old Ken Krieger burst into laughter at Lundberg's contention that his constituents found postmodernism repugnant.

"Do you understand what that means?" Krieger asked Petie, a rat terrier he held on his lap. "Probably better than I do."

Out at the L&M Garden Center, store manager Derek Helme took a shot. Postmodernist philosophy, he said, is broadly defined as the belief that "peace is not established through the might of governments, but through negotiation." Helme didn't necessarily agree with that point of view. But he didn't find it repugnant either.

"I would have voted for the resolution," he said. "Why make trouble over something like this? It's tokenism at best."

At worst, said L&M owner Larry Bebo, it's "political mumbo-jumbo."

"I don't need Kevin worrying about this," Bebo continued. "I need him worried about getting goods and services delivered."

Now, that would have been a reason to vote against any frivolous resolution in this session of the General Assembly. Sure, there was a billion-dollar deficit to make up. But there was still time to pass a resolution on Scottish tartans and a resolution on Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization. There was time to declare a Spay and Neuter Your Pets Day. There was time to debate and dump resolutions on epilepsy awareness and treatment and honoring peacemakers. And, obviously, there was time for Lundberg to blame his bizarre social agenda on the people he represents.

Lundberg's explanation passed a smell test about as well as the livestock farms that line the roads in parts of his legislative district.

Here's how Lundberg defines postmodernist philosophy: "There are no absolutes in this world. What may be right for you may be wrong for me. What is truth to you, and what is truth to me may be contradictory. Nobody's wrong. Everybody's right. It's incompatible with logical thought."

Actually, what defies logic is voting against a harmless resolution that asked folks to resolve differences with respect, tolerance, communication and forgiveness.

If those goals don't symbolize what America ought to be, I look forward to the Republicans' pre-modernist mantra of family values: Blessed are the Flintstones for they shall inherit the Earth.
*************
I emailed him a different Ghandi quote...
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -
and told him to have a nice day.....My hero.

[Apple a Day]

Sigh. Poor Jim didn't find enlightenment by moving west after all. It seems he's just as confused as he was before we chased him out of Virginia. :D
Maybe you should send him some quotes from Ghandi and MLK abou self defense. :evil:

[Standing Wolf]

Now you know why I subscribe to neither of Denver's purported "newspapers."

[general]

Was gonna cancel my sub. after the FFL rule in the classifieds....never got around to it - like to know what those people up there are up to...

[general]

Thanks for your thoughts.
Jim Spencer

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXX
To: jspencer@denverpost.com
Sent: 5/4/2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Ghandi Quote

You forgot this Ghandi quote....
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -
Maybe you should visit this site..
http://www.libertyoutlet.com/store/bystore.html?store=2
<http://www.libertyoutlet.com/store/bystore.html?store=2>
Have a nice day.

[VaughnT]

I thought it was "mahatma" ghandi? Any way you look at it, this guy is ignorant.

What's the point of voting FOR this legislation? It's a pointless waste of time and energy....things which could be better spent on budget issues, healthcare, welfare, crime....

[Flying V]

Mohandas was his name. "Mahatma" is a title of respect, meaning "great soul".

[DigitalWarrior]

Thanks V! I saw that discrepancy but figured that it was an issue of dialect. I never thought that I would be learning Indian titles of respect on a firearms discussions board.

That is real diversity training.

[enfield]

That is real diversity training.

Don't ever say 'diversity training' around here! :cuss:

Dang, I said it. :fire:

[general]

Jim Spencer (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27772%257E1404360,00.html)
New gun laws aim for safety but miss mark
By Jim Spencer
As far as the state of Colorado is concerned, Marti Gabaldon can parade home from her night job at Kmart displaying a loaded gun.

The city of Denver doesn't think that's a good idea.

Neither does Gabaldon. The 61-year-old grandmother makes a good argument for letting localities decide their own gun rules.

The General Assembly just passed a law that took away that right. The legislature prohibited localities from having stricter gun laws than the state.

Gabaldon thinks Denver is more violent than when she moved here 50 years ago. More police patrols in neighborhoods make sense, she said. But she doesn't believe newly imposed state standards will protect her or anyone else.

The new rules make it easier to get concealed- weapons permits in Denver. They also allow the once-banned open display of weapons so long as you don't threaten or menace anyone.

By week's end, the city is expected to file a lawsuit asking the courts to reinstate local authority over gun control.

The battle is all so much political mumbo-jumbo to Gabaldon. All she wants is to feel secure.

"I don't have a gun in my home because I don't think it's safe," she said. "I wouldn't want to shoot anybody. They'd probably take the gun and shoot me. I guess you have the right to bear arms. But I couldn't do it."

Several Denver residents reflected Gabaldon's views as they came and went from the Kmart on Monday night. The store was a lot busier than Denver police headquarters had been earlier in the day.

In anticipation of a crush of business, an officer oversaw a foot-high pile of concealed- weapons permit applications. Few takers showed up. By the end of the day Tuesday, the number of prepaid concealed-weapons applications in the city numbered in the dozens, not the hundreds.

There was something encouraging in that statistic, something manifested in the thoughts of the folks outside Kmart.

"I don't need a weapon," said Alan Robarge. "I guess it depends on the neighborhood you live in."

Robarge lives in upscale Washington Park. But he thought for a second and added, "I wouldn't have a gun no matter where I live. And I've lived in Spanish Harlem and the East Village in New York City."

Fear drives most people to purchase and carry handguns. The idea that anyone can be secure without a firearm is anathema to the gun lobby. They're entitled to their view. Trouble is, the moguls of muzzle flash hold so much sway over the Republicans in the legislature and the governor's office that they can can impose their will on localities that never shared their paranoia.

"I don't feel like I'd have a need for a concealed-weapons permit," said Denver resident Tom Mercer. "I haven't had a reason to feel unsafe."

Gabaldon gets nervous walking home alone from Kmart after dark. But she'd rather pray than pack a pistol. She simply doesn't believe in peace through superior firepower.

I'd wager that most Denver residents don't.

The concealed-weapons law allows sheriffs to issue "emergency" 90-day permits to people as young as 18.

You wonder who's going to protect the rest of us from a terrified, hormone-roiled adolescent who can convince some deputy that he's in "immediate danger." You wonder that because the state rules say that he "need not submit documentary evidence demonstrating competence with a handgun."

Dude, where's my heat?

Forcing the people of Denver to subordinate their gun laws to Big Brother in the Capitol makes a joke of the Republican mantra of small government.

If Denver's lawsuit fails to re-establish home rule on gun control, here's some of what's at stake:

Besides schools, courthouses and a couple of other exempted categories, guns can't be kept out of public buildings unless all entrances have permanent weapons screening, said Mike Goodbee, Colorado's assistant attorney general for criminal justice.

Also, a Denver safe storage law designed to keep guns away from children is on the chopping block. No statewide statute exists for such security.

Finally, Denver can look forward to what assistant city attorney David Broadwell calls sign pollution: "No Guns" signs posted on just about every building and park in the city.

"The new law says private property owners and companies may disallow guns," Goodbee said. "Presumably you'd have to post something, or how would you know?"

Without signs, Broadwell foresees cases where bar or restaurant owners must confront armed customers and tell them to leave.

On the other hand, he said, there are concerns that so many "No Guns" signs will make Denver appear dangerous.

David Broadwell should talk to Marti Gabaldon. She'll tell him the truth:

Any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous.
:fire:
"I don't have a gun in my home because I don't think it's safe," she said. "I wouldn't want to shoot anybody. They'd probably take the gun and shoot me. I guess you have the right to bear arms. But I couldn't do it."
I GUESS you have the right?:fire:
Robarge lives in upscale Washington Park. But he thought for a second and added, "I wouldn't have a gun no matter where I live. And I've lived in Spanish Harlem and the East Village in New York City." Cause THEY WON"T LET YOU!
Forcing the people of Denver to subordinate their gun laws to Big Brother in the Capitol makes a joke of the Republican mantra of small government. Forcing the people of Denver to subordinate their Second Amendment rights to the bigots in the Denver City Council is the real joke.:cuss:
Any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous. By "ALMOST ANYBODY" do you mean you'd feel safer having only criminals carrying guns in the city of Denver?

[general]

"David Broadwell should talk to Marti Gabaldon. She'll tell him the truth:
Any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous."

Dear Jim,
Criminals carry anywhere and everywhere. So - you feel safer having only the criminals carrying guns? Disarm the law-abiding, that will make everyone safer? How about "Only Criminals Should Have Guns", there is a good rallying cry for you. Or I guess what you really want is "All Guns Are For Criminals"?

I just don't get it, explain it to me. Why should law abiding citizens be put at a disadvantage when it comes down to defending his or her life from violent criminals?

Cordially,
XXXXXXXX
Sheesh - this guy really makes me want to VOMIT!
:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[general]

The people of Denver support local control of gun laws . The state is trying to take that away. The city will comply with the new shall-issue requirement, but wants to retain control of where a person can carry a concealed or openly displayed weapon. But the short answer to your question is that I believe most of the residents of Denver choose not to carry concealed or openly displayed weapons because they feel that guns do more harm than good. And I also believe that most residents of Denver don't want the state dictating that concealed or openly displayed weapons can be carried in restaurants, bars, parks or any place else that doesn't specifically post a NO GUNS sign.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Jim Spencer
Metro Columnist
The Denver Post

[Standing Wolf]

Any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous.

Barbra Steisand! Denver's violent crime rates are much higher than the rest of Colorado's.

[general]

Here's some letters to the Editor from the DP. to keep you up to date...DPO (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~416~1427992,00.html)
Typical liberal
How typical of liberal journalism: Columnist Jim Spencer relies on the ignorant and untutored to support his preconceived dogma that permitting law-abiding citizens to carry guns is bad. He quotes a 61-year-old grandmother, a night worker at Kmart, to support the proposition that "any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous."

Why doesn't he quote some noted researcher such as John Lott, whose studies have conclusively demonstrated that an area's crime rate falls in direct proportion to the number of law-abiding citizens who are armed? If disarming citizens makes a city safer, then New York City and Washington, D.C., would be the safest.

The police can't protect us, and the courts have consistently held beginning with Riss vs. New York, that they have no duty to do so.

SAM FRIZELL
Mancos
:p AND.......

New laws a bull's-eye

Re: "New gun laws aim for safety but miss mark," May 21 Jim Spencer column.

The last sentence of Jim Spencer's anti-gun column reads: "Any place that lets almost anybody carry guns almost anywhere is dangerous."

I had thought that journalists were supposed to be objective. Having worked in metro-area law enforcement, I can assure you there are many thousands of people living in Denver who have been convicted of felonies and are therefore not eligible to apply for a carry permit. Also, there are thousands of people who have been convicted of, or are under investigation for, domestic violence. Several police officers having been found guilty of this last item since I moved here in 1977)

To say "almost anybody" and "almost anywhere" is a patently false representation of the facts. Even more relevant, the fact that so may bad guys carry guns without bothering to apply for a permit is exactly why I want one.

Is my family any less worthy of protection than Wellington Webb's just because I am not the mayor? I think not.

MARK LIVERIS
Highlands Ranch

Way to go guys...:D

[Combat-wombat]

*** is up with that?:cuss:

[Stetson_CO]

You wonder who's going to protect the rest of us from a terrified, hormone-roiled adolescent who can convince some deputy that he's in "immediate danger." You wonder that because the state rules say that he "need not submit documentary evidence demonstrating competence with a handgun."

I was under the impression that adolescents could not own handguns. The age thing, 21 I believe, prevents that. I could be wrong but Im pretty sure on this one.


c):{

[jimpeel]

And I also believe that most residents of Denver don't want the state dictating that concealed or openly displayed weapons can be carried in restaurants, bars, parks or any place else that doesn't specifically post a NO GUNS sign.
A journalist who begins a sentence with a conjunction has no credibility. Perhaps he should go back to Scholastic rock.

http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/gilly/Schoolhouse_Rock/sound/conjunction.au

Music & Lyrics: Bob Dorough
Sung by: Jack Sheldon
Animation: Phil Kimmelman and Associates

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.
}} Conjunction Junction, how's that function?
I got three favorite cars
That get most of my job done.
}} Conjunction Junction, what's their function?
I got "and", "but", and "or",
They'll get you pretty far.

"And":
That's an additive, like "this and that".
"But":
That's sort of the opposite,
"Not this *but* that".
And then there's "or":
O-R, when you have a choice like
"This or that".
"And", "but", and "or",
Get you pretty far.

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up two boxcars and making 'em run right.
Milk and honey, bread and butter, peas and rice.
}} Hey that's nice!
Dirty but happy, digging and scratching,
Losing your shoe and a button or two.
He's poor but honest, sad but true,
Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo!

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up two cars to one
When you say something like this choice:
"Either now or later"
Or no choice:
"Neither now nor ever"
}} Hey that's clever!
Eat this or that, grow thin or fat,
Never mind, I wouldn't do that,
I'm fat enough now!

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up phrases and clauses that balance, like:
Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
He cut loose the sandbags,
But the balloon wouldn't go any higher.
Let's go up to the mountains,
Or down to the sea.
You should always say "thank you",
Or at least say "please".

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses
In complex sentences like:
{"In the mornings, when I am usually wide awake,
I love to take a walk through the gardens and down by the lake,
Where I often see a duck and a drake,
And I wonder as I walk by
Just what they'd say if they could speak,
Although I know that's an absurd thought."}

}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up cars and making 'em function.
}} Conjunction Junction, how's that function?
I like tying up words and phrases and clauses.
}} Conjunction Junction, watch that function.
I'm going to get you there if you're very careful.
}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
I'm going to get you there if you're very careful.
}} Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
I'm going to get you there if you're very careful.

[general]

Just posting Jim's thoughts to keep you informed of his histronics in The Denver Post
DPO online (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,10023,36%7E27772%7E,00.html)
Innocent pay price for easy gun access
By Jim Spencer, Denver Post Columnist

I'm still getting hate mail for a May 21 column that criticized the state for diluting local gun laws.

I haven't heard a word from the Sons of the Second Amendment about Garry Scott McLaughlin.

This doesn't surprise me. McLaughlin, an 18-year-old honor student and the stepson of a district judge, shoots holes in the idea that easy access to guns makes Colorado safer.

McLaughlin is dead. He was shot to death June 1 for the decidedly un-deadly offense of asking some young party crashers to leave his home.

McLaughlin personifies truth in a state and country that would have you believe that guns protect and might makes right.

A gun would not have saved McLaughlin, said his stepdad, Jack Berryhill, a judge in Gilpin and Jefferson counties.

"He wouldn't have been better off with a gun. He wouldn't have had a chance to counterfire.

"The thing is, you wouldn't think a bunch of kids crashing a party would have guns. I crashed parties when I was a teenager. Guns never entered the picture."

Where firearms are seen as the be-all, end-all of civilized society, guns are never out of the picture.

Police have arrested no one in Berryhill's slaying. If they do, odds are no one will be prosecuted for providing the pistol to the person who fired it.

Maybe the gun was stolen and sold by "some dude" on the street. It's all but impossible to find "some dude."

Worse, a number of ways exist for Colorado teenagers 18 and older to legally carry handguns.

State law says a private person can sell a handgun to anyone 18 or older. Drivers also have the right to carry weapons in their cars for protection. According to state officials, that right extends to drivers 18 and older.

Millions of legal, virtually unregulated private sales of handguns take place in America each year. In Colorado, only "retail" sales require record-keeping.

"Retail is not defined," said Ken Lane, a spokesman for the attorney general's office. "But generally, the accepted definition of retail means involved in a business."

Individual-to-individual sales appear to require no record-keeping of any kind.

Sell your personal piece to some punk kid and it's hard, if not impossible, to get caught.

The gun lobby battles for this lack of accountability. That might seem like one more reason to arm yourself. But unless you want to brandish a firearm every time you see a stranger, McLaughlin's death shows the futility of such a strategy.

"It would be one thing if my stepson had been in a strange place, where he thought he needed to protect himself," Berryhill said. "He was at home."

He was also killed from afar, apparently as an afterthought.

Police won't say whether they think the shooting was the work of a youth gang. But the shooting happened in a comfortable suburban neighborhood in Arvada, a city that had only two homicides all of last year.

Gang-related or not, it seems pretty clear that McLaughlin died as some armed fool's way of garnering respect.

The shot that claimed McLaughlin came from 100 feet away, his stepfather said.

"This was a fairly nonchalant event" for the shooter, Berryhill said. "It was as if the person was firing a pellet gun or a pea shooter.

"At first we thought three shots were fired. Now, we think it was more. It's a wonder no one else was hurt."

The greater wonder is that tragedies such as this one don't rally the majority of Americans and Coloradans to take their country and state back from the gun lobby that controls Republican-dominated legislatures. Sane gun control shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is, however, distinctly political.

A fundamental misunderstanding of firepower took McLaughlin in his prime. That misconception grows from a culture that says the more guns, the better.

"I, for one, don't feel safer with people carrying guns," Berryhill said the day before he buried his stepson. "You always wonder if the guy who gets angry in traffic has a gun under his seat. You wonder about the presence of guns in cases of domestic violence.

"When people decide to be destructive, either in a rage or as a prank, a gun becomes a way to express yourself."

Sometimes it takes a grieving parent to drive that point home. Berryhill said he once wrote off newspaper accounts of shootings as "life in the city."

No more.

"You don't think it's going to happen to you, then boom, it strikes home," the judge said. "You realize everybody's vulnerable, even if you're in the right place."

Guns can always make the right place wrong.

"If they didn't have the gun, they couldn't have hurt my son," Berryhill said of the killers. "These guys were 100 feet away on the street."

From that distance, he said, "you can't do this kind of damage with your fists. You can't do it with a rock."

By the same token, law-abiding Americans can't shoot their way out of trouble.

Not unless they want more Garry Scott McLaughlins caught in the crossfire.