Two Colo. lawmakers recalled over gun control support

[Robert_Sock]

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.’’
-Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

 

[styrgwillidar]

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.’’
-Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

And? So? Machine guns were already heavily regulated when Reagan was president. He signed the law banning the purchase of any new machine guns. Nice he had an opinion, isn’t relevant to any firearms manufactured and sold to the public since.

However, as noted in the Heller case- SCOTUS upheld the ruling determining the public interest in having a means to resist the depredations of government tyranny is at the heart of 2A. Again-

"“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

Given the slaughter of 170,000,000 people by their own governments in the 20th century, perhaps our founding fathers had a valid concern that the people should retain the means to resist government tyranny.

And just like my opinion of the gun laws in Colorado isn’t relevant to what the people there decide in is their best interests, neither is Ronald Reagan’s.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Given the slaughter of 170,000,000 people by their own governments in the 20th century, perhaps our founding fathers had a valid concern that the people should retain the means to resist government tyranny.

Like the public here in America today can hold off the armed forces? It would be like mass suicide! It’s utter nonsense! How would these people be able to train, plan and group together? Who in their right mind would dare to finance them? The NRA? Let the renegades stay in their underground bunkers where they feel safe with their stash of weapons. Once Marshall Law is declared, all those on the streets would die.

 

[NeuroTypical]

I’m elated about the successful recall election here in my backyard. I only work in district 11, so I couldn’t vote in the election, but I’ve been involved in the local debate. The recall wasn’t really about passing gun control legislation. The recall was about passing idiotic useless legislation that is unconstitutional, potentially criminalizes innocent law-abiding people, and does absolutely nothing to deter or prevent bad guys from doing their bad things.

Robert - as I look through this thread, I can see you want less violence, less suicides, less accidental shooting. Those are all wonderful things to want. But please understand - the gun bills passed by Morse and Giron did not do a single thing to make any of that happen.

The Colorado Democrats were feeling the pressure after the Aurora Theater shootings to do something. So they rammed through bad, feel-good law that looked nice on camera, but accomplished nothing good.

Something that isn’t really making the national/international news - after the laws were passed, just about all of Colorado’s Sheriffs joined together and sued to kill the laws, claiming they were unenforceable and unconstitutional. That lawsuit is still pending, although there was a deal made with the judicial department and DA about how the more troubling portions of the law just won’t be prosecuted.

I had to take action in order to protect myself legally. I legally own some 17 round magazines. Clips don’t have serial numbers, they have no date-of-manufacture stamp. If a LEO stopped me and was made aware of my conceal carry gun with large clip, he’d literally have no way of knowing whether I was violating state law or not.

I spoke to a deputy sheriff a few days before the recall election. He was more ticked off at the dumb laws than I was. They made his job impossible to do correctly.

Bad law. Good recall. Good message to send to all the other politicians out there: We know you feel the need to be seen as leading. Be warned - if your ‘leadership’ results in horrible nonsense that makes life harder only for good guys, we may get so ticked off at you, we’ll kick you out of office early.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m elated about the successful recall election here in my backyard. I only work in district 11, so I couldn’t vote in the election, but I’ve been involved in the local debate. The recall wasn’t really about passing gun control legislation. The recall was about passing idiotic useless legislation that is unconstitutional, potentially criminalizes innocent law-abiding people, and does absolutely nothing to deter or prevent bad guys from doing their bad things.

Robert - as I look through this thread, I can see you want less violence, less suicides, less accidental shooting. Those are all wonderful things to want. But please understand - the gun bills passed by Morse and Giron did not do a single thing to make any of that happen.

The Colorado Democrats were feeling the pressure after the Aurora Theater shootings to do something. So they rammed through bad, feel-good law that looked nice on camera, but accomplished nothing good.

Something that isn’t really making the national/international news - after the laws were passed, just about all of Colorado’s Sheriffs joined together and sued to kill the laws, claiming they were unenforceable and unconstitutional. That lawsuit is still pending, although there was a deal made with the judicial department and DA about how the more troubling portions of the law just won’t be prosecuted.

I had to take action in order to protect myself legally. I legally own some 17 round magazines. Clips don’t have serial numbers, they have no date-of-manufacture stamp. If a LEO stopped me and was made aware of my conceal carry gun with large clip, he’d literally have no way of knowing whether I was violating state law or not.

I spoke to a deputy sheriff a few days before the recall election. He was more ticked off at the dumb laws than I was. They made his job impossible to do correctly.

Bad law. Good recall. Good message to send to all the other politicians out there: We know you feel the need to be seen as leading. Be warned - if your ‘leadership’ results in horrible nonsense that makes life harder only for good guys, we may get so ticked off at you, we’ll kick you out of office early.

So, what exactly is wrong with strict background checks?

 

[YADA]

Government needs to take action against peoples dangerous behaviors, such as gun ownership.

If you had had your way then - the United States of America would still be under British rule…

If you had your way - no citizen ever could or should be able to over throw an oppressive government … we are merely slaves to the ruling class

Consider this - In Egypt and Libya - Our government is arming Egyptian and Libyans citizens while at the same time working to prohibit its own citizens from owning guns - …

Syria - we have had much debate but in fact - other nations are arming the opposition to the Syrian government …

Our Second Amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves - not to hunt, not to have a hobby … but from criminals and a government that would strip from us our God given rights … we are not slaves to the Government - our government has its authority by our consent …

Murder is against the law - and [sadly] people still commit murder
Theft is against the law - and [sadly] people still steal
Driving Under the Influence is against the law - and [sadly] people still get behind the wheel of a car intoxicated by alcohol an drugs every day … and lowering the limit has not changed the fact that most drunk driving accidents are caused by those who are two - four times the 0.08 limit

 

[styrgwillidar]

Like the public here in America today can hold off the armed forces? It would be like mass suicide! It’s utter nonsense! How would these people be able to train, plan and group together? Who in their right mind would dare to finance them? The NRA? Let the renegades stay in their underground bunkers where they feel safe with their stash of weapons. Once Marshall Law is declared, all those on the streets would die.

You’re assuming all of us folks who swore to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic would side with the government.

However, the founding fathers envisioned the potential chaos of a revolt by a well-armed populace as a deterrent to the politicians over-reaching. A lot of mess to clean up no matter who wins. Again, prudence, people will suffer a lot of evil before they take up arms.

Again, governments really are a threat to their people and have taken far more lives than even the most ambitious of criminals.

Which gets us back to the point-- I would far rather have the people make the point that they are in charge by recalling politicians than by revolution.

 

[YADA]

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/

As a person - who had a family member commit suicide - I think you are so off base …

My great grandfather was blind - my g-grandmother had passed away - he felt people were cheating him at the store in making change - in short - he was despondent. My great uncle thought he was suicidal … so he removed the ammunition from the house and filed the firing pin from my G-grandfather’s pistol … You are correct in this - he did not shoot himself - even though he bought more ammunition …

Nope … he never shot himself … instead he hung himself in the barn …

As a person who investigated fatal vehicle accidents - I can tell you that many are not accidents at all - there may not be letters, there may not be hard proof - but police and insurance companies across the nation will tell you that a percentage of head-on collisions are just that - suicides … and those suicides endanger others …

All the gun control in the world will never prevent a person intent on self harm

 

[Robert_Sock]

If you had had your way then - the United States of America would still be under British rule…

If you had your way - no citizen ever could or should be able to over throw an oppressive government … we are merely slaves to the ruling class

Consider this - In Egypt and Libya - Our government is arming Egyptian and Libyans citizens while at the same time working to prohibit its own citizens from owning guns - …

Syria - we have had much debate but in fact - other nations are arming the opposition to the Syrian government …

Our Second Amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves - not to hunt, not to have a hobby … but from criminals and a government that would strip from us our God given rights … we are not slaves to the Government - our government has its authority by our consent …

Murder is against the law - and [sadly] people still commit murder
Theft is against the law - and [sadly] people still steal
Driving Under the Influence is against the law - and [sadly] people still get behind the wheel of a car intoxicated by alcohol an drugs every day … and lowering the limit has not changed the fact that most drunk driving accidents are caused by those who are two - four times the 0.08 limit

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11201418&postcount=184

 

[Robert_Sock]

As a person - who had a family member commit suicide - I think you are so off base …

My great grandfather was blind - my g-grandmother had passed away - he felt people were cheating him at the store in making change - in short - he was despondent. My great uncle thought he was suicidal … so he removed the ammunition from the house and filed the firing pin from my G-grandfather’s pistol … You are correct in this - he did not shoot himself - even though he bought more ammunition …

Nope … he never shot himself … instead he hung himself in the barn …

As a person who investigated fatal vehicle accidents - I can tell you that many are not accidents at all - there may not be letters, there may not be hard proof - but police and insurance companies across the nation will tell you that a percentage of head-on collisions are just that - suicides … and those suicides endanger others …

All the gun control in the world will never prevent a person intent on self harm

What limiting guns can do is to limit the number of suicides due to acute distress. I agree that someone with chronic distress would find another means to suicide.

 

[styrgwillidar]

What limiting guns can do is to limit the number of suicides due to acute distress. I agree that someone with chronic distress would find another means to suicide.

It might not limit them at all, just cause them to commit suicide in a way that endangers others. Head on collisions, filling a home with an odorless flammable gas, jumping from a bridge and hitting a car, suicide by attacking a police officer, etc.

 

[adrift]

Comparing the American culture to that of Japan, is like comparing apples to oranges.

Since I didn’t mention Japan your comment is meaningless. You keep ignoring that suicide is not caused by guns only accomplished by guns as well as other means. In other countries the number one means is to jump in front of a train.-

 

[YADA]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11201418&postcount=184

We have background checks now -

I would wager that - in all 50 states - if you walk into the local gun store, gun expo or Walmart Store and purchase a gun - you submit to a background check , …

I possess a carry permit - I have been fingerprinted and investigated …

You should define ‘stricter’ … and then explain how that would prevent a person with criminal intent from committing a crime or crimes - of which the first committed would be obtaining a firearm …

Like a felon for whom right now - it is illegal to posses a firearm … care to hazard a guess on just how many felons in the US possess a firearm right this minute? After All ** It is against the law**

Are stricter background checks going to make the response time of local police faster when you place that 911 call for help?

If I give my 22 rifle to my grandson - do I need to have a background check performed?

My father was a gunsmith - you realize that a person can build a firearm - right?

 

[styrgwillidar]

We have background checks now -

I would wager that - in all 50 states - if you walk into the local gun store, gun expo or Walmart Store and purchase a gun - you submit to a background check , …

I possess a carry permit - I have been fingerprinted and investigated …

You should define ‘stricter’ … and then explain how that would prevent a person with criminal intent from committing a crime or crimes - of which the first committed would be obtaining a firearm …

Like a felon for whom right now - it is illegal to posses a firearm … care to hazard a guess on just how many felons in the US possess a firearm right this minute? After All ** It is against the law**

Are stricter background checks going to make the response time of local police faster when you place that 911 call for help?

If I give my 22 rifle to my grandson - do I need to have a background check performed?

My father was a gunsmith - you realize that a person can build a firearm - right?

Regardless of what you, I, Robert, Bloomberg, the NRA, or anybody else thinks of the law, or the facts and figures re the gun control debate doesn’t address the point of the article.

Why is it a bad thing that the folks in Colorado held their representatives accountable for ignoring the constituents opinions and refusing to listen to them?

 

[Peebo]

Since I didn’t mention Japan your comment is meaningless. You keep ignoring that suicide is not caused by guns only accomplished by guns as well as other means. In other countries the number one means is to jump in front of a train.-

Could you pleas supply the stats for the number of suicide by guns here in the USA and the number of suicides by people jumping in front of trains…country by country…thank you.

 

[adrift]

Comparing the American culture to that of Japan, is like comparing apples to oranges.

Could you pleas supply the stats for the number of suicide by guns here in the USA and the number of suicides by people jumping in front of trains…country by country…thank you.

I have links in my previous posts-

 

[Robert_Sock]

We have background checks now -

I would wager that - in all 50 states - if you walk into the local gun store, gun expo or Walmart Store and purchase a gun - you submit to a background check , …

I possess a carry permit - I have been fingerprinted and investigated …

You should define ‘stricter’ … and then explain how that would prevent a person with criminal intent from committing a crime or crimes - of which the first committed would be obtaining a firearm …

Like a felon for whom right now - it is illegal to posses a firearm … care to hazard a guess on just how many felons in the US possess a firearm right this minute? After All ** It is against the law**

Are stricter background checks going to make the response time of local police faster when you place that 911 call for help?

If I give my 22 rifle to my grandson - do I need to have a background check performed?

My father was a gunsmith - you realize that a person can build a firearm - right?

What type of stricter background checks did those two recalled lawmakers propose? What type of stricter background checks is Obama proposing? Don’t let the NRA dupe anybody!

 

[NeuroTypical]

So, what exactly is wrong with strict background checks?

Here is what is wrong:

1. Bad guys don’t follow laws. Guns are widely available on the street today, or from sellers in other states with less-strict laws. So background checks won’t deter people from committing violent crimes. All a background check law does, is give society something else to charge a bad guy with, after he’s been caught.
2. If you’re law-abiding, the law is burdensome and causing problems. As things stand now, two private citizens must go to a licensed firearm dealer and have them run a background check on you for a fee. People are trying to do that. The firearms dealers are bound by contradictory sets of rules, where one law says they cannot run a check on anyone other than someone buying from them directly, and the other law says they must run a check on anyone engaged in a private sale for a fee.

But setting that aside, that’s not the law that had everyone the most angry. As I explained in my last post, the moronic high-cap mag ban bill was behind most of the recall energy.

 

[styrgwillidar]

What type of stricter background checks did those two recalled lawmakers propose? What type of stricter background checks is Obama proposing? Don’t let the NRA dupe anybody!

Again, you keep not addressing the issue-

They didn’t propose laws, they passed them. They passed them over the objections of their constituents, they passed them while refusing to hear from their constituents including the law enforcement community which opposed the laws.

You labeled as disgusting politicians being held accountable in a legal and peaceful manner for their actions.

We can talk about gun control/laws/rights-- but the issue is the politicians not only refused to make the case to the public, they refused to listen to (name removed by moderator)ut from them–

Perhaps if the politicians had recognized they were public servants and not rulers, perhaps if they had made the case and listened to opposition they wouldn’t have been recalled.

ETA: There’s a saying from somewhere, something about arrogance or pride and plummeting or descent and them happening in some sort of order because there’s a cause effect relationship.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Here is what is wrong:

1. Bad guys don’t follow laws. Guns are widely available on the street today, or from sellers in other states with less-strict laws. So background checks won’t deter people from committing violent crimes. All a background check law does, is give society something else to charge a bad guy with, after he’s been caught.
2. If you’re law-abiding, the law is burdensome and causing problems. As things stand now, two private citizens must go to a licensed firearm dealer and have them run a background check on you for a fee. People are trying to do that. The firearms dealers are bound by contradictory sets of rules, where one law says they cannot run a check on anyone other than someone buying from them directly, and the other law says they must run a check on anyone engaged in a private sale for a fee.

But setting that aside, that’s not the law that had everyone the most angry. As I explained in my last post, the moronic high-cap mag ban bill was behind most of the recall energy.

They need to pass a strict background check law, a limit on magazine capacity and a law on guns needing to be stored in a gun safe, at the national level so that the laws are uniform country-wide.