COLORADO ALERT: 2013 Anti-Gun Bills at the State Capitol

archer wrote: I am fricken tired of the excuse that because solution "A" won't solve all the problems, then it should not be done. That is the same sorry excuse we have gotten for not letting tax rates rise on the wealthy (gee....it won't solve the deficit, or the budget, or the debt.....therefore we shouldn't do it) Well that tired old excuse just won't cut it anymore....the people are sick of being told, sorry.....we don't plan to do anything because no solution is perfect. I don't pretend to be an expert on this......If I was I would sure as hell be making a lot of money. I do own a gun, 2 actually, and I have been trained to use it....and I have yet to see any suggestion that leads me to believe that I will lose that right. Sure there are some fringe elements that would like to see every gun disappear, but a reasonably intelligent person knows that isn't going to happen. I am in favor of common sense regulations, I am in favor of limits on they type of guns available to the general public, and extremely strict background checks every time a gun is sold. I will let those who understand the ramifications of all this make their recommendations and justifications and judge those ideas as they come in. For me, nothing is off the table....look at everything and anything, then filter out those actions that cannot pass the "constitution" test. Of course....it is the Supreme Court that will determine what passes and what doesn't....not you or I.

The time for doing nothing has passed.....and because the NRA has been so vocal, and unwilling to even entertain some common sense solutions in the past, I suspect they are about to get some very onerous regulations and possibly bans shoved down their very vocal throats. Beware the law of unintended consequences......the NRA has pushed too far, and now the people will push back.

I'm sure you've thought this subject through as much as anyone archer and you know as well as anyone how difficult it is to prevent crazy MFrs from breaking laws and killing people with guns. But if you could make the rules right now, what would you do? What new law would make a difference and if you want semi-auto guns (the ones that look scary but do the exact same thing as a hunting rifle) taken out of circulation, how would you do it? And if you don't want to take legal guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, what new laws would make a difference?

Yup,
We have had mass murders for decades, semi auto's were not a part of most of them.
The Tower shooter at the UT.
And many more they featured this guy last night on a show, he killed 10% of the towns population.

http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/silka-michael.htm

archer wrote: I am fricken tired of the excuse that because solution "A" won't solve all the problems, then it should not be done. That is the same sorry excuse we have gotten for not letting tax rates rise on the wealthy (gee....it won't solve the deficit, or the budget, or the debt.....therefore we shouldn't do it) Well that tired old excuse just won't cut it anymore....the people are sick of being told, sorry.....we don't plan to do anything because no solution is perfect. I don't pretend to be an expert on this......If I was I would sure as hell be making a lot of money. I do own a gun, 2 actually, and I have been trained to use it....and I have yet to see any suggestion that leads me to believe that I will lose that right. Sure there are some fringe elements that would like to see every gun disappear, but a reasonably intelligent person knows that isn't going to happen. I am in favor of common sense regulations, I am in favor of limits on they type of guns available to the general public, and extremely strict background checks every time a gun is sold. I will let those who understand the ramifications of all this make their recommendations and justifications and judge those ideas as they come in. For me, nothing is off the table....look at everything and anything, then filter out those actions that cannot pass the "constitution" test. Of course....it is the Supreme Court that will determine what passes and what doesn't....not you or I.

The time for doing nothing has passed.....and because the NRA has been so vocal, and unwilling to even entertain some common sense solutions in the past, I suspect they are about to get some very onerous regulations and possibly bans shoved down their very vocal throats. Beware the law of unintended consequences......the NRA has pushed too far, and now the people will push back.

Fred, with all due respect, I said none of those things. Your dishonesty in demonising me with your warped interpretation of what I posted is just stunning.

archer wrote: Fred, with all due respect, I said none of those things. Your dishonesty in demonising me with your warped interpretation of what I posted is just stunning.

And they wonder why LJ and others respond the way they do... there is so much BS posted by those on the right that LJ just get sick of it like the rest of us on the left.... and On That Note says he wants serious discussion.... when there are those on the right who don't even try......

Fred, it's so rare you post links to your uh-hum 'facts' and everyone knows it.....

netdude wrote:

archer wrote: Fred, with all due respect, I said none of those things. Your dishonesty in demonising me with your warped interpretation of what I posted is just stunning.

And they wonder why LJ and others respond the way they do... there is so much BS posted by those on the right that LJ just get sick of it like the rest of us on the left.... and On That Note says he wants serious discussion.... when there are those on the right who don't even try......

Fred, it's so rare you post links to your uh-hum 'facts' and everyone knows it.....

Yep...

:thumbsup:

archer wrote: I am fricken tired of the excuse that because solution "A" won't solve all the problems, then it should not be done. That is the same sorry excuse we have gotten for not letting tax rates rise on the wealthy (gee....it won't solve the deficit, or the budget, or the debt.....therefore we shouldn't do it) Well that tired old excuse just won't cut it anymore....the people are sick of being told, sorry.....we don't plan to do anything because no solution is perfect. I don't pretend to be an expert on this......If I was I would sure as hell be making a lot of money. I do own a gun, 2 actually, and I have been trained to use it....and I have yet to see any suggestion that leads me to believe that I will lose that right. Sure there are some fringe elements that would like to see every gun disappear, but a reasonably intelligent person knows that isn't going to happen. I am in favor of common sense regulations, I am in favor of limits on they type of guns available to the general public, and extremely strict background checks every time a gun is sold. I will let those who understand the ramifications of all this make their recommendations and justifications and judge those ideas as they come in. For me, nothing is off the table....look at everything and anything, then filter out those actions that cannot pass the "constitution" test. Of course....it is the Supreme Court that will determine what passes and what doesn't....not you or I.

The time for doing nothing has passed.....and because the NRA has been so vocal, and unwilling to even entertain some common sense solutions in the past, I suspect they are about to get some very onerous regulations and possibly bans shoved down their very vocal throats. Beware the law of unintended consequences......the NRA has pushed too far, and now the people will push back.

Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens in the name of "doing something" isn't a reason to do so. Making bad law "just because" isn't a good idea. Your example of "taxing the rich more, just to do something" is a poor one, because it doesn't do what it is intended to do. It picks one specific group and penalizes them (with no guarantee of results) and yet leaves a large swath of people who give $$ to those who passed those laws untouched.

Why, if you are law abiding, should you suddenly become a criminal overnight if they ban (no grandfather clause) anything more than 10 rounds, and you have a 15 round clip? You may have never broken a law in your life, and now you are officially a felon if you don't turn in your gun? Criminal don't care. They will continue to get guns at will, and commit crimes with them.

They have very strict background checks in place now. Doesn't stop nutjobs....Drugs are banned in this country, yet they are rampant among criminals. Why do you thing banning guns will be any different?

As of yet, I haven't seen a proposal that would do anything to stop violent crimes. We would be better off if every law abiding citizen who wants to, carried. Criminals don't want to attack a place where they may be injured or killed. This is why they go to "gun free zones".

Why do you think, as a percentage of population, we have so few break-in's up here in the foothills? My guess is criminals know that a large percentage of us have firearms, and they don't want to risk being killed...so they choose softer targets.

The NRA hasn't pushed too hard. Law abiding citizens should be able to own guns, and this shouldn't be limited by what the govt. says.

Instead of punishing law abiding citizens, would you support fierce enforcement of current law? How about a life in prison for any crime committed with a gun? How about the mandatory death penalty if a criminal shoots someone with a gun?

It really rubs me wrong that the same politicians who are asking to take away our rights to have firearms of our choice ALL have armed guards, or carry themselves. We little people who they rule over can't afford that luxury...so we have guns ourselves.

archer wrote: Fred, with all due respect, I said none of those things. Your dishonesty in demonising me with your warped interpretation of what I posted is just stunning.

:crying2: So you are bleating instead that something needs to be done about guns, "for the chilrdren" no less, but you don't have any solutions.

Archer, please give us your solution to the firearms violence. (Which has been decreasing since the 1960's.)

Fred, could we maybe once discuss a topic without painting huge swaths of the population with one brush? Archer stated her opinion. It does not cover that of all Democrats any more than yours does all Republicans, or Libertarians or whatever you style yourself as.

I, For one Republican, am not adverse eve to some sensible regulations that might keep military style weapons out of the hands of those wo are not responsible enough to wield them. Until we discuss intelligently and debate why such regulations may or may not work we cannot guide our representatives in what we wish them to do. Cutting off all discussion with vitriol just leaves our politicians to be guided by lobbyists and bare emotion. That hasn't worked inthe past.

netdude wrote:

archer wrote: Fred, with all due respect, I said none of those things. Your dishonesty in demonising me with your warped interpretation of what I posted is just stunning.

And they wonder why LJ and others respond the way they do... there is so much BS posted by those on the right that LJ just get sick of it like the rest of us on the left.... and On That Note says he wants serious discussion.... when there are those on the right who don't even try......

Fred, it's so rare you post links to your uh-hum 'facts' and everyone knows it.....

Can I use quotes from unpaid slanted bloggers like LJ? Huffington Post anyone? Might as well quote VL if you are looking for an unbiased news source.