• 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

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?

Another "reasonable compromise". These people will not stop until we are all serfs.
 
I get the feeling this will backfire on Colorado.

Several companies including Magpul have noted their unwillingness to do business in the state if/when this gets signed. That will have an impact on the economy of the state. I also see this decraeasing the hunting and shooting sports activities that take place in Colorado, which will affect their tourism industry as well. Their LEOs will now be subject to the restrictions of the gun industry companies which are refusing to do business with certain states. I especially wonder how this may affect the USAF Academy Shooting Sports and Combat Arms Teams, which I know from personal experience do business with several of those companies.
 
Once you allow the Government to infringe on any of our inherent rights, you set
a precedence that could allow them to infringe on all of them.
If a $10 background tax is necessary for a background check to own a firearm,
Why not a $10 tax for a background tax for the right to vote?
Limits on the types of weapons you can own, or magazine capacity,
How about limits on the size or types of words covered by the freedom speech?
It is less about guns, than about our charter document (Constitution), that set aside
a list of inalienable rights.
These rights were placed outside the Governments legislative scope for a reason.
To casually discount one, you casually discount all of them.
 
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 USSC upheld fugitive slave laws, too. Would you have been ok with that?

The USSC also said that Arizona can ask for proof of citizenship during a traffic stop. Are you cool with that?
 
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.
 
You do realize the USSC ruled that governments have the right to regulate firearms...

If it is Constitutional to "regulate" firearms by declaring no gun zones and defining specific permitted (prohibited?) arms then that should apply to books, newspapers and speach as well. Would it be OK for certain "dangerous" speach, books and news sources to be banned within a given state/city as well? The SCOTUS has not defined what those "limits" are, simply that the 2A is not unlimitted. We now have at least 4 different, "legal" definitions of what a "standard" capacity gun magazine is; no more than 7, 10, 15 or an unlimitted number of rounds. Can state/local gov'ts also define what a legal printed magazine is?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
I am sure they will complain, but having background checks, and making the purchaser pay for them is not a terrible thing.

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?

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.
 
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.

Gee, better roads, schools, bridges, or lower taxes. I take the former.
 
But having citizens pay for IDs to vote, that you'll fight to the death over. :roll:

Yes, because it's not necessary and it used to keep the poor from voting.
 
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?


Because I pay taxes when I buy a TV. Why are gun buyers exempt?
 
Gee, better roads, schools, bridges, or lower taxes. I take the former.

so you believe legal gun ownership should be subsidized by the state?
 
Yes, because it's not necessary and it used to keep the poor from voting.

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.
 
Because I pay taxes when I buy a TV. Why are gun buyers exempt?

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.
 
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.

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. This wild-eyed swing into terror is not working anymore on America. You can still have your guns, or you can rant about the false accusations of gun confiscation. Either way, your opinion is the minority in America.
 
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.

I don't use the TV for anything but entertainment. Taxes are needed. The pleasure to own a gun is a taxing situation. See?
 
so you believe legal gun ownership should be subsidized by the state?

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.
 
Because I pay taxes when I buy a TV. Why are gun buyers exempt?

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?
 
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.

Auto companies? Auto deaths and injuries far exceed those from guns. Obama must mandate insurance. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom