What Do People Of Colorado Think Of This?

[comercialfarmer]

I will keep hunting in Colorado if I have to use a slingshot.

Why dont we get as mad because we can only use three shots for migratory birds?

I dont want to make my buddies on here mad at me over this, but it needs to be much more difficult for creepy, picked on, yuppy kids to get a hold of high capacity guns and go act out their video game fantasies.  Their parents wont - thats why they are that screwed up to begin with.  As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with our "rights" as gun owners, but as our responsibility as gun owners to do everything we can to keep horrific incidents from happening which will eventually cause us to loose what's really important to us.

ARs and 20-30 round magazines havent been around all that long.  And honestly - how many of you actually own them and use them?  Its a sure fire symbol of a wannabe hunter that shows up anywhere with one.  Its usually the weird guy at the gun range that has one that you dont sit next to.

We need to self regulate ourselves on this issue to prevent well intentioned, but misguided politicians from trying to fo it for us.

We ought to implement a buy back program in urban areas.

I doubt anyone on this site hunts more than I do, but I dont follow the party line on this.  Nothing about the AR gun culture has anything to do with serious hunting, and associating hunting rights with them is very dangerous to our hinting rights.  We are outnumbered folks and irrational indignity sbout this threatens whats most important to us.

The 2nd amendment mentions hunting 0 times as the reason for citizens to have the right to carry. 

Sounds like you do tote the party line.  Just not the one that makes sense. 

Have you seen what is bought back?  Junk guns and the criminals aren't bringing their's in.  It might make you "feel" good, but it does nothing.  Only law abiding citizens will bring them and so you will just be disarming law abiding citizens more.  Good plan. 

And again, show me where limiting magazine size limits gun violence.  It doesn't and you can't.  Less than 2% of gun crimes had anything to do with higher capacity guns. So you have a much larger problem 98% of the problem to deal with.  Your argument stinks. 

If you want to do something, do something about violence in general.  Our cultural issues start in the home and church, too bad liberals keep trying to take over the function of both and can't do either.  Political correctness is killing the country and your buying into it is the problem.  Good luck with that. 

 

[comercialfarmer]

Good, maybe some of those trophy Elk hunts will come down in price and I can then afford to go!   

I would rather go to New Mexico after a trophy elk. 

Its high dolla regardless.  8-10 grand for a mid level bull. 

When you shoot a trophy- your hunting skills didn't do that.  Seems like it would cheapen it for me. 

I pick an area and do my own scouting, hunting and packing.  When I'm done, I know that the success was mine.  Sometimes the biggest reward is the lessons learned on the path to success and the enjoyment is the chase. 

 

[comercialfarmer]

First of all if laws wont work then do any of you guys critizing the Gov't have a better plan? 30 round magazines - not needed in any way shape or form, or AR-15s; if you want to be a hero with an AR-15 then join the Military and be a real hero not a wannabe hero. Also restricting the amount of ammo per magazine is NOT taking away 2nd amendment rights, it makes where you live safer.

Here in MO there has been a limit of 3 rounds in a Shotgun for migratory birds for quite a while. (atleast where I live)

Let me see your proof of this. 


The only thing that makes an area safe from guns, is an armed population of citizens with equal ability to defend themselves. 

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/#fLY5tc5k0ddI5qpY.99

 

[comercialfarmer]

Its not the same thing and you guys know it.  The industry better come up with a better argument than that if you are ever going to change public opinion.  Im honestly ticked off that my legitimate guns used for hunting may be jeapordized because of these toys some day.  Again, I dont want laws - I want us to use common sense and address the issue ourselves.

Common sense IS not supporting those that want to limit your Constitutional rights.  

 

[willow]

The 2nd amendment mentions hunting 0 times as the reason for citizens to have the right to carry. 

Sounds like you do tote the party line.  Just not the one that makes sense. 

Have you seen what is bought back?  Junk guns and the criminals aren't bringing their's in.  It might make you "feel" good, but it does nothing.  Only law abiding citizens will bring them and so you will just be disarming law abiding citizens more.  Good plan. 

And again, show me where limiting magazine size limits gun violence.  It doesn't and you can't.  Less than 2% of gun crimes had anything to do with higher capacity guns. So you have a much larger problem 98% of the problem to deal with.  Your argument stinks. 

If you want to do something, do something about violence in general.  Our cultural issues start in the home and church, too bad liberals keep trying to take over the function of both and can't do either.  Political correctness is killing the country and your buying into it is the problem.  Good luck with that. 
[/quote]

(clapping) " Our cultural issues start in the home and church, too bad liberals keep trying to take over the function of both and can't do either."  Great points commercialfarmer.

 

[chambero]

Have you seen what is bought back?  Junk guns and the criminals aren't bringing their's in.  It might make you "feel" good, but it does nothing.  Only law abiding citizens will bring them and so you will just be disarming law abiding citizens more.  Good plan. 

And again, show me where limiting magazine size limits gun violence.  It doesn't and you can't.  Less than 2% of gun crimes had anything to do with higher capacity guns. So you have a much larger problem 98% of the problem to deal with.  Your argument stinks. 

If you want to do something, do something about violence in general.  Our cultural issues start in the home and church, too bad liberals keep trying to take over the function of both and can't do either.  Political correctness is killing the country and your buying into it is the problem.  Good luck with that. 

Has their ever been a magazine buy back program?  I don't know but I doubt it.

Of course they don't account for more than 2% of gun crimes overall.  There aren't that many of the darned things relatively speaking and they are too expensive for most traditional "hooligans" to get a hold of.  And there haven't been any actions - laws or voluntary - to limit magazine size, so of course there aren't studies showing where it works or not. 

And your attitude towards people that don't 100% toe the NRA party line stinks.  If you collectively aren't smart enough to avoid pissing off the vast majority of the general public with that attitude (that silent portion of the general public which is not liberal, not anti-gun, but also are not ready to go hole up in their compound with 50,000 rounds of ammo), we are all going to lose a lot more than the ability to own these toys over the next 50 years.  A few more public massacres with these things and all the money in the world donated to the NRA isn't gonig to help stem the tide.

What are the stats on ownership of these things?  I bet there's not one in 100 gun owners that has one.  If you'd voluntarily give a little on the magazine deal, it would be a huge public relations boon and nobody could even start to get the support to begin to go after the gun platform itself.  Any of us that actuallly know how to use guns, can reload bolt action rifles, semi auto shogguns, or pistols about as quick as we can these ARs, but that isn't who is pulling off these stunts.  It's the kid that's barely touched daddy's gun before but flips his lid.  It really doesn't even matter if it makes a difference or not, it would show we were voluntarily willing to try something to help. 

Everyting issue in society is so polarized now that anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you is an idiot.  Just change the name of the subject. Our politicians are a reflection of us.  This country works because of compromise and we are rapidly losing the ability to do so.  When we do, we berate those willing to work with the other side.

 

[RyanChandler]

Good, maybe some of those trophy Elk hunts will come down in price and I can then afford to go!   

I would rather go to New Mexico after a trophy elk. 

Its high dolla regardless.  8-10 grand for a mid level bull. 

When you shoot a trophy- your hunting skills didn't do that.  Seems like it would cheapen it for me. 

I pick an area and do my own scouting, hunting and packing.  When I'm done, I know that the success was mine.  Sometimes the biggest reward is the lessons learned on the path to success and the enjoyment is the chase. 

You're right, my hard work did.  Its purely a status symbol.  You know.. mines bigger than yours type stuff.

 

[knabe]

the problem with continually giving up a little is over time, it's a lot. 

just like israel with land for peace, it ain't gonna work.

the next one the left will ask for a little more.

the left is not good with compromise on these types of issues.

the right compromised on immigration and never got enforcement twice.

now the right is being asked a third time to compromise.

it's time for the left to stand up to their side of the bargains.

Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate.

not that demographic change is a bad thing, but he used this rationalization to push the change.  words are cheap and i've had it with democrats, liberals and the progressive, never compromise movement.  it's past time for the pendulum to swing back to neutral and quit this continual push to legislate legislate legislate.

 

[knabe]

You're right, my hard work did.  Its purely a status symbol.  You know.. mines bigger than yours type stuff.
[/quote]

perhaps you have hit the nail on the head.

we should work on getting into our curriculum methods to extinguish the urge to continually improve.

 

[RyanChandler]

the problem with continually giving up a little is over time, it's a lot. 

just like israel with land for peace, it ain't gonna work.

the next one the left will ask for a little more.

the left is not good with compromise on these types of issues.

the right compromised on immigration and never got enforcement twice.

now the right is being asked a third time to compromise.

it's time for the left to stand up to their side of the bargains.

Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate.

not that demographic change is a bad thing, but he used this rationalization to push the change.  words are cheap and i've had it with democrats, liberals and the progressive, never compromise movement.  it's past time for the pendulum to swing back to neutral and quit this continual push to legislate legislate legislate.

I think its weird that today we/you/ many talk about Democrats in the light of regulation.  The GOP holds the torch here.  Only when its something 'you' don't support, do you not want government interference.  The logic - circular or however- that supports deregulation of assault rifles but opposes the legalization of marijuana is flawed to saw the least.  Many folks main supporting argument is that "why can't a reasonably minded rationally thinking individual govern himself in terms of his use of fire power?"  Ironically, these same folks seem to be at the forefront of criminalizing pot and for some reason,  have a mental block when expanding the principle to include the recreational use of marijuana.  As a person of principle, you can't pick and choose.  Either responsible citizens can govern themselves - or they cannot. 

I'm glad you distinguish the two

 

[knabe]

first of all, they are not assault rifles, but then blurring a definition is a strategy.

second of all, i don't really see the problem with pot, to me, it's like alcohol, so yes i have my own slippery slope faulty circular logic as well.

basically, i have the premise that all reasoning is eventually circular and really all a society is is which subset of circular logic one determines they can live with, determines a community.

the gop may hold the torch on some issues, and i rail against both parties, but lately a lot of the left as they have made the most inroads with regard to regulation while professing to be about freedom.

yes obviously the right has their own issues.

picking and choosing decides a community.  there is no getting around it.

your binary logic on governing is faulty as different people will define governing differently, again, a clear example that people choose which hypocrisies to associate themselves with.

most people only look to others for hypocrisy, rather than themselves with the same scrutiny.

 

[RyanChandler]

first of all, they are not assault rifles, but then blurring a definition is a strategy.

second of all, i don't really see the problem with pot, to me, it's like alcohol, so yes i have my own slippery slope faulty circular logic as well.

basically, i have the premise that all reasoning is eventually circular and really all a society is is which subset of circular logic one determines they can live with, determines a community.

the gop may hold the torch on some issues, and i rail against both parties, but lately a lot of the left as they have made the most inroads with regard to regulation while professing to be about freedom.

yes obviously the right has their own issues.

picking and choosing decides a community.  there is no getting around it.

your binary logic on governing is faulty as different people will define governing differently, again, a clear example that people choose which hypocrisies to associate themselves with.

most people only look to others for hypocrisy, rather than themselves with the same scrutiny.

*Tactical rifle

Self-governance: exercise sole dominion over your own life live in whatever manner you choose, so long as you do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

 

[knabe]

Abortion is one circular argument fail there.

Not recognizing someone else's "harm" is another.

It's just not that simple.

 

[Limiman12]

I will keep hunting in Colorado if I have to use a slingshot.

Why dont we get as mad because we can only use three shots for migratory birds?

I dont want to make my buddies on here mad at me over this, but it needs to be much more difficult for creepy, picked on, yuppy kids to get a hold of high capacity guns and go act out their video game fantasies.  Their parents wont - thats why they are that screwed up to begin with.  As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with our "rights" as gun owners, but as our responsibility as gun owners to do everything we can to keep horrific incidents from happening which will eventually cause us to loose what's really important to us.

ARs and 20-30 round magazines havent been around all that long.  And honestly - how many of you actually own them and use them?  Its a sure fire symbol of a wannabe hunter that shows up anywhere with one.  Its usually the weird guy at the gun range that has one that you dont sit next to.

We need to self regulate ourselves on this issue to prevent well intentioned, but misguided politicians from trying to fo it for us.

We ought to implement a buy back program in urban areas.

I doubt anyone on this site hunts more than I do, but I dont follow the party line on this.  Nothing about the AR gun culture has anything to do with serious hunting, and associating hunting rights with them is very dangerous to our hinting rights.  We are outnumbered folks and irrational indignity sbout this threatens whats most important to us.

Yep, limiting magazine capacity stopped the va tech shooter....  He only had 20 some magazines in his bag.    What about the plot that got stopped the other day.  The kid had a couple of guns and a homemade bomb in his dorm room.  When his timeline got disrupted he committed suicide.  Pretty sure the bomb would have killed way more people.....  I would bet I hunt at least as much as you do.  The second Ammendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING! It is about protecting the citizens forma tyrant government that wants to take away rights.      ARs are semiauto guns, nothing more nothing less.  They are responsible for around 300 deaths per year, a number that is stable or declining......  Handguns 6000, cars 30000...... 

 

[Limiman12]

And hunts will only be "reasonably" priced until the outfitters go out of business.....  Wyoming is so close, and so much more in line with the type of state I want to spend money in......

 

[comercialfarmer]

Have you seen what is bought back?  Junk guns and the criminals aren't bringing their's in.  It might make you "feel" good, but it does nothing.  Only law abiding citizens will bring them and so you will just be disarming law abiding citizens more.  Good plan. 

And again, show me where limiting magazine size limits gun violence.  It doesn't and you can't.  Less than 2% of gun crimes had anything to do with higher capacity guns. So you have a much larger problem 98% of the problem to deal with.  Your argument stinks. 

If you want to do something, do something about violence in general.  Our cultural issues start in the home and church, too bad liberals keep trying to take over the function of both and can't do either.  Political correctness is killing the country and your buying into it is the problem.  Good luck with that. 

Has their ever been a magazine buy back program?  I don't know but I doubt it.

Of course they don't account for more than 2% of gun crimes overall.  There aren't that many of the darned things relatively speaking and they are too expensive for most traditional "hooligans" to get a hold of.  And there haven't been any actions - laws or voluntary - to limit magazine size, so of course there aren't studies showing where it works or not. 

And your attitude towards people that don't 100% toe the NRA party line stinks.  If you collectively aren't smart enough to avoid pissing off the vast majority of the general public with that attitude (that silent portion of the general public which is not liberal, not anti-gun, but also are not ready to go hole up in their compound with 50,000 rounds of ammo), we are all going to lose a lot more than the ability to own these toys over the next 50 years.  A few more public massacres with these things and all the money in the world donated to the NRA isn't gonig to help stem the tide.

What are the stats on ownership of these things?  I bet there's not one in 100 gun owners that has one.  If you'd voluntarily give a little on the magazine deal, it would be a huge public relations boon and nobody could even start to get the support to begin to go after the gun platform itself.  Any of us that actuallly know how to use guns, can reload bolt action rifles, semi auto shogguns, or pistols about as quick as we can these ARs, but that isn't who is pulling off these stunts.  It's the kid that's barely touched daddy's gun before but flips his lid.  It really doesn't even matter if it makes a difference or not, it would show we were voluntarily willing to try something to help. 

Everyting issue in society is so polarized now that anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you is an idiot.  Just change the name of the subject. Our politicians are a reflection of us.  This country works because of compromise and we are rapidly losing the ability to do so.  When we do, we berate those willing to work with the other side.

It's called incrementalism, small changes over time to fundamentally changed the original status.  So you can keep giving here and there and see where it will get you in the end.  It isn't about magazines.  It is about getting a larger section of guns outlawed.  There are hundreds of examples of incrementalism, the Bible was once read in school and now you can't pray. 

When "assault rifles" are banned, it only takes another small concession to change the definition of what is "assault".  If you can't use logic now, why try later on?  That thought process has no merit.  Why spend so much time on something used less than 2% of the time?  If it is to quiet created hysteria, what are you going to do the next time hysteria is created and unfounded?  Good plan.  Why not use statistics and facts in the discussion and less feelings.  That is what true leaders do. 

And there haven't been any actions - laws or voluntary - to limit magazine size, so of course there aren't studies showing where it works or not.

You may want to read a little about the 1994 Assault weapons ban, magazines was a big part of that.  So yes, it has already been tried.  I left a couple of links in the other thread, but hear is even a larger report:  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Can you explain why they chose the numbers of rounds to ban in Colorado?  Do you know if it affects any hand guns or shot guns?   

 

[comercialfarmer]

first of all, they are not assault rifles, but then blurring a definition is a strategy.

second of all, i don't really see the problem with pot, to me, it's like alcohol, so yes i have my own slippery slope faulty circular logic as well.

basically, i have the premise that all reasoning is eventually circular and really all a society is is which subset of circular logic one determines they can live with, determines a community.

the gop may hold the torch on some issues, and i rail against both parties, but lately a lot of the left as they have made the most inroads with regard to regulation while professing to be about freedom.

yes obviously the right has their own issues.

picking and choosing decides a community.  there is no getting around it.

your binary logic on governing is faulty as different people will define governing differently, again, a clear example that people choose which hypocrisies to associate themselves with.

most people only look to others for hypocrisy, rather than themselves with the same scrutiny.

There is a HUGE difference in firearms vs pot.  Pot is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.  I don't recall needing access to pot to defend myself or my freedom.  Not sure how it is so easy to forget, "Right to bear arms... "    Trying to trivialize it, just shows ignorance.  It is about protection from dictatorships. 

Marijuana should be a state issue.  If you want the problems associated with it, go for it.  Same as determining age of alcohol consumption or tobacco use.  However, the federal government always finds a way to get their hands in the State's business. 

"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of
alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S.
Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act."

I would say that there is no perfect solution, but the Constitution and making people responsible for themselves and their own actions is very close.  The continued concessions moving away from it, is a problem.  If you don't believe in a single Creator of the Universe, then yes, you have no central foundation of which to hold on to.  Any government formation can and will shift over time to the flavor of the month and you know what success you have when breeding that way, surely living life is so much better.  :  In this thought process, rights are only granted by the government and right can be taken by the government.  People feel no real possession of freedom.  Our foundation and basis of inalienable rights and freedom is absolutely based on the existence and laws of a Creator.  No government has the right to take these from the people, there is a real possession of freedom.  So I disagree that all philosophies are circular in logic and equivalent and I disagree that a right to bear arms is tantamount to the right to smoke pot. 

 

[RyanChandler]

All fire power that would  legitimately protect you from dictatorship is already outlawed.  Youre holding on to a false sense of security.  Your/My ARs would be about as effective as a spit wad against the weaponry the elite/military have access to. 

Higher capacity rifles arent mentioned in the bill of rights either.  Fortunately, Americans have the right to vote on what we want accessible in our society.

 

[knabe]

Fortunately, Americans have the right to vote on what we want accessible in our society.

And thank goodness we have the right to kill.

It's funny how we always say its about the children except when it's abortion.

 

[RyanChandler]

Zygotes and embryos are aborted; Children are not. Youre good with definitions, you should easily be able to differentiate.