Colorado Gun Owners - Don't Surrender!

[DASHZNT]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

I always find the "just move" argument amusing. Pack up your family, your life, your business, and start over! Sounds great, in theory. In reality it just isn't that easy for most people. Not to mention these jokers tend to follow us around and get their brand of stupid voted in. For most people FIGHTING to take their rights back makes a lot more sense than moving to a new state that may have the same problem 5 or 10 years down the road.

Its as amusing as to you as the boycots are to me. If you wanna fight politics, you will lose everytime. Its rigged, a state that always get voted dem by a large majority makes no sense in voting, it does nothing but waste several hours of your time to get defeated! Boycots are the same, the BwW boycot was my favorite, just because they dont allow guns, the food is good and the atmosphere is pretty neat too, its a nice sports bar and im not gonna join yall just because.. and clearly that boycot hasnt hurt them one bit just like the buycott for starbucks hasnt helped them at all either, ITS A JOKE!!

Move or deal with it, but it wont change anytime in our lifetimes so quit crying about it and enhance the remaining life you have for the better... You can move if you really want to, but that would mean youd actually have to think outside the box.

[MLeake]

DASHZNT, if you can pick up and move at will, it means one or more of the following:

1) You have no life, anyway;

2) You don't currently live near a lot of family and loved ones;

3) You don't have a really good job that would be hard to replace if you moved;

4) You are so wealthy that you don't have to sweat the job, and can travel to see family or fly them to see you at will.

Most people do not fall into category 4. Most would prefer not to fall into categories 1 or 2.

Which category do you claim?

[taylorce1]

I agree picking up and moving is the wrong thing to do, we need to educate and change opinions on guns. Most of the people who demonize firearms and their owners rarely have any experience with firearms. Again the problem with politics is that most people now live in metro areas instead of rural anymore, so a lot of people don't have any exposure to firearms.

[Hiker 1]

I'm not moving. This is my state and I love it here. Gun rights are very important obviously, but they are not my reason for living.

I am going to bother these fools as much as possible. If these ridiculous measures become law, I'll keep up the fight.

[Hiker 1]

That certainly doesn't seem "fragmented and disorganized" to me.

You're right - you're not familiar with Colorado politics, which are as dirty and nasty as anywhere else (and I'm originally from Louisiana). Send me a PM and I'll explain further as that conversation is not firearm-centric.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Moving isn't a useful discussion. That is a personal decision. Also, states have had their policies changed by activism. That's where all the shall issue laws have come from.

As far as

Too many gunowners do not value their Second Amendment rights. They vote for anti-gun politicians because of other issues

That is too simplistic - without picking issues, there are other basic rights and competencies that some progun candidates fall down upon. That forces a terrible rock and a hard place on people. It is the assumed correlation for most with gun rights and their politics that allow glib statements to be made.

It is unfortunate that candidates don't respect other basic rights as well as gun rights. Do you value gun rights and throw away others?

Saying to move or always vote for the progun person doesn't face reality at times. Sad to say. But we need than cliches to protect all rights.

[Hiker 1]

You're right Glenn. Gun-friendly Texas had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of concealed-carry but did so because of the pressure from its electorate.

Pendulums can and do swing back and forth.

[Al Norris]

doofus47, that letter was really well done.

Whether or not it does any good, kudu's to you, sir!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I know - Hiker - isn't it terrible? I left a gun friendly state where I had a CCW permit to TX. It didn't have CHL then. BUT, I got a significantly better job and a much better housing situation. I could own guns but not carry except in the weird traveling circumstance. That did no good most of the day.

But, votes mattered and we had the law. Then the law was amended for the better.

[Ted Sheckler]

I'm writing to Hickenlooper to tell him he had the right idea in the aftermath of the batman massacre...

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb,” Hickenlooper said when pressed by CNN’s Candy Crowley on her show, “State of the Union”.

So what made him change his mind a few months later?

[Tbojo]

So what made him change his mind a few months later?

Kool-aid

[jimpeel]

Columbine survivor Evan Todd wrote an open letter to the president on firearms controls and asked him "Whose side are you on?"

I am posting the letter in its entirety for archival purposes so we can find it for reference should we wish.

There are no copyright issues with an open letter because open letters, by their very nature, are public domain from their release. This is why most newspapers will not print open letters.

The Blaze has an interview with Evan Todd on their website HERE

There is also a video discussion with Scott Baker and Billy Hallowell at the page HERE

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination

Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

[casob]

What in the world happened to the rugged Colorado one of the central backbone states of American heritage? What kind of population has migrated to this area that would be so liberal.

I am from TN/AR and have always dreamed of living in such a place, but with the voting and passing of laws that I have seen, Montanna is the new Colorado.

[jimpeel]

Originally Posted by casob

What in the world happened to the rugged Colorado one of the central backbone states of American heritage?

If you will recall firearms controls in this state started in Colorado Springs in the nineteenth century. This was one of the central points in the television series "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman".

Originally Posted by casob

What kind of population has migrated to this area that would be so liberal.

Californians.

[thallub]

That is too simplistic

Too "simplistic", huh?

Gunowners either value rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution or they do not. Many gunowners vote away their Second Amendment rights because of political promises not related to any other Constitutional right.

Used to hunt with several guys from NJ. All of them claimed to be staunch supporters of our Second Amendment rights. To a person they voted as instructed by their shop steward: Politicians who were pro-union and anti-gun always got their votes.

In the back of one gun safe are three pristine "assault rifles" formerly belonging to two of my friends from NJ. They were forced to "dispose" of those guns outside of NJ when "assault rifles" were banned there. Yeah, those guns were legally transferred through gun dealers.

[kilimanjaro]

I'm hearing several times a week from the duck hunters and the revolver fans about how an AWB doesn't bother them. Then they hear about the actual AWB bill and how it affects them, some change their mind, some are just too opinionated to think.

[Hiker 1]

I am from TN/AR and have always dreamed of living in such a place, but with the voting and passing of laws that I have seen, Montanna is the new Colorado.

Don't kid yourself. Montana is under attack from the lefties too.

Colorado is still very much a rugged, do-it-yourself place. However, Denver and most of its suburbs have become typical of most major urban areas (think rugged Texas and think of Austin). Major population centers have group-think mentalities and large liberal populations that affect the rest of the state.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by thallub

Too "simplistic", huh?

Yeah, too simplistic.

I'll put up a couple of examples but this is NOT to start conversations on these issues...

"Gun rights" aren't the only issue.

What if I'm Pro-life and the only Pro-life candidate is for universal background checks?

What if the only Pro-gun candidate has fiscal policies that I believe will bankrupt our nation?

Any number of other scenarios are possible. "Gun rights or nothing!" is too simplistic. A theoretical solution that doesn't work in the real world.

[Ted Sheckler]

I'm hearing several times a week from the duck hunters and the revolver fans about how an AWB doesn't bother them. Then they hear about the actual AWB bill and how it affects them, some change their mind, some are just too opinionated to think.

They should take into account that all of these laws are nothing but feel good laws and will do nothing to stop crazies and criminals from killing people. When those laws fail to stop criminal activity, and they will, the politicians will come for more and eventually they will come for something that will affect you.

[Coyote Blue]

From Zak Smith,with his permission:

[Coyote Blue]

More from Zak:

[liddown]

Strange first post I know... But.

I am confused how one whack job from California moves to Colorado and commits a horrible crime, and rest of us in Colorado pay with our 2nd amendment rights....... Deal with the mental health issue, that will make the most impact... And while I am standing on my soapbox, why the heck do we still have kids in America that go to bed hungry? Is there anyone in congress that gives a crap about that? What if we had a whole school of hungry kids?

Ok, sorry for the drift... Back to matters at hand...

[jimpeel]

liddown,

Welcome to the boards.

[wingman]

From talking heads on various tv shows VP Biden has made numerous calls to Democrats in Colorado who are on the fence,IMO making promises. I suspect they view Co as a test state, this is not about guns or saving lives it is about power and politics.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Once again - please avoid broad stroke rhetoric of the left and right. I had to delete a reasonable post about mental issues because it was laced with such in insulting terms.


GEM