Ballot Proposal To Overturn Magazine Limits?

archer wrote: Oh LJ, don't you know the conservatives here are a kinder, gentler bunch now?.....instead of wanting us dead, they just want to silence our voices.......what could possibly be wrong with that?

Oh sheesh.. Drama much? Asking for informative, courteous discussion isn't an attempt to silence anyone. I suppose when you asked your kids to deport themselves courteously at the dinner table you were trying to "silence their voices".

chickaree wrote:

archer wrote: Oh LJ, don't you know the conservatives here are a kinder, gentler bunch now?.....instead of wanting us dead, they just want to silence our voices.......what could possibly be wrong with that?

Oh sheesh.. Drama much? Asking for informative, courteous discussion isn't an attempt to silence anyone. I suppose when you asked your kids to deport themselves courteously at the dinner table you were trying to "silence their voices".

Why yes I was, I was the parent, they were the children, and as a parent I could ask, no require, them to be mindful of what they said to others, and teach them how to act appropriately at our dinner table. I could also punish them for behaving badly in public. You, are not my parent, and do not have the right to do that, do you.

But you have made my point quite eloquently.....by admitting you are trying to parent the liberals into acting the way YOU want, but not particularly caring how you, or your buddies act.

Enough, I know what has been going on here, so do you.

Adjust my last post.....the little .38 clip holds 13........guess I will not have a swat team tonight....: )). BTW I looked at a couple of clips......neither have SN.....one has no marks whatsoever.....liberal wet dream. NOW if you are a cop, possibly you may need to chase bad guys rather than doing donuts and checking hunter's clip capacities......but as we see here the police state fans want an up tick in cops (say 10,000 nationwide) at $100,000 a year to check clips......and the SHEEP Americans will actually vote to do this.......and the Police admin and courts will use this to demand increased staffs......that is how it works. Wonder why the CO Sheriffs are not for this silliness ?? This eats us alive bit by bit.....

LadyJazzer wrote: And isn't interesting that Bob "selectively edited" this post so that it wouldn't show the source of the "...gassing them instead" comment....Here, Bob... Let me help you with that....since you haven't got the guts to do it yourself:

Blazer Bob wrote: There was never any doubt. You could save a lot of money by gassing them instead.

Selectively? The search engine here works really well. Unlike some I edit to conserve bandwidth not to propagandize.

I am surprised to see that you have at least some sense of shame.

FredHayek wrote: Per the Denver Post this morning, a couple guys want to put on the ballot for the general public to decide if they want a magazine ban. If they get this done for the 2014 ballot, which party do you think it will benefit?

The pollsters believe one of the reasons Dems did so good in 2012 locally is that the stoners were inspired to get to the polls to legalize MJ and they tend to be Democrats.

The GOP has used ballot measures before to increase turnout. Would more traditional non-voters show up to vote to overturn the legislature's magazine ban? Or would the soccer moms be inspired to get out and vote to protect their children?

Right now? I think it will be more likely to mobilize the conservative voters.

Totally meaningless and waste of resources. First, polls show that the voters in Colorado overwhelming support this legislation and Second, the ballot proposal would violate the Colorado Constitution. Under Section V of the Colorado Constitution:

Article V, section 1 (1) and (3), of the Colorado Constitution provide:

General assembly - initiative and referendum.
(1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general
assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be
elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to
propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the
same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve
power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item,
section, or part of any act of the general assembly.

(3) The second power hereby reserved is the referendum, and it
may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace,health, or safety, and appropriations for
the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state
institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the
general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an
amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for
all candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general
election or by the general assembly. Referendum petitions, in such form
as may be prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with
the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment
of the session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the
referendum is demanded. The filing of a referendum petition against any
item, section, or part of any act shall not delay the remainder of the act
from becoming operative



Section 3 of HR 13-1224:

SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety

So the proposed referendum is simply an exercise in futility.

Blazer Bob wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And isn't interesting that Bob "selectively edited" this post so that it wouldn't show the source of the "...gassing them instead" comment....Here, Bob... Let me help you with that....since you haven't got the guts to do it yourself:

Blazer Bob wrote: There was never any doubt. You could save a lot of money by gassing them instead.

Selectively? The search engine here works really well. Unlike some I edit to conserve bandwidth not to propagandize.

I am surprised to see that you have at least some sense of shame.

Shame?... :rofllol Not about that....

How'd that "Let's kill all the Liberals" work for ya?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Per the Denver Post this morning, a couple guys want to put on the ballot for the general public to decide if they want a magazine ban. If they get this done for the 2014 ballot, which party do you think it will benefit?

The pollsters believe one of the reasons Dems did so good in 2012 locally is that the stoners were inspired to get to the polls to legalize MJ and they tend to be Democrats.

The GOP has used ballot measures before to increase turnout. Would more traditional non-voters show up to vote to overturn the legislature's magazine ban? Or would the soccer moms be inspired to get out and vote to protect their children?

Right now? I think it will be more likely to mobilize the conservative voters.

Totally meaningless and waste of resources. First, polls show that the voters in Colorado overwhelming support this legislation and Second, the ballot proposal would violate the Colorado Constitution. Under Section V of the Colorado Constitution:

Article V, section 1 (1) and (3), of the Colorado Constitution provide:

General assembly - initiative and referendum.
(1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general
assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be
elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to
propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the
same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve
power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item,
section, or part of any act of the general assembly.

(3) The second power hereby reserved is the referendum, and it
may be ordered, except as to laws necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace,health, or safety, and appropriations for
the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state
institutions, against any act or item, section, or part of any act of the
general assembly, either by a petition signed by registered electors in an
amount equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for
all candidates for the office of the secretary of state at the previous general
election or by the general assembly. Referendum petitions, in such form
as may be prescribed pursuant to law, shall be addressed to and filed with
the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment
of the session of the general assembly that passed the bill on which the
referendum is demanded. The filing of a referendum petition against any
item, section, or part of any act shall not delay the remainder of the act
from becoming operative



Section 3 of HR 13-1224:

SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety

So the proposed referendum is simply an exercise in futility.

Good call.... :thumbsup:

95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
99 percent of Germans 1935 agree people with "serious mental illness" should be prevented from owing a gun. 100 percent of
Russians in 1930 agreed if you do not agree with Stalin you should be shot, put in a mental hospital or placed in a labor camp'\.

80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
Ditto above Germany and Russia.

80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
Germany 1935.......background checks used and 99 percent were denied for various bogus reasons. Russia 1930 only police had
guns by then after the dance was over.

65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.



I will not dignify these bogus poll numbers by answering the last four......point made.

So you are claiming that Colorado is the equivalent of 1930's Russia and Germany? Really?

Wow... Still trying to repeat that "Germany/Hitler 1935" LIE?... You need some new material... That one has been torpedoed as bad as Mitt-Flop's "All Jeep Production is Moving to Italy":

The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” –Adolf Hitler, 1935

Trouble is, Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke these particular words at all. This little “speech” was obviously written for him, many years after his death, by someone who wanted you to believe that gun registration is Hitler-evil.

What he did say, seven years later, was this: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” So it’s fair to conclude that he believed “gun control” had its uses. But that’s quite a different thing from claiming that “gun control” was instrumental in the NAZI rise to power.

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/ ... s-gun-ban/

The Hitler gun control lie
Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

“This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_ta ... ut_hitler/


You "don't want to dignify these with a comment?... Gee, why am I not surprised...When you live in a fact-free echo-chamber, facts must drive you crazy... :VeryScared:

65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.