Failure Of Representative Government

New York Billionaire Michael Bloomberg bought the Governor of Colorado and all the Democrats in the Colorado Legislature.

This corruption has left the vast majority of the state without representation. Not a good situation.

Did they think that we weren’t going to notice?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Failure Of Representative Government

  1. M>C> says:

    Is this the same as oil companies writing US energy policy under Cheney, or the pharmaceuticals writing the Medicaid drug revision under W or the NRA dictating US gun policy over the past 20 years?

    • I am talking about the Colorado legislature and governor. The NRA represents the constituents, which is why Obama had to lie about his gun stance to get elected.

      He even made a phony accent.

    • kirkmyers says:

      The NRA is working (not hard enough in my opinion) to defend gun owners from the rapacious gun grabbers in congress, most of whom are crafting laws that will eventually result in gun confiscation — the final step towards the abolition of the U.S. Constitution and the creation of an all-powerful police state. An armed citizenry is all that stands in the way of that goal, which is being pursued relentlessly by a group of powerful financial and corporate elitists aided by their bought-and-paid-for political pawns in Congress.

      The only pro-gun group that is 100 percent on the side of the Second Amendment is Gun Owners of America (GOA). GOA, and to a lesser extent the NRA, are lobbying to “protect” our God-given right to bear arms (the right to self defense), which is under assault by anti-gun leftists on Capitol Hill, supported by a naive and vocal group of emotion-driven supporters who continue to subscribe to the silly notion that “guns kill people.”

      There is no such thing as gun violence; there is only people violence. Private gun ownership (including the right to own and sell large-magazine semi-automatic rifles) is America’s last line of defense against government oppression and slavery.

  2. M>C> says:

    The economy is weak, national debt is mounting, too many Americans are out of work, but Obama campaigns against #guns to please the fringe
    — @NRA via web

    And now, the fringe:
    A March 7 poll of voters nationwide by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack)
    University shows 88 – 10 percent support for universal background checks, including 85 – 13 percent among gun owners.

    • Obama has been pushing for a ban on rifle sales. New York is attempting to confiscate currently owned rifles.

      If the NRA didn’t represent the voters, then elected officials wouldn’t have to pay attention to them. This should be obvious to even the most simple-minded lefty.

      Most families in the US own guns. Obama’s bait and switch is getting pretty old.

      • M>C> says:

        A simple-minded righty (always with the insults, eh?) can read to see Obama’s proposals do not include ALL rifles, just the military style assault rifle slaughter weapons that blew the kids in Newtown to pieces, with 150 shots in 5 minutes.

      • Semi-automatic rifles account for about 35 deaths a year in the US, compared to 35,000 in automobile accidents. You probably think that cars should be banned too.

        The US would not exist if the founding fathers did not have arms comparable to the British Military.

        Guns are dangerous, and essential.

    • tckev says:

      Last time I checked NRA members were voters too.

      • M>C> says:

        So are US citizens opposed to Big Oil writing energy policy, and the drug companies who wrote the horrible Medicare Prescription Drug “Plan.” 88% of the country wants universal checks. The NRA says no.

        • tckev says:

          100% of murderous criminal don’t care what the 88% say. The criminals will be armed if and when they want to be.

    • kirkmyers says:

      “Universal background checks” is the precursor to gun registration and confiscation. And such checks won’t stop any criminals from acquiring guns. It is another piece of feel-good legislation that will target only law-abiding citizens, who, by definition, are not predisposed to commit crimes. Moreover, universal background checks are ineffective; they would not have stopped the massacres at Sandy Hook and Columbine.

      By the way, no where within the Second Amendment will you find any requirement for a background check before exercising one’s right to bear arms. Such legislation is clearly unconstitutional as are bans on certain type of rifles and ammunition clips. The good news is that most freedom-loving Americans — and many Sheriffs — will simply ignore these unconstitutional restraints on gun ownership. Any law — federal, state or municipal — that violates the U.S. Constitution is null and void; it is not a law.

  3. M>C> says:

    Glad you now see the difference between rifles and slaughter weapons. You against background checks as well?

    • Any gun, knife, car, box cutter or baseball bat is a potential slaughter weapon. More people are murdered with baseball bats than with rifles in the US.

      The same week as Sandy Hook, a Chinese man attacked two dozen children with a knife. The next week another Chinese man plowed his car into a middle school bus stop.

  4. tckev says:

    Let see how this works shall we. As the papers say “Lanza Killed His Mother, Took Her Guns and Killed 26 People at The School”, now having full check would stop this? How? His mother was the legal owner who bought the guns, Lanza illegally took them.
    No bureaucratic checking could have prevented this apart from confiscation of the mother’s weapons. But that is probably what people like M<C< wants.

  5. M>C> says:

    Two simple questions–a yes or no will do:
    1. Background checks–yes or no.
    2. Any one can buy any weapon any time–yes or no.

    • You just said that rifle sales should be banned.

      • M>C> says:

        I said 88% of US citizens want background checks. And I told you Obama wants to ban slaughter weapons, not “rifles.”
        Gentlemen, these are simple yes/no questions–who will finally answer them?

      • No one is falling for your bullshit.

        Obama wants to ban all useful rifles. A bolt action rifle offers no defense against tyranny.

        You are 1,000 times more likely to be killed by a car than by a semi-automatic rifle.

        No one is falling for Obama’s bait and switch any more. He has had four months to beef up school security and has chosen to do nothing. This has nothing to do with protecting schoolchildren,

        I don’t know anyone who has purchased a gun without passing a background check first.

    • kirkmyers says:

      I’m opposed to all background checks. It’s none of government business who owns guns. There is no clause in the Second Amendment requiring background checks. And as I mentioned above, background checks are aimed only a law-abiding citizens. They will do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring guns. They are a wasteful, ineffective feel-good measure. Worse, they are aimed a creating a database of gun owners as a final step towards gun confiscation. Any politician who votes for background checks is voting in favor of gun registration and confiscation.

      I also oppose laws that ban allfelons from owning guns. Not all felons are violent criminals. Some are tax cheats, drug users or bad drivers. Many should never have been charged with a felony in the first place.

      We need to heed the words of John F. Kennedy:

      “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life.”

  6. tckev says:

    Simple questions yes or no will do:
    1. Will criminals still be armed no matter what the law says?
    2. Is the 2nd Amendment still in force?

  7. M>C> says:

    Yes and yes.

  8. M>C> says:

    Is there a technical problem? These are yes/no questions…gentlemen? Do you have any opinions about guns?

    • Are you an idiot?

      Here are some opinions about guns :

      “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

      –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

      “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

      – Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

      ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.“

      – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

      “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. “

      –Samuel Adams

      That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      Virginia Bill of Rights

    • methylamine says:

      No background checks.
      Yes any weapon.

      It is axiomatic;
      a) peaceful people use their weapons–ANY weapons, including my vicious-looking Barrett 50 caliber rifle–for peaceful and defensive purposes.
      b) lawless people use their weapons for lawless purposes–and obtain those weapons regardless of the “law”.

      Therefore, it is incumbent on the lawful to protect themselves against the lawless, with the best available tools.

      “Background checks” are a joke. Those who fail them, and desire a weapon, will obtain it by other means. Those who pass them have created a convenient record for criminals in government–a much more lethal sub-class–to confiscate lawful peoples’ weapons

      Clear enough for you?

      • I doubt that it will be clear enough to change his mind. I strongly suspect he wants to be part of that “more lethal sub-class” and wants to be pointing the guns and not have them pointed at him. He cannot tolerate all those people out there doing all those things without his permission.

        What he doesn’t really get is that to exist by permission is to be a slave. A free man will not accept that status without fighting back until one or the other side is totally vanquished. If a person is not willing to fight against such things, he is already a willing slave and is of no use to anyone – even to himself!

        I see it as a totally binary issue. Either you are free and your slave master is dead or you have died trying to kill him!

  9. Bob722 says:


    You keep on harping about background checks like there aren’t any. Have you ever bought a firearm? Do you have any idea what it really takes to buy a firearm at:

    – At an FFL dealer or Gunshow or from your neighbor, in all 50 states?

    Prior to 1968, I could buy any (except non-fully automatic i.e a machine gun, which have been fully regulated since 1932) firearm through the mail, without any background check what so ever. And the slaughter in our schools was nill…..

    Universal background checks is a lefty propaganda talking point. It’s express purpose is to prohibit felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. It’s already a crime for a those individuals to purchase any firearm. Breaking one law is already no deterrent, so you now think breaking 2 laws is going to stop them?

    Universal Background checks in any form existing or proposed, would also would not have stopped the killing spree’s of:

    Adam Lanza, or James Eagan Holmes, or Jared Loughner, or Seung-hui Cho, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, So exactly what is your point, and what exactly do you expect “Universal Background Checks” to prevent???

    Do you realize that each state in the US has it’s own unique set of gun laws? You can drive from coast to coast in your registered car, with your state issued drivers license, without running into any difficulty. But I cannot drive from NC and visit my two step daughters in NY state for a couple of days, with virtually any of my NC legal firearms, and my Concealed Carry permit, without “committing multiple felonies” in Maryland, NJ and NY?

    Please define a “slaughter weapon”, is that a new gun designed in China???

    • rw says:


      This is like all the other head games that the Left has learned to play. One after another, until they get their way.

  10. Walter Royal says:

    I posted this on Huffpo a couple days ago. The first link is to an earlier post on this blog that includes in its text the links to the official government numbers for both the US and the UK.
    Your questions are not yes or no and I will answer them at the end of this post.

    This link says everything about gun control:
    Links are provided in the post.

    “In 2011 out of all murders by guns only a little over 300 were by rifles, of those only 35 were by “assault weapons”. The difference between semi-auto hunting rifles and “assault weapons” is the furniture. This furniture does nothing to make the weapon more deadly.

    The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. We have had a ban on “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines that ran for 10 years. The DOJ under Obama did a study on that ban and found it had no effect on crime other than possibly making crime worse. We need to stop making our schools into killing zones by ending the gun free zones and arming staff and/or teachers who are willing to carry and take the training needed to effectively use those weapons to protect our children.

    It has been shown time after time that where weapons laws have been relaxed crime goes down and where the laws are strict crime goes up. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida and several other States are examples of the former while Chicago, New York and DC are examples of the latter.

    We need to work on a better mental health screening system in general and mandate that all States must enter any adjudication of mental instability into the NICS system as currently there are many States that do not do this.”

    #1. The current background checks are sufficient and would be complete if all States entered the adjudication information and if the government actually prosecuted the criminals who tried to purchase guns but were turned down for VALID reasons which they don’t do now.
    #2. Anyone who passes the NICS check should be able to buy a weapon with no restrictions.

  11. Walter Royal says:

    Steve, if you just banned M>C> please unban him so we can finish this little smack down. After that you can draw and quarter him for all I care and if you need help with that part I’ll volunteer.

  12. kirkmyers says:

    These facts should concern all Americans:

    It almost seems as if the elected class is itching for a fight.

    And when one considers that the Department of Homeland Security has contracted for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition — much of it hollow points or for use in sniper rifles — for its 55,000 armed agents, plus 2,717 armored personnel carriers and 7,000 select fire “personal defense weapons,” it seems even more apparent that’s the goal. For perspective, 1.6 billion rounds is enough to fight the Iraq war for 20 years. It’s enough to shoot every American five times. It’s 28,000 tons, or the equivalent of three guided missile destroyers. It’s almost 30,000 target practice rounds per armed agent — but of course, because they are more expensive, hollow points are not used for target practice.

    See full story here:

  13. Bob722 says:

    Putting it another way: Federal Law does not require a background check on (most) firearm sales between two individuals, residing in the same state. It does not matter whether that sale is at a gun show, or yard sale or the truck of my car or in my living room.

    33 states follow that federal law policy and 17 states infringe on their citizens rights.

    It is already illegal in all 50 states for a felon to purchase a firearm. One law is no deterrent, but two laws will reduce gun violence, right MC??? There is no national database that exists for insane persons, and the ACLU has sued to insure there is not one. So “Universal Background Ckecks” accomplishes nothing….

  14. M>C> keeps trying to change the subject.

    The real issue is do individuals have a right to their lives, their liberty, and their pursuit of THEIR happiness? If yes, then ALL infringement of those rights by others, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT, is a violation of those rights. A discussion of government dictated gun control is by itself a violation of those rights. The purpose of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution was to explain that fact to both the British King, Governments in general, and specifically the Government of the United States of America.

    If individuals don’t have those rights then might makes right, all are to be enslaved to the mighty, and all are eventually involved with war against all. Laws become irrelevant. Which, incidentally was and is the state of most mankind from the get go. That is except for one short period toward the end of the 19th century and slowly coming back from ca 1913 to the present sad state in the US.

    The bottom line is there is no right to violate individual rights. One either respects both the concept of individual rights and that others posses them or you are an advocate of forceful use, abuse, power over, and control of others.

    There is no middle ground. It is live and let live or being a thug! As near as I can tell, M>C> is on the side of the thugs. His words to the contrary are in conflict with the consequences of the policies he advocates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s