Colorado's Recall Elections (Denver, Center: vehicle registration, car insurance, school districts)

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

And there's a lot of that on both sides. Please don't play the holier than thou card.

I haven't played that card and you know it. I am simply pointing out how difficult dialogue can be at times. I am well aware that it goes both ways, but the example I pointed out is an example of how unreasonable the anti-Constitution crowd has been when discussing the 2nd Amendment. Does this go both ways? Yes. Has someone arguing the pro-Constitution side made such an idiotic or radical statement in this converstaion thus far? If so, quote it.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by motoracer51

None of those are protected by the Constitution my friend.

Nor is some right to conduct any kind of business at any hour. If I'm wrong...show me a clause in the Constitution that talks about the right to buy or sell guns 24/7. It's not there.

[motoracer51]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Nor is some right to conduct any kind of business at any hour. If I'm wrong...show me a clause in the Constitution that talks about the right to buy or sell guns 24/7. It's not there.

Well, then, you need to ask yourself, is it infringing upon our Second Amendment rights if I'm denied access to firearms during certain hours?

I mean, lets have a law where you can only vote, after midnight on election day.

[Eddyline]

Originally Posted by motoracer51

Well, then, you need to ask yourself, is it infringing upon our Second Amendment rights if I'm denied access to firearms during certain hours?

I mean, lets have a law where you can only vote, after midnight on election day.

Restricting the hours you can buy guns IS NOT an infringement on the second Amendment.

Nor is restricting voting hours a restriction on voting.

Nor is restricting the hours of a marijuana business an infringement on Amendments 20 and 64.

Get over it. You are putting out a lousy argument that diminishes any real argument you might have.

[artisan4]

Instead of recall elections, why don't the anti-background check/magazine limit people sponsor amendments to be voted on by the public, repealing the laws? If passed, those would be in effect regardless of who was in office.

Oh that's right, because background checks and magazine limits are popular.

[deckdoc]

If you are really wanting the gun from your neighbor at 10 PM he can just lend it to you, appently he knows that you are in fact a law abiding person. If he doesn't know you well enough to let you use the gun until the background check is done then he probably doesn't know you well enough to know that you aren't a felon or that you do not have a restraining order against you or aren't suffering from a mental problem that will show up in your check. And I'm sure that motoracer 51 wants to guarantee that the local gun store owner MUST be open for business 24/7 because to ever close his doors would infringe on his rights to have access to that gunstore's offering at his convenience.

[motoracer51]

Originally Posted by artisan4

Instead of recall elections, why don't the anti-background check/magazine limit people sponsor amendments to be voted on by the public, repealing the laws? If passed, those would be in effect regardless of who was in office.

Oh that's right, because background checks and magazine limits are popular.

Apparently not. We wouldn't be at this point in the recall if they had not been. It was more of an issue with the blatant disregard for their constituents rather than the bills themselves.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by artisan4

Instead of recall elections, why don't the anti-background check/magazine limit people sponsor amendments to be voted on by the public, repealing the laws? If passed, those would be in effect regardless of who was in office.

Oh that's right, because background checks and magazine limits are popular.

Wrong, as usual. Repealing by referendum would be nice, but it's fixing a symptom and ignoring the problem, that being elected officials whose constituents feel no longer represent them. A recall election sends a strong message and is at least an attempt to address the problem.

[ryanek9freak]

Originally Posted by artisan4

Instead of recall elections, why don't the anti-background check/magazine limit people sponsor amendments to be voted on by the public, repealing the laws? If passed, those would be in effect regardless of who was in office.

Oh that's right, because background checks and magazine limits are popular.

That's already happening this November. Oh that's right, you never research anything before opening your mouth.

[Wardendresden]

Well, I'm no longer a Colorodoan , but at least review the facts about gun violence and its impact by state/region. I don't know what the answer is, I suspect too many guns are floating around to make much difference. Probably make as much sense to require everyone to wear one openly. That's the way they did it in the Old West and there was SO much less violence then. For whatever reason, and I don't pretend to know, many of the more "liberal" states have less violence in them.

The Geography of Gun Violence Last night's horror in Aurora, Colorado, once again confronts America with the senseless tragedy of gun violence. The debate over this country's relationship to guns will start all over again, and this time, in the middle of a presidential campaign.

The map below, by my colleague Zara Matheson at the Martin Prosperity Institute, charts the geography of gun violence across the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [PDF]. The data (from 2008, the most recent year available) include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.


There were 10.3 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people in Colorado in 2008, exactly the same as the national average. Gun deaths were highest in Alaska (20.9 per 100,000) and lowest in Hawaii (3.1 per 100,000).
The Geography of Gun Violence - Richard Florida - The Atlantic Cities