- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 20,120
- Reaction score
- 16,169
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm wondering where Magpul will relocate... :mrgreen:
We're right next door... #6 on Guns & Ammo's ranking of the States.
I'm wondering where Magpul will relocate... :mrgreen:
The problem with limiting magazine size is that the next loony tunes mass murderer will kill many with a semi-auto pistol and 7 round magazines.
What do you suppose will happen then?
In Aurora, Colorado, it's illegal to carry a gun in public. So, yeah, more laws is exactly what we need...if you want to deprive people of their constitutional rights, that is.
You do realize the USSC ruled that governments have the right to regulate firearms...
You do realize the USSC ruled that governments have the right to regulate firearms...
The two worst pieces of legislation; the campus ban and gun maker liability law - didn't pass. I got no beef with the background checks and personal financing of the back ground check, but the magazine size restriction is hot crap. I despise knee jerk feel good legislation that will do nothing, especially when that knee jerk feel good legislation infringes on a liberty.
The added kicker is the blow to local companies such as magpul. I joined a group of guys who are trying to repeal the ban via constitutional ballot, we'll see if we can get any traction.
Are you kidding me? Charging state rental fees for simply exercising one's individual Constitutional rights is a very dangerous precedent. This amounts to a prove yourself not guilty fee, and nothing more. May a state now charge a user fee for go to church permits, have an attorney present during police questioning permits, work permits and any other thing that requires law enforcement or support of public services?
someone's gotta pay the bill, it's either going to be the state of Colorado (and therefore the people of Colorado) or the business (who will then just pass the costs onto the customer anyways) or the dude buying the gun. simplest solution. and yeah...when you want to have a rally or build a church there are usually fees incurred.
I am sure they will complain, but having background checks, and making the purchaser pay for them is not a terrible thing.
WRONG. The "simplest" solution is like how all other law enforcemnt costs are paid for, using general tax revenue. This "service" is not only to protect gun owners, it is to protect the general public. If you need a "good guy" check then do it ONCE, for all state residents and place the result ("GUN OK") on their valid, state issued, photo ID. If you are not imposing a "user fee" for each traffic stop, 911 call or firefighting/EMS call then why impose them on legal gun purchases?
Read more @: Gov. John Hickenlooper To Sign Gun Control Measures Wednesday
Seems like a good law to me and a common sense law, but i know im gonna get attacked for saying that from the right. Oh well
hmm...cheap gun rights or increased taxes? tricky. I choose the lower taxes.
also a person often has to pay fees and costs of non-emergency government actions, paying for a marriage license for instance.
But having citizens pay for IDs to vote, that you'll fight to the death over. :roll:
WRONG. The "simplest" solution is like how all other law enforcemnt costs are paid for, using general tax revenue. This "service" is not only to protect gun owners, it is to protect the general public. If you need a "good guy" check then do it ONCE, for all state residents and place the result ("GUN OK") on their valid, state issued, photo ID. If you are not imposing a "user fee" for each traffic stop, 911 call or firefighting/EMS call then why impose them on legal gun purchases?
Gee, better roads, schools, bridges, or lower taxes. I take the former.
Yes, because it's not necessary and it used to keep the poor from voting.
Because I pay taxes when I buy a TV. Why are gun buyers exempt?
Yes. And all of these laws are intended, a piece at a time, to keep citizens-- and especially the poor-- from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. It is merely another form of disenfranchisement.
You pay sales tax when buying a TV-- what, nine or ten percent?-- from a retail business. You don't pay any taxes when you buy a used TV from a yard sale.
so you believe legal gun ownership should be subsidized by the state?
Because I pay taxes when I buy a TV. Why are gun buyers exempt?
I believe the sale of a product from a corporation that causes more injuries and deaths in this nation should be taxed.....and that the monies can used to pay for those without insurance to be treated.