Steve Pomerance

  I’ve engaged in a number of conversations recently about the need to defuse the increasing polarization that is occurring around almost every issue in Boulder. We face complex questions around issues such as growth, affordable housing, our energy future, and racial equity. But our governmental processes, at least as far as they involve giving ordinary citizens a role in the decision-making, have become more and more of a one-way street, with input being depersonalized and almost no interaction. As a result, there is no realistic way for most citizens to have meaningful discussions with our decision-makers. The expanding importance of these issues has resulted in citizens feeling an increased need to engage, supported by real fears of the consequences of not doing so. But at the same time citizens are experiencing a decreased ability to actually have any influence or effect on the outcomes. This frustration comes from feeling that no one is listening. In particular, many citizens se

First off, I would like to acknowledge our community for coming together after the tragedy that occurred at King Soopers in Table Mesa. I shop there, and could easily have been there on that Monday afternoon. Also, thanks to the Daily Camera for the following Sunday edition’s story, which made the awful events very personal and real. This all reminded me of a question that has been on my mind for some time: How did the Second Amendment, which includes the phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” become interpreted as creating an individual’s right to “bear arms”, rather than the collective right that the “well regulated Militia” language would imply? So I looked it up. Wikipedia has an excellent and lengthy discussion. I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but here are some things I learned. The various states’ militias were seen by people in the 18th century as protection against potential oppression by the federal army, since no one