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.
I'll admit I have not followed the details of these new laws closely because I don't own guns.
Could you explain how the NEW Colorado gun laws infringe on the rights of LEGAL GUN OWNERS?
Gladly. Take the magazine capacity law, for example. Why should a legal gun owner have his magazine capacity restricted? If a standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds, why should a legal gun owner have that be arbitrarily limited by the state?
Private transfer is another one. Why should a legal gun owner now essentially require the state's permission to sell that which is legally his?
Do these laws prevent further crime? Would they have prevented the Aurora shooting? Governor Hick said himself they would not. So what purpose do the laws serve? The restrict gun rights, and that's all they do. Ask yourself how you would feel if you had to get the state's permission to exercise a First Amendment right. That's how gun owners feel about these laws.
Gladly. Take the magazine capacity law, for example. Why should a legal gun owner have his magazine capacity restricted? If a standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds, why should a legal gun owner have that be arbitrarily limited by the state?
Private transfer is another one. Why should a legal gun owner now essentially require the state's permission to sell that which is legally his?
Do these laws prevent further crime? Would they have prevented the Aurora shooting? Governor Hick said himself they would not. So what purpose do the laws serve? The restrict gun rights, and that's all they do. Ask yourself how you would feel if you had to get the state's permission to exercise a First Amendment right. That's how gun owners feel about these laws.
Thanks. Just for my educational purposes, aren't guns with 30+ rounds a pretty small % of privately owned guns? And you did not mention background checks, which I think were part of the new laws, so can I assume you are ok with some kind of background check before someone buys a gun? And if so, could this be accomplished with a private transfer?
Nobody is trying to establish a "gun-crazed plutocracy." What is happening with the recall elections is the people, those who hold the power in this country, have determined their elected representatives no longer represent their will.
To dismiss the fight for 2nd Amendment rights as trying to establish a "gun-crazed plutocracy" just underscores why this dialogue can be so dwifficult. You ignore the fact that LEAGAL LAW ABIDING gun owners have ZERO impact on your life. LAW ABIDING gun owners, which constitutes the vast majority of gun owners, are not the reason why these gun laws were proposed. However, they are the ones whose rights are infringed by these laws.
Thankfully the recall elections are serving as a reminder to the assembly what happens when you infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
This skirmish may be about 'gun rights' to you, but in reality it's a battle in the larger war of the plutocrats and corporations against the middle and working classes. For your own benefit you ought to recognize that. Unless you support plutarchy, you should support Giron and Morse.
This skirmish may be about 'gun rights' to you, but in reality it's a battle in the larger war of the plutocrats and corporations against the middle and working classes. For your own benefit you ought to recognize that.
You would do well to recognize that how you see it is not the exclusive one and only right way to see it. It's real to you, irrelevant to the rest of the world.
And no, it's not just about "gun rights" but Constitutional rights. While the gun legislation is what led to the recalls, this thread is about the recalls themselves, which by the State of Colorado's laws, is the right of the citizens to pursue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
Unless you support plutarchy, you should support Giron and Morse.
I support the Constitution of the United States as well as the State of Colorado, hence I support the recall elections.
I understand why you would try to put my reasons for supporting the recalls into a box because it fits your narrative better. The problem with this is you are not even making an effort to understand your ideological opponent. This is very common amongst anti-gunners, but it is also intellectually dishonest. If you choose to continue in ignorance on the reasons law abiding gun owners oppose the new laws as well as support the recall elections, then your "contributions" to this discussion are essentially worthless. I politely ask you to actually consider a point of view besides your own or kindly withdraw so those with something intelligent to say may continue the dialogue on an intellectual level deserving of the topic.
Thanks. Just for my educational purposes, aren't guns with 30+ rounds a pretty small % of privately owned guns?
Perhaps so, but the question is irrelevant. A more relevant question would be, "What gives government the authority to impose a limit of 15 rounds? What gives them the authority to say a 30 round magazine is now illegal?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
And you did not mention background checks, which I think were part of the new laws, so can I assume you are ok with some kind of background check before someone buys a gun? And if so, could this be accomplished with a private transfer?
I do support background checks for the initial sale of a weapon, so long as it is a licensed dealer making a business transaction. A degree of regulation on legal gun trade is not unreasonable, and many gun owners do support the current background check system used by NICS. But private sales are entirely different. This is a matter of a gun owner selling his own privately owned property. The state doesn't have a place is saying yes or no to this transaction.
Where I live in Virginia, they have a lot of suggested guidelines for private sales, but no laws. This is the way to go. The state should publish the recommended methods for selling/trading/transferring a privately owned weapon, but they should not prohibit the transaction. And that's exactly what the new law does: prohibit transfers. Sure, the state is likely to approve these transfers, but they now have a chance to say "no" whereas they previously did not. In other words, the state has become more powerful. Don't you think the state has enough power already? I certainly do. And abuse of that power is why we have recalls.
Perhaps so, but the question is irrelevant. A more relevant question would be, "What gives government the authority to impose a limit of 15 rounds? What gives them the authority to say a 30 round magazine is now illegal?"
The reason it is relevant to me, is some are saying the new laws are infringing on the rights of gun owners. I'm curious if this is most/many gun owners or perhaps 1% of gun owners
I do support background checks for the initial sale of a weapon, so long as it is a licensed dealer making a business transaction. A degree of regulation on legal gun trade is not unreasonable, and many gun owners do support the current background check system used by NICS. But private sales are entirely different. This is a matter of a gun owner selling his own privately owned property. The state doesn't have a place is saying yes or no to this transaction.
Where I live in Virginia, they have a lot of suggested guidelines for private sales, but no laws. This is the way to go. The state should publish the recommended methods for selling/trading/transferring a privately owned weapon, but they should not prohibit the transaction. And that's exactly what the new law does: prohibit transfers. Sure, the state is likely to approve these transfers, but they now have a chance to say "no" whereas they previously did not. In other words, the state has become more powerful. Don't you think the state has enough power already? I certainly do. And abuse of that power is why we have recalls.
[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"] You agree that background checks have some value in preventing criminals/unstable people from getting guns. Aren't unregulated private sales a way to avoid this? What if it was up to the buyer to get the background check on himself and you could do a private sale if he had background check? Don't unregulated private sales defeat the purpose of background checks on the original purchase?
[/color]
It's actually a large percentage of gun owners. The AR platform is wildly popular with most major manufacturers offering some version of it. In addition to that, some companies specialize in custom parts and components for the AR platform, even if they do not make their own model.
One such company was MagPul Industries, the formerly Colorado-based company that specialized in durable 30 round magazines for ARs. Magpul supplied a lot of military units as well. Of course, they are in the process of relocating now due to the new laws. They said they would. The first thing Hick did after signing the bills into law was to get on the phone with Magpul and start kissing a__. They made good on their threat to leave the state anyway. Well played, governor. As if the state can afford even a small hit to the economy.
All of this side steps the real issue behind your question, though. Weather we are infringing on 1% of gun owners or 50% or 100%, the state should not be infringing. Even if it were only 1%, "...shall not be infringed." means "shall not be infringed."
Regarding background checks, the difference is this: background checks on sales by authorized agents is a regulation on commerce and most gun owners support this. Background checks on private sales is an infringement on the rights of an individual to freely engage in a sale or trade within his choosing. A direct answer to your question is this. NO, I do not think this law curbs gun violence. A lot of gun crimes are committed by weapons obtained illegally. If the state is serious about reducing gun violence, why not make it a crime to obtain a gun illegally? Oh, wait, it already is illegal. Let's make a law against using a gun for unlawful purposes? Oh, yeah, that's already on the books. Does regulating private transfers reign in any of this? I question how much regulating licensed transfers does, considering many states and the federal government does a lousy job enforcing current regulations. Ineffective legislation is not likely to accomplish the ends to which it is enacted. And if a law does not live up to its stated purpose, it is simply an infringement upon law abiding citizens.
Sir, just about every gun owner I know and military veterans (often one in the same) own semi automatic Ar-15 rifles with standard capacity 30 round magazines. Mag capacity is completely, utterly worthless to debate. It doesn't matter if I have one 30 round mag, or 2 15 round mags, 30 rounds is 30 rounds. I can tape them together, (and as the bolt is held open on the final round spent, all I have to do is eject, flip it over,reinsert new mag, smack the bolt release, and bam, ready to fire again, in less than 1.5 seconds.)
As a matter of fact, they trained us how to do it one handed. I just don't get it. At 18, you an join the Army and get handed a FULLY AUTOMATIC M-16 Machine gun, yet when you get out, the government that you spent years as property of, doesn't even want to trust you with a SEMI AUTOMATIC civilian AR-15 look alike.
What changed? Are you somehow less worthy as a civilian?
And I thought of something the other day. Why do I need a 100 round beta mag? I didn't, until I found out it pisses off liberals.
Regarding background checks, the difference is this: background checks on sales by authorized agents is a regulation on commerce and most gun owners support this. Background checks on private sales is an infringement on the rights of an individual to freely engage in a sale or trade within his choosing. A direct answer to your question is this. NO, I do not think this law curbs gun violence. A lot of gun crimes are committed by weapons obtained illegally. If the state is serious about reducing gun violence, why not make it a crime to obtain a gun illegally? Oh, wait, it already is illegal. Let's make a law against using a gun for unlawful purposes? Oh, yeah, that's already on the books. Does regulating private transfers reign in any of this? I question how much regulating licensed transfers does, considering many states and the federal government does a lousy job enforcing current regulations. Ineffective legislation is not likely to accomplish the ends to which it is enacted. And if a law does not live up to its stated purpose, it is simply an infringement upon law abiding citizens.
This is the one thing I want to learn about more. So, the gov't is already doing a lousy job of enforcing gun laws already in the books? Figures.
But what about private sales of guns? Is it possible that serial killers are obtaining them this way and committing horrid crimes and mass murders? Well gee. Let's look at Columbine; Klebold and Harris were underage but purchased a firearm from Manus. How do you think Manus feels about his decision now? Hopefully pretty badly.
I hear that in Mexico it's illegal to own guns much less assault rifles. How are the cartel obtaining these nasty assault rifles? How much does your standard .223 sell for in boardertown Texas? Is the private sale contributing to gun violence or not and why are we gun owners not willing to consider reform of any sort here? This I'm not in total understanding of.
Gladly. Take the magazine capacity law, for example. Why should a legal gun owner have his magazine capacity restricted? If a standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds, why should a legal gun owner have that be arbitrarily limited by the state?
Private transfer is another one. Why should a legal gun owner now essentially require the state's permission to sell that which is legally his?
Do these laws prevent further crime? Would they have prevented the Aurora shooting? Governor Hick said himself they would not. So what purpose do the laws serve? The restrict gun rights, and that's all they do. Ask yourself how you would feel if you had to get the state's permission to exercise a First Amendment right. That's how gun owners feel about these laws.
1. Where in the Constitution does it say high capacity magazines are a right?
2. The government is involved when you sell your house. When you sell your car. Why is weaponry any different.
3. Oh, so Governor Hickenlooper knows what he's doing when he agrees with you, but not when he disagrees with you.
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.
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.
