***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

 

[ATC1]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

Santiago's death while tragic probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

 

[tom22406]

Reid says no to Feinstein

AWB not in initial Bill

John Breshnahan and Manu Raju report that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not include Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban into the Democrat gun control bill.

Instead, the ban will be offered as an amendment to the existing bill on the Senate floor which will have a separate vote.

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” Feinstein said, when asked why the decision was made.

She sounds a little pissed

 

[mad sweeney]

Yeah, nobody's saying that this single incident alters the debate in any meaningful way. It's just one data point that sometimes owning a gun leads to tragedy that might otherwise have been avoided.

And there are just as many points where owning a gun has avoided a tragedy. And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

If course it's a tragedy. Just because it was an accident doesn't diminish that fact.

 

[mad sweeney]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

Both of those labels imply criminal intent. Kid made a drunken mistake, not a harmful felony.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

Both of those labels imply criminal intent. Kid made a drunken mistake, not a harmful felony.

Just like the Steubenville kids made a drunken mistake?

 

[mad sweeney]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

Both of those labels imply criminal intent. Kid made a drunken mistake, not a harmful felony.

Just like the Steubenville kids made a drunken mistake?

Not even the same ballpark. Not even the same game. Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way. There's no report of any attempt at burglary or violence. I have no problem with the guy being scared and shooting. That's why I've said it doesn't work for either side's arguments. But to try and parallel drukenly going in the wrong house with repetitive forcible and dehumanizing rape is absurd. That's like saying a drunk kid lurching across the street getting hit by an oncoming car was akin to a rapist.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

Both of those labels imply criminal intent. Kid made a drunken mistake, not a harmful felony.

Just like the Steubenville kids made a drunken mistake?

Not even the same ballpark. Not even the same game. Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way. There's no report of any attempt at burglary or violence. I have no problem with the guy being scared and shooting. That's why I've said it doesn't work for either side's arguments. But to try and parallel drukenly going in the wrong house with repetitive forcible and dehumanizing rape is absurd. That's like saying a drunk kid lurching across the street getting hit by an oncoming car was akin to a rapist.

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

 

[Henry Ford]

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

You don't think a drunk kid lurching into traffic is a crime?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

You don't think a drunk kid lurching into traffic is a crime?

Yes, lurching into traffic is a crime and I wouldn't call it tragic if a drunk gets killed doing so. I was referring to "Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way." I ignored the rest of his babbling.

 

[Henry Ford]

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

You don't think a drunk kid lurching into traffic is a crime?

Yes, lurching into traffic is a crime and I wouldn't call it tragic if a drunk gets killed doing so. I was referring to "Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way." I ignored the rest of his babbling.

At least you're consistent.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

You don't think a drunk kid lurching into traffic is a crime?

Yes, lurching into traffic is a crime and I wouldn't call it tragic if a drunk gets killed doing so. I was referring to "Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way." I ignored the rest of his babbling.

At least you're consistent.

I'm guessing I have a different definition of tragic than most. If you get killed doing something dumb (under the influence or not) it isn't tragic. It is dumb.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm guessing I have a different definition of tragic than most. If you get killed doing something dumb (under the influence or not) it isn't tragic. It is dumb.

Yeah, that's not the customary usage of the word.

 

[Apple Jack]

High school kid drinks, opens wrong door. Deserves what he gets. F him.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

High school kid drinks, opens wrong door. Deserves what he gets. F him.

 

[mad sweeney]

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.

Still seems like a tragedy.

For the man who was forced to shoot him and the man's family who had to go through the ordeal, yes, I would agree it is tragic and traumatizing for them.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What about for the kid? He got shot up. What about for the kid's family?

I don't find it tragic when burglars/home invaders are shot.

Both of those labels imply criminal intent. Kid made a drunken mistake, not a harmful felony.

Just like the Steubenville kids made a drunken mistake?

Not even the same ballpark. Not even the same game. Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way. There's no report of any attempt at burglary or violence. I have no problem with the guy being scared and shooting. That's why I've said it doesn't work for either side's arguments. But to try and parallel drukenly going in the wrong house with repetitive forcible and dehumanizing rape is absurd. That's like saying a drunk kid lurching across the street getting hit by an oncoming car was akin to a rapist.

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

Your reading comprehension here is dismal. Where do I say anything resembling that? In fact, I said I was ok with the shooting, which would be pretty weird if I didn't think the kid was in the wrong about something.

 

[mad sweeney]

For some reason you don't think this person committed a crime. Interesting.

You don't think a drunk kid lurching into traffic is a crime?

Yes, lurching into traffic is a crime and I wouldn't call it tragic if a drunk gets killed doing so. I was referring to "Other than be in the wrong house, the kid didn't harm the homeowner in any way." I ignored the rest of his babbling.

Interesting. You seem to think the kid harmed the homeowner.

 

[Novice2]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

 

[Carolina Hustler]

High school kid drinks, opens wrong door. Deserves what he gets. F him.

He should have been stabbed or had his head stoved in with a bb bat instead.. that would have been an acceptable kill.. A gun was obviously the criminal in this story..

 

[mad sweeney]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

 

[Novice2]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

Goverment agents see picture of kid with gun show up at residence and demand to open safe and see if guns are "registered". Perfectly normal in a fundamentally reshaped America.

 

[mad sweeney]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

Goverment agents see picture of kid with gun show up at residence and demand to open safe and see if guns are "registered". Perfectly normal in a fundamentally reshaped America.

You mean gov't agents receive a tip on a child abuse hotline, then show up and don't enter the house, don't see the safe, don't see gun registrations and go away? OMG, we're just one small step away from gulags!

 

[Rayderr]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

 

[Henry Ford]

Man, I am so sick of Obama personally controlling employees of state child welfare organizations.

 

[Henry Ford]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

 

[ATC1]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The boy is taught well. Keep your finger off the trigger. Would like to hear more about this child abuse tip? Anything else other than a picture?

 

[Rayderr]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

Sound advice, but believe it or not, not everyone has a lawyer.

 

[mad sweeney]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The boy is taught well. Keep your finger off the trigger. Would like to hear more about this child abuse tip? Anything else other than a picture?

Probably just an idiot neighbor.

 

[Henry Ford]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

Sound advice, but believe it or not, not everyone has a lawyer.

There is no reason not to have a lawyer. Go get in a car accident immediately.* I will be your lawyer. Then, in the future, you can call me.*Don't actually go get in a car accident.

 

[ATC1]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

Sound advice, but believe it or not, not everyone has a lawyer.

There is no reason not to have a lawyer. Go get in a car accident immediately.* I will be your lawyer. Then, in the future, you can call me.*Don't actually go get in a car accident.

Or go to the bar on a week night just after the court closes. Make friends with someone in a suit. You might have to listen to a bunch of legal crap,but you will know you got one. It could be worth getting a discount from $150 in the future.

 

[Henry Ford]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

Sound advice, but believe it or not, not everyone has a lawyer.

There is no reason not to have a lawyer. Go get in a car accident immediately.* I will be your lawyer. Then, in the future, you can call me.*Don't actually go get in a car accident.

Or go to the bar on a week night just after the court closes. Make friends with someone in a suit. You might have to listen to a bunch of legal crap,but you will know you got one. It could be worth getting a discount from $150 in the future.

This. If someone will listen to my idiotic geeky legal babble for one night, I'll totally represent him pro bono in front of the city housing commission on an hour's notice sometime in the future.

 

[Jobber]

Obamas fundamentally reshaped America

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

They didn't make her open the safes, they didn't go through her house. They followed up a tip on a child abuse hotline, determined there was none, didn't violate the homeowner's rights, and then left. TYRANNY!!!!!

I'm guessing things would've gone down differently if the guy didn't get in touch with his lawyer before allowing them to do anything.

Let me give you some free advice that's worth its cost:If anyone ever shows up at your front door who has the power to take your kids away and wants to investigate you, call your lawyer. No matter which party the President belongs to.

Sound advice, but believe it or not, not everyone has a lawyer.

There is no reason not to have a lawyer. Go get in a car accident immediately.* I will be your lawyer. Then, in the future, you can call me.*Don't actually go get in a car accident.

Or go to the bar on a week night just after the court closes. Make friends with someone in a suit. You might have to listen to a bunch of legal crap,but you will know you got one. It could be worth getting a discount from $150 in the future.

This. If someone will listen to my idiotic geeky legal babble for one night, I'll totally represent him pro bono in front of the city housing commission on an hour's notice sometime in the future.

The danger here is what if the guy in the suit turns out to be Woz?

 

[Henry Ford]

The danger here is what if the guy in the suit turns out to be Woz?

Who's Woz?Is that the same person as Zow?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Shame on the Daily News

 

[JHuber77]

The danger here is what if the guy in the suit turns out to be Woz?

Who's Woz?Is that the same person as Zow?

Yes same person.

 

[smotherhook]

Shame on the Daily News

 

[Henry Ford]

The danger here is what if the guy in the suit turns out to be Woz?

Who's Woz?Is that the same person as Zow?

Yes same person.

Then that was funny.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I enjoyed this:

You Must Be Prepared

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Shame on the Daily News

Love it:

Ed,

Your newspaper disgusts me. In any crisis, it is expected for the liberal anti-gun zealots to metaphorically stand on the graves of the victims, as though their proposals would have prevented tragedy. The anti-gun lobby was using the Sandy Hook crisis for their benefit long before the NRA stepped into the ring. This is expected. After all, to the media, those who support gun rights are the “crazy” ones. This is an opinion formed by a group that has no knowledge of, or desire to understand firearms or the people that own them. Instead, we are lumped together with murderers such as Lanza.

This notion offends the millions upon millions of gun owners in this country, including myself. Your ideology would blame society for the actions of a sick individual. I live in an area highly saturated with gun owners, yet crime is low. Violent crime is almost non-existent. Murder has been absent from the county for 9 years now. Your assertion that failure of the AWB is a failure to protect children is disgusting. For you to say that the gun owners of this country do not care about the children simply because they do not support the same tyrannical policy is not “shame on us:” it is shame on you.

Shame on you for using the images of slain children to push your political agenda. Shame on you for using your First Amendment rights to trample on the Second. Shame on your for using your public presence to demean the large portion of Americans that own guns. Shame on you for insinuating that those of us that own modern sporting rifles are only a click away from taking innocent lives. Shame on you for being so journalistically lazy, to the extent that Piers Morgan is jealous.

You work in a dying industry. More and more people get their news content from the web. I am contacting you via e-mail; a sign of the times. I will relish the inevitability of your newspaper closing its doors. I will enjoy reading (over the internet) that NY Daily News will no longer be available in print. It is partly because of incidents like today that will cause your closure. Readership is already on the decline; so just admit it, “we hate the large percentage of Americans that own guns.” Say it, “gun owners are murderers.” Preach it, “guns kill people.” You have already sunk to such a low level, why not take it even further?

Just remember. I will be here holding my guns long after anyone is holding a copy of your newspaper...

-Publius

 

[timschochet]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/

DENVER – Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign legislation Wednesday that sets limits on ammunition magazines and expands background checks for firearms, marking a Democratic victory in a state where gun ownership is a treasured right and Second Amendment debate has played out in the wake of two mass shootings.

The measures proposed are some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and their passage comes after weeks of tense legislative battles. Republicans and gun rights supporters put up a major fight against the measures in this politically moderate state, while Democrats made them the centerpieces of a package of legislative proposals drafted in reaction to shooting rampages at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school last year.

"I think it will make it more difficult for people to get guns who shouldn't have them, and that's really the goal," said Democratic Rep. Beth McCann on the expanded background checks.

Magazine limits would reduce gun violence and have an impact during mass shootings, because they would force gunmen to reload more times, she said. "It's an interruption in the spraying of bullets."

Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown confirmed Monday that the governor would sign the measures.

Colorado's gun controls, which become effective July 1, are the first beyond the East Coast approved this year. They also are getting approval as Congress embarks on its own gun debate in Washington, where Colorado Democrat's proposals were closely watched because the state was seen as a bellwether.

The Colorado laws include a ban on ammunition magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, and eight shotgun shells. The bill on background checks expands the requirement to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases.

Republicans reviled both bills and argued the proposals would not prevent more shootings, but hurt law-abiding citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

"We're obviously very disappointed. I think we demonstrated time and time again all of the issues associated with" the magazine limits, said Republican Rep. Mark Waller, the GOP leader in the House.

"They're doing this without any proof that banning this is going to have any impact on public safety," he said.

Republicans seemed resigned from the start that the bills would become law, though. Hickenlooper said previously he would sign the magazine limit, and he specifically asked the Legislature to expand background checks in his annual address.

"Our only hope now is if his pen runs out of ink," said a rueful Rep. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction.

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.

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company "you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.

Waller called the exemption "a monumental inconsistency in their thought process."

Other Democratic gun control proposals still pending in the state Legislature include a ban on gun ownership by people accused of domestic-violence crimes and a bill to eliminate online-only safety training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits.

Two more Democratic gun control bills were withdrawn when they appeared to lack support for passage. Those included a new liability standard for gun owners and sellers, and a ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Republican gun ideas were hastily rejected earlier this year. Those ideas included expanding gun laws to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, and a failed attempt to require armed security guards at businesses that ban concealed weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/#ixzz2O6clthxs

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/

DENVER – Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign legislation Wednesday that sets limits on ammunition magazines and expands background checks for firearms, marking a Democratic victory in a state where gun ownership is a treasured right and Second Amendment debate has played out in the wake of two mass shootings.

The measures proposed are some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and their passage comes after weeks of tense legislative battles. Republicans and gun rights supporters put up a major fight against the measures in this politically moderate state, while Democrats made them the centerpieces of a package of legislative proposals drafted in reaction to shooting rampages at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school last year.

"I think it will make it more difficult for people to get guns who shouldn't have them, and that's really the goal," said Democratic Rep. Beth McCann on the expanded background checks.

Magazine limits would reduce gun violence and have an impact during mass shootings, because they would force gunmen to reload more times, she said. "It's an interruption in the spraying of bullets."

Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown confirmed Monday that the governor would sign the measures.

Colorado's gun controls, which become effective July 1, are the first beyond the East Coast approved this year. They also are getting approval as Congress embarks on its own gun debate in Washington, where Colorado Democrat's proposals were closely watched because the state was seen as a bellwether.

The Colorado laws include a ban on ammunition magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, and eight shotgun shells. The bill on background checks expands the requirement to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases.

Republicans reviled both bills and argued the proposals would not prevent more shootings, but hurt law-abiding citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

"We're obviously very disappointed. I think we demonstrated time and time again all of the issues associated with" the magazine limits, said Republican Rep. Mark Waller, the GOP leader in the House.

"They're doing this without any proof that banning this is going to have any impact on public safety," he said.

Republicans seemed resigned from the start that the bills would become law, though. Hickenlooper said previously he would sign the magazine limit, and he specifically asked the Legislature to expand background checks in his annual address.

"Our only hope now is if his pen runs out of ink," said a rueful Rep. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction.

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.

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company "you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.

Waller called the exemption "a monumental inconsistency in their thought process."

Other Democratic gun control proposals still pending in the state Legislature include a ban on gun ownership by people accused of domestic-violence crimes and a bill to eliminate online-only safety training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits.

Two more Democratic gun control bills were withdrawn when they appeared to lack support for passage. Those included a new liability standard for gun owners and sellers, and a ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Republican gun ideas were hastily rejected earlier this year. Those ideas included expanding gun laws to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, and a failed attempt to require armed security guards at businesses that ban concealed weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/#ixzz2O6clthxs

This is hilarious. Because criminals are going to obey this law...right? Wait till the next Colorado election. Goodbye dems!

 

[Caveman_Nick]

An interesting read on the subject

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/

DENVER – Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign legislation Wednesday that sets limits on ammunition magazines and expands background checks for firearms, marking a Democratic victory in a state where gun ownership is a treasured right and Second Amendment debate has played out in the wake of two mass shootings.

The measures proposed are some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and their passage comes after weeks of tense legislative battles. Republicans and gun rights supporters put up a major fight against the measures in this politically moderate state, while Democrats made them the centerpieces of a package of legislative proposals drafted in reaction to shooting rampages at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school last year.

"I think it will make it more difficult for people to get guns who shouldn't have them, and that's really the goal," said Democratic Rep. Beth McCann on the expanded background checks.

Magazine limits would reduce gun violence and have an impact during mass shootings, because they would force gunmen to reload more times, she said. "It's an interruption in the spraying of bullets."

Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown confirmed Monday that the governor would sign the measures.

Colorado's gun controls, which become effective July 1, are the first beyond the East Coast approved this year. They also are getting approval as Congress embarks on its own gun debate in Washington, where Colorado Democrat's proposals were closely watched because the state was seen as a bellwether.

The Colorado laws include a ban on ammunition magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, and eight shotgun shells. The bill on background checks expands the requirement to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases.

Republicans reviled both bills and argued the proposals would not prevent more shootings, but hurt law-abiding citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

"We're obviously very disappointed. I think we demonstrated time and time again all of the issues associated with" the magazine limits, said Republican Rep. Mark Waller, the GOP leader in the House.

"They're doing this without any proof that banning this is going to have any impact on public safety," he said.

Republicans seemed resigned from the start that the bills would become law, though. Hickenlooper said previously he would sign the magazine limit, and he specifically asked the Legislature to expand background checks in his annual address.

"Our only hope now is if his pen runs out of ink," said a rueful Rep. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction.

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.

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company "you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.

Waller called the exemption "a monumental inconsistency in their thought process."

Other Democratic gun control proposals still pending in the state Legislature include a ban on gun ownership by people accused of domestic-violence crimes and a bill to eliminate online-only safety training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits.

Two more Democratic gun control bills were withdrawn when they appeared to lack support for passage. Those included a new liability standard for gun owners and sellers, and a ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Republican gun ideas were hastily rejected earlier this year. Those ideas included expanding gun laws to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, and a failed attempt to require armed security guards at businesses that ban concealed weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/#ixzz2O6clthxs

This is hilarious. Because criminals are going to obey this law...right? Wait till the next Colorado election. Goodbye dems!

My link

 

[5 digit know nothing]

An interesting read on the subject

It's a good read but will largely fall on deaf ears.

 

[TobiasFunke]

An interesting read on the subject

It's a good read but will largely fall on deaf ears.

Here's just one of what I can probably assume are many, many logical errors:

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

First, the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year figure is so laughable to anyone with half a brain that it's really not worth discussing, leaving the author with a credibility problem at the outset. The he moves to "more conservative numbers" from "multiple studies" ... which he doesn't bother to cite or link, so that claim can't be researched. This is a problem, because he then compares that number to homicides to conclude that guns are saving more lives (or preventing more rapes) than they're causing. Obviously, that's nonsense. So I did some more googling and found some more lies.

The 108,000 defensive uses isn't from the Brady Center- it's from the FBI, as far as I can tell (propoganda articles on both sides have made Googling actual information difficult). So it's not a low end estimate, it's the most trusted estimate we have. Not sure why he felt the need to hide that, but I have some guesses.

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes, which is the comparison the author falsely makes with the line about "totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year". Why do I say that? Well, here's FBI data on justifiable gun homicides. Number is about 200 per year. I know that's probably a fraction of the prevented homicides and rapes by gun, because it many cases I'm sure showing the gun prevents the homicide or rape. But I seriously doubt that the fraction in question is one five-hundredth. So we're talking about a false comparison- homicides by guns on the one hand, and lives ended + violent crimes averted + property protected (guessing) + trespasses averted (also guessing) + other reasons for defensive gun uses. Those are not the same thing, and he not only assumes they are, he then falsely converts the latter category into nothing but rapes and murders to drive home his mistaken point. And of course, his count of 10K gun "homicides" on the other side of the equation leaves out accidental gun deaths.

Not sure why you think this kind of poorly reasoned, poorly researched, obviously slanted garbage is a good read.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

An interesting read on the subject

It's a good read but will largely fall on deaf ears.

Here's just one of what I can probably assume are many, many logical errors:

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

First, the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year figure is so laughable to anyone with half a brain that it's really not worth discussing, leaving the author with a credibility problem at the outset. The he moves to "more conservative numbers" from "multiple studies" ... which he doesn't bother to cite or link, so that claim can't be researched. This is a problem, because he then compares that number to homicides to conclude that guns are saving more lives (or preventing more rapes) than they're causing. Obviously, that's nonsense. So I did some more googling and found some more lies.

The 108,000 defensive uses isn't from the Brady Center- it's from the FBI, as far as I can tell (propoganda articles on both sides have made Googling actual information difficult). So it's not a low end estimate, it's the most trusted estimate we have. Not sure why he felt the need to hide that, but I have some guesses.

I couldn't find out exactly what qualifies as a defensive gun use, but I'm fairly certain it's more than just murders and rapes, which is the comparison the author falsely makes with the line about "totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year". Why do I say that? Well, here's FBI data on justifiable gun homicides. Number is about 200 per year. I know that's probably a fraction of the prevented homicides and rapes by gun, because it many cases I'm sure showing the gun prevents the homicide or rape. But I seriously doubt that the fraction in question is one five-hundredth. So we're talking about a false comparison- homicides by guns on the one hand, and lives ended + violent crimes averted + property protected (guessing) + trespasses averted (also guessing) + other reasons for defensive gun uses. Those are not the same thing, and he not only assumes they are, he then falsely converts the latter category into nothing but rapes and murders to drive home his mistaken point. And of course, his count of 10K gun "homicides" on the other side of the equation leaves out accidental gun deaths.

Not sure why you think this kind of poorly reasoned, poorly researched, obviously slanted garbage is a good read.

Becuase there are coutnless gun owners out there who instead of agreeing that gun laws need some type of dramatic change revert to uneducated opinions.

 

[mad sweeney]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/

DENVER – Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign legislation Wednesday that sets limits on ammunition magazines and expands background checks for firearms, marking a Democratic victory in a state where gun ownership is a treasured right and Second Amendment debate has played out in the wake of two mass shootings.

The measures proposed are some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and their passage comes after weeks of tense legislative battles. Republicans and gun rights supporters put up a major fight against the measures in this politically moderate state, while Democrats made them the centerpieces of a package of legislative proposals drafted in reaction to shooting rampages at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school last year.

"I think it will make it more difficult for people to get guns who shouldn't have them, and that's really the goal," said Democratic Rep. Beth McCann on the expanded background checks.

Magazine limits would reduce gun violence and have an impact during mass shootings, because they would force gunmen to reload more times, she said. "It's an interruption in the spraying of bullets."

Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown confirmed Monday that the governor would sign the measures.

Colorado's gun controls, which become effective July 1, are the first beyond the East Coast approved this year. They also are getting approval as Congress embarks on its own gun debate in Washington, where Colorado Democrat's proposals were closely watched because the state was seen as a bellwether.

The Colorado laws include a ban on ammunition magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, and eight shotgun shells. The bill on background checks expands the requirement to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases.

Republicans reviled both bills and argued the proposals would not prevent more shootings, but hurt law-abiding citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

"We're obviously very disappointed. I think we demonstrated time and time again all of the issues associated with" the magazine limits, said Republican Rep. Mark Waller, the GOP leader in the House.

"They're doing this without any proof that banning this is going to have any impact on public safety," he said.

Republicans seemed resigned from the start that the bills would become law, though. Hickenlooper said previously he would sign the magazine limit, and he specifically asked the Legislature to expand background checks in his annual address.

"Our only hope now is if his pen runs out of ink," said a rueful Rep. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction.

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.

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company "you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.

Waller called the exemption "a monumental inconsistency in their thought process."

Other Democratic gun control proposals still pending in the state Legislature include a ban on gun ownership by people accused of domestic-violence crimes and a bill to eliminate online-only safety training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits.

Two more Democratic gun control bills were withdrawn when they appeared to lack support for passage. Those included a new liability standard for gun owners and sellers, and a ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Republican gun ideas were hastily rejected earlier this year. Those ideas included expanding gun laws to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, and a failed attempt to require armed security guards at businesses that ban concealed weapons.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/colorado-governor-to-sign-gun-controls-into-law/#ixzz2O6clthxs

This is hilarious. Because criminals are going to obey this law...right? Wait till the next Colorado election. Goodbye dems!

This is such a silly argument. Might as well not have laws against rape or murder either then, since criminals won't obey them anyways. Note to histrionic overreactors: I'm not, in any way, comparing gun ownership to rape or murder, just using them to show how ridiculous that argument is as a counter to anything since it can, in fact, be used to counter anything and therefore is useful in countering nothing.