Skip to main content

Poll on Coloradans attitudes about gun control
The four new gun-control measures narrowly passed after acrimonious hearings by the Colorado House of Representatives Monday won't give the state the strongest restrictions on firearms in the United States. But they will be the toughest in a Mountain West state where guns, as they say, are a "way of life."

First, however, they have to get past the state senate, where the margin of Democrats to Republicans is, at 20-15, tighter than in the house, where it is 37-28, a consequence of the November election when Republicans lost their one-vote majority in that body. It's not known whether Vice President Joe Biden will call selected senators to urge them to pass the measures as he did with three freshmen state representatives and Democratic House Speaker Mark Ferrandino.

The measures would limit the number of rounds in gun magazines to 15, bar concealed firearms from college campuses, expand background checks to all gun sales and transfers, and require gun owners to pay $5-$12 for those checks. Exempted from the checks are sales of antique guns and gifts of guns to immediate family members.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation handles the background checks. In most of 2012, it took an average of 23 minutes for a background check to determine whether a prospective gun buyer had a criminal or mental health record that barred her or him from obtaining a firearm. After the 12/14 Newtown, Connecticut, massacre, however, gun buying surged and the CBI was swamped. The waiting period for completion of the checks grew to seven days. That prompted the bureau to seek half a million extra dollars to clear the checks faster. And those gun checks were only for sales by federally licensed dealers, not the private sales that the new legislation require to be covered.

Asking gun buyers to pay for their own background checks, the way they pay for, say, a driver's license, could be a deal-breaker in the Colorado Senate. The background checks—supported by 80 percent of Coloradans, according to a survey by Project New America and pollster Chris Keating—were approved by a party-line vote of 36-29. But making gun buyers pay for them squeaked by on a single vote, 33-32.

For 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Colorado a D for its gun laws. If these measures are enacted, a spokesman for the group said, it would probably get a C-.

The measures must also get the signature of Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. He supports background checks and buyers paying for them and might support a limit on magazine capacity if the count is 15 to 20. But he is said to be undecided on whether concealed guns should be banned from campuses.

Only four states now limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. That was what Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields originally proposed for Colorado. Her son was shot to death in 2005. She represents the district where James Holmes opened fire in a crowded Aurora theater last July, killing 12 and wounding 58. One of his weapons was fed by a 100-round drum magazine. One legislator Biden called was Democratic Rep. Mike McLachlan, who represents a district in southwestern Colorado. It was he who introduced the amendment to raise the capacity limit to 15, saying that was adequate for self defense.

Ed Vigil, a Democrat representing a rural south-central Colorado district, who broke ranks on the magazine capacity bill and voted with Republicans against it, argued at one point: "This is part of our heritage. This is part of what it took to settle this land. I cannot turn my back on that." None of the guns used in that "settling," which drove the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians out of Colorado and the Utes onto reservations, could fire more than 16 rounds without reloading.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It is important (7+ / 0-)

    That reasonable rules come into effect in regards to the private sale of weapons.

    This element, a key component in this legislation is important to help fund the costs of these actions and to act as a safeguard for a standard all agree to - that violent felons should not gain access to weapons.

    This common sense item should be on the lips of everyone who values legal ownership of weapons and all those who want to prevent bad gun owners.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:25:53 AM PST

    •  What was reasonable about raising the clip (0+ / 0-)

      capacity to 15 from 10?  Are we really horse-trading 5 more lives away.

      Personally, I'd like to see 5, then 3, then none.

      •  How about making it easier to pass. If the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        llywrch

        choice is between 15 and infinite I will take 15 as it can always be lowered later.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:09:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is not a Clip (0+ / 0-)

        There needs to be some seriouse education about guns before you really can talk abou them. I am not a doctor so I don't pretend to know anything about their stuff. I am not a car mechanic so I don't ignorantly talk about that stuff either.
        I am a veteran and I don't appreciate people talking about my guns or 2A rights like they know something. If you are a doctor lawyer car mechanic, or whatever I wont pretend to know your job, don't pretend to know mine.

        Lord, make me fast and accurate. Let my aim be true and my hand faster than those who would seek to destroy me. Grant me victory over my foes and those that wish to do harm to me and mine. Let not my last thought be “If only I had my gun”; and Lord if today is truly the day that You call me home, let me die in a pile of brass

  •  Seems like a sensible start. (9+ / 0-)

    Why any civilian needs a magazine with greater than a 15-round capacity is beyond me.  

    I also don't see why gun owners shouldn't pay for their background checks.  I had to pay for mine when I applied for membership in the California bar.  And my law license isn't going to kill anyone.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:29:09 AM PST

    •  It's because they haven't had to pay for the (6+ / 0-)

      work they put the agency through.  They've resisted paying for the checks just like they've resisted getting licenses (like they have to have to operate motor vehicles, go fishing or go hunting or go boating or having a dog, etc, etc).  Put the burden on those who don't have guns just because you want to save $5-15.  It is perfectly reasonable to pay for it since it's entirely optional as to whether you do it or not.  If it was mandated that you have a gun, then I'd support the state paying for it.  Since people don't have to have guns, I don't want my tax dollars supporting their efforts to have guns.

      •  Voting is optional too. That 10 dollar Voter ID (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        card should be required too then, right?  Since some don't vote and what's 10 dollars anyway????  Most people should be able to handle it.

        Hopefully, this won't become precedence, huh? Because I guarantee....it will take no time at all for them to use this as an example.

        •  Poll tax is decided law. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:53:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001, FrankRose

            ...and think about why.

            Then apply same logic to a requirement to pay to exercise other rights.

            Perhaps a criminal plaintiff should have to pay, in advance, for his jury trial? Those are pretty expensive to the state. Fortunately, I'm a pretty nice guy, so I would support making a "pauper's" path available - the suspect waives the right to a jury trial and then only has to pay for the much faster bench trial (i.e., the prosecution can not demand a jury trial in such a case). I suppose if she's found "not guilty", a refund might be in order (although, a hung jury would, presumably, not qualify for a refund if the case is not retried).

            Anyway, reimbursing the registrar of voters for the cost of doing a check on your eligibility to vote isn't a "tax", it's a "fee". Roberts may need to dust off his PPACA opinion on this one, but he's proven to be pretty creative on such distinctions so I don't see that as much of a speed-bump.

            Similarly, the cost of validating that you're a registered voter and that your signature matches (through some electronic system) that on your voter registration card surely is only a "fee" and not a "tax".

            Seriously, the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is now (correctly IMHO, but MHO is irrelevant) as much a first class individual right as those in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. I know it takes a while to adjust to the new reality.

            •  I disagree with your equivalence. (0+ / 0-)

              I believe there's more work done to run a background check for gun possession than for voting, but I will acknowledge I don't know since I've never tried to buy a gun.  Besides, Colorado would only be charging $5-12, which is pretty small even when compared to the photo ID laws that many states including Colorado want to impose for voting.  

              In addition, while fraudulently voting (for whatever reason) is a crime, it's incredibly unlikely that a fraudulent vote would have the same impact as a fraudulent purchase of a gun that is used for a crime or a suicide.  There aren't 30,000 deaths/year from voter fraud.

        •  Analogy Fail (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          Owning a gun is not a civic responsibility.  It is not required for participation in American democracy.  Voting is.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:30:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are both guaranteed rights of the people by (0+ / 0-)

            the Constitution.  The right to own a gun is even listed in the Bill of Rights.  Voting and gun ownership are completely equal as Constitutional rights.  There are limits, such as age and criminal status and where, when and how but other than that they are equal as a right and as they are of the Constitution.

            I assure you that if we start going state by state imposing "fees" on Constitutional rights of the people....it won't take them a matter of days to place this precedence on Voter IDs or any number of other rights.  Why would they not?  Who could argue the point anymore when we are making it okay to do so?

             If my right can have a 10 dollar price tag on it, then any voter can have the same 10 dollar "fee"...regardless if either one of us can afford it or not.  

            •  really? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, FogCityJohn

              This is the argument you think will win with?  

              Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

              by whoknu on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:21:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of constitutional rights cost money. (0+ / 0-)

              You have a constitutional right to marry, yet the state can charge you a fee for getting a marriage license.  You have a constitutional right to travel, but you can be required to pay for the costs of your own travel, and the government is entitled to impose taxes on the price of things like airline tickets.  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but the government is entitled to tax things like the sale of newspapers and cable television.

              In short, the mere fact that you claim to have a right enumerated in the Constitution does not mean the government has no authority to regulate its exercise.  It may even require the payment of a fee.  (Witness FCC licenses.)  

              The analogy to voting rights simply doesn't work for the reasons I pointed out.  In addition, there are the obvious differences between guns and ballots.  The latter cannot be used to kill other human beings.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:18:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting side note: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaktidurga, ColoTim, ancblu, FrankRose

    link

    If Magpul does leave it will effect around 600 jobs and take away about $85 million from the Colorado’s economy. Magpul directly employs 200 people and supports 400 supply-chain jobs.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:34:32 AM PST

    •  are you suggesting we should give in to our (8+ / 0-)

      corporate masters..??..of course it would also work for your agenda of stopping the "gun control idiocy" sweeping the country and this site.


      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

      by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:43:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I see, now any business that doesn't like (6+ / 0-)

      any change in the law, or impact on their lucrative franchise can threaten to move their team to another locale.

      We've seen this movie before and sports teams extract concessions and again and again.

      •  And Boeing moved its (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, Eyesbright

        new Dreamliner manufacturing to South Carolina ... a non-union state ... http://www.columbian.com/... and previously its headquarters to Chicago. http://www.spaceandtech.com/...

        We see all kinds of relocation or outsourcing from traditional manufacturing or business-base locations for a variety of reasons ... but it is inevitably deleterious economically to the original community.

        •  The Boeing Dreamliner that was grounded? (4+ / 0-)

          It's quite often deleterious to the quality of the product.  Right-to-work states are generally waay low on educating their populace, high on the percentage of uninsured, etc., etc.

          To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men. -Abraham Lincoln

          by Eyesbright on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 06:51:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian

            ...isn't the current suspicion that the problem is a manufacturing problem within the batteries?

            Clearly, it would make no sense for Boeing to manufacture their own batteries -- they just don't make enough to make it economically feasible or to keep up on the R&D to advance the art.

            I don't see how this is a "right to work" issue if the source of the problem is internal to the batteries which were sourced from another vendor. Are you suggesting that some line worker, had they been a union member, in the assembly plant would have somehow detected something that even engineers and researchers are still trying to figure out in a 7x24 investigation? Surely you are not proposing that Boeing should be forced to manufacture every component of every product in a union shop? Including all the mining of raw materials?

          •  I'm a union guy ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eyesbright

            you get what you pay for.

    •  Magpul is in Erie, CO about 15 minutes down (8+ / 0-)

      the road from me.  Erie's employment is strong with unemployment below the rest of the state.  Erie will be able to recover. Boulder is just to the west of them and its strong employment and housing market has a ripple effect on the entire Boulder Valley which creates strong employment conditions.

      It's unfortunate anyone will lose their jobs over this.

      Magpul's legal attempt at extortion just pisses me off.

      "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

      by Rockydog on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:04:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Magpul HAS to move. They produce a huge chunk of magazines that are over the 15 round limit. They're not going to give up a moneymaker like that so why would they stay? HOW could they stay?

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:12:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They don't have to stop producing the magazines (4+ / 0-)

          They can still make them, sell them to other states, transfer them and profit from them.  They got a carve out.  

          "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

          by Rockydog on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:21:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  the new laws also ban manufacture..?? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, Beetwasher, Eyesbright, Recall

          or only in state sales..??..I did not find that in the links.

          I did find this in your link...

          The amendment added to the bill will exclude manufacturers, retailers that cater to out-of-state customers, and federal and local officials from penalty for possession or transfer of the items.
          I think this is corporate bullying.


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:27:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  this: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ancblu, Bailey2001, FrankRose
            “Our relationship with our customers across the country would be severely damaged if this bill passes and we stay. We’ve already heard word of potential boycotts if that happens,” Fitzpatrick said and added, “[Legislators] really need to understand that our customer base is as passionate about freedoms as we are, and staying here if this bill passes would cripple the company.”
            And if you don't think that'll happen, well, look at the recent sports show that was cancelled due to the back lash from people who boycotted because they refused to have modern sporting rifles at the show.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:52:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if somebody is stupid enough to boycott a (7+ / 0-)

              company fighting for their ideals...they are too stupid to own a gun.

              "modern sporting rifles"..??..do you mean weapons of mass destruction..??..aka "military style assault weapons"...or whatever you call them.

              "look at the recent sports show that was cancelled"...oh no...what a tragedy...I will continue worry more about the time wasted at my daughter's school with extra safety drills since 12/14...police forces needing to arm up with heavier weapons...money,time and lives lost in ER rooms...all to counter a few people with a black metal obsession.

              it is time...step by step...to clean this mess up...most of it created by decades of NRA lobbying.

               


              We are not broke, we are being robbed.

              by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:26:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hahahaha. Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu, andalusi, FrankRose

                No, I don't mean weapons of mass destruction. No nukes here. I am talking about semi-automatic rifles that look really scary.

                You sidestepped my point though. They will have to leave. It's a statement of fact.

                I don't see a mess. I see firearm homicides dropping, even after the assault weapons ban expired. I see the number of firearms out there skyrocketing and yet violent crime keeps dropping.

                Weird.

                (I would, by the way, back laws going after straw purchasers, dealers who sell illicitly, and people who try to buy a firearm yet fail NICS.)

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:47:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  it is not a fact...the law exempts them...it is (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Beetwasher, Eyesbright, Recall

                  blackmail.

                  so let's see...we have more guns...less laws...even though violent crime is down...the death rate remains the same or higher...mass shooting are on the rise...I call that a mess...you just made the argument for more gun control laws.


                  We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                  by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:54:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, the death rate is dropping. (0+ / 0-)

                    And I'm not saying the legislature is forcing them out directly.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:12:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no...the death rate has been on the rise (6+ / 0-)

                      slowly since 2000.

                      and yes...your comment as written implied they were being forced out by the laws...

                      Magpul HAS to move. They produce a huge chunk of magazines that are over the 15 round limit. They're not going to give up a moneymaker like that so why would they stay? HOW could they stay?
                      again regarding the boycott...which I don't believe...if customers would boycott the company...their anger is misdirected...and are too stupid to even own a gun.


                      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                      by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:31:56 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I misspoke. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jeff in nyc, FrankRose

                        The firearm HOMICIDE RATE is dropping.

                        You don't need to believe it for it to happen.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:33:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so we are back where we started... (7+ / 0-)

                          CO is close to passing some good laws.

                          the company does not HAVE to move...and is probably lying about the boycott.

                          violent crime is down...gun homicides are down...mass shootings are up...gun deaths are up...all points to the need for new gun laws.


                          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                          by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:49:13 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, CO is not. Like I said before, my major (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            issue is that idiotic capacity law.

                            I'm curious, could you explain to me how firearm related homicides being down = we need new gun control?

                            And how does that 15 round magazine limit actually help with the majority of firearm related deaths (suicides)?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:52:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  idiotic..??..that is your opinion... (3+ / 0-)

                            more guns...more deaths...we need more laws and regulations...that's my opinion.

                            there many different causes for our gun problems...and it must attacked in many different ways...one way is more gun control laws...but I think we do agree there are other areas that must be fixed also.

                            15 round mags..??..may help reduce mass shootings and maybe even slow down murder-suicides and suicide by cop.


                            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:12:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course it's my opinion. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sarenth

                            I'm the one saying it.

                            It's not more homicides though. And I'd LOVE to see gun control legislation that targets those who commit suicide. Please. Go find some.

                            If the limit is 15 rounds, the mass shooters will use 15 round magazines. One of the Columbine shooters used a bunch of 10 round mags for his carbine. This was during the last AWB. So how is that going to be helpful?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:14:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  great point...I'll start pushing for... (3+ / 0-)

                            3 round clip thingies...thank you for all your help..!!

                            and like I said...multi-dimensional problems...suicides..??..jobs...mental health care...and less guns.


                            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:27:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Glad to see you agree that the 15 round capacity (0+ / 0-)

                            (or three round capacity) will do nothing with regards to the majority of firearm related deaths.

                            You do realize you can 3d print magazines now right?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:37:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So print them. If the people want a limit (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            Then great. It may save lives, but probably only in rare cases.

                            “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                            by jeff in nyc on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:00:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All you have to do is... (0+ / 0-)

                            Invest in a 3D Printer, that should make printing magazines cost prohibitive for now anyway...

                            I believe Magpul should think about diversification of their product line as their days of selling large capacity magazines in the US are numbered regardless of Colorado's Law...

                            "Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
                            I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
                            ~John F. Kennedy~

                            -7.5,-5.8

                            by Oldestsonofasailor on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:30:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  24 hour waiting periods can prevent suicides. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, mrblifil
                            And I'd LOVE to see gun control legislation that targets those who commit suicide.
                            But then again, we've already had this discussion, and as it turns out, you're ideologically opposed to suicide prevention.

                            Please try to remember what you believe.

                            "What victims?" -KVoimakas, RKBA

                            by Recall on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:51:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was curious to see what was proposed. (0+ / 0-)

                            I know what I believe and I know the bullshit you're trying to pull with a 1/2 assed out of context quote.

                            I'm curious, isn't there some huge % of firearm owners who own more than 1 firearm? That's one of the major things I keep seeing. Fewer and fewer people own more and more guns.

                            So how is a waiting period going to cut down on those who would commit suicide with a firearm? Do we have numbers on those who purchase a firearm and immediately kill themselves?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:31:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Am I supposed to indulge the charade ... (0+ / 0-)
                            So how is a waiting period going to cut down on those who would commit suicide with a firearm? Do we have numbers on those who purchase a firearm and immediately kill themselves?
                            ... that nobody's told you this already?

                            "What victims?" -KVoimakas, RKBA

                            by Recall on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 09:22:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've not seen facts; I've seen theory. (0+ / 0-)

                            But hey, if it was mentioned to me before, I honestly forgot. Link?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:17:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More than half of accidental shootings are (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, mrblifil

                            committed by children and teens.

                            National Library of Medicine:

                            One third of homes with children also have guns. And 40% of them don't keep their guns locked up. That means that 13% of homes with children have one or more unsecured fire arms lying around.

                            New regulations are needed to separate those who can be responsible from those who won't bother. The phrase "responsible gun owner" is far to broad and there are a lot of legal guns in the hands of people who prove regularly that they can't be responsible. Often no charges are filed.

                          •  Locked vs. safe. (0+ / 0-)
                            And 40% of them don't keep their guns locked up.
                            That does not, by the way, necessarily mean those that are unlocked are any more dangerous than those that are in a nightstand locked but loaded and, for example, with a combination that is set "one number off" so it can be quickly unlocked in the case of an emergency.

                            I would propose that the locked gun in this case is much more dangerous to children than one that is kept well separated from ammunition and both are concealed in areas that are not easily accessible to children.

                          •  I don't know how finely the NLM parsed the (0+ / 0-)

                            word locked. But you lost me at

                            That does not, by the way, necessarily mean those that are unlocked are any more dangerous than...
                            You and I both know that a gun is only hazardous as a blunt object if there are no rounds in the chamber or available near by.

                            Your loaded and almost unlocked gun is like someone who thinks their home is secure because the left the key under the patio mat instead of the mat at the front door. Sure it's a barrier, you probably won't shoot someone you love as you emerge from a dream state when awakened by someone who surprises you when you are sleeping.

                          •  But... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            ...I don't think it is atypical to do just what I describe in order to comply with the letter of the law in those jurisdictions requiring that guns be locked. I'm not saying it's wise.

                            Operating a combination lock, possibly in near darkness, rapidly while under stress is very difficult. Therefore, it's very tempting to leave the lock in a state where it can be opened with simple motions and without visual cues.

                            Using a keyed lock leaves the problem of "Where do you put the keys?" They must be easily accessible to authorized users in order for effective use of the weapon, but unavailable to unauthorized users. This is a tricky thing in the typical household.

                            Unfortunately, "useful accessibility" for authorized users is in natural conflict with preventing access by unauthorized users. This conflict is resolved by each differently (as it should be) consistent with the current situation.

                  •  Wouldn't a manufacturer... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    ...of consumer items like their employees to be able to buy their own product so they have more pride and 'hands on' experience with it if they wish?

                    If another state can offer that, then I'd move if I were in their shoes.

                    •  I'm sure the employees are very proud... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FogCityJohn

                      of the fact that the items they made are used in mass shootings.

                      get a grip...these people probably make minimum wage and can barely afford the fancy toy and ammo that goes with the mags.

                      regardless of the deceptive posts by the other user...this is nothing but a ploy to pressure legislators.

                      I will repeat..."if somebody is stupid enough to boycott a company fighting for their ideals...they are too stupid to own a gun."


                      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                      by Glen The Plumber on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:19:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I don't completely disagree with you. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              IF their own buyers of their merchandise want to boycott Magpul for not leaving CO, then I can see why they would want to move to another state to make more money.

              I have some caveats, though. Almost half of the sales of Magpul are to the government (law enforcement and military). This buying would not change.

              I don't see why buyers would boycott Magpul. It's not like when Smith and Wesson made a deal with Clinton to stop making assault weapons, and the gun advocates boycotted the hell out of S&W.  This is different, because Magpul did not make a deal with the government.  They fought the government.

              But, if the buyers of the magazines are really that punitive, then it may be in Magpul's best interest to leave. It seems like there's a lot of pettiness, but oh well.

              It would be great if Magpul would try to stay in CO, but that ain't happenin. I also think the area will recover quickly from the loss.

              Either way, trying to make a case in CO for high capacity magazines after Aurora and Columbine is a tough sell. I will side with the 15 round magazine limit. However, I do understand your point. And, for better or worse, business is business.

              "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

              by Rockydog on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:00:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It'd be interesting to see if Magpul goes the way (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eyesbright, FrankRose

                of Barrett, Olympic Arms, LaRue and others who won't sell to government agencies or agents items that normal civilians aren't able to own.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:03:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Selling to the government (0+ / 0-)

                  May be a nice niche market, then. Companies not selling to the government certain types of weapons/accessories would open the door for new companies.  Maybe, we'll have some nice reasonable business minded liberals who step up and fill the gap vacated by the other companies.  Do you want to go into the gun business with me? Ha ha.

                  "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

                  by Rockydog on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:30:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Make them pay for the background checks! (11+ / 0-)

    Why should the tax payer cough up money for their background checks?

    I pay through the nose for licenses in Colorado. The way we cater to people with guns in this country drives me crazy. It's ten bucks.  Skip Starbucks for two days and pay it!

    "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

    by Rockydog on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:44:27 AM PST

  •  Well (10+ / 0-)

    as I am just 20 min bus ride from the dome.I watched the House debate and vote. It was historic. I will do the same for the Senate.

       Actually, given all our budget concerns i look for the background fee to pass...

       If the Aurora massacre had not happened this might not be taking place...but it did and this will be history...

       I know a number of hunters..(everyone in CO knows hunters) they are not bothered by the clip restriction and are split on fee... The NRA implosion after Sandy Hook has taken away much of the clout/fear they used to have..

       The "threat" of a Magpul pull out and loss of $8 an hour jobs is really not a big thing compared to Aurora..

    ashes..ashes..we all fall down..

  •  How about if we add to the legislation (4+ / 0-)

    If you are convicted of stealing a firearm - you go to jail for 10 years minimum.  No parole - no excuses - no get out of jail free card.

    I agree with the law - but so many crimes are with stolen weapons - time to reign in these criminals.

    No room?  Let the pot offenders out.

    If you steal a gun - there's only one reason you do it - to commit a crime.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:22:18 AM PST

  •  Interesting... the fee strikes me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eyesbright

    as the most reasonable and unobjectionable part of it. If you go to a gun owner and say, "Look, I know you don't want higher fees but if your extra $5 is the difference between some losing their life to gun crime or not then is it really that much to pay? We're not stopping you from buying or owning guns but background checks save lives and they cost money to run."

    Of course, it's all freak out stage with some people these days but frankly, paying a small fee to save lives is quite reasonable.

    "Weigh it in the balance... your $5 or some kids life?

    You tell me which is more important to you?"

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:54:01 AM PST

  •  And in the other policy direction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    the Alaska House of Representatives Judiciary Committee recently passed out a Bill that would make enforcement of certain federal firearm prohibitions a state felony.

    http://www.adn.com/...

    The Bill is clearly unconstitutional, but this is certainly indicative of the type of backlash that can be engendered by forcing very polarizing legislation such as Feinstein's bill into the American policy debate.  

    Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

    •  LOL! Idiotic, Insane AK GOP Passes Boneheaded (4+ / 0-)

      Unconstitutional piece of garbage and we should be worried? ROFL!

      I'll take that sort of the dipshit "backlash" any day. More like backwash.

      This will get smacked down so hard by a federal court it will make Sarah Palins head spin.

      BOOGA BOOGA!!! Seriously, who the fuck cares. Let them keep up this extremist garbabe, it acutally makes our job that much easier by highlighting what utter nutbags these people are.

      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

      by Beetwasher on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 01:04:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Back again, huh numb nuts ... (0+ / 0-)

        Have you yet to offer anything cogent other than an emotive belch from a simple mind?

        Keep up the good work, Lambchop.

        •  Booga Booga! Nutters pass a shitty, desperate (0+ / 0-)

          Bill and u shit your pants! LOL! Run away big bad gun boy!

          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

          by Beetwasher on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 04:43:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ahh ... yes (0+ / 0-)

            I'd forgotten how juvenile the rantings of the insipidly stupid. And as usual, infatuated with your own phallic and scatalogical insecurities.

            Have you sought counseling?

            •  Your Point is so Stupid (0+ / 0-)

              I can see why you'd rather attack me than defend the idiotic notion that this insane, nutter bill in AK is in any way relevant.

              This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

              by Beetwasher on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 04:59:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't read or comprend (0+ / 0-)

                worth a shit ... that is perfectly evident.

                What part of "it's clearly unconstitutional" do you not understand.

                You attack then wilt like precious little hot house flower under a response in kind.

                Are you so fucking lacking in self-awareness to avoid seeing your own anti-intellectual emotive impulses and projected psychological insecurities in your "mocking" response to this important national discussion?

                You want debate?  Fine ... then step it up from your infantile pre-school intellect to at least GED level.

                Click it up a level or two, Scarecrow.  Till then you've proven to be nothing but an uneducated and low-level intellect bore to toy with.

  •  One by one (4+ / 0-)

    measure by measure

    the reasonable people of this country will chip away at the culture of violence and guns.

    This is why, despite insisting that all these measures "won't be effective" and "there's too many guns to do anything anyway" etc, etc,

    The gun types are throwing everything they have stopping them. Because they know that over time, all these little measures will add up.

    They'd be better off if they just embraced canadian style regulation on a national level - it'd be easier to understand and manage than a patchwork of state laws - but they're too dumb to know it, and in the end, the more localized the laws, the more drag we can create on the initial purchase of weapons, and the trafficking of those weapons.
     

    •  Think about that for a moment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      "The gun types are throwing everything they have stopping them. Because they know that over time, all these little measures will add up."

      Yes, they will add up: To fewer liberties, and a greater burden to exercise those liberties that remain. Where will it stop? What happens after the next massacre that involves a pistol? My gun is next then, I suppose. So yes, this piecemeal divide and conquor strategy will add up if allowed to continue, and so the opposition of gun owners (including us "responsible" gun owners) is fully justified.

      •  fewer liberties (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, FogCityJohn

        to hoard deadly weapons, that's what concerns you?
        Where are you on the liberties that matter - the right to choose, the right to freedom of speech, the right to have decent wages and health care?

        Those are the rights that concern me.

        Your morbid little hobby? Not important at all. Trivial.

        •  The "right"... (0+ / 0-)

          ...to decent wages and health care are not enumerated Constitutional rights.

          The government (which is virtually all the Constitution addresses) is not interfering with your rights in these areas in substantial ways anyway.

          There is no "maximum wage" law standing between you and a "decent wage". There are, admittedly, a few laws and regulations that do stand between you and your right to choose your healthcare - such as laws against growing or using marijuana and various regulations that the FDA et al put in place that limit your healthcare choices. However, in the totality, these seem (to use your words) "not important at all" and "trivial" in the eyes of most.

          There is an enumerated right to free speech AND an enumerated right embodied in statement that that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". You should be equally concerned about infringements on both as the same fragile bulwark that protects one protects the other as well.

          We are at the dawn of Second Amendment jurisprudence w/Heller and McDonald setting the path. The SCOTUS will either continue to give the Second Amendment the respect that it deserves or the precedents set by their decisions failing to do so will eventually be the pry bars that will be used to rip away at the fabric of the other rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

          In twenty years, this will be obvious to most young people. Admittedly, the older generation will have some difficulty adjusting to this reality, having been raised and matured in "the golden age" of ignoring the Second Amendment - roughly 1970 to 2008.

          The only viable option to allow substantial gun control laws is to repeal the Second Amendment. Finessing around it w/sympathetic justices helping risks doing major, and unintended, injury to the Constitution.

        •  I find all rights for all Americans important. (0+ / 0-)

          It is a shame that you think your feelings are more important than the liberties of innocent Americans.

          No matter. We'll see how this plays out next election.
          I look forward to your thoughts in its aftermath.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:36:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  When we stop having gun massacres. (0+ / 0-)
        Where will it stop?

        "What victims?" -KVoimakas, RKBA

        by Recall on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:02:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  One comment... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, WakeUpNeo

    No, THAT won't work, EITHER!!!!!

    (As evidenced in the threads.)

  •  jar tipping, cow tipping, soul tipping ... (0+ / 0-)

    how long ? how many ?

    bread and circuses...

    hush, children: what's that sound ... ?

    There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution.--@Hugh * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:33:14 PM PST

  •  Interesting Fact (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas
    Hidden by:
    Glen The Plumber

    Hello all I am back!
    You want to ban "assault" rifles, here are some interesting facts for you to chew on.
    in 2011 there were 679 homicides by Long Rifles (all rifles are taken into account)
    Also in 2011 there were 23 long rifle deaths by an undertimed cause, there were 2,957 suicides by long rifles and 83 unitentional long rifle deaths.
    so if you take out suicide by long rifles since the offender isn't shooting anyone but himself there was a grand total of 785. The lowest since 2003.
    FBI.2013.‘Crime in the United States / CIUS.’ Uniform Crime Reports / UCR, undated annual.Washington DC:US Federal Bureau of Investigation,29 January. (Q1978)Full Citation

     I am still looking for the 2012 stats, that may be a while because they are still being sorted out.
    In 2011 there were 6,220 Hand Gun Homicides, the earliest stat for suicide was 2010 and that number was 4,603, 91 unintentional handgun deaths and 37 from an undertermined cause so we take out the 4603 because the shooter only shot himself presumably, that bring hand gun deaths in 2011 to 6,348.
    FBI.2013.‘Crime in the United States / CIUS.’ Uniform Crime Reports / UCR, undated annual.Washington DC:US Federal Bureau of Investigation,29 January. (Q1978)Full Citation
    So are "assault" rifles really the cause?
    The purpose of the Constitution in to LIMIT the federal government...NOT the AMERICAN people.

  •  I didn't say they weren't (0+ / 0-)

    Worthy. But there is no actual number if that person shot themselves only. So for a Homicide Suicide thing there aren't any stats from the FBI that I found, because that would change the conversation. I went strictly off perpetrators killing other people. That is what this conversation is about right? People who do not obey the law and kill other people. I have not heard legislation come out saying that we are going to ban razor blades, perscription drugs knives or anything like that because people are killing themselves. Everyone has the right to live, I do not take those deaths less seriously. But they presumably only killed themselves. This is not a suicide discussion its a gun control because of mass shootings discussion. Right?
    The only way to stop mass shootings is to send bullets back in the shooters direction. They want a free shoot, lets take that away!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site