Colo. House passes gun-control measures

Wake up you gun control advocates. This has nothing to do with protecting people.

UN Agenda 21 is right around the corner and the sooner Americans are disarmed the sooner we will all be slaves to the NWO, well those who aren't slaughtered at least.

Originally posted by flyJoseph
You gun fanatics are weird. Find a new hobby, please. The notion that you really believe you're the protectors of freedom is laughable. That owning a gun is your inalienable right, that the second amendment, the ghosts of our forefathers are looking after you and your guns....wow.

Do you or do you not have the right as a human being to protect yourself and your property? Self-defense and self-preservation is one of the root reasoning behind the Second Amendment. This really boils down to how one views the Rights of Man and to what purpose does a Government serve. It seems, we are visiting those "ghosts" once again to debate the powers of Government, where inherent political power lies and to what extent does freedom and liberty belong to the People.

The only difference is we are served with sound-bites and quips that serve nothing other than to fuel half-witted commentary that we often see when it comes to the issues of the day; rather than thoughtful and deep discussion regarding policy and how it will affect a large body politic.

"If guns are made illegal, the only people who would have guns are criminals."
Lemme understand something here. The shooters at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and others, were they criminals? Nope, not until they murdered everyone. But people in inner cities and other crime stricken areas, they are criminals. And people are offing each other every day in places like that. So they probably didn't buy their guns legally right? They're criminals, they must've stolen them, or bought them on the black market, cause', y'know, they're probably black.

The quoted above even gets me but that is because it is a tag-line and is used by both sides to further drive a wedge against every-day people with differing views. In terms though, it is correct; a criminal or one with the intent of engaging in a criminal act is by nature and spirit, not going to follow whatever law that is prohibiting them from engaging in such act. Most Americans strive to follow the rule of law and honor it, so when their town, city, State or Federal government dictates to them that something is illegal, the vast majority will abide. Hence, only criminals will circumvent the law as they have no care for that law in the first place.

So nobody really cares about everyday gun violence when its happening away from the eyes of white america, but when guns purchased legally that are then used by white people to massacre multitudes, it's suddenly, 'the government wants to steal our last bastion of orange camouflage freedom?'

I let the first decent into drawing this into a racial commentary slide but it pops up again here. Survey the average person in the United States and you will find out that we all have more in common than what is being spun by talking heads and groups such as the NRA in relation to how we view guns. Most have pointed out that the press has gone through great lengths to ride the "Sandy Hook" train but turn a blind eye to the massive violence that plagues many of our larger cities. For many, they question the reasoning behind it. So it really isn't a "white" or "black" thing here. It is a concerted effort to circumvent the Constitution via the "will of the People" and "in the name of safety".

In all honesty, if public opinion has tilted, then propose an amendment. Do it the right way and "correct" the Second Amendment.

Which raises my ultimate question: do you gun owning fanatics really care about anything, even the guns, or is what you really care about just the paranoia that inner cities will eventually come and get you once you've disarmed?

Appealing to emotions won't get this conversation anywhere really; along with spurious ad hominems, it really doesn't help your argument or question. You will receive answers based on that and not your honest question. I would rephrase it. As someone once told me: Want better answers? Ask better questions.

That's why you own so many of them too.....so when the inner cities do eventually invade your ranches, even your friends who don't own any can borrow one!

Or they own them, just as any other piece of property, because they can. Why does a person own two cars? Do they physically need them or is it because they want to and have the freedom (from the State and of their own means) to do so.

Originally posted by flyJoseph
"infringing on lawful gun owners"

Gun owners. This isn't the 19th century anymore. "Lawful gun owners" is the most annoyingly irritating tripe position of these types. What do lawful gun owners do with their guns. PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. Carry them in their holsters? Fire them at gun ranges? Shoot wildlife, like anacondas? Oh wait! Right.....hang them up their houses!

You gun fanatics are weird. Find a new hobby, please. The notion that you really believe you're the protectors of freedom is laughable. That owning a gun is your inalienable right, that the second amendment, the ghosts of our forefathers are looking after you and your guns....wow.

"If guns are made illegal, the only people who would have guns are criminals."
Lemme understand something here. The shooters at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and others, were they criminals? Nope, not until they murdered everyone. But people in inner cities and other crime stricken areas, they are criminals. And people are offing each other every day in places like that. So they probably didn't buy their guns legally right? They're criminals, they must've stolen them, or bought them on the black market, cause', y'know, they're probably black.

So nobody really cares about everyday gun violence when its happening away from the eyes of white america, but when guns purchased legally that are then used by white people to massacre multitudes, it's suddenly, 'the government wants to steal our last bastion of orange camouflage freedom?'

Which raises my ultimate question: do you gun owning fanatics really care about anything, even the guns, or is what you really care about just the paranoia that inner cities will eventually come and get you once you've disarmed?

That's why you own so many of them too.....so when the inner cities do eventually invade your ranches, even your friends who don't own any can borrow one!

The shooters you mention were mentally unstable and hopped up on SSRI's which are known to cause suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Why is it that those are not being talked about? Oh yes, because it is more beneficial to Big Pharma if those in charge sick the lemmings on the endless debating concerning the "evilness" of an inanimate object known as a firearm.

Do we care about anything? simple answer, yes, we care about a great many things including freedom. Also, not to pee in your Cheerios, but here is some useful info that may save your life someday. Gang members are not known for being law abiding citizens regardless of what race they are.

We own so many for the same reason that people collect other things......any other questions?

What a great move for this company. They get to move shop across state lines, using gun rights as their excuse, while getting ride of the employees making significantly more then the new hires they'll get at their new location. More profit for the owners!

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
What a great move for this company. They get to move shop across state lines, using gun rights as their excuse, while getting ride of the employees making significantly more then the new hires they'll get at their new location. More profit for the owners!

So in your eyes its some vast capitalistic conspiracy? I am sure that this company doesn't want to "re-tool" when there was no need to, nor move when there was no need to. You make a lot of assumptions about how they operate just to satisfy your view of the world and of businesses.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I think if it's my right to protect myself by owning a gun, it's my right to be allowed to feel peaceful smoking marijuana. I think if it's my right to protect myself, than it's another person's right to be able to marry their same gender.

This is why I make ad hominem statements, cause all this gun-rights craziness crosses over symbolically. It makes no sense. Here's why gun owners need to step back and realize that their arguments can't carry weight simply because they're logical, which was also one reason I decided to make a "specious" point about the racial dimension as well: gun owners want them because they make themselves feel safe, but you making yourself feel safe makes me feel much more unsafe.

I hate guns, I despise them. They are very crude, uninteresting machines that deliver cheap thrills. I will never carry one ever because I hate them so much. At any point, in any kind of circumstance someone who loves guns, and likes to carry them, can at anytime, for whatever reason, terminate my life, merely by simply possessing one and using it. That's why gun owners are weird. It's a fetish for power.

Originally posted by flyJoseph
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I think if it's my right to protect myself by owning a gun, it's my right to be allowed to feel peaceful smoking marijuana. I think if it's my right to protect myself, than it's another person's right to be able to marry their same gender.

This is why I make ad hominem statements, cause all this gun-rights craziness crosses over symbolically. It makes no sense. Here's why gun owners need to step back and realize that their arguments can't carry weight simply because they're logical, which was also one reason I decided to make a "specious" point about the racial dimension as well: gun owners want them because they make themselves feel safe, but you making yourself feel safe makes me feel much more unsafe.

I hate guns, I despise them. They are very crude, uninteresting machines that deliver cheap thrills. I will never carry one ever because I hate them so much. At any point, in any kind of circumstance someone who loves guns, and likes to carry them, can at anytime, for whatever reason, terminate my life, merely by simply possessing one and using it. That's why gun owners are weird. It's a fetish for power.

I agree with you, in my opinion Marijuana should be legal, sexuality should not be discriminated against. Where I disagree is your assessment of firearms, if someone wants to "terminate your life" they will. They do not need a gun to do so, taking you by surprise and snapping your neck would be just as effective, or sticking a knife in your spine or jugular when your back is turned. Firearms are a necessity, because they exist. They are needed to level the playing field when faced with someone(s) that intends you harm that has them. They are also necessary as a deterrent to a power hungry government in danger of becoming a dictatorship or anarchy further on down the line.

C'mon. This really isn't a big deal. 15 rounds is more than enough. I don't really agree with the bill. But c'mon! Quit acting like they declared Obama lifelong dictator. Oh, but I suppose you believe that's next, right?

These irrational overreactions to little things make all gun owners look crazy....there's a reason more and more people are calling gun owners insane.....it's because you guys keep acting like this!!!! It's not because you like guns!

Talk and think rationally.

Originally posted by Ghost375
C'mon. This really isn't a big deal. 15 rounds is more than enough. I don't really agree with the bill. But c'mon! Quit acting like they declared Obama lifelong dictator. Oh, but I suppose you believe that's next, right?

These irrational overreactions to little things make all gun owners look crazy....there's a reason more and more people are calling gun owners insane.....it's because you guys keep acting like this!!!! It's not because you like guns!

Talk and think rationally.

Who isn't being rational? It is a big deal, what is so difficult about "will not be infringed"? It is anything over 10 rounds which you bet your arse is a "big deal"! You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights? I'd like to see it because I can show plenty that shows the exact opposite. Who is more crazy? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
Who isn't being rational? It is a big deal, what is so difficult about "will not be infringed"? It is anything over 10 rounds which you bet your arse is a "big deal"! You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights? I'd like to see it because I can show plenty that shows the exact opposite. Who is more crazy? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Perfect example of why there's no talking to you people.

"You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights?"
This has nothing to do with the conversation!!
Your entire response degraded into some tirade against Obama, and trying to call me an Obama supporter, ha! And we aren't even talking about him! I mentioned him in passing. He's obviously not the topic at hand.
The only thing worse than your guys' obsession with guns, is your obsession with Obama.

Realize how crazy you guys look and sound. It's beyond obsession at this point.

People can't even talk about limiting guns, that the founding fathers would never have dreamt were possible, without you all flipping out.

Overall I am not in generally agreement with Ghost, but he makes a valid point. Rational thought and conservation is void....but on both sides. Each side has entrenched themselves into producing as wide a chasm as possible and it limits leveled headed solutions and conversations regarding this debate.

I see a few people in the comments asking questions like why scary black weapons and high capacity magazines or stating that ridding us of these won't prevent mass murders.

You're correct, but you're viewing it from the wrong angle. The end game is no more guns. IF they can get us to accept these laws, that have no basis in reality, then next time they can go for the guns that could have a statistical impact (handguns) and all semi-auto rifles. See, if you'll sit by and and let them take away something that will have no impact, for no reason but the (probably inaccurate) fact that it was used in a couple of mass shootings, then you'll definitely sit by when they come for something that will have a statistical impact when it's used in another government induced shooting.

they'll never come for all the guns at once, they're too smart for that, but they need to make you realize that it's okay if they take some, until none are left.

JMO

It appears that many Americans are stretching the limits of the believable, looking for a magical mantra that will not only keep the Federal government away from our guns and keep the ATF from busting in our doors, but to also miraculously change the minds of those who are supporting stricter gun control. So many supporters of the Second Amendment have seem to forgotten that the Constitution of the United States is the law of this land, and no one – not the President, not Congress, not the FBI or ATF or any of the alphabet gangs -is above it. So many supporters of gun control have forgotten the same thing. It’s not surprising, actually – Americans have given up so many of their fundamental rights in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of safety and security that most people have stopped paying attention to the egregious slashing of the Bill of Rights happening right under their noses

americanlivewire.com...

reply to post by jaynkeel


That sucks!

Colorado was one of the best gun-friendly states we had! Their laws regarding guns are comparable to Texas!

This isn't gonna go over well...

Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of bloodshed

This has got to be one of the most IGNORANT things I've ever heard. You can't stop murder. As long as there is humanity, there WILL BE blood shed. You can't stop psychos. Forcing gun control because of something like, tragic as it may be, a school shooting, which is less likely to kill your child then a car accident or a lethal bug bite, is entirely ignorant, and nothing but a whiny emotional reaction by the government and the people who watched the news, crying for the children standing with Obama on stage (by chance?) to take another speck of our already ravaged freedoms away...

Wanna stop your kid from being hurt in a public school?

1 - Don't send em to public school. I don't care how much it costs, or how much red tape you have to tangle yourself through... home school em.

2 - Teach your children about gun safety and teach them how America was founded--by people opposing a tyrannical and oppressive government. Then, the idea won't sound so ludacris to them when they grow older.

3 - Stop using mind-altering pills to fix your child. They do not work properly. They halt the brain's maturing process completely... and when I was put on anti-depressants at age 13, I felt extremely numb for a while, then began having terribly dark thoughts including contemplating Wiccan rituals to solve my life problems, cutting myself, and threatening others with homicide just to see their adverse reactions. Looking back, I can not believe I would have ever done such weird, dark things. A very close friend of mine almost lost a kidney because of the damage his anti-depressants did to him--and he's MY age. 19 years old.

Gun control is exactly what it is--- gun control.

Not "Safety laws" or "Crime control" or "Gun safety."

Gun control.

Control.

Wake up, guys.

Slaves do not own guns. I refuse to be enslaved.

reply to post by Ghost375


Yes, there is no talking to us because there is no discussion. One side is too stupid to realize that they don't get to say you can't have a gun. End of story, the opinion of restricting guns doesn't f*cking matter. Not a single ounce.

The tired old argument of "weapons the founders couldn't even dream of"... Why are you so predictable? Does that apply to the first amendment as well? Only printing presses are protected? Radio is not? TV is not? Internet is not? they couldn't dream up those venues either.

It's freedom of speech. Meaning all speech regardless of what technology is used.

It's the right to bear arms. Meaning ALL arms regardless of what technology is used.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
Who isn't being rational? It is a big deal, what is so difficult about "will not be infringed"? It is anything over 10 rounds which you bet your arse is a "big deal"! You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights? I'd like to see it because I can show plenty that shows the exact opposite. Who is more crazy? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Perfect example of why there's no talking to you people.

"You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights?"
This has nothing to do with the conversation!!
Your entire response degraded into some tirade against Obama, and trying to call me an Obama supporter, ha! And we aren't even talking about him! I mentioned him in passing. He's obviously not the topic at hand.
The only thing worse than your guys' obsession with guns, is your obsession with Obama.

Realize how crazy you guys look and sound. It's beyond obsession at this point.

People can't even talk about limiting guns, that the founding fathers would never have dreamt were possible, without you all flipping out.

You are the one who brought him up!

I don't hate Obama, Bush was just as bad, they are (were) both equally destructive to our rights. You are correct that he is not the topic at hand, and for that I will apologize. My personal opinions of him have no bearing in this conversation other than him being at the head of the ones that are working feverishly to pass useless laws for gun banning.

What the founding fathers envisioned for the future of firearms has no bearing either. The only thing that matters is they wanted the people to have the same technology in firearms that the military has.

The Bill of Rights is not open to negotiation, we should have put our foot down with the Patriot Act. If you all want to change it so badly do it the proper way through the amendment process, anything else is the act of a Dictator and will most likely result in a very bad day in the good ole US of A.

Originally posted by Dfairlite
The tired old argument of "weapons the founders couldn't even dream of"... Why are you so predictable? Does that apply to the first amendment as well? Only printing presses are protected? Radio is not? TV is not? Internet is not? they couldn't dream up those venues either.

You make a good point here. Freedom of the press is generally depicted as the "media" but in fact, if we are to look at the usage and definition of the word "press" from the late 1700s, it meant the devise in which propagated an individuals' free speech. The same can be said about the Second Amendment and the use of "arms"; not guns, knives, clubs, or cannons, but arms. The idea was timeless regardless of how society advanced or to what extent the Founders "could imagine".

Given that, the "press" was the premier means of spreading free speech of the time and was meant to mean the tool in which allowed such to happen; radio, Internet, publications, etc; all fall under the "freedom of the press" clause.

As such, so do varying "arms" in regard to the Second Amendment. The Founders were specific when needed and all encompassing otherwise in subjects that required latitude; such as the First and Second Amendment.

I live in Colorado.

This sucks, because I wanted to own a gun for the sake of the 2nd amendment.


people say "Why do you need a gun like that anyway?"

Read the freaking 2nd amendment, it is solely for the purpose of taking down people militia style.

Originally posted by pgobbs2277
I live in Colorado.

This sucks, because I wanted to own a gun for the sake of the 2nd amendment.


people say "Why do you need a gun like that anyway?"

Read the freaking 2nd amendment, it is solely for the purpose of taking down people militia style.

You can still own a firearm....where are you getting the notion that you cannot?