Tyler Andrew: Who are we protecting?

Advertisement

“Suicide is a serious problem on college campuses. Suicides attempted with a gun are far more likely to succeed and studies show access to guns significantly increases chances of suicide fatality.”

— Diane Mitsch Bush, as copied from http://www.dianeforcolorado.com/my-votes-on-2013-bills.php.

This quote is how Rep. Mitsch Bush explains her votes to restrict access to firearms. Am I not the only one who finds it troubling that our elected representative argues against rights granted in the Constitution by stating firearms should be restricted to protect us from ourselves? As an elected representative Mitsch Bush is showing her governing philosophy when she states that a freedom Americans have long embraced can and should be restricted because we may use that freedom to harm ourselves. This is the same argument that brought New York’s ban on sodas over 16 ounces. Yet it is even worse, because while consuming large amounts of sugar is shown in study after study to increase the risk of diabetes, is there even a single study that ownership of a “large” capacity magazine increases suicidal thoughts? Is there a study showing concealed carry weapons holders are a danger to themselves or the people around them, especially while intoxicated, as Mitsch Bush suggests? I know the law already bars possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

Can you have a free society when laws are passed to protect the average person from themselves? Colorado’s new laws do not state the mentally ill should not be granted firearms. They state that the average Coloradan should not be entrusted with large-capacity magazines or to exchange a firearm, and they must now pay for the background check. I am sure paying for a background check will encourage more Americans to get a background check when they sell or gift a rifle.

Mitsch Bush also voted for the very controversial ban of concealed carry weapons from college campuses. In this argument, Mitsch Bush is stating that even those who are college educated cannot be trusted with a firearm because they may intentionally take their own life. She states “suicide is a key issue in our district.” This is how she justifies voting for these laws. However, it only takes one bullet to take your own life, so without banning guns entirely there will be no impact on suicide with firearms. Is there even a shred of evidence that any of these laws would keep guns out of the hands of those who would harm themselves or others? Where does Mitsch Bush draw the line on the Second Amendment, or is the ultimate goal to ban firearms in their entirety? I find it odd that Mitsch Bush and the Colorado Legislature want to restrict my ability to protect myself so that they can protect me from, well, me.

Are we really willing to give up freedom so the government will be able to protect us from harming ourselves? The New York district court recently shot down the 16-ounce soda ban, and there is no right to bear soda in the Constitution. It is not about safety, it is about control.

Tyler Andrew

Oak Creek

Comments

dave mcirvin 1 year, 7 months ago

reasonable gun safety is in the majority's interest. thank you again, Diane.

0

brian kofke 1 year, 7 months ago

It is not up to you, or anyone else, to tell me what is in my best interest. I have a God given right, laws that are unconstitutional are not laws, and we live in a republic which guarantees the rights our founders scratched down over 200 years ago. If you do not like it your choices are to ammend the constitution if you can, move to a place with like minded people (like North Korea or the like), or deal with the fact that there are armed people around you whom are not criminals, would never hurt a fly, and choose to arm themselves to protect themselves and families from criminals. I would suggest you attend sheriff Wiggins talk this Monday evening; I think you might learn a bit more about this hot issue and come away with a different view. Cheers!

2

Howard Bashinski 1 year, 7 months ago

Hello Brian,

You have certainly put forth an interesting argument. You believe that the right to possess firearms is given by God? Where is this written? I can't find it in the Bible. It is not one of the 10 Commandments? And, what about people who don't believe in God? Very interesting.

Also, the "intent" of the 2nd Amendment is open for debate. Our founders did not include a "manual" with the Constitution. If it said, "All citizens of any race, age, or gender shall have total access to any type of weapon under all circumstances," then there would be no argument. But it doesn't say that, or anything close.

Although everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think it is important to respect the fact that others may disagree. Saying something is "so" doesn't make it that way.

hb

1

john bailey 1 year, 7 months ago

sheeple, and you know what they leave behind?smells here too.~;0)

0

mark hartless 1 year, 7 months ago

"Reasonable gun laws are in the interest of the Motherland." -Joseph Stalin, a couple years before he murdered over 20 million of his "motherland's" fellow Russians

0

Pat West 1 year, 7 months ago

If guns were used responsibly, and for personal protection, then the majority of Americans would not have a problem with their unrestricted ownership. Unfortunately this is not the case, and due to their irresponsible use by a small minority, the majority of legal gun owners will have to live with limits on their rights. This is hardly a new concept.

Background checks, and reasonable limits on guns are in everyone's best interest. A well regulated militia should be able to provide security for its weapons, keep the public safe from their illegal use, and out of the hands of criminals. This concept of "well regulated" has been lost and forced the majority to reassess the limits placed on guns. When gun owners step up and show the public they can self regulate their arms, the government will not have to.

I support Diane, and will continue to vote for her.

1

Mike Isaac 1 year, 7 months ago

The problem with this line of thinking is it has failed with the war on drugs and it failed under prohibition in the early 20th Century.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 7 months ago

and it will fail with guns because gang bangers and other killers don't follow laws. There are alo tof dems that will voteher out in 2014

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 7 months ago

And if we make certain things illegal and then say that criminals will continue to break those laws then that makes it easier to put those criminals in jail.

Unlike the drugs laws or prohibition, Colorado's laws allow citizens to enjoy their chosen activity legally. It is certainly not impossible for a gun owner to own a 15 round magazine instead of a 30 round or go to a gun seller and get a background verification when doing a private sale.

For Prohibition or pot drug laws, it was not legally possible for someone to responsibly use those substances without violating the law.

These votes will help her win reelection.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 7 months ago

pass all the gun laws you want. evil people will find a way to do evil things.

I Have attached a link to the sourced article below.

Great Britain has banned guns, but it can’t very well ban knives:

Kitchen knives are the most commonly used weapons in teenage gang attacks, police say.

Even in the nanny state, you can’t realistically expect people to get by on forks and spoons. But there are more frightening blades available than mere kitchen knives:

Hannah also bought terrifying swords from two martial arts stores, a machete from a Chinese supermarket and kebab knives from a business based at a house in Brockley. She said: “I was shocked at how many knives I was able to buy.”

In Liverpool, 17-year-old Beth Carter bought a large cook’s knife from The Catering Equipment Centre in Mossley Hill and said: “I couldn’t believe how easy it was.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/brits-shocked-at-easy-availability-of-knives.php

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans. Admittedly the president did not mention what size magazine he would have on the gun. Presumably he is referring to one of the weapons that his people gave to the bad guys in Fast and Furious

1

jerry carlton 1 year, 7 months ago

Something from Wedel that makes sense. The pot-head vote will help reelect DMB. Makes me feel good about the future of Colorado and our Country.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 7 months ago

Tom,

Did you vote for DMB in November? Didn't you promise to never vote for her or any Democrat before she was elected? I rather doubt she ever expected to get your vote. A Republican candidate promising to repeal these gun laws is not likely to have hit upon a winning issue in Routt and Eagle counties. But fortunately for DMB's reelection efforts, the Republican primary will probably nominate someone promising to repeal these measures.

The local official that should expect a tough reelection campaign is Sheriff Wiggins because this is overall a Democratic county. These public meetings are an attempt to walk back his initial comments to the passage of these control laws which were definitely out of step with his electorate.

Dan K,

Yeah, people can get knives in Great Britain and commit murders, but it is far harder to get a gun in Great Britain. So maybe because it is harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun is why their murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000 residents while the USA is 4.8 per 100,000 residents. So apparently tightly restricting guns and leaving knives for a murder weapons would cut the murder rate by 75%.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 7 months ago

Re "... we will prevail... or we will die..." :

You will die... and Scott will NEVER "...face the facts.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.