Previous Post
Next Post

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

“It goes back to the Constitution, the pursuit of happiness. You should be allowed to walk with your family down any street and not feel threatened.” – Colorado Springs City Councilman Bill Murray quoted in Springs councilman calls for open-carry ban [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Isn’t the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, a resolution of the continental congress, not an actual law passed by any governing body?

    • That is correct. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are from the Dear John or more appropriately Dear George letter.

      My favorite version was on a Newport News Shipbuilding poster, with a picture of an aircraft carrier and the text: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of all who threaten it.

    • You beat me to it Omer Baker. Clearly this government leader has a tenuous grasp of history. What makes it even worse is the context in which “happiness” is being construed. If I recall my history lessons, the wording in the Declaration was originally proposed to be “the pursuit of property” rather than happiness. So his “logic” twists it around a second time to the point that he’s barely coherent. Also the idea that an explicit right should be violated to protect “ma feelings” defies logic.

      • Even though Jefferson appears to have borrowed from Locke’s ‘life, liberty, and property,’ happiness seems to have meant something along the lines of Eudaimonea to him. A foreign concept to most youth today. I don’t think, though, that Jefferson’s personal opinion should take away from the probable understanding among the signers that property rights laid out by Locke were a large part of American understanding of ‘happiness.’ After all, if Jefferson wanted Eudaimonea, he could have just wrote it that way.

        Summary- you’re right, it’s not about feeling joy.

        • Brits don’t say “Merry Christmas”. They proclaim “Happy Christmas”. In British English language, “Merry” and “Happy” are not interchangeable; each has a distinct meaning…just as “happiness” in 1776 did not mean a state of mind, or condition of compete satisfaction.

    • It appears that Councilman Murray’s lack of knowledge of the US Constitution mirrors his lack of understanding of the role of open (or concealed) carry of firearms by the law-abiding citizen in helping to create an environment toxic to criminal activities.

      • Perhaps he believes it s EVERY citizen’s right to be “happy”, even the criminals who are undoubtedly NOT HAPPY when confronted by an armed victim. This may just be another case of a Democrat pandering to lock in a voter base.

        • Considering the demographic from whence the demoncrats draw their support, they are merely trying to ensure the base is there to turn-out to vote.

  2. So I guess it’s unconstitutional and also threatening for police officers to open carry. I bet lots of people feel threatened by the sight of an armed cop ( ask the BLM crew) so maybe they need to be like London beat cops.

  3. So, Bill… only YOUR “happiness” counts here? What part of being a helpless potential victim makes you happy anyway? The helpless victims in Paris were obviously not happy… after they were attacked.

    Did they learn anything about what would really make them happy, or even marginally “safe?” Did you?

  4. I DO walk down the street without feeling threatened. I give John Browning some credit for that peace of mind…

      • Well, we are talking about open carry here. A Glock is fine for concealed carry, I suppose, but would you want people to see that ugly thing?

        • I for one prefer the lines and curves of a well sculpted pistol like a 1911 over the squareness of an FN, H&K, or Glock.

          • don’t care about shapes or sizes. just want the bad guy to think i have the biggest gun he ever saw when pointed at him. thinking the advent of .50 handguns is just about right.

      • Damn, Lil’Joe! That’s the best laugh of my day, and I argued with a Bernie Sanders supporter who has an MBA…

  5. Right to pursue happiness is not a guarantee. The entire point of law is that one man’s pursuit of happiness doesn’t step on other people. Stop trying to step on people and mind your own business. You might just be happier that way.

  6. I didn’t know “feelings” were in any constitution. I didn’t know people had a right to certain “feelings” either. Especially since they vary widely person to person and they change day to day.

    • You haven’t heard of the Bill of Feels? The UN calls it the universal declaration of human rights. You don’t have the right of armed self defense, but you have the right to feel safe, even when you aren’t! I’d post a pic of feels guy, but meh.

  7. Glad I’m in Wisconsin then, where people are HAPPY that I carry a pistol. Guess exercising my Second Amendment-protected right fulfills more than one accomplishment.

  8. too many californicators up there. this is what happens when you violate federal drug laws; people believe that their mellow lives should never come face-to-face with reality. people like the councilman are the “reasonable persons” who make-up jury pools.

  9. IF his supposition was even remotely correct, then I demand that councilman Murray and other like minded fascist totalitarians resign, then move to another country because I feel threatened that such people are in our government. They are obviously not there to serve the public, but to use the power of their position against the ordinary citizenry they are supposed yo represent.

  10. Funny how these idiots’ terror of openly-carried pistols never applies to uniformed cops. Seeing a cop’s gun never sends these people into a screaming panic, yet if you take away the costume, seeing a gun on someone’s hip is the most anxiety-inducing experience they can imagine.

    • Actually, the people you speak of are entirely rational to not be stressed by the sight of a gun strapped to a cop; cops are better trained, more temperate, more professional, conditioned to only use their gun in the most extreme of circumstances, and then only to disable.

      • “Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding[than the police]. Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders — a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police. . . .”

        That proves you are mistaken, sir.

        • The comment was in response to someone noting the irony that gun-grabbers are not terrorized by government agents practicing open question. I was only trying to explain how gun-grabbers can hold two diametrically opposing thoughts simultaneously, and find that unremarkable.

          Or not.

        • Begs the question: How many of those revoked government permission slips were for violent felonies or misdemeanors? And how many of those crimes involved the misuse of a firearm?

      • @2Asux: Strange that the LEOs, statistically, have many more accidental shootings than civilians that legally carry. I think you have an unrealistic opinion of law enforcement in comparison to law abiding citizens and guns. There are good and bad in both groups but no reason to prohibit law abiding legal carriers when they have a better record, overall, than the police. And no real reason to fear someone when you can see their weapon. There are likely quite a few more around that are carrying concealed.

        What I find to be very strange about the premise of the article is that the pursuit of happiness is construed by this guy to mean everyone will be happier if there are no guns to be seen. What if my happiness depends on feeling more secure and protected because I have a tool with me that I can depend on if I need it. Does my happiness not count in this equation?

        • Ok, let’s go over this again….

          Police/government agents are inherently better able to be trusted with firearms because they go through rigorous selection processes, go to year-long training schools, learn practical and combat gun-handling, routinely practice their shooting skills, are sworn and trained to know when to use deadly force (and receive quarterly refresher training), are capable markspeople (PC) who can avoid killing suspects by shooting-to-wound. Very, very few non-police have that level of preparation, and getting a license to buy/own/carry a gun is child’s play comparatively. There are no on-going training courses required for non-police. All this means it is safe to be around police with openly displayed firearms. On the other hand, you are not permitted to feel safe at the expense of making others feel unsafe. People who want to feel safe (no firearms exist) do not infringe on others. That is, wanting to feel safe is not an aggressive act; making others feel threatened is an aggressive act, therefore illegitimate. People who believe they live in a world so dangerous that carrying a weapon is necessary are too retrograde to be allowed to walk about, freely; they are the continuing danger to a safe, risk-free life all are guaranteed under the constitution. “Live free or die” means to live free of worry, concern, harm, evil, injury. The only legitimate nation is one constantly striving to put an end to all hardship and inconvenience. To do otherwise is to live in a world stuck in the middle ages.

      • You forgot the ‘/sarc, at the end. Than again, considering your handle, maybe you didn’t and realy believe that bullcrap. In such case you should wake-up and check the net for facts, for example: cops break the law twice as often as licensed carriers.

    • Of course their cognitive dissonance allows them to have it both ways. Since the left are always ready to fly off the handle accusing LEOs of being racist fascist oppressors when it suits their agenda.

  11. Um, I just read an article about Progressive trained brats from various colleges that are demanding “safe areas” where they can be protected against ideas they disagree with. In other words, they want non-Progressive speech banned from colleges. This is identical to banning guns because Progressives claim they have a right to be free from fear. Gentlemen, this is Fascism. Progressives are showing their roots, the foundation of their ideology.

  12. It occurs to me that deceased individuals no longer feel threatened.

    Or anything at all for that matter.

    Seems to me that the basis of a win-win situation can be imputed on this basis. (innocent look)

    • Why would you wish harm on Dumas? The Three Musketeers and The Count Of Monte Cristo are both great books.

  13. Interesting to me that this guy is from C.Springs. A decade or two ago, this was close to ground zero in the CO gun wars. Before Shall Issue, the sheriff in each county determined who could get concealed carry permits. The sheriff in Denver was appointed by the mayor, and so only his friends (and close friends of the city council) got permits. The sheriff in El Paso county (which contains C. Springs) took the opposite tact, issuing them to pretty much anyone without a criminal record, including, if I remember correctly, some Denver residents. The magnitude of the difference between the two counties was one of the things that helped push state wide uniformity and preemption of gun laws – except that Denver, a home rule county, was able to opt out of many of the rest of the uniform laws (but not Shall Issue – though they tried).

    And, then there was the Democratic President of the Senate from C. Springs who was recalled over his pushing through gun control legislation. All of which is to say that the city is swinging left from its pretty far to the right location on the political spectrum, but I suspect that this guy isn’t going to be around that much longer politically.

    • The mechanism at work is the Fed enacting mass wealth transfers towards the coastal cities with the most direct ties to the banking and finance industries, and away from everyone else. Which over time enriches the coastals to the point where they can purchase most of the attractive spots in the interior. Establishing themselves as a new overclass.

      Where Rocky Mountain dwellers previously were ranchers, “cowboys” and whatnot, they now have no ranches left to work, and are instead busy “managing the properties”, changing the bedsheets and clipping the toenails of their in-all-ways-but-financial inferiors. With their children, particularly daughters, observing who the new Alphas in town are, and hence switching allegiance. Pretty much the only possibly counterweight and bulwark is native Mormon fertility. Absent that, the Rockies from Mew Mexico to Montana would already have been flattened out and turned into a yoga mat.

  14. At 2:29 in, the reporter mentions the “Gun Prevention Law Center”, no such thing exists with that name. Freudian slip or perhaps wishful thinking on their part? The mask seems to be slipping off more often.

      • I think our hapless young reporter(who clearly looks like he’d rather be anywhere else and reporting actual news) has struck the point that there are so many gun control groups out there, all begging for billionaire/foundation bucks that they’re running out of names to clearly differentiate themselves from their competition at the trough.

        The Violent Gun Law Center Demanding Responsible Coalition Solutions for Every Mom….

        Sounds like a Monty Python sketch

  15. This councilman is the village idiot. Would a good citizen please use public comment at a town hall meeting to ask, what does a citizen do when an actual threat is thrust upon said citizen on a street? Should they have the right to protect themselves or is it your intention that the law abiding citizen be a victim of a criminal? Please when appropriate clarify your statement for the public.

  16. Walking down the street with my family while open carrying makes me happy so I should be allowed to do it. Pursuit of happiness. Works both ways.

  17. The “Pursuit of Happiness” is in the Constitution! You can find it right next to gay marriage and abortion.

    (FWIW, I favor both of the latter two).

    • Only because, by a large margin, those tow things tend to dramatically reduce the production of new Liberal/Progressive voters, I also agree (with reservations).

    • I’ll wager that’s not the only pair of things he doesn’t know the difference between. His ass and a hole in the ground are probably another one.

  18. The people who voted for legal Marijuana intoxication in exchange for the loss of their firearm civil rights, making this statement does not surprise me. This is the statement of a pot head or someone who hangs around pot heads.

    The federal form 4473 asks if you are a medical Marijuana user for a very good reason. Pot is not like alcohol. You can be the designated driver in a bar with a CCW for your friends. That does not work when everyone is breathing the same THC rich air in the bar room.

    There is a law suit over this issue. I don’t think the Marijuana user will win.

    • So you’re for the individual liberties you approve of, and not the rest?

      Then you are against individual liberty, PERIOD.

      May your chains rest lightly upon you until you die. May we forget you were our countryman.

      • Agree.

        Any restriction on freedom is a restriction on all freedoms. There should be no activity or action a free person can take that allows the state or another free person to prohibit another free person from doing whatever they like, whenever they like. Societal norms are forms of tyranny; laws against anything are illegitimate. If my exercise of freedom interferes with yours, there are means to sort that out between two people; no need of courts or judges to impose arbitrary punishments on free citizens. A free person is free to cooperate with whomever that person chooses. If a free person agrees to cooperate with a government, fine; if not, fine. If a free person agrees to cooperate with another free person, fine; if not, fine. Get the rules, laws and regulations out of the way, and society will prosper by itself.

  19. The PURSUIT of happiness is not a guarantee that you will be happy, it was never an enumerated right, and it does not give you the right to throw a hissy fit when you don’t get your way.

  20. As someone who lived most of his life in Colorado Springs (and most of the rest of it near Colorado Springs in that same county, I need to put one misconception I read here to rest.

    Colorado Springs is quite heavily pro gun. I’ve never caught shit for open carrying.

    This Bill Murray clown is even more incompetent than any of the characters protrayed by that other Bill Murray, who at least had one use, he could make us laugh. Bill Murray (the hack politician) is laughable, instead of funny. He’s a disgrace.

  21. I couldn’t watch the video; the stupid is painful.

    Someone needs an education:

    1. The Constitution doesn’t mention happiness, or its pursuit — that’s a different document.

    2. The right is to pursue happiness, not to coerce others into helping you pursue yours. If my pursuit of my happiness bothers your happiness, all I can say is you’re doing it wrong.

  22. Lets see how long it takes for him to become *Former* Colorado Springs City Councilman Bill Murray.

Comments are closed.