• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. John Hickenlooper To Sign Gun Control Measures Wednesday

so you believe legal gun ownership should be subsidized by the state?

The governor also was planning to sign a bill reviving user fees for gun purchasers needing background checks. Colorado charged $10 background-check fees more than a decade ago, but the fees were dropped. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation currently picks up the tab checking prospective gun owners.

We pay boat fees and recreation fees. Why not pay to have a background check,instead of letting citizens NOT owning guns pay for it?
 
Auto companies? Auto deaths and injuries far exceed those from guns. Obama must mandate insurance. ;)



Hardly. That's a bit of an apple to oranges comparison, isn't it?
 
I should have expected that you would see no difference between a state sales tax on a TV (or any other purchase, including a gun) and a specific targetted fee charged for a BG check. Why not do BG checks for buying knives, hammers and baseball bats?

Here's the "tax" you want to scream about.

The governor also was planning to sign a bill reviving user fees for gun purchasers needing background checks. Colorado charged $10 background-check fees more than a decade ago, but the fees were dropped. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation currently picks up the tab checking prospective gun owners.

It's a user fee. Why should NON gun owners be required to subsidize gun background checks?
 
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.

em ok...is that a no then? my point was I'm ok with buyers financing the background checks so the state doesn't have too.
 
em ok...is that a no then? my point was I'm ok with buyers financing the background checks so the state doesn't have too.

Me, too.
 
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

background checks are fine by me depending on the actual details

the mag/clip/ammo limits are stupid, a waste of time and just for show.

large clips/mags/ammo will still be available to criminals because they dont care about the laws. Clips.mags are easily made.
 
background checks are fine by me depending on the actual details

the mag/clip/ammo limits are stupid, a waste of time and just for show.

large clips/mags/ammo will still be available to criminals because they dont care about the laws. Clips.mags are easily made.

Which ups the charges against criminals caught using them and maybe puts them behind bars for a lot longer.
 
The USSC is an arm of the government. (Appointees are picked by the President and his immediate stuff remember, Even if picked by administrations before) Seems like a no brainier, that if you apart of the government, you will strive to support it. Remember the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case? They were WRONG about that ruling.
The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
Dred Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize the USSC ruled that governments have the right to regulate firearms...
 
Here's the "tax" you want to scream about.



It's a user fee. Why should NON gun owners be required to subsidize gun background checks?

Why should non-parents of school age children be required to subsidize public schools?
 
Which ups the charges against criminals caught using them and maybe puts them behind bars for a lot longer.

like i said a waste of time, just up or actually enforce the laws punishing CRIMINALS with guns or who use guns while committing a crime which makes it a felony :shrug:

its a wast of time and logic and hinders non-criminals
 
Last edited:
like i said a waste of times just up or actually enforce the laws punishing CRIMINALS with guns or who use guns while commiting a crime which makes it a felony :shrug:

its a wast of time and logic and hinders non-criminals

No, it's a good law to limit the magazine rounds.
 
No, it's a good law to limit the magazine rounds.

no its a waste because it wont do anything accept hinder law abiding citizens

if the laws were actually enforced that punishes criminals with guns and punching people that commit felonies with guns this isnt needed.

the laws above punishes criminals, limiting magazine rounds punishing law abiding citizens. That makes it dumb and a waste of time.

Give me an example of why its good or how equal/even better results wouldnt be achieved with my model or the existing model of punishing criminals/felons/ with guns and crimes committed with guns.
 
Last edited:
Because and educated citizenry makes our economy strong.

And people exercising their Constitutional rights to not? Armed citizens, protecting themselves and their property are a good thing too. Every criminal stopped by an armed citizen is one less left to prey upon others. The BG check law is designed to help protect eveyone as well, not just law abiding gun owners.
 
No, it's a good law to limit the magazine rounds.

Why? Several months ago when the New York ban went through their legislature I did a calculation about the total amount of time required to fire 70 aimed shots with 10-round magazines compared to 7-round magazines. Total time difference was somthing on the order of 3.25 seconds if my memory serves me. Do you really think that 3.25 seconds is going to make any difference in the vast majority of shootings? No, it's not. Nor will limiting the magazine size in semi-automatic rifles.
 
Here's how the Non sees it...under both the US and Colorado constitution residents of my fine state have the express liberty to own and bare arms. Considering this any law that regulates or inhibits such liberty must be views under strict scrutiny...that is the question is not "why should be be allowed to have this" but rather "why shouldn't I".
 
How so? There are no guns being confiscated, no mention of stopping the sale of guns for hunters, target shooters and those in marksman competition.

Our gun rights do not exist for the benefit of sportsmen. They exist for the free citizenry to be able to defend themselves, their property, and their country.
 
So how is that militia treating you? Oh, you are not in one? Then you don't have a right to a gun along a strict translation. It is a good idea not to torpedo your own arguments like you just did.

Jerry can explain better than I, but EVERYONE is part of the millitia. Hence EVERYONE can be armed. How do you think you can be drafted.
 
Jerry can explain better than I, but EVERYONE is part of the millitia. Hence EVERYONE can be armed. How do you think you can be drafted.

Actually she cannot be drafted. The draft only covers those that are male between the ages of 18 and 46. Unless they changed it and I didn't know about it?
 
Actually she cannot be drafted. The draft only covers those that are male between the ages of 18 and 46. Unless they changed it and I didn't know about it?

You know more than me on the draft. I presume the gist of my point is still sound?
 
Here's the "tax" you want to scream about.



It's a user fee. Why should NON gun owners be required to subsidize gun background checks?

do non-gun owners vote and pay taxes?.... if so, they can ante up their share for the mandates their state government put on gun purchasers.... rest assured the gun owners who vote and pay taxes will be paying for it too.

I want you to think long and hard about the notion of only having those whom make use of government services pay for them.


as for fees vs taxes... it used to be clear.. a user fee was fine, as it was only to be used for a specific purpose(to fund whatever specific service the fee was levied on)
In Colorado, that's no longer the case... funds from a fee can be transferred to the general fund to pay for general government ( which used to automatically define it as a "tax") and it's still not considered a tax.... in other words, the courts blurred the lines between fees and taxes making them indistinguishable.
Barber v Ritter was the case that utterly demolished precedent set in Bloom V. City of Fort Collins.(Colorado supreme court cases)

those whom live in Colorado are probably familiar with the increased fees on vehicle registration.... the probably aren't aware that some of that money goes to the general fund, which would have once defined it as a tax... the importance here is that tax increase have to go to the people for permission, fees do not.... blurring the line between taxes and fees now makes it legal to raise taxes without going to the citizens for permission.

so yeah...arguing about fees versus taxes isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be....for all intents and purposes, fees are taxes in Colorado.
 
Back
Top Bottom