Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Shopkeeper Pulls Trigger in Lakewood, Nails a Bad Guy!

  1. #1
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504

    Shopkeeper Pulls Trigger in Lakewood, Nails a Bad Guy!

    Howdy Folks!
    There has been a spate of robberies in the Denver Metromess. One robbery attempt took place in Lakewood, but the thugs picked on the wrong man to assault. After spraying the man with mace as he tried to lock up his shop for the night, the man pulled his pistol and fired on his assailants. He nailed one, while the other beat a hasty retreat!

    There is a brief commerical to endure, then the story follows:
    http://www.9news.com/news/article/25...rmed-robberies

    I think it would be a swell idea if the local police armed every shopkeeper in the area. Shoot a few more thugs, and maybe some of that thuggery would cease and desist.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!
    There has been a spate of robberies in the Denver Metromess. One robbery attempt took place in Lakewood, but the thugs picked on the wrong man to assault. After spraying the man with mace as he tried to lock up his shop for the night, the man pulled his pistol and fired on his assailants. He nailed one, while the other beat a hasty retreat!

    There is a brief commerical to endure, then the story follows:
    http://www.9news.com/news/article/25...rmed-robberies

    I think it would be a swell idea if the local police armed every shopkeeper in the area. Shoot a few more thugs, and maybe some of that thuggery would cease and desist.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    "Why would you need to carry when taking your kids to Cold Stone Creamery???" -Random anti

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    This is why we need to ban guns. These poor guys are just down on their luck do to greedy capitalist pig policies and trying to make some money the only way they can. Along comes one of these redneck gun nut pigs and shoots the poor guy.

    I Tapatalked this.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  4. #4
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    This is why we need to ban guns. These poor guys are just down on their luck do to greedy capitalist pig policies and trying to make some money the only way they can. Along comes one of these redneck gun nut pigs and shoots the poor guy.
    Howdy Beau!
    Yeah.... and just as he was turning his life around and getting ready to become a blessing to society!
    Instead, this hard working young thug is laid up in hospital with a bullet wound from a greedy capitalist merchant with a gun!
    What on earth is this world coming to anyhow?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  5. #5
    scubabeme
    Guest
    Did it bother anyone else that the story stated that the store owner was "permitted" and so charges won't be filed? Permitted? In his own shop??? Not necessary, not applicable!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    3
    "It's best if citizens do not take the law into their own hands"
    Well its a good thing that the ones who have the law in their hands (LEOs) were close by to defend him. Ohh wait when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

    The law is meant to be enforced, not just by the police - If it wasn't we wouldn't have the power of citizens arrest.

    I am glad the store owner was able to defend himself, even with a face full of mace.

    Seth

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    "You're endangering my customers..."

    Yep, someone said this to me today at lunch! It gave me an opportunity to mention the thwarted robbery in Lakewood. Here's the story:

    I get tired of the same old food, so every once in a while I go online to find a restaurant, preferably not a chain, that I've not yet frequented. I found one in Old Town Colorado, walked in, was seated by the hostess, and opened the menu.

    I love reuben sandwiches, but I like trying new things, so I was deciding between a reuben and one of their own sandwiches when either the owner or manager walked up and said, "Sir, I'm sorry to do this, but I'd like you to leave."

    Me: "Why? Is there something wrong?"

    O/M: "Well, Sir, you're endangering my customers?"

    Me: "I am? How is it possible I'm endangering your customers?"

    O/M: (getting a little irate) "Because you have a gun, that's why."

    Me: "Oh, I see. Well, Sir, may I ask you something?"

    O/M: (hesitantly) "Yes..."

    Me: "Have you seen the news lately, noticed the increase in crime here in the Springs, particularly how criminals are targeting more store owners and shop keepers?"

    O/M: (suspiciously) "Yes." (he takes a step back) "What about it?"

    Me: "Well, Sir, they're the ones who're endangering your customers. Not I. I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen who doesn't like criminals any more than you do. It's my right, your right too, really, the right of every customer in here, to carry a firearm for self defense, should the need ever arise."

    O/M: "I don't think that'll happen. We've never been robbed."

    Me: "I don't think the owner of the business in Lakewood had ever been robbed, either."

    O/M: "Lakewood?"

    Me: "Yeah, happened just yesterday. Two thugs walked up to the shop owner and assaulted him before trying to take his money."

    O/M: "What happened?"

    Me: "He shot one of them. The other escaped. The police think they're part of a string of robberies and may be responsible for the crime waves in Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and other cities."

    O/M: "Oh." (pause) "Do you have a permit?"

    Me: "I do for concealed carry, but no permit is required under Colorado State Law for open carry."

    O/M: "I thought open carry was illegal."

    Me: "Not in Colorado. In fact, open carry is legal in 43 of our 50 United States, and in 15 of them you don't need a permit."

    O/M: "Really? Well, can I see your permit, anyway?"

    Me: "The permit is for concealed carry, and as I'm not carrying concealed, I don't have it with me."

    This was a fib on my part, but he has no authority to examine my ID, much less learn my name and address, so...

    O/M: "Oh."

    Me: "Tell you what -- If you still want me to leave, I'll oblige and eat someplace else, but I really had my eye on your reuben sandwich. Is there any chance I can get a salad with that instead of fries?"

    O/M: "Yeah, that's fine. I'll have your waiter bring it out."


    He leaves and comes back about five minutes later, and says, "I hope you don't mind, but this is a little unusual, so I called the cops."

    Me: "Ok. What did they say?"

    O/M: (nervous little laugh) "They said it's legal, and asked if you were bothering anyone or if you were refusing to leave."

    Me: "Should I leave? Would you like me to go?"

    O/M: "No, that's ok. You're cool."

    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Nice.

    That's all I got. Just...

    Nice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member O2HeN2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    232
    And THAT folks is how you change the hearts and minds of people. You don't get mad and tell them to pound sand, use the "F" word or threaten to add them to a "businesses against carry" list.

    Awesome job, since9!

    O2

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by O2HeN2 View Post
    And THAT folks is how you change the hearts and minds of people. You don't get mad and tell them to pound sand, use the "F" word or threaten to add them to a "businesses against carry" list.

    Awesome job, since9!

    O2
    Hear! Hear!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    That was excellent!!! Good job. It's nice to see that some people can still be reasoned with.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    I think it would be a swell idea if the local police armed every shopkeeper in the area. Shoot a few more thugs, and maybe some of that thuggery would cease and desist.

    While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd rather the police just return the money that was extorted from the taxpayers. People should be responsible for their own safety.

    From Unforgiven:
    "You just shot an unarmed man!"
    "He should have armed himself."

  13. #13
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd rather the police just return the money that was extorted from the taxpayers. People should be responsible for their own safety.
    Howdy?!?!
    So the military would also be paid with money extorted from taxpayers?

    People should have been responsible for intercepting hijackers on 9-11?
    People should be responsible for their own safety by attacking other nations in retribution for 911?
    People should go get those Al Queda types with their little 9mm pistols?

    Or is it just possible that taxpayers step up to the responsibility for their own safety by paying for national defense through our military with tax dollars? Or do you simply consider Americans who support our American military as victims of extortion?

    You gotta be kidding!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy?!?!
    So the military would also be paid with money extorted from taxpayers?
    Yes. If you do not pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your home and attempt to assault and kidnap you. If you resist, they claim they are justified in doing lethal violence. Consequently, a tax bill is an extortion letter. While some, very limited forms of government coercion are authorized in the Constitution, including the provision of a standing navy and an army funded for two years at a time, 99.9% of what government does is not. The only legitimate function of government is the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Any use of taxpayer money outside of this framework is immoral.

    People should have been responsible for intercepting hijackers on 9-11?
    Yes. Government should get out of the aviation business and allow individuals to protect themselves. Instead, your precious government has forbidden weapons on commercial aviation, rendering passengers helpless.

    In any event, your precious government failed to intercept the hijackers on 9-11, at least according to the official narrative.

    People should be responsible for their own safety by attacking other nations in retribution for 911?
    Attacking other countries hasn't made anyone safer (instead, hundreds of times more people have been killed than lost their lives on 9/11). And, if we were seeking retribution, why did we attack a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with it. Why is our government cozy with the nation that produced most of the hijackers?

    People should go get those Al Queda types with their little 9mm pistols?
    Al-Qaeda members bleed, too. If one came to my home and attempted to do violence, I am confident any of my weapons could cause his extinction.

    Or is it just possible that taxpayers step up to the responsibility for their own safety by paying for national defense through our military with tax dollars?
    It's interesting that you've brought up only the military, when I commented originally on the police. But to answer your question, certainly, the maintenance of military forces within the Constitutional restraints is an appropriate federal government expenditure. However, we were never intended to have direct taxation in this country, which is why the domestic terrorists promulgated the 16th Amendment.

    In any event, taxpayers don't step up; they pay, or they are imprisoned or killed, as outlined above.

    Or do you simply consider Americans who support our American military as victims of extortion?
    Yes, see above.

    You gotta be kidding!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    It's amazing how many misled "conservatives" have that reaction when others promote principles the Founders themselves advocated.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    To get back to the original disagreement vis a vis the police, yes, people need to be responsible for their own safety. Per Warren v. District of Columbia, the police have no duty to provide protection to anyone.

    And as far as the police using my money to buy guns for others who have not taken the initiative to arm themselves, no thanks. I'd rather keep my money and buy guns for myself. I'd like a vote on it, at the very least.

  16. #16
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    To get back to the original disagreement vis a vis the police, yes, people need to be responsible for their own safety. Per Warren v. District of Columbia, the police have no duty to provide protection to anyone.

    And as far as the police using my money to buy guns for others who have not taken the initiative to arm themselves, no thanks. I'd rather keep my money and buy guns for myself. I'd like a vote on it, at the very least.
    Howdy!
    Well, let's talk about that. Why would the cops need to buy guns for anybody? Let us consider:
    Every year, the police confiscate guns that were used in crimes.
    What do they do with those guns?
    In Tennessee, they resell those guns at auction. At least the state police there do.
    And you can score some really terrific bargains while you're at it!

    But the majority of police agencies in the states will melt them down or otherwise destroy them.
    What good does that do for anybody? Why not, instead, arm shopkeepers with those guns they'd otherwise destroy in order to promote:
    1. Gun ownership in general
    2. Responsible gun ownership in particular
    3. Give them the means by which to defend themselves.
    4. With our economy as bad as it has been, many shopkeepers can ill afford to buy ammunition, let alone a decent handgun.
    5. When subjected to robberies, what little they do earn can be readily taken away by a thug.

    Why destroy guns that could otherwise be give (or sold at low price for those with limited budgets) to the people who would benefit from owning a firearm for defense against thugs attacking their business?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy!
    Well, let's talk about that. Why would the cops need to buy guns for anybody? Let us consider:
    Every year, the police confiscate guns that were used in crimes.
    What do they do with those guns?
    In Tennessee, they resell those guns at auction. At least the state police there do.
    And you can score some really terrific bargains while you're at it!

    But the majority of police agencies in the states will melt them down or otherwise destroy them.
    What good does that do for anybody? Why not, instead, arm shopkeepers with those guns they'd otherwise destroy in order to promote:
    1. Gun ownership in general
    2. Responsible gun ownership in particular
    3. Give them the means by which to defend themselves.
    4. With our economy as bad as it has been, many shopkeepers can ill afford to buy ammunition, let alone a decent handgun.
    5. When subjected to robberies, what little they do earn can be readily taken away by a thug.

    Why destroy guns that could otherwise be give (or sold at low price for those with limited budgets) to the people who would benefit from owning a firearm for defense against thugs attacking their business?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Police shouldn't be confiscating weapons at all. Weapons should be held until the completion of sentence and then returned to the rightful owners. Leaving aside the fact that giving property to citizens (of course, only some citizens - shopkeepers - possible equal protection issue...) isn't a proper function of government, I don't believe giving weapons to people who have something to protect but have not taken the initiative to acquire them promotes responsible gun ownership. For most, it will be an expensive paperweight, kept in a drawer. For others, it could pose safety problems.

    As far as guns being too pricey for business owners, PUH-leeze. I've been through some tough times, and I've never even thought about selling more "core team" of defensive firearms. You make sacrifices in other areas. Business owners could even write off the cost of a weapon purchased to protect the business.

    Even if confiscated weapons are used, any government program requires money to run, and I'd rather have my money in my pocket than have it mismanaged in yet another bureaucracy.

    Bottom line: government should stick to its core function of protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. It's a tough world out there; every man for himself.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-03-2012 at 11:32 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Yes. If you do not pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your home and attempt to assault and kidnap you. If you resist, they claim they are justified in doing lethal violence. Consequently, a tax bill is an extortion letter.

    Yes. Government should get out of the aviation business and allow individuals to protect themselves. Instead, your precious government has forbidden weapons on commercial aviation, rendering passengers helpless.

    In any event, your precious government failed to intercept the hijackers on 9-11, at least according to the official narrative.

    Attacking other countries hasn't made anyone safer (instead, hundreds of times more people have been killed than lost their lives on 9/11). And, if we were seeking retribution, why did we attack a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with it. Why is our government cozy with the nation that produced most of the hijackers?

    Al-Qaeda members bleed, too. If one came to my home and attempted to do violence, I am confident any of my weapons could cause his extinction.

    It's interesting that you've brought up only the military, when I commented originally on the police.

    It's amazing how many misled "conservatives" have that reaction when others promote principles the Founders themselves advocated.
    Howdy Again!
    Amazing as it seems presently, I tend to agree with some of your points. Tax is a burden that is imposed... and I am not entirely satisfied the income tax system was legally approved by the states. Meanwhile, those taxes pay for roads, bridges and other infrastructure. I believe the Constitution provides for interstate commerce and to raise funds to support that effort.

    As for government getting out of aviation, then who is going to control traffic in the skies. Certainly not the bankers that plunged our economy into chaos, I hope! So who should do that chore, and how is that system to be provided for? As for passengers being allowed to protect themselves with firearms, the last place a person needs to be is in a pressurized cabin when a bullet sails through the fusilage at around 35,000 feet. Not a good circumstance at all, and likely to prove fatal to everybody on board. But I will agree that our 1st amendment rights ought not terminate at the terminal. The security screenings are excessive and often inappropriate. On a related topic, the entire Patriot Act needs to be junked. All it really does is to infringe upon the rights of our citizens, with little real benefit for law enforcement or terrorist interdiction. Yet Americans go blindly along with searches at the airport, including walking through scanners that strip away your clothes and show off your junk. Add to this, nothing like having your children fondled by TSA officers. Don't even get me started on cavity searches!!!! So, not only is the 2nd Amendment infringed in this whole shennigan, so are the 4th and 14th.

    As for the government preventing or intercepting hijackers on 911, I believe certain elements of our government were in collusion. Nuff said?

    I agree that we had no business going after Iraq, and from the very moment claims of weapons of mass destruction rose, I knew it was a false claim. After all, Iraq suffered the most crushing economic sanctions the world had ever seen following the first Gulf war. Afterward, anything that moved was attacked by military war planes, so they weren't moving biochem weapons. Throw in two "no fly" zones, and they really had no opportunity to get rid of such weapons of mass destruction as was claimed. There are whole books written on the scam to launch war against Iraq, and I won't cover even a small percentage here, but just to say that it was a blatant lie, and I knew it from the git go!
    I don't think our entire government cozied up with Saudi Arabia, but the Bush Administration certainly did. Again, for reasons of volumous information beyond the scope of a message here, every indication exists to support contention this was a black ops event in collusion with Saudi Arabia and elements of the Bush Administration.

    A 9mm might be real effective against an Al Queda operative entering your home, but to take the battle to them requires air power, tanks, and a whole lot of military hardware. A 9mm pistol at Tora Bora would have been about as useful as a warm bucket of hamster puke!

    Military v. Police. The military is supported by federal funds. The police are paid through state, county and municipal taxes. Apples and oranges comes to mind here. I really don't object to reasonable taxes paid for local governments to provide police services, fire fighting capability, and plenty of other similar community services. What I do object to... loudly... fleecing the public by installing red light cameras to nail people without any trace of due process of law. Same goes for speed radar vans that clock and photograph cars passing by and send tickets out in the mail. So far as I am concerned, this is a gross violation of due process, and nothing more than a revenue scam. Why people tolerate their presence is alarming to me. This is the most profound evidence of government over-reach I can cite at this moment. Claims of safety improvements because of such devices is not supported by data surrounding such devices. Most cops work hard and do respond to emergency situations. But in those moments when your life is on the line, they aren't likely to be there to defend you. To this I agree. It is for the citizen to defend their own life, family, etc. Part of the problem is that police budgets have been cut all over America. We have fewer cops on the streets, therefore response time is negatively affected. They can't be everywhere, at all times, in every place. In this perspective, we are in agreement.

    Your final observation is totally off the wall. I have never, in all my born days, been called a conservative. Those who know me, know that I am a liberal. I am one of those odd fellows who favors the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean I buy the whole platform. I don't need a nanny state from any political party. But then again, I don't need intrusion from the government on my Constitutional rights. I favor working toward progress, and don't much care for efforts we've heard in recent weeks to take our country backward and away from progress. I definately am opposed to war, especially sending in whole armies when a seal team or special forces squad can do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost in terms of life and treasure.

    And speaking of treasure, we wouldn't have so many problems if we simply restored regulation to banks and financial institutions that such removal of regulation led to the most massive financial collapse the American economy has seen since 1929! It could have been massively worse, and while things have improved in recent months, I fear it is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a slashed artery. I think there may be another shoe yet to drop.

    In closing, I'd like to note that the Constitution does provide for the common defense, but also to "promote the general Welfare". The welfare of all Americans is benefitted by having safe water, clean air, and safe air travel. The general welfare is promoted by ensuring our food doesn't kill us. That medicines are safe, that products we buy aren't loaded with lead, arsenic, formaldehyde or other toxins. It also provides for the redress of greivances. So what do we see? One of our first amendment rights is that of peacable assembly. Seeing cities come down hard on occupy protesters is a symptom of our liberties being usurped. Yet, I haven't heard any outcries about their abuse.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    As for government getting out of aviation, then who is going to control traffic in the skies.
    The same way railroad companies cooperate to control traffic on the tracks. Trust me, multi-billion dollar industries will figure it out. Necessity is the mother of inventrion.

    As for passengers being allowed to protect themselves with firearms, the last place a person needs to be is in a pressurized cabin when a bullet sails through the fusilage at around 35,000 feet. Not a good circumstance at all, and likely to prove fatal to everybody on board.
    I hate to break it to you, but this is a well-known myth. Have you not heard of the armed federal air marshals?

    A 9mm might be real effective against an Al Queda operative entering your home, but to take the battle to them requires air power, tanks, and a whole lot of military hardware. A 9mm pistol at Tora Bora would have been about as useful as a warm bucket of hamster puke!
    On the one hand, you claim to be against these crazy foreign wars, but on the other, you talk about going after al Qaeda with air power, tanks, and other hardware. We certainly can't be having that stuff used here, and using it in foreign countries is an act of war. You can't have it both ways.

    The point I was making is that I don't believe that our military presence in foreign countries is protecting us from anything.

    Military v. Police. The military is supported by federal funds. The police are paid through state, county and municipal taxes. Apples and oranges comes to mind here.
    The federal government has no "funds." Just as with state governments and subdivisions thereof, it survives by coercion and extortion. I would reiterate that a limited, defensive military is authorized in the Constitution.

    Most cops work hard and do respond to emergency situations. But in those moments when your life is on the line, they aren't likely to be there to defend you. To this I agree. It is for the citizen to defend their own life, family, etc. Part of the problem is that police budgets have been cut all over America. We have fewer cops on the streets, therefore response time is negatively affected. They can't be everywhere, at all times, in every place. In this perspective, we are in agreement.
    I disagree. I would say that it is more likely that 95% of cops give the rest a bad name. There are a few brave peace officers left, but they are fast being supplanted by the new breed of law enforcers. The distinction between the two is a whole other discussion.

    And speaking of treasure, we wouldn't have so many problems if we simply restored regulation to banks and financial institutions that such removal of regulation led to the most massive financial collapse the American economy has seen since 1929! It could have been massively worse, and while things have improved in recent months, I fear it is the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a slashed artery. I think there may be another shoe yet to drop.
    Keynesianism is simply wrong. I don't have the energy to debate it right now, though.

    In closing, I'd like to note that the Constitution does provide for the common defense, but also to "promote the general Welfare". The welfare of all Americans is benefitted by having safe water, clean air, and safe air travel.
    The general welfare is not promoted by forcibly taking money out of the productive sector. Also, your specific definition of welfare, and what regulations are tolerable to attempt to achieve it, are going to be different from mine. There is no moral reason that your ideas are superior to mine, so they should not be imposed on me, and vice-versa. This is why I prefer to deal in rights. So long as my exercise of rights does not infringe on your individual rights to life, liberty, and property, it should be permitted, unmolested by government.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-04-2012 at 01:52 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    The same way railroad companies cooperate to control traffic on the tracks. Trust me, multi-billion dollar industries will figure it out. Necessity is the mother of inventrion.
    [/QUOTE]

    Howdy Yet Again!
    All in all, an interesting discussion, though I disagree stronly on several points, I do see some where we are not that far apart on certain points.

    Meanwhile, as enjoyable as it has been thus far, we are far from topic at this point.
    The purpose of this thread was the assault on a shop keeper who fought back with gunfire and took down one of his assailants, despite having been pepper sprayed.

    Meanwhile, we've more than 30 years of evidence to prove that trickle down economics has proven disasterous for our nation.

    But that is another topic altogether, and perhaps another thread would be appropriate.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin (Not a conservative!)

  21. #21
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pueblo West, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I get tired of the same old food, so every once in a while I go online to find a restaurant, preferably not a chain, that I've not yet frequented. I found one in Old Town Colorado, walked in, was seated by the hostess, and opened the menu.

    I love reuben sandwiches, but I like trying new things, so I was deciding between a reuben and one of their own sandwiches when either the owner or manager walked up and said, "Sir, I'm sorry to do this, but I'd like you to leave."

    As much as I hate to break up the rest of this thread (which has been quite entertaining), I've been dying to know the next restaurant I plan to visit? How WAS the reuben?

  22. #22
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    We've had a whole bunch of robberies, mostly of eateries, in recent weeks. (notice how I'm being sneaky trying to guide the thread back on topic, while keeping the topic of food going???) Several Subway shops have been robbed, and other restaurants in the area too... And some 22 of those robberies are attributed to a single guy.

    They call him the 32 Bandit. That's because he wore a hooded sweatshirt or jacket with the number 32 on it. He always does his robberies at gunpoint.
    http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=255064

    prolly the same guy in this story;

    http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=251701

    What bothers me is that he doesn't rob the places I frequent. I could use that $12,000 bucks!
    First thing I'd do would be to visit the Springs for one of them Rubens!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    What bothers me is that he doesn't rob the places I frequent. I could use that $12,000 bucks!
    I don't think they would be able to identify him if he robbed a restaurant you were at....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •