Hunting Boycott over Gun Laws a Bust (time, shutter)

[urbanologist]

You can't have police at every home and business to prevent criminals from shooting on the offensive. There is no law that will prevent "evil" from occurring. Criminals who go out to kill and steal don't care what laws were written or how many. The only ones who follow the laws are law bidding citizens not the one's looking to go on a shooting spree or rob people or businesses. Getting rid of guns would be like bringing back the prohibition period which failed miserably only to force ammo and guns to become an under ground economy. Paper laws mean nothing. Chicago has one the strictest gun laws preventing law biding citizens from protecting themselves and the criminals know gun free zones have easy targets. If an armed criminal is going to invade your home and is about to shoot your loved one would you follow a stupid law on paper or be armed to protect them in order to help save them? Keep in mind the cops don't live next door 24/7 and cannot be everywhere at once which most of them know this. It's just common sense.

My solution is having a program where armed law bidding citizens and law enforcement work together to help each other to keep our communities safer. Of course, some training for the citizens would help.

[sammy87]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I'm the kind of gun owner that gun control advocates love to hate. I no longer hunt. But, I own several firearms, and I own them for one reason only: as personal defense against another human being determined harm me or my loved ones--in other words, personal defense. Most all of the new gun law's effect will only be to take weapons away from people like me who would only use them for defensive purposes, while doing nothing to stop criminals from obtaining weapons to use for offensive purposes against other human beings. In a state like Colorado, where--especially in the rural areas--law enforcement personnel are spread thinly over hundreds, often thousands of square miles, it should be no surprise that an overwhelmingly majority of county sheriffs opposed Colorado's latest gun control legislation for the very reason that they recognize that those laws will do exactly what I stated above. Those sheriffs are fully aware of the reality that, when a criminal is seconds away from breaking into your home, law enforcement is minutes (maybe many minutes) away. All another of many reasons that I have moved out of Colorado--to escape another example of Californicated nanny-state stupidity.

I'm the same as you on the issue. Never hunted, only own a weapon for home defense and I travel a lot and away from home. I find it a necessity. Plus I lived in Atlanta, much more crime across the metro area than you will find in Denver.

The bad guys will still find a way go get guns no matter how many laws you have. The under world in Europe has a rampant gun trade. There was even a robbery in France where a live RPG was used about a yr ago. Criminals will be criminals no matter what and when you need help in seconds, the police are minutes away.

I really wish politicians would quit being so reactionary and creating these laws without doing the research and coming up with real solutions to the problem. limiting 2nd amendment rights will do nothing to stop massacres. The US needs to look at it's mental health policies and flag those individuals that might be a threat and get them the treatment they need before they crack. Keeping their thought a secret with a doctor and over medicating them is the real issue.

As far as actual violent crime and gun violence goes, that's a whole other issue. Although it's rather obvious most people will never talk about the elephant in the room on that issue.

So democrats, please stop wasting your time in office with crappy laws that do nothing other than make idiots sleep better at night believing that they can leave their doors unlocked now that there is a new gun law. Try to proactively try to get the country out of the recession and create new jobs. Gun violence most likely will drop with an increase in economic activity.

[urbanologist]

Originally Posted by artisan4

Social stability. Good wages vs. drug dealing. Think more Denmark and less Mexico.

Denmark is smaller so it has less population and resources to manage than we do. Another small country like Switzerland by law requires it's citizens to be armed and have mandatory training. That country also has very low crime rate. Guns alone aren't dangerous. It's the people who are using them that make them dangerous most notably criminal offenders who don't care about gun laws to be ignored anyway. Gun laws are for law biding citizens who follow the law making it harder for them to protect themselves or families. Killers like those kind of laws so the gun free zone is easier target for them.

[motoracer51]

I own more guns that were affected by the magazine ban than not. It's sad to see the discrimination leveraged against lawful gun owning residents of this state.

I mean, there would be an absolute uproar if we implemented a background check and small fee for voting.

Like already mentioned, these laws will not reduce crime in the slightest, and affect law abiding gun owners and it's just another step to overall banning and confiscation of them in the future.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by motoracer51

I own more guns that were affected by the magazine ban than not. It's sad to see the discrimination leveraged against lawful gun owning residents of this state.

I mean, there would be an absolute uproar if we implemented a background check and small fee for voting.

Like already mentioned, these laws will not reduce crime in the slightest, and affect law abiding gun owners and it's just another step to overall banning and confiscation of them in the future.

Yes. Somehow requiring an ID and proof of residency to ensure the integrity of an election is racist, but it's okay to expect legal gun owners to be subject to intrusive regulations.

[artisan4]

Originally Posted by urbanologist

Denmark is smaller so it has less population and resources to manage than we do. Another small country like Switzerland by law requires it's citizens to be armed and have mandatory training. That country also has very low crime rate. Guns alone aren't dangerous. It's the people who are using them that make them dangerous most notably criminal offenders who don't care about gun laws to be ignored anyway. Gun laws are for law biding citizens who follow the law making it harder for them to protect themselves or families. Killers like those kind of laws so the gun free zone is easier target for them.

The comparison I was making was: choose civilization, not a corrupt, violent society.

Switzerland has a strong social safety net. We do not.

By helping the oligarch party (Republicans) in their removal of Democrats from public office, you are working to promote poverty and thus more crime and gun violence. See my point now?

Hudak and the others made efforts to promote safety in our society, and the reaction of some in our state was to attack them and help the plutocrats destroy our democracy; that is, what is left of it.

The need for strengthening public safety by running background checks and making it more difficult for mass murderers to obtain large-capacity clips and slaughter people trumps your need for a clip which contains more than 15 rounds due to your poor marksmanship/inability to neutralize a burglar using 15 rounds.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by artisan4

The comparison I was making was: choose civilization, not a corrupt, violent society.

Switzerland has a strong social safety net. We do not.

Part of "civilization" means respecting differing points of view without assuming those who hold those views are ignorant and advocating violence. You know, the way you view people who value the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and gun rights. So you are a major part of the problem. Way more so than the pro-gun side.

Originally Posted by artisan4

By helping the oligarch party (Republicans) in their removal of Democrats from public office, you are working to promote poverty and thus more crime and gun violence. See my point now?

Major straw man. Hardly even worth a response (much like everything else you post). But I wonder, how do you explain places where Democrats have enjoyed single party rule for a long time, places like Chicago and Detroit, are rank with violence. Chicago hasn't been this bloody since the Al Capone days? What do Democrats and socialist utopians like you have against low income people?[/quote]

Originally Posted by artisan4

Hudak and the others made efforts to promote safety in our society, and the reaction of some in our state was to attack them and help the plutocrats destroy our democracy; that is, what is left of it.

Then why did the Governor say the laws wouldn't work? Which is essentially what he said when he signed them. Why bother enacting legislation that you know won't work? Why not focus on something that actually will?

Originally Posted by artisan4

The need for strengthening public safety by running background checks and making it more difficult for mass murderers to obtain large-capacity clips and slaughter people trumps your need for a clip which contains more than 15 rounds due to your poor marksmanship/inability to neutralize a burglar using 15 rounds.

This is part of why it is nearly impossible to have civil dialogue on this subject because one side has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I challenge you to tell me what a "clip" is without the use of google.

[cowboyxjon]

Originally Posted by artisan4

The need for strengthening public safety by running background checks and making it more difficult for mass murderers to obtain large-capacity clips and slaughter people trumps your need for a clip which contains more than 15 rounds due to your poor marksmanship/inability to neutralize a burglar using 15 rounds.

One thing I get tired of reading about in the media is how Coloradoans "support" background checks. It all depends on how the question is asked; I don't think anyone is trying to say that there should be NO background checks done in any instance. There were background checks in place BEFORE the gun control-oriented laws took place, so it's not like background checks are new. I think it's funny that the pro-gun control side acts like there were NO checks prior to the laws being passed and enacted.

I don't even own a gun myself, but I don't support feel good, nonsense laws like what the Democrats passed earlier this year and hope to see them repealed in the future.

[jazzlover]

It's interesting--I have several friends who are, by any estimation, "social liberals"--except when it comes to gun control and the Second Amendment. They are anti-gun control, vehemently so. One day, I commented to one as to how she could be liberal and anti-gun control (to the point that she has a concealed weapons permit and regularly "packs"). She answered, "Because I'm compassionate, but not stupid enough to think that criminals who break the law should be the only people with easy access to firearms."

[artisan4]

I'll let you all get back to cleaning your guns.