And so it begins

I expect Sheriffs to follow and enforce the laws of the State of Colorado.. If they can't, then they shouldn't be sheriffs...

Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?

What I REALLY expect them to do is enforce universal background checks; the $10 fee for running the checks; the refusal to sell to anyone who fails to pass the background checks, (including those either adjudicated or under restraining order for domestic violence)... You want to play your stupid "red herring"/NRA bullsh*t about arrests, be my guest.....

You have proof that everyone who fails a background check is a "felon"? Source? (I'm STILL waiting for a source that failing a background check is sufficient for a criminal arrest warrant... You let me know when you get that, y'hear?)

You have proof that law-enforcement has NEVER put an officer in a gun-store to arrest someone who applied for a purchase but who has an outstanding criminal warrant when they came back to pick up the weapon?....Really? Source? (Please say 'Yes'...I'll cram it down your throat...) I'M STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO TELL ME THAT STUPID CRIMINALS NEVER GET ARRESTED WHEN THEY COME BACK TO CLAIM THEIR GUNS....


:Snooze

Nah, if we want to showcase "idiot politicians" we can talk about morons like Louie Gohmert, who somehow managed to connect some dots between limits on magazine-capacity, and bestiality/gay-marriage..

:rofllol :droolpuddle: :woo hoo: :VeryScared:



Poor Righties.... Lost again.... Gee, It just isn't your day, is it....

FredHayek wrote: And now hunters, fishermen & skiers will visit neighboring free states over Colorado. Downside? The rural counties of Colorado who depend on tourism will suffer while the elites of Denver and Boulder won't feel the drop in visits.

Obviously restricting freedom of everyone because of someone that someone else does elsewhere is stupid. We have killed far more people because of our lax driving rules than guns. But we all know that all lives are not equal - people killed in cars are worth less than those killed with guns, you cannot deny it. Why, well in reality, it is because the gun violence sells more ads on news - I have called local news stations everywhere I lived and have asked them to do stories on how any idiot can get a license and more people die in the state due to driving than guns every year....but alas, it does not sell ads so we don't react to the driving killing spree and react to a fraction of these deaths on purpose with guns. 1000's can die on the roads and if someone shoots someone, they matter more than all the car deaths combined in regards to public policy.

But in reality, people that depend on tourists for their pay are just taking advantage of a trend and should expect a cyclic pay. This is especially true in CO where local sales tax, local govt excess control and generally all the feel goods making sure they like your life at the expense of your life. See Boulder town officials literally debating how grocery stores will display their shelves, which items will be allowed to go on which shelves - just basic foodstuffs - none of their business. If you make something in universal demand, you have better odds of making it through tough times. When you isolate your income to one job, one company, one location, one industry, one political group, that is extremely heavily regulated like Colorado vs. other states (better face it, you live in a MEGA GOVT state, esp local govt - business is harder in CO than ANY other state I operate in - and at this point I have moved most of my business and it's jobs out of state due to public policy that is anti job and business success)....you should expect to live on a roller coaster.

So it sucks the feel good assholes are trying to get into every pocket, bedroom, hole in the ground, garden, tire tread and child, but the losers that put all their eggs in one basket, even though everything in life warns you not to, just get what is coming to them. Just like those with just one job - simply overconfident with nothing to back it up. One job = good freaking luck.

You would be MORE SECURE cutting and selling firewood just about anywhere in the country then to be a hunting guide with a mortgage in one location...but I would gander that many are both and these capable guys and occasional women will be just fine and adapt to integrate some other profession in their rural lifestyles. The people that repaired wagon wheels had kids and they are not currently repairing wagon wheels, the did not die. Rural areas have more sustainable opportunity that is easier to get than suburban and urban areas, especially for those willing to actually work. CO is full of people that don't want to work physically, so these guys will be ok, they will beat out the average person most days of the week for most things and hopefully they will stay diverse so they can handle the next govt opportunity crushing policy, it is only days or weeks away...that is if they don't spend all their time bitching.

LadyJazzer wrote: I expect Sheriffs to follow and enforce the laws of the State of Colorado.. If they can't, then they shouldn't be sheriffs...

What I REALLY expect them to do is enforce universal background checks; the $10 fee for running the checks; the refusal to sell to anyone who fails to pass the background checks, (including those either adjudicated or under restraining order for domestic violence)... You want to play your stupid "red herring"/NRA bullsh*t about arrests, be my guest.....

With the way this law is written how do you expect them to be able to enforce this law?

How is the .gov going to prove I ever owned a gun in the first place?

LadyJazzer wrote: [snip]

What I REALLY expect them to do is enforce universal background checks; the $10 fee for running the checks; the refusal to sell to anyone who fails to pass the background checks, (including those either adjudicated or under restraining order for domestic violence)... You want to play your stupid "red herring"/NRA bullsh*t about arrests, be my guest.....

[snip]

Well... it looks like the ACLU may be rightly concerned about background checks...

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes,” Calabrese said. “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

“So you just worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/04/a ... trol-bill/

The ACLU's concern must be red-herring bullsh*t I guess?

Yep, since nowhere in the colorado laws is authorization for such a database. In fact, the record keeping is in the hands of private entities, not any government agency.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yep, since nowhere in the colorado laws is authorization for such a database. In fact, the record keeping is in the hands of private entities, not any government agency.

I will side with the ACLU thinking... it could happen. And look... I worked for the federal government for 15 years, I was a database programmer, I attended conferences, deployment strategy meetings, cross departmental needs assessment and partnered with state and local government departments who had vested interests in our research and development. I can assure you, once state or federal agencies gets data... it's open season on who can get access that data. Reread this quote from above “For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

There's your answer. Don't fool yourself... you have too much faith in your ideologies and out of touch with realities.

Methinks they doth protest too much...And about stuff that hasn't even happened....And about stuff that's NOT going to happen....And about stuff that SHOULD have happened a LONG time ago--(tough!)...

Oh, and what's that noise?...

Why it's the sound of Connecticut going even further...

Connecticut Passes Nation's Strictest Gun Law In Wake Of Sandy Hook Massacre

But no state embodies the high costs and conflicting forces in America's gun debate more than Connecticut, home to some of the country's best-known gun manufacturers stretching back more than a century. It also now grapples with a new distinction: It is home to Sandy Hook Elementary School, an international symbol of the mass shootings that occur too frequently in the United States.

Investigators in Newtown believe that Adam Lanza fired more than 155 bullets in under five minutes using a military-style assault rifle loaded with high capacity magazines.

The Connecticut legislation bans the sale of gun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and requires background checks for private gun sales, including those at gun shows. It also expands the state's current assault weapons ban to include more than 100 gun models.

Additionally, the Connecticut bill allocates $15 million for expanded school safety and mental health programs, and includes new eligibility requirements for ammunition sales. It also has a provision to create the nation's first registry of dangerous offenders, which will be accessible only to law enforcement officers.

...

[N]ews of the law's passage was greeted with applause by gun control advocates like Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"The bills passed today will save lives, plain and simple," Gross said. "The leaders in Connecticut are taking action because it is the right thing to do, but also because for them, Newtown didn’t just happen in some far off town ... It was their friends and neighbors." Gross also said he hoped Congress was watching the deliberations in Connecticut.

While the usual NRA members stood on the steps of the statehouse crying the usual "It won't stop anything"... Yeah, right.

LadyJazzer wrote: Methinks they doth protest too much...And about stuff that hasn't even happened....And about stuff that's NOT going to happen....And about stuff that SHOULD have happened a LONG time ago--(tough!)...

Oh, and what's that noise?...

Why it's the sound of Connecticut going even further...

And I hear the ACLU... and Connecticut proves the conservatives point nicely. Thanks for pointing that out.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yep, since nowhere in the colorado laws is authorization for such a database. In fact, the record keeping is in the hands of private entities, not any government agency.

Making this law unenforceable.

gmule wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Yep, since nowhere in the colorado laws is authorization for such a database. In fact, the record keeping is in the hands of private entities, not any government agency.

Making this law unenforceable.

Liberals always paint themselves into an ideological corner. It's the side effect of too much feeling and not enough logic.