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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:58 AM
 
918 posts, read 983,514 times
Reputation: 1069

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneNative View Post
A recent poll showed that roughly 2/3 of Coloradans don't like this package of gun bills.

Colorado Poll: Gun Control Politically Dangerous for Democrats | The Weekly Standard

Recalls are being organized against Democratic lawmakers from more conservative districts who supported the bills, and I suspect that the party will suffer seriously in 2014.
So a GOP oriented polling firm shows that the majority of Colorado populace is against the overall package while an earlier poll from the Democrat oriented firm PPP shows that a majority of the populace is for the overall package? That's a lack of data that makes drawing conclusions about the stance of the state's populations view on these measures rather dangerous. But it is convenient for both sides to point to their cherry picked surveys and studies to support their opposing arguments.

 
Old 03-13-2013, 12:05 PM
 
704 posts, read 1,497,099 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
So a GOP oriented polling firm shows that the majority of Colorado populace is against the overall package while an earlier poll for the Democrat oriented firm shows that a majority of the populace is for the overall package? That's a lack of data that makes drawing conclusions about the stance of the state's populations view on these measures rather dangerous.
The most damaging thing to Democrats about these bills is the fact that it has awoken an enormous sleeping giant in Colorado. Colorado politics is pretty evenly divided between social conservatives, libertarians, and liberals (each 1/3, approximately). Democrats have done a tremendous job picking up libertarian votes and, thus, winning elections. The problem is that now you have perhaps the single issue that unites libertarians and social conservatives more than any other issue that's hot these days. A united Republican Party in Colorado is simply much larger than an overreaching, left-wing Democratic Party.

You don't need a poll to see how dooming this is for Democrats.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Corona
10,058 posts, read 13,945,641 times
Reputation: 8887
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge View Post
Isn't the person buying the gun already paying a fee for the background check?
No currently the state pays to my knowledge, I believe I heard that on the local news the other night.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: RI dreaming of Florida
549 posts, read 1,538,354 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes View Post
If United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia allows machine guns to be regulated so heavily that they are effectively outlawed, then why can't we do the same with semi-automatic weapons?

Why should it be legal to own a semi-automatic assault rifle, but not legal to own a ManPAD? If I am going to be part of a militia, then I should be able to own an effective weapon against aircraft.

Actually Miller had a sawed off shotgun which is regulated by the NFA of 1934. The Miller decision stated that a sawed off shotgun was not particularly suited for use by the militia (which isn't true, btw) so the NFA 34 stood with ALL of it's restrictions. Note that it didn't ban ownership, manufacture, or import of these weapons, it just established a system that highly regulated those activities UNDER TAX LAW, which is why the Treasury Department oversees that and how they explained exerting their authority to restrict an enumerated right.

The MANPAD argument et al. is specious and ridiculous. It is commonly accepted that the intent was for personal arms- in this day and age M-4's, M-249's, M-240's, M-203's, etc. Although if we interpreted the Second Amendment as we do the First no doubt we could have MLRS's to our hearts content.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,955,081 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneNative View Post
The most damaging thing to Democrats about these bills is the fact that it has awoken an enormous sleeping giant in Colorado. Colorado politics is pretty evenly divided between social conservatives, libertarians, and liberals (each 1/3, approximately). Democrats have done a tremendous job picking up libertarian votes and, thus, winning elections. The problem is that now you have perhaps the single issue that unites libertarians and social conservatives more than any other issue that's hot these days. A united Republican Party in Colorado is simply much larger than an overreaching, left-wing Democratic Party.

You don't need a poll to see how dooming this is for Democrats.
I think most people are like me on this issue. The bills that have made it if passed or not passed will not change how we vote in the next election. Its going to be about the economy.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
2,394 posts, read 4,299,877 times
Reputation: 7531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I think most people are like me on this issue. The bills that have made it if passed or not passed will not change how we vote in the next election. Its going to be about the economy.
Well HB 1224 is pushing 100+ million and 500+ jobs out of state, that has to do with the economy.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Colorado
11,624 posts, read 7,195,062 times
Reputation: 20935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snikt View Post
Well HB 1224 is pushing 100+ million and 500+ jobs out of state, that has to do with the economy.
Not to mention tourist dollars with the people who fly in from out of state to go hunting in the mountains, which I assure you is very significant. This legislation does nothing for increasing the safety of the people or decreasing gun violence, it restricts our 2A rights on a slippery slope to public disarmament and it harms the state economy.

This whole thing is all the talk among my husband's military and veteran buddies. And for those who worry (as these men do) that eventually in the next few years UN troops will be stationed on our soil, as the only ones who can be counted on to kick in the doors of Americans or put dissidents into camps, allow me to at least say that nearly every soldier my husband has spoken to, enlisted and officer alike, agrees that they will not obey unlawful orders to oppress American citizens on American soil. So at least the US military won't be turned against the people, in theory.

For those who have been lulled by our cushy American existence into thinking that the Second Amendment is obsolete, setting aside any arguments about hunting, collecting, or sport/target/competitive shooting...we need to retain the right to be an armed and lethal population for two good reasons.

1. So that we will not be defenseless against tyranny, which is what our founders intended. A tyrannical government can occur at any time, and in fact many argue that ours is getting closer and closer to this. History is full of precedent for this need. It is not obsolete, the power hungry have not suddenly become less so in recent times.

2. To give pause to any foreign nation that would think to set ground troops on our soil to make war against us. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) it was the Japanese during WWII who would not put boots on the ground here because there would be a gun "behind every blade of grass" or something? While it is perhaps unfair that we are able to wage war in the lands of others and other countries don't enjoy the same security, I do appreciate being able to raise my kids without worries about being brutalized or killed by invading or occupying troops, no land mines blowing them to bits when they go out in the yard, etc. I mean come on...the reason other countries haven't tried to march across our borders, drop men in from the air or unload them from the sea, it's not because we are such a loveable international neighbor in the global community that no one wishes us ill.

I'm a woman, and a mother, I'm no warmonger, all I want is peace...I'm also city-bred and guns really make me uncomfortable. I'm no gun nut. I'm no right winger. I support gay marriage and the right to choose. But ultimately, I support freedom. Even as I fought tears (literally) the entire day after hearing about Sandy Hook, I knew this was going to mean trouble in the days that followed as everyone yelled that we need to "do something!" Well sorry, but there is nothing that can be done now that will bring back those who have died, and if there is anything that could have been done to prevent it, or that can be done to prevent future tragedy, it isn't this!!
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:11 PM
 
77 posts, read 95,971 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snikt View Post
Well HB 1224 is pushing 100+ million and 500+ jobs out of state, that has to do with the economy.
The sequester will likely have even more of an impact on Colorado's economy than a few upset gun companies. I'd be surprised if there is such a "silent majority" on gun rights, especially since the number of homes with guns has been dropping for four decades. These are reasonable laws in most people's eyes. Hunters even seem to agree that the regulations are not a burden on the rights of gun owners. There are legitimate concerns regarding the efficacy of gun regulations, and I would prefer the NRA and similarly minded Coloradans help craft meaningful regulations to improve gun safety and reduce gun violence instead of decrying any attempt at all to regulate and insisting that the solution to gun violence is for all of us to be armed to the teeth and ready to kill at a moment's notice. Such "solutions" are not going to garner much support from people who prefer to live in a civilized society and not a violet free-for-all.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:24 PM
 
77 posts, read 95,971 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Not to mention tourist dollars with the people who fly in from out of state to go hunting in the mountains, which I assure you is very significant. This legislation does nothing for increasing the safety of the people or decreasing gun violence, it restricts our 2A rights on a slippery slope to public disarmament and it harms the state economy.

This whole thing is all the talk among my husband's military and veteran buddies. And for those who worry (as these men do) that eventually in the next few years UN troops will be stationed on our soil, as the only ones who can be counted on to kick in the doors of Americans or put dissidents into camps, allow me to at least say that nearly every soldier my husband has spoken to, enlisted and officer alike, agrees that they will not obey unlawful orders to oppress American citizens on American soil. So at least the US military won't be turned against the people, in theory.

...
With all due respect, these are very paranoid thoughts. The UN has a security council of which there are five permanent members that can veto any action, and the US is a permanent member. The UN has no taxing power and therefore no funds to run a military. Any peacekeeping action by the UN in the last decades has occurred with full blessing of the US political and military establishment. The black helicopters are not on the way. The US will not be attacked by ground from anywhere for a simple reason: nuclear weapons.

As I said in another post, I welcome gun enthusiasts who have reasonable worldviews to help craft effective gun control regulations, but the notion that the only way to reduce gun violence is to make everyone primed to kill at a moment's notice is not congruous with a civilized society. Those of us in favor of gun regulations are not trying to take away your husband's guns, just the severity of gun violence that may take place.

Last edited by sbelvedere; 03-13-2013 at 02:42 PM..
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,174 posts, read 20,955,081 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Not to mention tourist dollars with the people who fly in from out of state to go hunting in the mountains, which I assure you is very significant. This legislation does nothing for increasing the safety of the people or decreasing gun violence, it restricts our 2A rights on a slippery slope to public disarmament and it harms the state economy.

These laws should not impact hunting.
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 03:50 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