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 03-25-2013, 06:25 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
2,394 posts, read 4,299,877 times
Reputation: 7531

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
I agree totally, but I would like to add that in the rush to preserve what many perceive to be an unlimited right, the majority of the gun enthusiasts forget that with each right comes responsibilities. And when people do not live up to their responsibilities, the government create laws in an effort to enforce responsible behavior.

There is a two-fold problem with any sort of gun control: 1. any laws that are not created at the federal level are useless as people move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and 2. there are too many guns already out there for gun control to be effective.

If it were up to me, this is the regulation I would make:

1. Anybody can own a single shot firearm. This was the firearm available to the colonists at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so this is the firearm they had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions as to who can own a single shot firearm.

2. If you want anything more powerful than a single shot firearm, then you must go jump some hurdles:
a. all multiple shot firearms must be registered.
b. all multiple shot firearms must have liability insurance.
c. all multiple shot firearms must have their "ballistic fingerprint" on file.
d. all multiple shot firearms must have a "title" that must be shown when buying ammunition.

3. All owners must have a license. To get a license, a person must undergo a background check and complete a general gun safety course. This would enable a person to get a handgun that fires up to 8 bullets/shells before it needs to be reloaded.

4. People who want to own firearms with a capacity greater than 8 bullets/shells need to undergo a psych evaluation as well as take an advanced safety course.

5. All owners must renew their licenses every 3-5 years.
Wow I don't want to live in your world of dictatorship. So by the same token, since the internet wasn't available at the time the founders wrote the bill of rights the protection against search and seizure wouldn't apply. Cars also weren't available so those could be searched and seized at any time as well.

Freedom of speech also wouldn't apply to the internet, telephone, etc.. since those weren't available in the 1700s.

 
Old 03-25-2013, 07:28 AM
 
1,163 posts, read 1,198,316 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak View Post
It's is true, but I should clarify, I meant a tank with an active main weapon.
You can have an "active main weapon", the cannon, with no problem. You will have to pay for a $250 tax stamp for each round of ammunition however.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Colorado
1,969 posts, read 1,976,621 times
Reputation: 1724
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
All I can say is to quote this often-quoted saying: "Those who are willing to trade freedom for security will soon have neither freedom nor security."
These laws are aimed at reducing massacres so I'm all for them. We have had too many in Colorado, let alone CT.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,626 posts, read 11,019,566 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4 View Post
These laws are aimed at reducing massacres so I'm all for them. We have had too many in Colorado, let alone CT.
People who support these laws have yet to explain how these laws accomplish their stated purpose. They have yet to explain how they do anything other than infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:38 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,525,426 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Locking people up and and killing them, simply doesn't work.
It does work. With the rise of looser gun laws for concealed carry and improved penalties for crime, violent crime has dropped steadily since 1970 and the homicide rate has been cut in half since 1985.

We put dirtbags either in the ground or in jail for life. You bet we have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, we put repeat offenders and drags on society in there and keep them there.

You are using no logic whatsoever. You are saying reduce prison time and take away guns from ordinary citizens and we'll have lower crime. That's about one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on this forum. Ever.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:41 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,525,426 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
David, I agree, that should help a lot and makes too much sense for our politicos to ever do something like this.
It's more rules upon more rules upon more rules, more fees, more taxes, more bureaucracy and it will do nothing about nothing.

Lefties only solutions ever involve complicating everything and making it more expensive.

Try another tact for once.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:43 AM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,525,426 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4 View Post
These laws are aimed at reducing massacres so I'm all for them. We have had too many in Colorado, let alone CT.
And how exactly do they do that? We'd like to know.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
261 posts, read 620,759 times
Reputation: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
I've yet to ever see any lefty defend that record. Wash DC, Chicago, Detroit, LA, all have very restrictive firearms laws and yet some of the worse crime around.

More restrictive firearms laws=more crime.

I've also not seen any of the maryjijuanna smokers who are all about states rights for maryjuana yet want a totalitarian federal government for everything else come back into this thread and defend their awkward stance. As I predicted, they all bolted and hid.

Logic and facts always disarm these people.
I can't imagine why someone with a differing opinion wouldn't bother to take time out of their day to discuss it with someone like you. You're right, everyone's scared of your "logic and facts."
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,211,765 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
It's more rules upon more rules upon more rules, more fees, more taxes, more bureaucracy and it will do nothing about nothing.

Lefties only solutions ever involve complicating everything and making it more expensive.

Try another tact for once.
Oh, those pesky RULES! That big ol' mean government infringed on my rights just today when it forced me to stop a red lights and drive only 20 mph through school zones! I'm a responsible driver and I can decide what speed to drive and when to stop. It's all just a big government bureaucracy that taxes me to hire cops and buy stop lights and all sorts of signs and infringe upon my rights!

Really, isn't the issue with a lot of the "righties" that they just don't want anyone to ever tell them what to do, period? But that's the price you'll pay to live in a civilized society.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,211,765 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
I agree totally, but I would like to add that in the rush to preserve what many perceive to be an unlimited right, the majority of the gun enthusiasts forget that with each right comes responsibilities. And when people do not live up to their responsibilities, the government create laws in an effort to enforce responsible behavior.

There is a two-fold problem with any sort of gun control: 1. any laws that are not created at the federal level are useless as people move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and 2. there are too many guns already out there for gun control to be effective.

If it were up to me, this is the regulation I would make:

1. Anybody can own a single shot firearm. This was the firearm available to the colonists at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so this is the firearm they had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions as to who can own a single shot firearm.

2. If you want anything more powerful than a single shot firearm, then you must go jump some hurdles:
a. all multiple shot firearms must be registered.
b. all multiple shot firearms must have liability insurance.
c. all multiple shot firearms must have their "ballistic fingerprint" on file.
d. all multiple shot firearms must have a "title" that must be shown when buying ammunition.

3. All owners must have a license. To get a license, a person must undergo a background check and complete a general gun safety course. This would enable a person to get a handgun that fires up to 8 bullets/shells before it needs to be reloaded.

4. People who want to own firearms with a capacity greater than 8 bullets/shells need to undergo a psych evaluation as well as take an advanced safety course.

5. All owners must renew their licenses every 3-5 years.

All very good suggestions. We have driving lessons/tests/licenses to help keep us safe on the road. If you want to walk around with something that can blow the heads off people, you should expect this type of regulation.
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. The time now is 03:44 PM.

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