wtf Colorado?

[RandyDaytona]

Keep in mind that background checks do not account for mental instability and do not apply to purchases on the black market or firearms that are stolen... you know, the ones often used in crimes or mass murders. This is basically an extra step and expense for those that already follow the law. I can pass a background check with ease and don't mind doing so, but this step simply adds more expense to firearm transactions with no real benefit.

I agree - there's a lot a background check can't cover, but it's better than none at all. As far as where most firearms used in violent crimes come from - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Like I said in my other post, my experience has not even come close to showing that criminals are getting guns from anyplace other than by having it before they start committing crimes, getting it from a friend, from dad's sock drawer, or by having a buddy with a clean record buy it for him (and then reporting it stolen).

 

[theizzardking]

getting it from a friend, from dad's sock drawer, or by having a buddy with a clean record buy it for him (and then reporting it stolen).

1: illegal trafficking of a firearm
2: theft
3: see number 1 +filing a false report and aiding and abetting in whatever other crime was committed by that firearm....

and it's not like your talking about crimes of passion here......

 

[YotaLac]

"getting it from a friend, from dad's sock drawer, or by having a buddy with a clean record buy it for him". So how would these laws help? What you just said, in your experience, is that stricter gun laws wouldnt effect how most criminals get their guns. You say they already own a gun as a law abiding citizen, then decide to start committing crimes. So how would stricter laws prevent a law abiding citizen from becoming a criminal? What im so upset about, is the fact that they are starting to chisel away. Give em an inch and they'll take a mile. You know this is horseshit. This is a violation of our rights with the agenda of a safer place. There is nothing safer about it.

 

[TOY2G]

It was also set up at time when our country was in a very real danger of being invaded by another world power with the capability to do so. There were several. And on top of that, there was a huge, unsettled, and largely-unexplored frontier to contend with.

You have to look at it in context. Amazing that you seem to have an inability to do that and at the same time, come into this thread calling people "dumb" simply because they're willing to be inconvenienced in order to save lives.

The fact of the matter is that in the late 1700's, guns were tools, and that's all. Most people didn't "collect" them, there weren't gun stores, gun shows, and guns weren't romanticized like they are today. The latter is mainly due to the fact that the population - which was a drop in the bucket to what we have today - didn't have Hollywood to push everyone's buttons about bad guys with guns, heroes with guns, guns saving the day, etc. Guns in colonial America had about the same "cool factor" as a set of pliers.

These are also things which many people "don't get," (or choose not to), mainly because it would involve some kind of personal sacrifice. And in a selfish, gun-romancing society, that's an uphill battle.

TOOL^

I am not sure what history book you have been reading, but the right to bare arms had nothing to do with "another world power" you are thinking of the cold war there robocop. It was set in a time when government got so big and powerful its people (our great-great grandparents) had to leave too stand a chance at being free. Later, said government came to get it's property back (our great-great grandparents) and they were held off by.....you guessed it guns.

Now you want to throw ATF stats in there. tell me this....violent gun crime have been on the decline for several years IN A ROW.... this is from 2006 (reported by the FBI).

Being a police officer myself I can agree with you that 80 percent of the guns I have taken from people are legally owned, but lets get real here. 80% of 3 guns in two years is hardly something to base such a bold decision on.

let us say for a moment that you cannot be a cop until you are 84 years old. or heaven forbid you get hurt chasing a drunk driver (the cause of many times more death than guns) and can no longer work. Now you are not a cop...no guns for you....

Okay, to agree with you one more time, gun have been glamorized, drawing attention to them from people who have little to no training on them. I agree 100% that modern times has made it "cool" to have guns and being "cool" is a piss poor reason to have a gun.

I am a hug proprietor of personal gun ownership and gun safety, however I agree with background checks (sorta) but more over, you have to pass a test in proficiency to be issued a drivers license. I think it is reasonable you must pass a similar proficiency test to carry a fire arm. More than half of gun related deaths in the US can be associated with accidents (ATF 2009). I believe it could be useful to educate people.

THE ONLY WAY (A RIGHT TO BARE ARMS) can or will be effective, is if we have adequate arms to ward off our enemy, in this case as with in the 1700s; our government.

I get it, you are a cop and you don't want guns pointed at you by bad guys. But guess what, we sign up for that.....we know the danger..... I knew the danger when I served in the Army and I knew the danger when I served in desert storm.

There is no clean answer to the "right gun laws" but taking away or limiting legal gun owners is not the solution. If someone told you that you could only have one car in your family to help reduce drunk driver related deaths you would count the a fool.......Open your eyes brother, this has nothing to do with saving lives, this is simply our government insuring it has the bigger stick.

 

[KCcarguy]

I think a big part of this debate comes down to weather or not you believe the 2nd amendment actually protects us from tyranny. It's sort of a chicken-or-the-
egg question. I don't believe our government is out to get us. But has this sort of environment developed thanks to the 2nd amendment or not? I do kmow that humanity has a long history of power-hungry individuals who are driven to control and abuse others. I'm honestly, I'm not sure if we in the US are the exception to the rule because of the 2nd A or not .....but do we really want to risk finding out the hard way?

 

[JohnnyT]

TOOL^

I am not sure what history book you have been reading, but the right to bare arms had nothing to do with "another world power" you are thinking of the cold war there robocop. It was set in a time when government got so big and powerful its people (our great-great grandparents) had to leave too stand a chance at being free. Later, said government came to get it's property back (our great-great grandparents) and they were held off by.....you guessed it guns.

Now you want to throw ATF stats in there. tell me this....violent gun crime have been on the decline for several years IN A ROW.... this is from 2006 (reported by the FBI).

Being a police officer myself I can agree with you that 80 percent of the guns I have taken from people are legally owned, but lets get real here. 80% of 3 guns in two years is hardly something to base such a bold decision on.

let us say for a moment that you cannot be a cop until you are 84 years old. or heaven forbid you get hurt chasing a drunk driver (the cause of many times more death than guns) and can no longer work. Now you are not a cop...no guns for you....

Okay, to agree with you one more time, gun have been glamorized, drawing attention to them from people who have little to no training on them. I agree 100% that modern times has made it "cool" to have guns and being "cool" is a piss poor reason to have a gun.

I am a hug proprietor of personal gun ownership and gun safety, however I agree with background checks (sorta) but more over, you have to pass a test in proficiency to be issued a drivers license. I think it is reasonable you must pass a similar proficiency test to carry a fire arm. More than half of gun related deaths in the US can be associated with accidents (ATF 2009). I believe it could be useful to educate people.

THE ONLY WAY (A RIGHT TO BARE ARMS) can or will be effective, is if we have adequate arms to ward off our enemy, in this case as with in the 1700s; our government.

I get it, you are a cop and you don't want guns pointed at you by bad guys. But guess what, we sign up for that.....we know the danger..... I knew the danger when I served in the Army and I knew the danger when I served in desert storm.

There is no clean answer to the "right gun laws" but taking away or limiting legal gun owners is not the solution. If someone told you that you could only have one car in your family to help reduce drunk driver related deaths you would count the a fool.......Open your eyes brother, this has nothing to do with saving lives, this is simply our government insuring it has the bigger stick.

Our enemy = our government ?? You're really reaching here VP.

Nothing to do with saving lives??

You don't think it would be beneficial to have someone hell bent on mass murder provide you that brief moment of opportunity to take him out when he goes to change a magazine?

 

[Derek G]

So does this mean that every time I drive to Colorado (where I am a property owner as well) I'll have to leave my 9mm at the state line? It holds 17 rounds.

 

[TOY2G]

"Our enemy = our government ?? You're really reaching here VP."

^ yes in regards to our war of independence and our current civil liberties. Just because our government is the enemy against out civil liberty, does not imply or state anything further than this argument. So as it pertains to this argument the government in the enemy here.

"Nothing to do with saving lives??"

for a cop you know very little about saving lives...This legislation has NOTHING to do with saving lives. it is simply to disarm or restrict ONLY the people who comply..ie law abiding citizens..

"You don't think it would be beneficial to have someone hell bent on mass murder provide you that brief moment of opportunity to take him out when he goes to change a magazine?"

No you moron.....so he is reloading an AR-15 (less than 2 seconds) cops (you) are 7-9 min away... what are the unarmed citizen going to do in that brief moment??? Talk him out of reloading.

you of all people should know that dirt bags will be dirt bags, and with or without guns will find a way to hurt or destroy innocent people. You come off as a coward, afraid to stand up for civil rights because it is less convenient that conforming. It is not a matter of needing 30 rounds it is a matter of; it is not, nor has it ever been our governments choice. Rosa Parks did not NEED to sit in the front of the bus, so by your logic she should have stood in the back and kept her mouth shut like a good negro....???:argue:

 

[TOY2G]

So does this mean that every time I drive to Colorado (where I am a property owner as well) I'll have to leave my 9mm at the state line? It holds 17 rounds.

Yes it does.... Unless you want to get caught and become (for the rest of your life) a criminal.

 

[JohnnyT]

"Our enemy = our government ?? You're really reaching here VP."

^ yes in regards to our war of independence and our current civil liberties. Just because our government is the enemy against out civil liberty, does not imply or state anything further than this argument. So as it pertains to this argument the government in the enemy here.

"Nothing to do with saving lives??"

for a cop you know very little about saving lives...This legislation has NOTHING to do with saving lives. it is simply to disarm or restrict ONLY the people who comply..ie law abiding citizens..

"You don't think it would be beneficial to have someone hell bent on mass murder provide you that brief moment of opportunity to take him out when he goes to change a magazine?"

No you moron.....so he is reloading an AR-15 (less than 2 seconds) cops (you) are 7-9 min away... what are the unarmed citizen going to do in that brief moment??? Talk him out of reloading.

you of all people should know that dirt bags will be dirt bags, and with or without guns will find a way to hurt or destroy innocent people. You come off as a coward, afraid to stand up for civil rights because it is less convenient that conforming. It is not a matter of needing 30 rounds it is a matter of; it is not, nor has it ever been our governments choice. Rosa Parks did not NEED to sit in the front of the bus, so by your logic she should have stood in the back and kept her mouth shut like a good negro....???:argue:

If Law Enforcement or an armed citizen is there but without an opportunity due to heavy fire, then that brief moment (which can be longer under pressure) is an opportunity....... MORON.

A coward is one who would not stand up against an a s s like yourself.

Why would I know more about dirt bags than anyone else?......MORON

It is our govts choice and job when the people that gave them their job and they represent demand it..... MORON

Rosa Parks, VP?? Are you OK?? You're not all there.......MORON

 

[theizzardking]

Our enemy = our government ?? You're really reaching here VP.

Nothing to do with saving lives??

You don't think it would be beneficial to have someone hell bent on mass murder provide you that brief moment of opportunity to take him out when he goes to change a magazine?

the worst mass murder in American history was done with bombs..keep in mine fully automatic machine guns were legal to all amercian citizens at this time, he could have used a tommy gun if he wished....but hey bombs don't have reload times....
Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also, my friends in Bosnia never expected their civil war to happen, they literally went to sleep one night and woke up in the middle of a civil war....
http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/shtf-survival-qa-a-first-hand-account.htm

Please do not try to generalize anything about that war, there was not good and bad side, we all suffered and we all try to live together again.

And yes every side did bad things, and every side had booth good and bad guys.

I am here for one and only reason- survival, i want to learn, and i can share some useful stuff with you.

I don t think about your religious beliefs, your ethnicity or your politic opinion.

Few words about my city before war, it was a usual Bosnian town, normal life, decent people, schools, theaters, parks, college, airport, crime rate very low, town like most of the smaller towns in USA (i think). I was a young man, just like any of you maybe.

 

[TOY2G]

Okay I have to say it...sorry for who it may offend.

Sandy Hook...

Who Stopped the shooter.....? The shooter did (according to the newest version of events)

if even one teacher had a gun they could have saved countless lives. (i digress)

what if the shooter did not kill himself? police response and entrance was so long after the shooting was reported he could have killed everyone with a good muzzle loader or a single shot bolt action rifle. "the good guys" who get to keep guns save 0 (ZERO) lives that day.

Tightening gun laws is a knee jerk emotional reaction with little or no impact on shootings like this one.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[bofa]

I have some catching up to do... sorry JohnnyT, you are still in troll timeout for me.

It was also set up at time when our country was in a very real danger of being invaded by another world power with the capability to do so. There were several. And on top of that, there was a huge, unsettled, and largely-unexplored frontier to contend with.

You have to look at it in context. Amazing that you seem to have an inability to do that and at the same time, come into this thread calling people "dumb" simply because they're willing to be inconvenienced in order to save lives.

The fact of the matter is that in the late 1700's, guns were tools, and that's all. Most people didn't "collect" them, there weren't gun stores, gun shows, and guns weren't romanticized like they are today. The latter is mainly due to the fact that the population - which was a drop in the bucket to what we have today - didn't have Hollywood to push everyone's buttons about bad guys with guns, heroes with guns, guns saving the day, etc. Guns in colonial America had about the same "cool factor" as a set of pliers.

These are also things which many people "don't get," (or choose not to), mainly because it would involve some kind of personal sacrifice. And in a selfish, gun-romancing society, that's an uphill battle.

That is your perspective and yours alone. If you think today's world is any less of a frontier than it was a couple hundred years ago, I'd say you are sadly mistaken. The bears and mountain lions just walk upright these days.

And again, show me where this will save lives. It will not. Guns will still exist, they will still be obtained illegally, and still be used. Criminals still won't follow the laws. Only us law-abiding citizens will and we are already doing just that because we enjoy our right to have firearms.

I agree - there's a lot a background check can't cover, but it's better than none at all. As far as where most firearms used in violent crimes come from - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Like I said in my other post, my experience has not even come close to showing that criminals are getting guns from anyplace other than by having it before they start committing crimes, getting it from a friend, from dad's sock drawer, or by having a buddy with a clean record buy it for him (and then reporting it stolen).

Getting it from a friend or having a buddy buy it is a straw purchase and is already illegal. Getting it from dad's sock drawer is already a felony. Most crimes you will see committed by those that obtained the gun legally are individual crimes, suicide, or murder-suicide, not mass killings. The guy in the CO theater was a mental case, and THAT is an issue that is still yet to be addressed.

So does this mean that every time I drive to Colorado (where I am a property owner as well) I'll have to leave my 9mm at the state line? It holds 17 rounds.

Not if people speak up and it is defeated. If it is passed, then yes. You are responsible for knowing and obeying the gun laws wherever you are. I would suggest having a smaller cap mag anyway in case you want to travel to one of these left nut states like Cali, New York, etc.

 

[Derek G]

Just left a message with the Colorado State Patrol office that covers the area where my vacation home is and I'm waiting on a call back. I'm going to be really pissed if I can no longer travel up there with my family carrying my 9mm, but would be perfectly legal and compliant if I took my AR-15.

 

[TOY2G]

If Law Enforcement or an armed citizen is there but without an opportunity due to heavy fire, then that brief moment (which can be longer under pressure) is an opportunity....... MORON.

A coward is one who would not stand up against an a s s like yourself.

Why would I know more about dirt bags than anyone else?......MORON

It is our govts choice and job when the people that gave them their job and they represent demand it..... MORON

Rosa Parks, VP?? Are you OK?? You're not all there.......MORON

let my try to address you concerns the best I can.


Are you kidding me with (could be longer under stress) :lalala:

You sir, are not standing up to me....you are standing up for your failed point.

You would know more about dirt bags because you claim to be a police officer and take so many legal weapons away from dirt bags. (confused you for Randy) Sorry

There is no position in the government that is set to or proclaimed to override the constitution, exactly what electoral job is it that you think holds this power?

As far as Rosa Parks, I do not think she was a VP, but since you asked I will look it up....brb......Nope just as I thought she was not a VP. Rosa Parks was a civil rights activist because bigots like you thought she needed to be told how to live.

But what do I know, I'm a moron. :yield:

And I guess I am crazy also, because I think that my life is worth laying down for my country and the people who call her home. History tells US that there has never been one..NOT ONE... great power/country that did not fall into tyranny and subsequently into ruin. The outcome of this country lays with her citizens, not her over paid officials. :crazy:

 

[yota man]

Hey guys. I'm a little late on this thread, so I won't say anything on this exact topic.

But I do have a question for everyone.

Why is it that people speak up in large numbers about small threats to the second amendment, but when it comes to the bill that took away the largest amount of freedom in US history (the Patriot Act) no one says anything?

(and I understand that most don't consider this a small threat because of fear that it will turn it to something bigger. But still support a bill that was a huge loss of freedom)

And lastly I'll just reuse the quote TOY2G posted earlier
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[yota man]

Oh and I should say this too, This was a serious question.

I was born here in the US but only a year or so after my parents moved here. So I wasn't raised by US Citizens and also having grown up in SC you never really learn anything in US government or history classes that aren't 100% about the Civil War.

So really I just want to understand the way you guys look at these things.

 

[theizzardking]

Oh and I should say this too, This was a serious question.

I was born here in the US but only a year or so after my parents moved here. So I wasn't raised by US Citizens and also having grown up in SC you never really learn anything in US government or history classes that aren't 100% about the Civil War.

So really I just want to understand the way you guys look at these things.

basically the same here man, coming from Europe , though my mother is American ....

don't agree with the patriot act either, and wish to see that gone away with along with the drone program, declaring of us citizens terrorist and all the other bullshit we've seen in the last 13 years in the name of safety...

i see as being a symptom of the mindset of our country, i was raised that life is inherently dangerous, you do what you can but life comes with risk, and that the grandness of being alive it directly tied to that risk, in other words my parents weren't helicopter types, over bearing or tried to protect me from the reality of the world, instead they showed me,taught me and explained to me the nature of the world, the wolf hunts the sheep and the farmer hunts the wolf, death ,risk,reward and all of the rest are just part of life, you cannot be afraid of life because you are afraid of death or harm...

i see people who are gun grabbing right now as being weak and afraid, it's weak willed to take something from everyone because a few cannot handle the responsibility and may harm a few people at times, honestly on the scale of things you're chances of dying in a shooting of this type or random event is very quite low, along the lines of a lighting strike or winning the lottery...
yet the fear won't allow them to see the reason here and they still think something must be done..whingers ... it's really nothing more than a fear based reaction from a horrible event being pushed forward by a government that seems to be positioning itself for tyranny.....term limits, repeal patriot act, no illegal jailing of citizens , no more ghosting programs, no more marshal law statutes ect ect ect..

 

[TOY2G]

Hey guys. I'm a little late on this thread, so I won't say anything on this exact topic.

But I do have a question for everyone.

Why is it that people speak up in large numbers about small threats to the second amendment, but when it comes to the bill that took away the largest amount of freedom in US history (the Patriot Act) no one says anything?

(and I understand that most don't consider this a small threat because of fear that it will turn it to something bigger. But still support a bill that was a huge loss of freedom)

And lastly I'll just reuse the quote TOY2G posted earlier
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

What makes you think we were in any way for the P.A.? You say no one says a thing, yet millions of Americans fought it until the end. no one if fighting on here about it now because it is done. And just like with the P.A. people will stand by and swear it is fine and for the better until it is to late.

Hope i do not come across rude,:sorry: but you are mistaken when you suggest that nobody spoke up about the P.A.:usa2:

"The US Government will take great care of you if you just lay down your arms and trust us".......said the white man to the American Indian......... "That went well"...said no massacred Indian

"We want to make the state safe for every family"...said Hitler.... "That went well"...said no Jew ever..

"Work hard and your hard work will take care of you well"....said Karl Marx...."This really works".....said every working class citizen

"For God shows no partiality" ....says Romans 2:11....."I am god" .....says man with too much money and power

There is no story where "big brother" does anything good for his people.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

Nothing has passed yet and I doubt all 4 bills will pass.

With regards to home protection the best and what I keep in the house is a shotgun,you don't need to be deadly accurate and you won't be pumping bullets through your walls into your neighbor's house. Also if you have large capacity clips you can still legally retain them but new ones won't be available for sale anymore in the state if the bill passes. I also doubt out-of-staters will have to worry about any issues if they are carrying high a high capacity magazine if it's legal in their own state.