Colorado's Gun Control Measures (Denver: crime rates, movies, garage)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

And that wasn't already law? The government has no business being involved in private commerce.

The government is involved in private commerce all the time. I don't know of any constitutional amendment that says they cant be.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by ryanek9freak

You don't have a problem with it, because you don't realize it leads to registration.

I don't have a problem with it because I think sensible gun laws are ok. Even Bill O Reilly thinks background checks are good.

[kanhawk]

Originally Posted by artisan4

I think it is a minority of Americans who oppose gun control. Some buy into the John Wayne myth of the rugged individualist and resist any civilizing legislation. The issue is like slavery or abortion or marriage equality; it may take time but the country will move forward and continue to pass legislation to reduce gun violence.

You sure about that?

CNN Poll: Is support for gun control dipping? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

There are currently 25000 firearms laws in this country. The law themselves often don't even know the law.

Yet they keep passing more laws and don't even enforce many of the ones they already have.

That's EXACTLY why I want to see ONE set of laws common to all 50 states. Law enforcement types and many others must be going nuts with 25000 laws to sift through all the time.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

That's EXACTLY why I want to see ONE set of laws common to all 50 states. Law enforcement types and many others must be going nuts with 25000 laws to sift through all the time.

I agree with this statement.

[jazzlover]

Interesting how many of the same people that think that states should be able to thumb their nose at the Federal government regarding marijuana law are the ones clamoring for national sovereignty and uniformity in gun control. I guess their opinion of who controls the jukebox depends on whether or not they like the tune that is playing.

[Chip_Vanilla]

The concept of gun control is a flimsy notion based on wishful thinking and a rosy view of human nature that's contradicted by all observable evidence both historical and contemporary.

[toodie]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

Putting forth bad legislation is not the exclusive purvey of the Democrats. Republicans are equally adept at screwing the general population. Instead of attacking civil liberties they like to do things like making it easier for companies to send your job to cheap labor markets overseas. You can still own a gun but you're working a part-time job without benefits so you don't have enough money to buy one.

Here is what your dem president is up to, regarding moving your job overseas:

Jeffrey Immelt, the head of Barack Obama's highly touted "Jobs Council", is moving even more GE infrastructure to China. GE makes more medical-imaging machines than anyone else in the world, and now GE has announced that it "is moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing". Apparently, this is all part of a "plan to invest about $2 billion across China" over the next few years.

GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, The Head Of Obama’s Jobs Council, Is Moving Jobs And Economic Infrastructure To China At A Blistering Pace

[toodie]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

About a week ago I wrote this letter to Governor Hickenlooper's office:


Dear Governor,

As a Colorado resident and military officer currently stationed in Virginia, I am greatly troubled by the recent gun legislation that passed the Colorado House Assembly. This legislation will soon be subject to review and debate by the State Senate. Should the Senate approve the legislation, I strongly urge you to not to sign into law any legislation that infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens.

Colorado is a great state with a long history of rugged independence and proud tradition of responsible gun ownership and firearms proficiency. I understand that in the face of tragedies such as the Century 16 Theater in Aurora and the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton, combined with our still painful memories of the Columbine High School shooting our response may be to react by imposing strict gun laws in an effort to prevent future tragedies. I question if such legislation is a good idea, however. Consider Illinois, a state which boasts some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the United States, yet the City of Chicago is in an era of violence surpassed in its severity only by the Al Capone era. If passing gun legislation were the answer, Chicago would be the safest major city in the country. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can address the actions of law breakers by restricting the rights of law abiders.

Freedom and legislation are mutually exclusive. With this in mind, legislation should be considered only when there is no other alternative, because legislation by nature infringes upon the freedoms of the citizen. In my adult life I have endeavored to avoid making big decisions on an emotional high or low state of mind. Such reactionary behavior often results in sub-optimal results. With this in mind, I make an effort to make big decisions in my life only after a sustained level of logical consideration. Similarly, legislation taken in a reactive spirit, such as House Bills 1224, 1226, 1228, and 1229, is powered by emotion and not a sustained level of logical or critical thought. If the state is going to impose upon the liberties of its citizens, it should at minimum oblige itself to do so under a sustained level of logic rather than an emotional reaction to a tragedy. I find it somewhat ironic that each bill ends with a safety clause stipulating that the bill is proposed in the interest of “public peace, health and safety.” As I read each bill, I could not help but be reminded of the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I have read reports that you support the proposed legislation that I have identified above and that you intend to sign it if it passes the State Senate. This will be a sad day for the State of Colorado. I have long looked forward to the day in which I leave military service and return home to Colorado to continue my life in the state I love most. However, I have carefully weighed the ramifications of this legislation and have deemed it incompatible with my values and rights as an American. It is with a heavy heart that I will be forced to switch my residency (and with it my taxable earnings and commerce) to the State of Virginia, a place where Second Amendments rights are still valued by the state level government.

This is a decision point I wish to avoid, and I hope that you will do everything in your power to preserve the rights of Americans citizens and Colorado residents. I strongly urge you to seek alternatives that address the root of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Sincerely,

[iknowftbll]
Colorado Resident, State District 35
Captain, USMC

Bravo !!!
You are a true American.
best,
toodie

[Teckeeee]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

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.

Don't tell that to my neighbor he thinks it's legal right to own a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. There is no reason a citizen should have access to a sniper rifle that can take out an engine block from a mile away. WTF? I would ban that for damn sure.

And yes I own a .357 looking into a CCW so don't call me some liberal freak.

I am satisfied with the 15 round max clip. That's what a Glock 19 ships with and there is no damn reason for a 33 round mag.