U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-18-2013, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,880,574 times
Reputation: 7732

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws.
News for you: 47% is still a minority. Unless you are going to appeal to a broader audience with bipartisan support for reasonable gun control laws, you are going to continue to lose.

 
Old 03-18-2013, 07:28 PM
 
Location: mancos
7,177 posts, read 6,469,711 times
Reputation: 4946
Well no one in law enforcement down in SW Co will enforce the new laws as well as several others around our for now free state so we shall see how this new lock em all up law will be accepted. Big mistake,Big expensive challenges at the first arrest.
 
Old 03-18-2013, 07:48 PM
Status: "Beach time!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,677 posts, read 11,087,576 times
Reputation: 13950
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
News for you: 47% is still a minority. Unless you are going to appeal to a broader audience with bipartisan support for reasonable gun control laws, you are going to continue to lose.
Only if you are willing to oversimplify it and assume that the other 53% are all for strict gun laws to be implemented. Of course one would have to be a complete simpleton to make this assumption. Among that 53% would be voters who would oppose gun laws simply from a sense of freedom, even freedom to pursue and interest that they themselves choose not to or share no interest in. Likewise there are those who do own guns who do favor implementing new regulations. So you can't just look at the percent of households or citizens who are gun owners as opposed to those who are not, draw a line between them and use it to predict support or opposition to new regulations.
 
Old 03-18-2013, 08:14 PM
Status: "Beach time!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,677 posts, read 11,087,576 times
Reputation: 13950
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
All of which doesn't change the fact that the Second Amendment was written to provide for arming the National Guard (the Militia) for the common defense of the state. It was not intended to give redneck gunnuts the right to own and shoot any type of weapons they choose, or to carry out terrorist acts against the United States Government. More and more people are starting to wake up to that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
The right of the people to keep and bear arms necessary to the security of the state. Non Guard members are not relevant to the security of the free state, so the Second Amendment is not relevant to them. The Fact that the Second Amendment has been hijacked by the Gun Culture for their own agenda, is evidence that the amendment is completely obsolete, and should be repealed.
I see we have a constitutional scholar on our hands. The problem is that federal courts and the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that your stance is wrong, and that the 2nd Amendment DOES secure the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Again, the amendment states "...the right of the PEOPLE..."

Two words are key here. "Right" and "people." When the founders and contemporaries used the word "right" they are always referring to individuals and never government. They refer to government as having an obligation to control itself, but never a right to do as it chooses. Secondly, "people" refers to collective citizenry. It never refers to the state, otherwise the amendment would say, "...the right of the state..." There is a clear distinction between the state/government and people; one need not read too deep into the Federalist Papers or other essays/works by the founders in order to pick up on this trend.

So no matter how much you detest it, the 2nd Amendment ensures that the people, that is collective individuals acting on their own self interests, have the Constitutionally secured and protected right to engage in private ownership of fire arms. The 2nd Amendment absolutely is relevant to "non-guard" members of society. No matter how badly you wish it wasn't.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,880,574 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I see we have a constitutional scholar on our hands. The problem is that federal courts and the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that your stance is wrong,
The same corrupt Supreme Court Justices, appointed by corrupt politicians, elected with blood money from the NRA gun industry. The only thing that proves is that money talks.

Before the NRA corrupted the court, that is not the way SCOTUS ruled.

MORRISON R. WAITE: (Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1874-1888) (majority opinion in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the Constitution of the United States.”
 
Old 03-19-2013, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Colorado
2,561 posts, read 5,021,604 times
Reputation: 2223
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
The same corrupt Supreme Court Justices, appointed by corrupt politicians, elected with blood money from the NRA gun industry. The only thing that proves is that money talks.

Before the NRA corrupted the court, that is not the way SCOTUS ruled.

MORRISON R. WAITE: (Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1874-1888) (majority opinion in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the Constitution of the United States.”

You have been in California too long. While I love that state and can guarantee you I have lived there longer and in more locations in the once Golden State than you ever have..the place has corrupted your head with that regional jibber jabber..Blood money my a$$. You will never ever,ever convince people who are responsible gun owners that they need to cough up their rights. You can cite and throw out speculative interpretation till you drive to Half Moon Bay..won't change the minds of those of us who have actual experience and knowledge of guns..Never thought I would say this to anyone..but Stay in Northern Cal. and spare us your amateur view points. Blood money? ok son. I feel so much safer knowing incompetent, impotent law erection, I mean enforcement has the ability to keep us safe from lawless bastards who would just as soon shoot and car jack you regardless of local,federal, municipal codes than order a Big Mac.

You are right money talks..IN THE BAY AREA. How many magazines have you packed? You ever seen someone horribly victomized by bangers? have you ever had someone stick a gun in your face? Give it a rest. Someone trys to pull rank on me with a weapon ever again better pray they live to see a trial.
I'm as so called liberal minded as it gets in most arenas except when it comes to blatant,needless stupidity.

Last edited by Scott5280; 03-19-2013 at 02:34 AM..
 
Old 03-19-2013, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Western, Colorado
1,598 posts, read 2,756,122 times
Reputation: 942
Godwilling, the taxpayers of Colorado are going to spend a fortune defending these Unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Especially a mandatory background fee that they buyer mus pay for.

Could you imagine the uproar if voters were exposed to the same? There would be an absolute uproar. Heck, we can't even get them to agree on ID's to vote.

Hopefully 2014 midterms is the enema to to the Legislature and Governors mansion of these liberal, freedom hating, communist tyrants.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 06:46 AM
 
1,160 posts, read 1,202,614 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
News for you: 47% is still a minority. Unless you are going to appeal to a broader audience with bipartisan support for reasonable gun control laws, you are going to continue to lose.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you're opinion is not being supported here. That suggests that you are the one in the minority. You may like having Bloomberg as defacto Governor of Colorado, but most Coloradans disagree.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,895 posts, read 4,570,063 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51 View Post
Godwilling, the taxpayers of Colorado are going to spend a fortune defending these Unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Especially a mandatory background fee that they buyer mus pay for.

Could you imagine the uproar if voters were exposed to the same? There would be an absolute uproar. Heck, we can't even get them to agree on ID's to vote.

Hopefully 2014 midterms is the enema to to the Legislature and Governors mansion of these liberal, freedom hating, communist tyrants.
Agreed.
If 2014 doesnt change anything come to Indiana your gun rights will NOT be infringed upon in our state.
Heck our dysfunctional neighbor Illinois is complaining that Indiana has too lax of gun laws. Ironically its the ONLY state that doesnt allow concealed carry and Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and the highest homicide rate.
Maybe Colorado should complain that Wyoming has too lax of gun laws too
 
Old 03-19-2013, 08:49 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,577,532 times
Reputation: 7604
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51 View Post
Godwilling, the taxpayers of Colorado are going to spend a fortune defending these Unconstitutional laws in the courts.

Especially a mandatory background fee that they buyer mus pay for.

Could you imagine the uproar if voters were exposed to the same? There would be an absolute uproar. Heck, we can't even get them to agree on ID's to vote.

Hopefully 2014 midterms is the enema to to the Legislature and Governors mansion of these liberal, freedom hating, communist tyrants.
If gun owners need background checks and id's, so do voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top