Joe Meglen: Gun control laws

Advertisement

In spite of giving her sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when she took office, Colorado House District 26 Rep. Diane Mitsch Bush voted “yes” to support the Democrat Party-sponsored unconstitutional gun control bills. Rep. Mitsch Bush either doesn’t understand the Constitution or is among those who consider it a quaint old document from an earlier time written by old dead white men who couldn’t understand how modern civilization might change.

This is the mantra taught in our public school system, which collectivists/socialists/statists have controlled for several generations. Our government-controlled school system purposely fails to teach the concept of self-ownership, natural laws, freedom and individual sovereignty. These are the principles upon which the states and our nation were founded. W. Cleon Skousen’s “The 5,000 Year Leap” is an excellent introduction to these principles and should be mandatory reading for all students. It is not required reading because government does not want its “subjects” to understand the principles of freedom and the strict limits that are placed upon government.

Rep. Mitsch Bush’s vote for gun control is an unlawful attack on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn’t give citizens the right to defend themselves and their families from all threats, including threats from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment simply memorializes the fact that free people, by their birth, are born with this right. Free people do not need permission from government, their agents, to defend themselves. Without the Second Amendment there is no Constitution, which is the real point of government-sponsored gun control laws.

There is a lawful way to pass gun control laws — an amendment to the Constitution. By voting for the unconstitutional gun control bills, Rep. Mitsch Bush far exceeded her authority. She betrayed her constituents, her state, her country and her sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. We now have a “representative” for the 26th District who either doesn’t understand the Constitution or doesn’t care about it. Elections have consequences. During the next election cycle, Mitsch Bush deserves to be fired for cause. Our next House District 26 representative should be a person with a healthy respect for the rule of law.

Joe Meglen

Steamboat Springs

Comments

bill schurman 1 year, 1 month ago

Tom, Tom, take it easy.... . The Second Amendment is still intact as is the Colorado Constitution. No one is coming to take your weapons, you can still defend yourself from your bunker as you hunker down and still form that militia to take on the government. Watch out, however, the government has just a tad more fire power.

Cheers to you as well,

Bill Schurman, ex public defender.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Bill, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Period.

The government IS coming to take our guns, they're just doing it over a 100 year period, and convincing us to allow it. So far they've only taken them from 'those bad people over there' (felons, etc), but they ARE trying to take assault weapons from 'We the people' while the police and other government officials keep them.

This CAN be done legally, amend the U S Constitution. I'm pretty sure the American people will support that. Is that a problem?

1

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

What is it with the last name BUSH and bad political decisions. First we get Bush the old man and his desire for a " One World Government" remember his favorite term " a New World Order" then his kid with his "Patriot Act " and the false flags that led up to it. And now we have Dianne Mitch Bush voting like she represents San Francisco, CA and not Steamboat Springs, CO. somebody get her of a map of her District!!!!

1

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

"..public school system which collectivists/socialists/statists have controlled for several generations..." WTF? man, there are a lot of crazy old white guys in this town!
I wonder what it is about the boat that attracts these guys. Maybe its the western element of steamboat that appeals to them. I bet these guys fancy themselves as cowboys! Just like John Wayne, guns a-blazin' rugged individual...YeeHAW!

0

Chris Hadlock 1 year, 1 month ago

2nd Ammendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I know that many of you like to use the portion of this sentence that reads "Shall not be infringed" Why is it that gun rights activists always fail to use the very first words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

When taken together, it is my opinion that citizens have the right without equivocation to keep and bear arms. However, it remains the right of the Gov't to regulate the type and nature of those arms. This is expressly spelled out in the same sentence that you so love to quote. The Gov'ts right has been upheld multiple times in cases about fully automatic weapons, tanks, RPG's etc.

Sorry, but you come off as the lunatic fringe when you claim that any firearms regulation is a violation of your 2nd amendment rights when in fact the word regulate is included in the actual text of the amendment you support.

For the record, I am a gun owner, hunter, target shooter and generally concerned about my families safety. I have owned and used firearms since I was old enough to hold it to my shoulder. My children know how to shoot and have been well trained in firearm safety and use. I fully support the right of Americans to own and use firearms. However, I do see reasons to keep military style weapons off the streets and out of the hands of Joe Citizen.

If you would take the time to research the history of firearms regulation you will quickly find that the Supreme court has consistently found that the regulation of firearms to be constitutional but not an outright ban on their possession. In general, the courts have allowed regulation of weapon types, disguised weapons or rates of fire.

What make you believe that only being allowed 15 round clips instead of 30 or 50 is a violation of your rights when the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that firearm regulation of this type is in fact allowed within the framework of the 2nd ammendment?

1

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Chris,

The comma that precedes ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." means that this statement stands alone. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." means that the militia is to be well equipped and regulated by the people, not the state. The founders had just fought a war to liberate themselves from a tyrannical state, triggered by the King's attempt to seize the people's weapons. That didn’t end well for the King. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep a potentially tyrannical government in check. The founders intended for the citizens to be every bit as well armed as the government, if not more so.

Yes, the Supreme Court has found some gun regulation to be "Constitutional". The court also found the Dred Scott Act to be Constitutional. The Supreme Court is a political and corrupt organization that routinely claims that the unconstitutional is constitutional. Obamacare is a recent example. As inspired as the Constitution may be, the founders made the mistake of allowing the federal government to police itself. History has proven that when the Supreme Court is making a decision it invariably finds that the federal government has more power and the people have less.

It is important to note that the 2nd Amendment did not give people the right to defend themselves from all threats. The 2nd Amendment documents the fact that free people are born with this right. This right in inherent and existed well before the founding of the states and states United.

1

Howard Bashinski 1 year, 1 month ago

Hi Joe,

I very much appreciate your impassioned comments.

I do disagree, however, on three counts. First, although people definitely have the right to defend themselves, this does not mean that they have the right to have guns. I don't think that one necessarily leads to the other.

Second, on what do you base your opinion that the purpose of the second amendment is to "...keep a potentially tyrannical government in check...?" There is much debate about the purpose of this amendment, but most scholars believe that it was tied to the innate right of self-protection and the protection OF the state, not protection FROM the state. The Founders believed that protection from a tyrannical government would be via the ballot box. We will never know for sure, so I think it is important to avoid asserting things as fact that might not be.

Third, although I believe strongly that we have the right to bear arms, I don't think that attempts to limit that right automatically are unconstitutional. As long as I can purchase a gun legally, I think the second amendment is intact. Limiting the size of magazines and requiring background checks seem like common sense to me. The founders could not have foreseen the firepower that is available in the 21st century.

I also disagree with your distinction between "the people" and "the state." In a democracy, the people ARE the state. The state consists of our those we have elected to represent us - it is US!

I understand that you disagree with many of the policies that have received the support of the majority of Americans, such as the Affordable Care Act. It's tough to be in the minority! That doesn't make the majority "evil" or "corrupt," though. I suspect that like most of us, you opinions would be different if "the state" was doing the things you want them to do.

Luckily, in America we have the right to dissent and try to convince others of our opinions. This discussion is a great example! If the majority of the people want some type of gun control, then we should have it. If the majority want national health care, then we should have it. I'm not saying the majority is always right (the majority supported invading Iraq!), but until the Constitution changes, we live by majority rule.

hb

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Howard,

Your 1st paragraph doesn't apply, the U S Constitution states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say we have the right to defend ourselves.

2nd, it doesn't matter what the individual founding fathers thought, this is the document they signed. Also, you control a tyranny at the ballot box, the tyranny rules.

3rd, I don't disagree with some of these regulations, they're common sense, but several state and local governments have made it illegal to carry guns in the vehicle, concealed, etc. Americans go to jail for violating those laws, in spite of what the U S Constitution says. See my 1st statement. If you want to change the law, amend the U S Constitution.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

I meant to say "you DON'T control a tyranny at the ballot box".

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Free people own themselves. They have a natural right by birth to defend themselves. Free people do not need the permission from government to defend themselves. Therefore people have the right to own guns. Just a few quotes out of hundreds from the founders that substantiate this fact:

…”No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people.” … William Rawle, A View Of The Constitution

“The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States that are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams

“The great object is that every man be armed and to everyone that is able may have a gun” Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the Ratification of the Constitution.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment recognizes the inherent right of free people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Our Revolutionary War was sparked, not over a tax, but when King George III sent troops to the Colonies to disarm them. The founders fought defending the right to defend themselves. The 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense against totalitarianism.

Most scholars do believe that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for “self-protection and the protection OF the state, not protection FROM the state.” Most scholars are products of, and work for the state. No serious scholar would make such a claim for the original intent is well documented.

The founders intended that the people be at least as well armed as the state.

Your positions on democracy are in direct opposition to the principles upon which this nation was founded. We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Republic. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner. One of the founder’s greatest fears was the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. In a Representative Republic the people democratically elect their representatives. The representatives are mindful of the desires of their constituents, but only as these desires fit within the rule of law. The Constitution is the Supreme Rule of Law. Today most politicians only pay lip service to the Constitution. The Democrat Party majority in DC ignored the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people, along with th Rule of Law and passed Obamacare. The Democrat Party majority in Colorado is doing the same thing with gun control legislation. If you betray your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you are a person without honor. You lack integrity and can’t be trusted, which is why “Representative” Bush needs to thrown out of office during the next election cycle, if not sooner.

Americans do have the right to dessent, but it is not a matter of luck. Without the 2nd Amendment there is no 1st Amendment. There is no right to dissent. There is no Constitution, which is the point of all government sponsored gun control laws.

1

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

I only hope the day comes when "the majority of the people" want Howard Bashinski to be their slave... or want his life,liberty or property confiscated and disposed of. After all... "if the majority of the people" want that then we should have it.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Don, You are welcome. Given the sacrafice of so many patriots before us, the least I can do is try to inform those that have been so thoroughly indoctrinated. If we get them to think, maybe they will see.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Chris,

The 2nd amendment does NOT state that the government can regulate our guns, it says "the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed". The meaning of that is clear. The statement about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is vague to say the least. Did you ever consider that it may mean - since a militia is needed, we the people must remain armed to protect ourselves from our government? It says well regulated militia, which implies trained as an army would be. Also, it says "well regulated militia" - not well regulated population or citizenry or gun ownership. You're pulling a typical Liberal ploy by suggesting the U S Constitution says something it REALLY doesn't.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Chris,

A couple more comments. Yes, the word regulate is there, but it does NOT expressly spelled out in regard to gun control. gun ownership IS expressly spelled out.

Decisions about the government's right to regulate automatic weapons, etc, are STILL unconstitutional, even though I agree with them.

The Supreme Court is NOT infallible, later courts have over-turned earlier decisions. The U S Constitution still says what it says. This applies to your last paragraph, I've read the U S Constitution, I have a website that discusses it, the U S Supreme Court has been wrong before. The language in the U S Constitution is very simple and easy to read, with a few exceptions.

0

Chris Hadlock 1 year, 1 month ago

Joe, I am sure that the framers had an excellent grasp of punctuation. If they had intended for that sentence to stand alone would they not have used a period instead of a comma?

The amendment was meant to be read as a whole and not broken into pieces.

Tom, ask David Koresh how well his arsenal protected his rights. Bottom line is that citizens are not allowed to have that kind of firepower. Look at any number of examples. You may value your freedom but civilized society and its rules are more responsible for your freedom than the weapon you carry. A return to the lawless days of the old west when the biggest baddest gun ruled will not protect your freedom.

2

Chris Hadlock 1 year, 1 month ago

PS, if you would like to engage in a very literal conversation about arms. They are defined as the human tissue below the shoulder joint. I completely support your right to bear your arms.

Nothing about the constitution can be taken literally 200 some odd years later. We live in a society that the framers could not have envisioned. Rate of fire was about 3 rounds per minute if your were extremely well practiced. Range was less than 50 yards with any accuracy and they did not even know that California existed let alone that we could fly over the entire country in 3 hours or completely around the world in a day. Likewise the firepower available in any gun shop would have been beyond their wildest dreams.

I would postulate that most laws written for the conditions of 1780 would seem antiquated and/or not applicable to our society in 2013. In addition at only 4500 words it could not possible describe every single situation 250 years later.,

1

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Chris,

I am sure that your sentiments are well intended. Your positions allow for an infinate interpretation of "that quaint old document", which is the statist's mantra. Then the rule of law becomes anything that the statists can get away with. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on Natural Law. The freedoms recognized in Natural Law predates and is superior to our founding documents. Natural Laws are not subject to change by a ruling elite.

Most of the founders were classically educated, especially those that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When they put that comma in they knew exactly what they were doing. The statement: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." stands alone.

In their wisdom, the founders knew that it is the nature of government to grow. If not kept in check it would swallow the states and the people. Examples of gun control by what were often times represented as benevolent governments; include Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Dictators always want the people to be less well armed than the government, and preferably unarmed. Gun control has resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions of citizens. The primary intent of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the government in check, preserve the Constitution and individual sovereignty. Have you noticed that all the new gun control laws being introduced only apply to the people, not the rulers? Think about this fact.

Our socialized school system, along with a compliant corporate media (the fourth corrupt branch of government) has done an effective job in indoctrinating the people.

The founders would be ashamed of us.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Tom,

It would appear that government can ban whatever weapons it says are not part of a well regulated militia. So weapons can be viewed as being dangerous to the fellow militia members by being too powerful or otherwise hamper the operation of a well regulated militia to protect a free state such as machine guns can be banned.

But handguns or rifles cannot, as a category, be banned.

0

Lee Cox 1 year, 1 month ago

As stated in earlier comments, gun regulations do not remove the right of ours to bear arms, and the second amendment is still intact. I am a gun owner, and applaud these new laws.

1

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Amend the U S Constitution. Neither Federal, state, nor local laws overwrite it.

2

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

Abraham Lincoln once asked a crowd " How many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg?"

The crowd responded "Five!"

Mr Lincoln politely responded that, even if people counted the tail as a leg the dog would STILL have only 4 legs.

He said "Counting a tail as a leg does not make it a leg."

Believe as you wish. Your most brilliant and lofty explinations of why I can't have a gun ain't worth moose tits to me.

1

Steve Lewis 1 year, 1 month ago

Moose tits and the meaning of a comma aside, the Supreme Court does have the final Constitutional say. Right?

Google your understanding of the Constitution - "Supreme Court, guns"

The court moves slowly from where it was before. Calm down. Is this court not to be trusted?

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

The Supreme Court's decisions are law, but that doesn't make them constitutional.

2

Michelle Hale 1 year, 1 month ago

Our Supreme court has made some real bonehead choices that go against our Constitution. Just as they did when they said; Corporations are People too! Or, how about their choice to uphold the Patriot Act and the NDAA, Those take away our first, fifth and tenth Constitutional rights. Yet you'll see NOTHING in any paper about it. What a jaw drop! Read about the NDAA... better yet..... how about the efforts in Colorado to stand against the NDAA, and IT FAILED... Get ready because the conversation about the use of Government and Drones are coming soon.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

The irony of the Second Amendment is that it is the only amendment which specifically states under what circumstances the enumerated right is to be regulated (being necessary to the security of a free state).

And as the above quoted text from the Supreme Court decision make clear, the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves and their state against the lack of federal protection. The unstated reason of why that concern existed was slavery because slave states were worried that a federal government could federalize state militias and then refuse to put down slave rebellions or catch runaway slaves. Anyway, Second Amendment is not recognized by any Supreme Court as defining a right to be armed against the federal government. It is to armed so there is protection despite the lack of federal government.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

And the comma issue is less than it seems. The Supreme Court has over the years accepted the idea that gun ownership is part of a well regulated militia, but they have said it is not necessarily as part of the state's militia. They have used the idea of a civilian militia to extend the right of gun ownership to individuals.

But the civilian militia concept is a double edged sword for the NRA and those of similar viewpoints because it brings in the idea of well regulated to benefit the security of a free state.

It presumes that regulations are expected. So overly powerful weapons can be banned as being a risk to civilians in their homes since the bullets can penetrate walls. And a government could apparently note that it is well documented that even well trained police officers very often continue to fire until their guns need to be reloaded. And thus limited capacity magazines are important make people stop shooting in order to limit the risk of errant bullets. It is even plausible that a state could limit how quickly a gun can fire by arguing if it is too fast then civilians are not shooting accurately.

The recent Supreme Court decisions are notable not because they've redefined the meaning of a comma, but because they said the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause applies to the Second amendment. And so Second Amendment didn't just give protections against federal laws, but against state and local laws as well. But the civilian militia idea also means it can be regulated at not just the state level, but at the local and federal levels.

I wouldn't be surprised if these short term victories overturning bans in Washington DC and Chicago end up being long term defeats for the NRA because it also describes how to create laws that regulate guns.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

Bob Smith just what is your problem with White People and why do you live here ? Maybe you should move to Los Angeles, CA where the Los Angeles Times just ran a story about White People being terrorist. http://www.infowars.com/la-times-announces-white-men-are-terrorists/ A hater like you just might fit in out there.

I refuse to get sucked in a argument about the 2nd or any other Amendment, the Gun Control Nazi's have a agenda to disarm everyone. What I hate about what is going on here in Colorado is the FACT THAT A LOT OF OUT OF STATE MONEY IS BEING SPENT HERE, much of it from the East Coast to not just change the gun laws here but to change the way we think. They want us to accept less freedom and feel good about, they have never been happy about Colorado always being at odds with the Federal Government but I think Prop 64 passage with huge Bi Partisan Support sent them over the edge. The same story is being played out in Washington where freedom also won in November. The Gun Control crowd is trying to pass New York style laws. However in Oregon a far more Liberal state the Dems are not going crazy about guns.

I know in the end Freedom will win in Colorado and very few if any of these laws will be passed into law and there will no need to go to Wyoming to buy you AR-15s , 30 round clips ect. Sooner or later these outsiders will move on to another Western State. I have no problems with anyone moving here from anywhere but if a New Yorker wants to move here and bring there anti freedom laws here then I have a problem. New Hampshire has a Free State movement to attract free thinking people there. Maybe we should do the same here

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

actually, i am an old white guy. its the "crazy" part that i should have emphasized. anyway, simmer down tom ... if that is your name!...you come off as quite senile when you get all worked up like that!

0

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

Was this court "to be trusted when it upheld the second ammendment a few years ago?

Was it to be trusted when it ruled that corporations were people and could flood and dilute the pollitical atmosphere with money.

The court and its rulings are meaningless to me.

I am an autonomous human being. Some day I will answer to God, but here on this earth, so long as I do not harm others, I am the only legitimate ruler of the "Kingdom of Mark". It matters not to me how vehemently anyone else opposes mt freedom, I will not lay down.

1

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

good to know about the psychiatric issues tom. while I am not technically a doctor, i feel that i am fully qualified to identify "crazy" in a verity of circumstances.

i'll be sure to get in touch with diane mitsch-bush so we can see about taking your guns away!!

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 1 month ago

Interesting how the "lunatic fringe" only seems to exist on the right. Drooling halfwits like these are no doubt embraced by our betters as thoughtful & reasonable: Bill would require ammo buyers to undergo anger management http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10875/florida-bill-would-require-ammo-buyers-to-complete-anger-managment-classes/

Make no mistake: the end game for the gun control crowd is an all out gun ban. For those hanging their hats on the use of "regulat[ion]" in the 2nd amendment, I encourage you to read Federalist 46 – wherein Madison, a federalist & proponent of a robust federal government – lays out the foundation, rationale, & intent of the 2nd amendment. That the citizenry be as well armed as the standing army doesn't even scratch the surface:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands…”

In other words, an armed citizenry should vastly outnumber the State’s armed soldiers – using Madison's numbers - a factor of 16 to 1.

The 2nd amendment wasn’t written to protect anyone's right to shoot skeet or kill a deer. It anchors the right to protect ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the only bulwark against threats to our rights to life, liberty, speech, property, and all the rest. It emanates from the initiative to fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and state - which through all of human history had defined 'citizen' as subservient vassal. It enshrines in law our right to self-protection. If the world is a sufficiently dangerous place that the Routt County Sheriff's Department is equipped with AR-15s, then there is no reason that a free citizenry – who are sovereign over the police – not be identically equipped. Especially since citizens are always the ones facing those dangers long before the police arrive.

1

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

I am going to officially "suggest removal" of all firearms, for both tom and mark, immediately!!

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

"...The 2nd amendment wasn’t written to protect anyone's right to shoot skeet or kill a deer. It anchors the right to protect ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

-DAVID KORESH

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 1 month ago

Hitler loved dogs, Bob. So do I. I guess you can link me to him as well. With nothing useful to contribute, impugn the motives & worldview of those with whom you disagree.

You lefties are so... thoughtful.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Brian,

Did you just quote two sentences from David Koresh? If so, why?

0

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

How about the children that were at Waco, Bob?

What crazy thing did THEY say that justified (in your mind) their murder?

How many kids were burned to death down there by the good folks from Ft. Hood, Bob? More than were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Bob. Ever heard of Posse Comitatus, Bob?

Do you know enough to know that Posse Comitatus was completely violated at Waco, Bob?

But you didn't care because those folks didn't think like YOU and that justified their treatment, didn't it, Bob?

Nobody merits freedom or personal rights when their thinking departs from your's, do they, Bob??????

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 1 month ago

Scott

I'm suspending, briefly, my long standing rule of ignoring your bs since you are evidently too lazy or inept to look into it yourself. Bob quoted me to the board and attributed it to Koresh, in a puerile attempt to paint me as a loon. Because everyone who disagrees with him must be. Evidently he's a Koresh authority. Admires him, perhaps. Putting you back on 'ignore', now.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

mark. go to youtube and watch some of the footage from the Waco disaster. now, you think that having an AR-15 is going to stop the government if it wants to arrest you? come on man! that is a delusion. law enforcement in this country uses some sort of an escalating force theory - maybe scott knows the term - where the harder you push the HARDER they in turn push back. they don't back down.

0

jerry carlton 1 year, 1 month ago

Do not want to get involved, but Bob You go out and collect all the guns you want to take and then go to Chicago and along with Barack and Rahm collect all the illegal guns out of the "Hood". Good luck.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

Bob,

It's funny that you suggest I watch footage from Waco. Do you really think I have not seen it all already?

Since you brought up Waco I'll go you one further.

I was a government-believing tree-hugger myself (ie a fool), right up to about Feb 28th 1993.

From then till April 19th 1993 I watched in amazement as the government I respected demonized, justified, terrorized, broke it's own rules, covered its own aggression, and ultimately exterminated 76 of its own American citizens-many of whom were LESS THAN 4 FEET TALL- all without a trial. And they used the MILITARY on their own citizens in DIRECT VIOLATION of Posse Comitatus.

Where was those little kids trial, Bob? What about innocent until PROVEN guilty, Bob??

So if you think that I am stupid enough to believe that an AR-15 is a match for a retarded and demented gubbamint which has proven itself willing to use tanks and military helicopters to kill its own citizens, then think again. I'm not that stupid.

But I'll turn that around for you: Are YOU stupid enough to continue to vest power in a government that has employed the exact same tactics on its citizens as China did in Tienamen Square? Are you so foolish as to think their apetite for destruction, confiscation, domination, brutalization, and intimidation will abruptly end with the elimination of people like me... that it will not continue to escalate its aggression until people like YOU are at last in its crosshairs?

Finally, Bob, I have no intention of attacking ANYONE. Government or otherwise. Not now, not ever. But Hellen Keller could see the stome clouds on the horizon, and when it finally breaks wild the corrupt, bankrupt,messed up, cluster f**k you rely on for protection will be nowhere to be found. That is what AR-15's are for, Bob.

1

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

"""There will be more events and we will get this thing done"" Diane Feinstein about 2 week ago addressing the Gun Control Nazi's. Is this what the meaning of the term "Californication" really means?

Did you know that the United Nations Small Arms Treaty is in their words needed to ""Protect the legitimate Power Monopoly of the State"

These crazies are willing to have children killed to disarm the American People. Aurora and Sandy Hook were staged for this very purpose.

Tom William Sen Cruz made Diane Feinstein look like a fool. This freshman from Austin and Rand Paul would be true change in 2016. The Republican Party would be so foolish to support Jeb Bush and not back one of these Patriots. The Neocon wing along with Pro Life/ Pro War wing of the Party have destroyed this Party and are why Obama got his 2nd term. You just can not call your self Pro Life and support WAR with Iran or Iraq. These countries never invaded this Country. With what they did to Ron Paul and the way that Rush Limbaugh spoke of Ron Paul just because he was Anti War and Pro Pot. He has done so much harm to the Republican Party with his fat mouth that it would not surprise me if he was on Obama's payroll. Rush also is a big liar as well!!! He will not eat anything unless it is Organic, however he has said that GMO's are safe for the General Public just like his Pal Obama. This man has done so much to divide the party with his narrow minded view of what he calls "Conservatism" He tossed Ron Paul under the Bus because he is Pro Gun,Pro Pot and Pro Peace and Anti Carbon Tax to support a Anti Gun, Pro Carbon Tax, Pro War Anti Pot Mass Hole. Freedom hangs in the balance and the Dittohead's of the Country stand in the way and need to wake up or this country is doomed and will be ruled by the Rhonda Fields and Diane Feinstein's of the World.

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

Joe Meglen, As you know Our Founding Farthers were way ahead of their time and new what they were doing. They even wanted to put a Amendment to refuse Medical Care but at the time they thought is would never be needed. However with Big Medicine passing laws making things like Flu Shots mandatory for Health Care workers and Vaccines needed for kids going to Public Schools along with Obama Care a Medical Freedom Act needs to be added to the Constitution. The 1st 2nd 4th and 10th are no brainers and when you hear the term living breathing document look out that is code for burn the damm thing.

However our Founders Never saw that 1 day many would look to the Government as a All Knowing organization, they never thought that men would never grow up. They never saw that the public as a whole would be dumbed down due to things like Fluoride in the Water, Mercury in the Vaccines, BPA in our plastics that feminize men, then toss in a school system that is tells students never to Question Authority and keep your mouth shut and you got to where we are today. They never saw the day when people would worship Hollywood Actors and have heros that play sports instead of make great discoveries. I just wish you were right about the Democrats being the cause ,the Republicans even though they pay us lip service the NeoCons like John McCain & Mitt Romney are no better and can never hold a candle to Rand Paul, Senator Cruz (R) Texas and the Founding Farther of the Patriot Movement Dr Ron Paul even the great Ronald Reagan can never compare to Dr Ron Paul.

0

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Mike,

By exposing the Colorado Democrat Party's attack on the 2nd Amendment and their betrayal of their oath of office, I am in no way endorsing the Republican Party. Colorado Republicans are right on this issue, so far, but the difference between the two is like the difference between the Gabinos and Genoveses. The closer to Washington, DC the more mob like they become. There are a very few exceptions, like the now retired Dr. Ron Paul, but it is really a two party system of organized crime. Both agree that the people are to be fleeced like sheep. The only difference between the two is who they distribute the loot to. We have systemic corruption in all three branches of government, all four if you include the corporate media.

The purpose of government is to allow those that control it to plunder those that don't.

1

Katherine Musgrave 1 year, 1 month ago

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether." Benjamin Franklin

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

That pretty much sums it up.

Katherine Musgrave

1

Joe Meglen 1 year, 1 month ago

Katherine, excellent quotes. Here are two more:

Tacitus said, nearly 2,000 years ago, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government,"

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ... Thomas Jefferson

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

mark - think of the kids? the ones living with Koresh? "For sins as small as spilling milk, the children said, they were struck with a wooden paddle known as "the helper." To train for the final battle, they were instructed to fight each other, and if they did not fight hard enough, they were paddled for that, too. David Koresh told them to call their parents "dogs"; only he was to be referred to as their father. Girls as young as 11 were given a plastic Star of David, signifying that they had "the light" and were ready to have sex with the cult leader. A team of therapists said these were some of the things that 19 of the 21 surviving children of the Branch Davidian cult had told them about their lives inside the compound." -but of course, the kids were lying too - just like all the people related to 9/11 and sandy hook, right? you guys need to turn off he alex jones and stop staring at infowars!! you guys believe in EVERY conspiracy theory. its like a religion or something. up to the chalk board....I WILL NOT LOG-ON TO INFOWARS. 500 times, please!

0

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

Let us suppose that EVERYTHING you just said about David Koresh was true. The gubbamint did one hell-of-a job "RESCUING" those kids from an abusive gaurdian, no? What in the hell did the KIDS do to desreve to be BURNED TO DEATH, Bob?? I never heard of Alex Jones. I've never heard of "info-wars". I don't believe in "EVERY" conspiracy.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

here's a perspective that you should consider (I did not write this, but agree - impossible) REGARDING 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES" All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...

-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.

-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...

Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section= OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID= 25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&; SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.

-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

0

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

Jet Fuel burns at 1100 F, Steel won't even get soft at that temputure and a cutting torch is at least 3000 F. To have 3 buildings come down in a control demolition order because of a fire is beyond unlikely. The steel was taken away before it could be tested for explosives. Yes the Feds learned their lessons from Oklahoma City and did not want any local cops finding things like plastic explosives like was found in OKC. A lot of people that were not there that day remembers ATF cops being dressed up as Phone company employees days before. They remember the grey bricks with all the wires they in stalled for the phone company a few days earlier and everyone remembers their drug up Patsy known as Tim McVeigh. When it comes to false flags it make no difference what party is in the White House but the goal is always the same, with Obama or rather his puppet masters, the goal of the Batman shooting and Sandy Hoax was to disarm the US People. Under Bush and Clinton the goals were to lay the groundwork for what is going on Today.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?

-Structure Magazine who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

A common excuse for no one coming out who was part of this so called 9/11 conspiracy is they fear death. If you analyze the argument carefully you realize they are debunking themselves. Why would even people in the military be more fearful of exposing this than the common conspiracy theorists behind a computer monitor? Either they don't believe what they're saying or they actually think they are more fearless than the thousands of others who would have had to be "in on it". As if people in the CIA or FBI couldn't figure out how to get the message out if they wanted to without exposing who they are. People, dates, places, memos and other evidence could easily be disseminated to the public without exposing who they are. ** The only reason they claim the people are paralyzed with fear is because they have too in order for the conspiracy story to work.

0

Bob Smith 1 year, 1 month ago

and don't even get me started on sandy hook. people who are running around saying it was staged should be ASHAMED. no respect!

0

mark hartless 1 year, 1 month ago

Gee, Bob. Somebody must have really pushed your button. I do NOT believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. I don't believe the Sandy Hook conspiracy. I do not believe David Koresh was an angel. And I sure as hell don't believe anyone who says "I'm from the gubbamint and I'm here to help you."

0

Doug Starkey 1 year, 1 month ago

Amazing number of constitutional scholars found here in the Yampa Valley. Instead of Wikipedia or You Tube for scholarly reference, why don't we use Justice Scalia's 2008 decision in the landmark gun control case, District of Columbia v. Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons that are not in “common use” — like, for example, assault weapons.

Just for reference, this is a quote from one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices ever, in a landmark (landmark means new, definitive direction in court cases) decision on gun control laws. Just another reference, the "Supreme Court" often decides the "constitutionality" of "laws" and things. The supreme court made up of the Pilot's registered users who comment on this board see things differently than the highest court of the land and one of the most conservative justices ever, but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion on what's constitutional. I'm sure Joe Meglen would say his interpretation of the 2nd amendment is more correct than Justice Scalia's.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Why are you quoting a Supreme Court justice instead of the U S Constitution? It says what it says, it doesn't REALLY mean something else because a politically appointed person says so.

1

jerry carlton 1 year, 1 month ago

HEy Bob and Ryan. Still waiting for you guys to join up with Barack and Rahm and go collect all the illegal guns in Chicago. Good luck and have fun.

0

john bailey 1 year, 1 month ago

mike issac, if you please brent boyer showed tom a little respect and corrected himself when he called tom by the wrong last name. please do the same. a little decency goes along way. so how did this thread get to conspiracys ? bob smith did you steal some of that dudes meth. your a maniac on here. if i didn't know better that avi looks a lot like that koresh fella. hey its warm enough , hula anyone? tom, hope your taking the time to breathe alittle..............~;0)

0

Mike Kent 1 year, 1 month ago

Thank you Diane Mitsch Bush for trying to bring some sanity to our gun laws while still upholding the constitution. I applaud your effort. Keep up the good work.

1

Mike Isaac 1 year, 1 month ago

In the end these laws may never see the light of day. The 15 round clip law will likely be the only one to make it to the Governors desk and get passed into law. Its real easy to drive up to Laramie , Cheyenne, or Jackson Hole to buy firearms and ammo and that 30 round clip your son wants for that new AR-15 you got him for Christmas. Since all these gun laws are never enforced and soon a lot of money could be spent out of state. There is a good chance that Our Governor a small business owner may not be happy with a fellow small business owner in Dream Island Plaza losing $$$ to Wyoming. Our City and County servants may also have a problem with less sales tax revenue along with the State. It would not surprise me one bit if the Gov did not sign these bills and cite the 2nd Amendment when his real reason is lost $$$ for Gun Shops and State Coffers. Diane may even know this as well because Gun Control just seems like a very unpopular issue to support in the 26th district. This is such a pro freedom County and Steamboat always rejects Nanny State Thinking. Remember that doctor who tried to close the Dispensary's ? That did not go over to well , people around here don't like others telling them that they know best and what is good for them...

I think the Diane we should all be worried about is the one from California that wants Mr and Mrs America to Turn Them All In. Plus she has 2 Billions bullets aimed right at states like Colorado.

1

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Tom,

Yes, the Washington DC case raised questions about whether that applied to the states. In the Chicago handgun case, the Supremes said it did apply to states as well by applying the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

So Feds, state and local government cannot ban guns as that would not allow a citizen's militia to exist. But guns can be regulated as part of having an effective citizen's militia that is not an excessive danger to the public, police and so on. So it would be plausible to ban RPGs, machine guns and so on.

It appears that any gun regulations would have to be justified as part of having a proper citizen's militia and not part of an anti-crime package or other social goals.

btw, this post is intended to be purely factual.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

Scott,

Specifically, the U S Constitution states "a well regulated militia", which sounds like a trained militia. Their guns can be regulated, it does not say regulation of guns or citizens. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's pretty simple.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Don,

I am just saying how the Supreme Court has ruled. They have decided that the militia in the 2nd Amendment is not just state militia, but self organized local militias. And so a person could be a one person militia.

But, the militia, hence the person, can legally be "well regulated".

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

When I join a militia, you can regulate my guns.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 1 month ago

RPGs and machine guns. Or, as DiFi ludicrously proposed to Ted Cruz this week, "bazookas". The hacks who deploy such asinine straw men are disingenuous at best; liars at worst. I'm leaning towards the latter.

0

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 1 month ago

So, Brian (and Tom)- if that's ridiculous about bringing up "bazookas", does that mean you DO believe in a level of restriction? If so, explain to all how you come up with "what is the right level of restriction"?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

The point of mentioning RPGs and machine guns is to explain that some guns are currently banned and those bans have been upheld by the courts. It shows that government can ban some guns. It demonstrates the logical flaw in the argument that assault weapons cannot be regulated or banned because most clearly some weapons have been regulated and banned.

Some politicians quote only part of the Second Amendment and say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and thus they oppose any gun control since they view it as unconstitutional. Thus, it is reasonable to ask those politicians whether they believe currently banned guns and weapons should be legal.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Tom,

But whether or no assault weapons should be banned is a different question than whether assault weapons can legally be banned.

Joe Meglen's letter to the editor says that DMB does not understand the Constitution. When it is Joe Meglen's views that do not match what the Supreme Court says what the Constitution means.

As for DiFi, her efforts are a waste of time. She wants to ban specific features on specific guns and so create a bill so riddled with loopholes as to be useless. It would be far more effective to set specific design requirements such as shotgun must have an 18" barrel or is considered an illegal sawed off shotgun. Legal weapons with a magazine could be required to have an integral design so that a larger magazine cannot be used since it simply would not fit in.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 1 month ago

In spite of the Supreme Court's viewpoint or interpretation, the U S Constitution still says what it says, it doesn't REALLY mean or say something else because the Supreme Court says so. Constitutionally, no arms of any kind can be banned. When it comes to regulating guns, amend the U S Constitution. Neither fed, state, nor local laws over write it. It says "A well regulated militia", not a militia with regulated guns. It doesn't say all men are required to be a part of the militia so they can regulate my guns. The ONLY statement about guns is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

1

rhys jones 1 year, 1 month ago

So here's a poser for you: Suppose that, if I saw the color you call blue, I would call it yellow. We would have no idea this is not the case, since the same color spectrum reacts to our mind the same way our whole life, so we would have no way of identifying this difference. Maybe different colors fire different synapses in different people. We could all be viewing the world through our own unique palette. I would LOVE to see the world (not to mention myself) through someone else's eyes, just for one minute.

One possible explanation, for why we are so polarized...

Just musing here, there's something for ya to chaw on, this conversation was getting predictable.

0

Michelle Hale 1 year, 1 month ago

What far too many do not want to embraces is this. The Constitution of this nation put in place rights for all people, but more than that Rule for Government so that it would not get out of control. The second amendment is about the right to stand against Tyranny. With the idea that our President has the right to "KILL" Americans, to spy on Americans is outrageous. Our US Government is the largest arms dealer in the world. Isn't it a little strange the things they sell all over the world you can't have here? Just as assanine as the limit of bullets in a clip.... so bring more clips. I for one as a very "liberal" person do not want Government telling me what I can do with my body, and the choices I make. I do not want government to tell me what I can do with property. Or, do I think government has the right to tell me how I have the right to protect myself of not! When the real truth is as time goes on, I am not so worried about who comes into my home. I am far more concerned about the out of control government and the demands they are making. My right to use a weapon is to also MY RIGHT to stand AGAINST my Government! Look up posse-comitatus! Read your constitution and the Federialist Papers.

0

Michelle Hale 1 year, 1 month ago

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

Kind of sums it up. We as well armed as your Government. When Government stands in the way of that, you should ask why, and get ready.

1

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 1 month ago

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he won’t enforce either gun-control measure waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, saying the laws are “unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.” ... “They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he said. http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/local/5575283-113/gun-state-background-colorado

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

An AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is an absurd weapon for self protection. If used for self protection then it is way too likely to have errant fire that hits innocent people.

If someone thinks they need an AR-15 with 30 round magazines for self protection then I'd ask what is so wrong with your life that you think you need that? Thinking you need that for self protection is pretty much admitting to a mental health issue or being the armed protection for a gang.

My aunt was a pioneering police woman (tried to become a sergeant when they only allowed men to be promoted). When she left the force and was living by herself in a remote area, she just carried a revolver when on her land. And had a rifle at the house in case thieves came at night to steal something outside.

And certainly in urban areas, anyone in a household with a gun is much more likely to be the victim of gunfire than those living in a home without a gun. So I would generally advise against getting a gun since it is an awful means of self protection. Far more effective is pepper spray since then aim can be poor and it can be used without worrying about accidentally killing someone.

And you actually think it is good that a law enforcement official, a sheriff, whose oath of office is uphold the laws of Colorado, publicly states he will not uphold the laws of Colorado? Woohoo, more of the Republicans as the idiot party.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

Well, you are the one that think a handgun and/or pepper spray is not enough for personal protection, that you need an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine.

So I suppose, a fact based world has ceased to exist for you for a while now.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 1 month ago

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-ucf-death-suspicious-evacuation-20130318,0,1082930.story

The assault rifle had a magazine capable of holding 28 bullets, officials said.

"It could have been a very bad day for everyone here," Beary said. "Let's just face it: One shooting is bad enough. Multiples is unthinkable."


So yep, this nutcase choose a weapon with a large magazine. The exact sort of magazine that the proposed Colorado gun control laws would outlaw.

0

Don Thayer 1 year ago

The only way to truly stop gun violence is to remove ALL guns from society, and leave them in the hands of government, the rest of this is all show. Is that really the kind of society we want? Removing the sale of large magazines but allowing existing to be grandfathered in is a joke.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.