Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
Why can't Wild Horses drag New Mexico's Cowboy Governor . . .
Only a very few wild horses still exist in the US, and New Mexico, where in 1974 there were 6000 wild horses , now has less than 400.
Yet Bill Richardson, ubiquitously saddled-up marketer of the Land of Enchantment, seems to be waffling on signing a Wild Horse Protection Bill - after it passed unanimously in the House, and with one opposing vote in the Senate!
SB655 is the bill - that finally creates a legal definition for the wild horse in NM, and establishes protections conserving the Spanish Colonial Horse, already extinct in Spain.
The wild horse is an enchanting national treasure and an American icon, worth preserving for its own sake, but even viewed from a purely utilitarian perspective, the beautiful creatures could add economic value throughout the west through Equine Eco-Tourism, providing much- needed, clean, economic development in rural communities.
So, why don't he sign?
If Bill Richardson can't protect the Hispanic and wild horses in his own state, with the overwhelming support of the legislature, then how in the world could he, as president, be trusted to protect the rest of our country's or or the planet's precious, deteriorating, natural resources?
Good question! Ask Governor Richardson!
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Wild Horses
As a globalist Governor Richardson only protects that which can be off-shored or made into a profit.
When you think of eco-tourism and the "wild west experience" it can be made a plus to world tourists. New Mexico is already a beautiful state.
Richardson prevented recounting of questionable election result that would have been to the benefit of Democrats. Why was that? What goes with some of these Democrats...Ameriacans who stop democracy and what's good for our country?
There is no way Richardson has a chance at high office. What has he done?
At least Richardson defends
At least Richardson defends the 2nd Amendment, which is the only one that ALL the other Democrats seem to have forgotten exists, Obama being the worst of the bunch. I've already told callers for Hillary and Obama that they won't get my vote or my money as long as they take positions denying Americans their right to self-defense.
Cromanos
You are exaggerating are you not?
One's gun does one no good when every skilless idiot can CASUALLY own and "store" it.
How about being RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE'S GUN!
How about instead of letting one's grandkid break open a piece of shit cabinet, folks buy a saw/welder and make a reasonable cabinet for their firearms if they can't simply afford one outright?
How about if your gun kills, you die? ............. Too much responsibility?
I'm sure you and I both want a thug who breaks into our homes dealt with. I see no advantage to CASUAL gun ownership by idiots and that is what the culture of the NRA promotes. Democrats oppose THAT as well as personal nuclear warheads and tigers on leashes.
If I've raised your blood pressure let me have it. Was not my intention. I simply had a run in with an idiot very recently and I'm tired of Democrats being misrepresented.
My Self Defense Strategy
EXAMPLE:
Part of my self defense strategy involves convincing fellow upright mammals to ban guns from bars.
Self Defense, like a sword, slices both ways, and Democrats provide that balance.
Why do you feel that the
Why do you feel that the Second Amendment needs "defending?" Has anyone threatened to take your manhood extender away from you? The NRA has made a lucrative business of scaring people like you into believing that if you don't give them lots of money, some scary Liberals are going to take your lethal toys away from you.
Self-defense against whom? Another idiot with a gun? Or, are you expecting an invasion of "illegal aliens" armed to the teeth?
Give me a break. If you want to shoot something, or someone, so badly -- join the military. At least there, the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment will be enforced, and if you lose your weapon, you will be held accountable.
Self defense?
Why do you think guns are necessary for self defense? Personally, I think there should be more regulations on who can get a gun and how quickly they can take it home. This is for the safety of all involved because there are some people who would not be safe with a gun. I think that some kind of psychological testing should be involved before someone can buy a gun. I know that this is highly unlikely, but I still think it could be a good idea.
First off...
...I find the title of this forum to be incredibly appalling...
I am hard-pressed to agree with Jim (whose run-in with an idiot was likely the one that involved yours truly...lol), Bill Harding and others in that liberals are not out to take any guns away. In fact, maybe we should be more concerned with the erosion of our rights as a whole before we start panicking about some tired rumor about what the left wing supposedly intends to do with a right many of which enjoy the benefits of.
"As a Christian, I believe that Separation of Church and State is Vital, not only for the People's Protection from an overzealous Theocratic Regime, but also for the protection of Religion from suppression."
In no way.
My run in was with guns, crossbows, tanks of fuel, maps of Israel, recklessness, etc. All legal yet not very neighborly. The "misrepresentation" I spoke of was with respect to the bulk of Democrats and guns.
(Kucinich being the obvious counter example as he DOES want to ban all handguns so Cromanos is accurate in part of his complaint.)
My post was meant to show that folks have a right to defend themselves. Sometimes that involves a firearm. Sometimes it involves cooperation to restrict them as we do Nuclear Warheads and Tigers on leashes.
I reject a TOTAL division of conservative and liberal on guns. Folks of both persuasions often make use of a combination of defense strategies and don't like to see casual gun ownership.
That is not meant to end the argument on guns but advance a sensible middle ground.
Jim, I fail to see much
Jim, I fail to see much difference in the rationale between having a nuclear "defense" arsenal as a deterrent, and owning a gun "for protection."
In both cases, a very few are permitted to threaten the lives, and/or peace-of-mind, of the many who are neither armed, nor hostile.
Hell, I ain't tryin to gain agreement between factions ;)
I'm just trying to place something on the bloody game board:
-A musket can be used for defense with relatively little grey area as a massive offensive weapon. A single assailant attack is by far the most likely after all.
-A modern firearm, a tiger, a nuke, lie along the continuum of defensive to offensive weaponry, and Casual Gun Owners need to give folks some f@@@ing breathing room when they determine their own defense strategies! That includes restrictions.
I believe you have made that connection as have I.
I believe that Pat Paulsen
I believe that Pat Paulsen had the best remedy: Let everyone have guns, but ban all bullets.
lol
I like the other observation too. Forget who said it first:
Why is it that when folks on TV use up all their bullets they often throw their gun? Those things are REUSABLE you know!
I've heard that is a result
I've heard that is a result of a Hollywood pact with the NRA. If you shoot at something 6 or 9 times and don't hit anything, your membership is cancelled, and you need to re-qualify (give more money and buy another gun) before engaging in another shoot-out.
We ain't got no rights
My privacy was tampered with. Why should gun 'rights' be exempt?