Two Colo. lawmakers recalled over gun control support

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
It’s not just mass killings that dismays me, but the fact that gun owners are far more likely to use their gun to take their own life, or for a loved one to commit suicide, than they are to use their gun to actually protect their life.

hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
Click to expand...
Yet the issue here is representatives that willfully disregard the wishes of the constituents they were elected to represent.

It’s similar to Jerry Brown and his successor as attorney general simply deciding not to fulfill their responsibility to defend propositions which passed that they disagreed with.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s not just mass killings that dismays me, but the fact that gun owners are far more likely to use their gun to take their own life, or for a loved one to commit suicide, than they are to use their gun to actually protect their life.

hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
Click to expand...
And how will a background check end that?

How does a large magazine aid in a suicide? It’s pretty much over after the first shot - one way or the other. 🤷
 
styrgwillidar said:
Yet the issue here is representatives that willfully disregard the wishes of the constituents they were elected to represent.

It’s similar to Jerry Brown and his successor as attorney general simply deciding not to fulfill their responsibility to defend propositions which passed that they disagreed with.
Click to expand...
Government needs to take action against peoples dangerous behaviors, such as gun ownership.
 
You cannot legislate against a switch going off in some psycho’s head. If they want to kill innocents, they will stop at nothing to realize their aim,and do everything in their power to get whatever weapon they can to do so -be it guns, bombs or boxcutters- regardless of whether the law allows them to do so or not. Psychos who don’t obey laws against murder, terrorism, rape, robbery, kidnapping and hijacking are not going to pay attention to laws that prohibit them from owning or acquiring dangerous weapons.

The only solution is not more laws, but enforcement of the one we have-and the police should do their jobs and prevent crime, and not just show up afterwards to clean up the bodies.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
You cannot legislate against a switch going off in some psycho’s head. If they want to kill innocents, they will stop at nothing to realize their aim,and do everything in their power to get whatever weapon they can to do so -be it guns, bombs or boxcutters- regardless of whether the law allows them to do so or not. Psychos who don’t obey laws against murder, terrorism, rape, robbery, kidnapping and hijacking are not going to pay attention to laws that prohibit them from owning or acquiring dangerous weapons.

The only solution is not more laws, but enforcement of the one we have-and the police should do their jobs and prevent crime, and not just show up afterwards to clean up the bodies.
Click to expand...
I contend that the prevention of gun related crimes starts with stricter gun control.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Government needs to take action against peoples dangerous behaviors, such as gun ownership.
Click to expand...
So, in your view elected leaders are actually our rulers. They should be free to disregard the will of the people?

That’s the issue, gun control isn’t, constitutional rights aren’t. It’s the willful disregard of the constituents desires.

I don’t believe an elected leader should be able to state they don’t care what their constituents want, that claim to have no responsibility to take into account the desires of the people that elected them.

Why do you see it as horrible that folks fired people for not doing their job?
 
styrgwillidar said:
So, in your view elected leaders are actually our rulers. They should be free to disregard the will of the people?
Click to expand...
In the case of gun control, yes. The pending war in Syria is not favorable in the eyes of the public, but I see nobody trying to recall Obama.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Government needs to take action against peoples dangerous behaviors, such as gun ownership.
Click to expand...
Government leaders than get to define whatever they believe are dangerous behaviors and control them. Regardless of what the people that elected them think. Like you know, the dangerous behaviors of adhering to religious values regarding homosexuality and marriage.
 
Robert_Sock said:
In the case of gun control, yes. The pending war in Syria is not favorable in the eyes of the public, but I see nobody trying to recall Obama.
Click to expand...
Careful, careful. Once you set the precedent and principle – look down the road at the consequences.

So, then elected officials would be justified in ignoring a majority of constituents supporting stricter gun control to pass gun laws actually showing beneficial effects to crime rates and mass shootings?

Elected officials should be able to impose shall-issue and elimination of gun-free zones in order to lower mass shootings? Even if the majority in their district oppose them?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, yes!
Click to expand...
Sorry, you really lost me. I’m a fan of freedom and not big on oppression or an out of control government that can trample and disregard the will of the people, the consent of the governed-- WHICH IS ITS ONLY SOURCE OF LEGITIMACY!!!

From the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Note, the people of Colorado availed themselves of a peaceful means they had as check on the power of government.

My favorite part of the Declaration:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Nice that the people of Colorado could rid themselves of the evil vice continuing to suffer under it. Again, peacefully.
 
Robert_Sock said:
In the case of gun control, yes. The pending war in Syria is not favorable in the eyes of the public, but I see nobody trying to recall Obama.
Click to expand...
But Robert, we don’t get to pick and choose which issues the elected will push, ignoring the will of the people. Once you set the precedent on gun control-- as I point out, laws I believe you oppose would actually be more effective in achieving your stated goals-- there is no check on them.

If they can ignore us on gun laws, well than environmental laws, school discipline and teaching guidelines, porn, gay marriage, religious freedoms— everything the government can affect is their call regardless of what we want.

Because they either are or aren’t accountable to the people.

Now, I think its’ immoral to take a paycheck for a job you don’t intend to do. I see an elected politician’s job is to represent the people, and if he disagrees with what they desire make the case and convince them, or abide by their wishes if he can’t.

If it’s a matter of conscience and he can’t make his case to garner their support, and he can’t vote their way-- resign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top