"The measures also met resistance from magazine-maker Magpul Industries, which said that it would desert its plant about 30 miles from Denver if the proposed magazine limits became law."

This law will no doubt be used to test the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court to see if the government can force its will on the nation. That maybe why Joe Biden was involved in the process. There is a new day dawning America...one that will continue to remove your rights.

In other news the sales of guns and ammunition still is running at a furious clip (pun intended). Americans are voting with their money...which is in shorter supply thanks to the in-actions of our government on the national debt.

I personally don't feel the need to own a gun...yet.

Takes the pressure off of those poor criminals , after all who needs to be worried about getting shot while going about your daily business of looting, raping, robbing etc.

Luckily it wont have any bearing on his guns or chosen path to success.

Yes, lets hope there are more limitations more freedoms and Constitutionally protected rights in your State. Congratulations on the coming loss of jobs and industry in your State as well.

None of the Gun Control Laws Passed or being considered will prevent Criminals and the Mentally Ill from getting weapons. The Legal Law-abiding Citizen will be the group affected by these knee-jerk laws. The killings in Colorado were the result of Mentally Ill individuals given access to guns. They were given the weapons by family members who were aware of the Mental Illness. All these law accomplish is put law abiding citizens at risk.

OK! Good work, CO.

Impressive!

So, let us know how that works out for ya with that whole "prevent crime with redundant laws-ey" thing.

Good luck.

Honestly....do any of you think the War on Drugs is being won? Even the police that want the clean up the street admit it is impossible to stop. And all that has happened is we have stuffed our jail cells with people whose lives have been ruined while the alcohol culture of our country is stuffing propaganda down our throats far worse than smoking ever did with that tiny little caveat...."Drink Responsibly"

Maybe some of you should stop forcing your own prejudices on everyone. You might not like guns...but maybe actually listening to a police officer saying they have a problem with manpower to begin with should make you realize that another useless law is about to be passed at the cost of the taxpayer.

I own no guns nor do I have the desire to. But when your local police departments are telling you they are too busy to deal with personal property damage or vehicle break-ins and you are in a safe town you should stop thinking you know better than every one and actually listen to the experts who HAVE TO ENFORCE laws...not some out of touch political prick

SHARK, SHARK, run, run, SHARK

Well, I guess I have to toss my 1000 round belt feed! Ok, zombies, you won this round! - Denver

Passing more irrelevant gun laws is pointless and unconstitutional. Law abiding citizens are the only ones going to take any notice the criminals will still get guns. Why don't they pass another law that says it's illegal to kill anyone with a gun. Redundant and idiotic!

All you liberals that think this will make any difference at all, have proven why you are so lost and clueless. Pagan Moon, you are the epitome of lost and clueless.

Know how anyone can get around these stupid new laws? They get in their car, and drive to Cheyenne, WY, and buy a gun there. That's only 90 minutes away from Denver. I could buy a high capacity magazine from Cheyenne after these laws go into effect, and say I bought it before the law went into effect.

Universal background checks are only universal if EVERYONE has to do one in every state, in every sale. This is not universal, it's CO specific.

I hate to break it to you folks but there are so many clips out there and the basic know how to create them is too, it will never end...

brian-1924638

War on Drugs = Proliferation of illegal drugs

War on Terror = Proliferation of terrorists in the ME

War on Poverty = Proliferation of poor

War on Guns = Proliferation of guns

Maybe it's time for a war on education.

To all the criminals:

IT'S OPEN SEASON ON THE CITIZENS OF COLORADO

To Govenor Hickenstupid:

The criminals all thank you for making it easier to prey on your citizens

RI Mom-A responsible gun-owner has no problem with Colorado's initiative.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. It is the "responsible gun-owner" that gets screwed.

These idiots have no idea how long it takes to change a magazine, weapons or both. If you want to stop criminals from killing dozens of people at a time stop being the coward in the room. Man up! Buy a gun and be a responsible gun owner, no one should die while you cower in the corner or run outside and empty your gun barrels into the air. Creating laws for law abiding citizens does nothing to stop the criminals. Stop being the victim and start being the protector/hero!

The universal background check also makes it illegal to loan a gun to someone for more than 72 hours. It also sets up a defacto registration scheme. It also makes private sales illegal, so I can't sell my neighbor a gun without going through a dealer, which now costs more because of the other bill that makes me pay for background checks.

RI Mom

That "anti-gun" stuff is crap. A sorry bluster from some posters.

A responsible gun-owner has no problem with Colorado's initiative.

Seems like no one does, including the Sheriffs who state they won't enforce the magazine ban.

To all the Anti-gun people out there. You may not like guns and that is your right. You may not believe in God and that is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first two things you are probably going to do are 1] Call someone that has a gun and 2] Pray that they get there in time. Need I say more.

A nonsensical mix of straw-man arguments and demagogy.

1. I don't know whom you're referring to when you say "anti-gun." No one is advocating a generalized ban on guns. Universal background checks are not anti-gun. Am I anti-cars because I like the existence of regulations governing the manufacturing, sale, possession, and use of cars?

2. As some have pointed out before, a responsible gun owner ought to have zero problems with this law. Unless you have something to hide, you shouldn't feel threatened by expanded background checks.

3. Yes, it's my Constitution-given RIGHT to not believe in God. (And before you call me a hypocrite for invoking the Constitution, know that the Constitution allows the government to set limits on the possession of weapons, the very reason why I can't own a nuclear device) What's your point? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why do you and all knee-jerk fundamentalists feel entitled to judge me just because I don't share your religious views? I respect your choice to resort to prayer if someone breaks into your home, but I'd rather spend that time doing something productive. Far too many people have perished or faced great tribulations seconds after fruitlessly praying in the hope that a direct appeal to their god would save them when, instead, they could have done something tangible and explicit to address their ordeal.

Yes conrats Colorado!!!! You have succesfully passed a law that will have absolutely NO effect whatsoever as those who FOLLOW LAWS ARE NOT THE ONES COMMITTING THE CRIMES THAT YOU THINK YOU WILL PREVENT!!!!!

Morons....

Simply put....the people in Colorado have spoken.

ItsAboutTime-3704531-And if it saves one person's life...

I guess you're right; all cars, airlines, and professional athletes should be outlawed.

“With all of the other crimes that are going on, I don’t have the manpower, the resources or the desire to enforce laws like that.”

So I guess that is a WASTE of taxpayer dollars in bringing it up for a VOTE.

Hickenlooper, eh, a Democrat, eh. That says it all.

Simply put is the IDIOTS in Colorado would rather have just CRIMMINALS with more ammo than its citizens.

I would have to say the Gov just screwed his re election in the ASS

• Thank you Colorado!!!! A win for common sense!!!!

Thank you Colorado. A win for whatever state Magpul and the $85 million in revenue and all the jobs they bring moves to. Come to Idaho, we'd love to have you.

Background checks are already in effect for citizens that purchase a weapon from any licensed dealer; Criminals do not purchase their weapons from legal sourced; the background checks will be expanded to include anyone in your household, to include any conviction of any crime(misdemeanors included) and also any one in your household that has had any type of mental consulting, we will all see where this is going to include a long drawn out process;

Obama has announced he will sign the small arms ban of the United nations, even though the senate has said they do not have the votes to ratify it; Obama has announced that he has the executive power to implement a total ban on all handguns, semi-auto weapons, a major showdown is coming.

It is never too late...too late would be to do nothing. I applaud this governor ...he seems to have a backbone to his beliefs. We need more like him...he is not ruled by party rules but by his own and to his state's responsibilities. If he saves one life...it is worth it. Each day we make it harder for those to buy guns illegally...is a good day. Sorry gun lovers....assault weapons were made for war not for everyday use on our streets. You can keep your guns...no one wants them....however, assault weapons...that is another thing. It does not demean the Constitution...even the supreme court has said...it is not absolute. Things can and have been adjusted to fit the needs of the country and some day assault weapons will be addressed without anyone losing their right to own a gun. If people can look at Gabby Gifford or see Newtown and still think assault weapons belong on the streets...they are not thinking straight...to me.

No Star! The Govenor has spoken.

why is it that anyone that is against these new laws is against things like back ground checks? i have been through it and have no problem with it. my problem is with the fact that this very state has just expanded a system that because of their not reporting to the system someone was able to go through the check get a gun and shoot up a theater. have they fixed that issue? it doesn't seem so since there has been no mention of it in any of these laws. i think most peoples problem is not with the back ground check but with the fact that they haven't fixed the real problem.

now hes gonna lose his job in the next election. good goin.

haggisbingo-2225582 Comment collapsed by the community

Thank you Colorado!!!! A win for common sense!!!!

#1.13 - Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:57 AM EDT

I know, isn't this GREAT NEWS!!! Now all the criminals will never be able to get another gun and all the shootings will stop!!

This is wonderful! Yaaaaay!

Gun nuts: You will Eventually lose. It's just a matter of time. You might as well plan on self-seceding if you have a problem with it.

Yeah!! Now that we're defenseless, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for the criminals... YAAAAAAY!

Looks like you're finally getting your way. Yaaaaay!

Bang bang, you're dead, 'cause a criminal, put a bullet in your head.....

Hey Pagen moon,

Do you care that over 600 people just lost their jobs this morning? A legally owned and operated business has to relocate because the state they called home just made one of their products illegal to LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Come next election we will see just how many of those elected leaders that allowed EAST COAST politics to influence them (something our founding fathers surely never wanted to happen) keep their job.

This invasion and trampling of our rights will not stop with just the 2nd there Pagen. When the 2nd is gone altogether the govt will come after the 1st. Dont say that will not happen cause it already has. When the police knock on your door and force their way into your house "for their safety" (violating your 4th amendment rights) dont bitch. It will be the world that you wanted.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the bill of rights is our defense against that, but we keep having to fight people like yourself for that. Pathetic.

but the company that makes large magazines can still do so if they sell them out of state what bigots

RI Mom,

"A responsible gun-owner has no problem with Colorado's initiative."

Unless you like to compete in competitive shooting (USPSA, IPSC, Service Rifle Matches, 3-Gun Matches, etc), or want to buy the best selling rifle in America (the AR-15) or one of the best selling handguns in America (Glock 17) which have 30 and 17 round magazines standard. Yeah, if you only like to shoot skeet with an over under 12 gauge, then you don't care. Unless you value your freedoms. And let me ask this. Suppose you awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of someone breaking into your home and you opened your drawer to retrieve your handgun. You had two options, a 6 shot revolver and a 17 shot 9mm. Which would you grab, assuming you were proficient with both? Would you empty out a few rounds from the magazine because you were sure you wouldn't need that many?

Pragmatic---3918582

And I probably would never draw a gun on a guy breaking into my car. It would not be worth the potential loss of life for a bunch of nothing they might steal. But that is me.

HOWEVER.....these laws won't stop criminals from doing whatever they want. That is something liberals do not get...the more lax we have gotten on crime and punishment, especially violent crime, the easier it is for criminals to keep on doing what they do...commit crime.

Forget the stupid argument about cars and accidents......it isn't the law that deters a criminal..its the punishment. And, if they don't value human life to begin with then we as a public cannot change that.

Look at the Ohio shooter and what he did and said in court. Does stricter gun controls make him any less crazy and dangerous? I grant guns made his job easier, but considering what he said....I doubt a lack of guns would've stopped him

Gosh, hope Colorado not full of gangbangers yet. When that happens, then ya'll see why rule #1 is never get stuck in a firefight w/just a handgun, limited-round mag no less.

Seriously now, why would the gov't want law-abiding citizens to NOT have firearms? Every time there's a ban of whatever sort, the crime rate goes up. The gov'ts own studies show that. Other gov'ts have the same problem. Australia's hard crime / murder rate just went up 69% immediately after ban took effect. Considering what Fast & Furious gave to the Mexican drug cartels and what those cartels have been doing the last few years is pretty heinous, and moving to a country near you (that would be us, people).

Why don't you people learn the laws before you claim you're going to keep someone from breaking into your car or steal your property? Owning a gun for hunting is one thing but if you plan on keeping your family safe IN YOUR HOME or out in public learn the laws in your state. If nothing else and your a gun owner or want to be a gun owner take a class on how to keep yourself and your loved ones safe from accidental discharging of a gun. Those of you that don't want to own guns stop infringing on our Constitutional Rights/Right to protect myself and my family! How many of you against gun ownership are men? I was in a CCW class last night and almost half of the pupils were women. Everyone needs to stop relying on others to protect them, the police may be more than 20 minutes from your home and they expect you to do what you can before they get there. If you do nothing they want you to go into a safe room, one the criminals can't get in, do you have one?

Oh you poor people. You won't be able to have 30 rounds in your magazines. Whatever will you do having to carry a few more magazines to the shooting range. THE HORROR!!!

I mean seriously, regardless of what this would or wouldn't accomplish, I haven't heard any rational argument on why someone NEEDS that capacity in one magazine. I just hear ITS AGAINST MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND WONT DO ANYTHING. I'd be more than willing to read up on stories where someone needed to shoot off 30 rounds out of a semi automatic rifle while defending themselves. Why is it that most self defense cases I hear involve hanguns or shot guns. Yet you need 30 rounds and a rifle? I often hear of women or elderly who killed intruders with a shot gun. Most gun experts I know don't recommend semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines for home defense, they recommend a shot gun. Hell our local police who carry AR15's in their patrol cars don't even have 30 round magazines for them. Just give me one valid reason besides "i want it" "its unconstitutional to NOT let me have it" or "well the law won't work.'

Are criminals always going to break laws? Sure. But by the logic of "someone is going to do it regardless" then why have any laws? People will always break them. So what's the point if it's really not going to be a deterrent? It's illegal to sexually assault kids and we have sex offender registries. People still seem to do that. It must not be working. Should we get rid of those laws? Of course not. I'm sure people are for every other law that's really not preventing anything, unless it's a law that says you can't have your badass 30 round mags.

And seriously, why do people STILL keep mentioning people wanting to take away your right to own a gun. NO ONE IS SUGGESTING TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS OR BANNING ALL GUNS. Is that seriously that difficult to understand? Or is that the only way you can form any kind of coherent argument. Argue a point no one is trying to make.

Hell yah. Now we can all set back and see how gun violence comes to a complete stop in Colorado. The criminals will be turning in their guns so fast the state will have to hire more people to keep up with them.

None of the Gun Control Laws Passed or being considered will prevent Criminals and the Mentally Ill from getting weapons. The Legal Law-abiding Citizen will be the group affected by these knee-jerk laws. The killings in Colorado were the result of Mentally Ill individuals given access to guns. They were given the weapons by family members who were aware of the Mental Illness

Completely false. First off, James Holmes was not a criminal. He could have passed any background check and there was nothing to prevent him from buying that M&P-15 or the 100-round drum-style magazine.

Holmes bought all of his weapons and ammunition both online and at local stores. No family members gave him anything. Had the 100-round drum-style magazine been outlawed, Holmes couldn't have bought one.

Holmes wasn't part of some dark underworld gang that has stockpiles of these weapons. He was a normal citizen until he snapped and his mental illness took over. You can try to say that Holmes would have gotten that 100-shot clip "on the street", but I don't believe that. He didn't have those kinds of street connections... he was a neuroscience grad student getting a Ph. D.

The carnage that Holmes inflicted is directly related to that 100-shot magazine. If he had been unable to purchase it, he would have just made another magazine selection. He would not have turned to gangs or the street to find a 100-shot magazine.

And if he (and Adam Lanza) had been armed with magazines that only held 10 shots, it's highly probable that less people would have been shot and killed.

Neither Adam Lanza's mother nor James Holmes were looking to the underworld to build their arsenal. They built it legally through lax gun control laws. Both events couldn't have been prevented by new legislation, but there's NO DOUBT that both events would have been less deadly if the perps had to re-load several times. Neither Holmes nor Lanza were expert marksmen. These guys were effective due to the tools at their disposal. They would have been less effective if they had to stop and reload several times.

Once America wakes up to the knowledge that the Newtown Conn. Shooting was a carefully designed hoax there will be no more gun laws.

BOB-1224753

but the company that makes large magazines can still do so if they sell them out of state what bigots

But they aren't staying in Colorado. Magpul sees an ethical problem in rewarding a state that won't even allow its own law-abiding citizens to purchase Magpul products, yet has no problem collecting tax revenues from it.

Lose - lose for Colorado.

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people.

If you have a different explanation, please advise.

Unless you value your freedoms.

This is the most pathetic argument ever used. I am so sick of pro-gun folk claiming that somehow they want any sort of gun because it's all about freedom. Your right to your freedom ends where my child's safety is concerned.

@ozmosis, at least I won't be the responsible gun owner who accidentally shoots my child or wife thinking they are breaking into my house, or the responsible gun owner who accidental let my child get a hold of my gun and kills themselves, or the responsible gun owner who accidentally lets my gun get stolen and use by someone because I didn't know how to LOCK it up properly, or the responsible gun owner WHO ACCIDENTALLY shoots him/her self or someone else because I didn't take proper care ALL the time. Yes a responsible gun owner one who knows he should not own a gun, that is ME. If i want to shoot a gun I go to some place that has guns I can shoot, and that can teach me how to shoot and use the weapon, I don't need to own one.

Governor Hickenlooper is safe, and well liked. The majority in Colorado is all for these laws.

The Republicans agenda went South here a couple of years ago, and their ideology keeps them from getting elected except in their strong holds.

Way to go Gov.

The carnage that Holmes inflicted is directly related to that 100-shot magazine. If he had been unable to purchase it, he would have just made another magazine selection. He would not have turned to gangs or the street to find a 100-shot magazine.

And if he (and Adam Lanza) had been armed with magazines that only held 10 shots, it's highly probable that less people would have been shot and killed.

Harold of Rock. YOu obviously dont know how fast a magazine can be changed. You further dont know that large capacity mags tend to jamb and stop the shooter as was the case in Holmes's attack in Colorado. A person could take a bag of 100 yr old six shooters into a theater and do practically the same thing.

Byron Rahm Emmanuel,

"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against a family member than against an intruder." This is a lie. There are no statistics kept on how many guns are used against intruders. This number is pulled out of someone's ass.

As an owner of two handguns and a 22c. rifle, I say about damn time. If you can't pass a background check and wait a damn day or two, you don't deserve to own a gun. If you need a 30 round clip your a nutcase to begin with. However, if you break in my home you'll be damn sorry and quite dead, that I assure you. Good for Colorado.

Fine, Zorloc, if nobody needs a 30 round magazine the the police don't need them. Does the law prohibit police from using them? If not, what is the justification for police having them?

AndresTM

A nonsensical mix of straw-man arguments and demagogy.

1. I don't know whom you're referring to when you say "anti-gun." No one is advocating a generalized ban on guns. Universal background checks are not anti-gun. Am I anti-cars because I like the existence of regulations governing the manufacturing, sale, possession, and use of cars?

Wrong. A Universal Registry is just one small step away from a compiled list of gun owners. Show me ONE example of where a registry hasnt lead to confiscation in the history of the world. Guess what? You cant. Every time there has been a list complied of those who own weapons there has been subsequent confiscations. It happened during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina as well as in Canada and Australia. If it doesnt happen through laws or executive orders it will be initiated by government agencies during a disaster.

2. As some have pointed out before, a responsible gun owner ought to have zero problems with this law. Unless you have something to hide, you shouldn't feel threatened by expanded background checks.

Wrong again. I had to defend my family with a full magazine against a criminal with a full magazine. How will a short magazine help my situation when criminals will have access to autos, full mags and the weapons I dont?

You show me one law that affects the mentally ill or the criminals here? Which one? NONE. Your argument is completely invalid.

3. Yes, it's my Constitution-given RIGHT to not believe in God. (And before you call me a hypocrite for invoking the Constitution, know that the Constitution allows the government to set limits on the possession of weapons, the very reason why I can't own a nuclear device) What's your point? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why do you and all knee-jerk fundamentalists feel entitled to judge me just because I don't share your religious views? I respect your choice to resort to prayer if someone breaks into your home, but I'd rather spend that time doing something productive. Far too many people have perished or faced great tribulations seconds after fruitlessly praying in the hope that a direct appeal to their god would save them when, instead, they could have done something tangible and explicit to address their ordeal.

What in the hell are you talking about? Knee jerk reactions are EXACTLY what your politicians are doing here; using a tragedy to further their political aims without examining the results of the last useless weapons ban. How does this help? The CDC did a report and concluded that the only ban that would positively affect the outcome would be a buy back or a confiscation. IS THIS what you people want? If this is the case lets roll back the 1st Amendment since it doesnt apply to anything but writings on parchment or how about the 4th Amendment , I mean WHY SHOULDN'T the Sheriff or the Feds be allowed kick open your door and search your home because the neighbors said you look suspicious. You are insane. Once you roll back rights there is no stopping it. No one is requiring you to own a gun but it is your right. A drivers license is a PRIVILEGE so yes there is need for regulation. Guns are a right afforded in the Constitution. You cannot PISS on rights as you see fit.

Just Wrong

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people.

If you have a different explanation, please advise.

Just wrong, when you can see the whites of their eyes, its too late. When America is overrun by foreign troops and there is fighting on every street you will know why you need more than 10 rounds in a magazine. Stop infringing on my rights.

I guess when Denver turns into Chicago, the residents of Colorado can see first-hand how well it works to have only the criminals with guns.

Thank you Colorado!!!! A win for common sense!!!!

Only an idiot would think that giving the upper-hand to criminals is good common sense! But that's what happens when the progressive-left opens their mouths. It's do as I say not as I do. What sheep!

Byron

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against a family member than against an intruder. It is unlikely my home will ever be broken in to, but it is more likely that your gun will hurt you. Both are small probabilities, and I wish neither happens, but this is simple statistics. This is what happens in the US every day.

Correct, BUT you forget these rest of the story.

There are other crimes going on such as drug dealing, drug use, assault, and other crimes in these "house holds". Please, these are not the Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver households your statistic may lead some to believe.

The real truth is drug addicts are responsible for the majority of violent crime. They commit crimes AND support the existence of drug cartels, dealers and gang bangers.

Harold,

You might want to check your facts. Juat FYI. That 100-round magazine jammed the rifle's action after just a couple of rounds. He then dropped the weapon to the floor with most of those 100 rounds unfired.

It was probably a cheap copy. Cheap magazines are often prone to faulty loading or jams.

This correction of information doesn't mean a lot to either side of the argument, but the biggest problem in the argument at hand is that anecdotal information and opinions are trumping the facts. On both sides.

Atlas Shrugged!!!!!!! Need I say more? 3 2 1 Colorado crime just went up!

Byron Raum--- "Your right to your freedom ends where my child's safety is concerned."

And that says it all right there....Byron wants to restrict what you do to make him fell better about his childs safety.

So..let me guess....people who like guns should be told what they can use, no matter how they feel. People who feel better having a gun to protect their children should be told how they can do it. And, if you decide something is unsafe for your daughter.....then everyone else needs to bend to that sense of safety. WOW

Does your daughters bus have seat belts by chance?

haggisbingo-2225582

Gun nuts: You will Eventually lose. It's just a matter of time. You might as well plan on self-seceding if you have a problem with it.

Why does anyone who think laws like these are a bad idea get labled as a gun nut?

I think it is a bad idea for several reasons:

- 30 round magazines are out there, they aren't going away so all you are doing is keeping manufacturers from selling in state.

- I can print out a 30 round magazine on a 3d printer add a spring and a plate and it is fully functional. Prove when I printed the magazine, I say I did before it was illegal so I have an endless supply.

- Less than 4% of gun deaths are with a rifle, even a smaller percentage of these are commited with 30 round magazines. Thanks for carving out exceptions for handguns which are used in the vast majority of gun deaths. Why not address teh real problem instead of feel good legislation.

Does this make me a gun nut?

Your argument makes no sense Byron Raum...if liberals are so concerned about child safety then why are they pro abortion??

But when your local police departments are telling you they are too busy to deal with personal property damage or vehicle break-ins and you are in a safe town you should stop thinking you know better than every one and actually listen to the experts who HAVE TO ENFORCE laws...not some out of touch political prick

The story mentions sheriffs opposing the law:

Some Colorado sheriffs said before the governor signed the bills that they do not plan to enforce new gun-control laws in their districts, according to the Denver Post.

“Why put the effort into enforcing a law that is unenforceable?” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told the Colorado paper on Monday. “With all of the other crimes that are going on, I don’t have the manpower, the resources or the desire to enforce laws like that.”

Are not sheriffs elected? Does that make them "out of touch political pricks"?. Most statements I hear coming out of police departments support gun control.

The problem is the Colorado General assembly does not have the courage or integrity to address the real issue... How to lock up these mentally deranged individuals that commit these crimes! In every case; the one here in Aurora and in New Town or any of the numerous mass shooting across the nation some one knew that these individuals were of evil mind and capable of the crimes they committed. We need to bring back the metal institutions of decades past. That is how you fix this problem, not by infringing on the rights of the citizens. Oh and by the way these wackos will use what ever method they can. The laws passed in Colorado are nothing more than window dressing. It really is not a matter of will it ever happen again rather when and that one is on the heads or the General assembly for not doing their job! Stop the crime before it can happen by putting these nut jobs in a padded room. Hell the parents would be grateful as they can not control them either.

How sad. I grew up in CO and had dreamed of returning in retirement but their increasing liberal/socialist government has snuffed that dream out. More laws will not solve any of their perceived problems. The nation's liberal population is just like Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel said: "We can't let a good crisis go to waste."

Just Wrong

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people.

I hear this argument all the time, and it's essentially saying: "If we don't need something, and that something could be dangerous, we can ban it" By that logic, we should ban cigarettes, fast cars, fast food, alcohol, bats, large knives, and on and on. In fact, each of those items kills more people every year than "assault rifles" do. That argument fails, because we don't ban items simply because someone thinks they aren't needed.

To answer your question though, I don't need those items, but I'm sure as heck not going to try and tell others they don't need them either.

Bye Bye Hickenlooper. You are about as useless as boobs on a boar.

Great, now everyone is all safe and sound and no other shootings will ever happen........bull@!$%#!!!!!!!!!!!!!

zorloc

Oh you poor people. You won't be able to have 30 rounds in your magazines. Whatever will you do having to carry a few more magazines to the shooting range. THE HORROR!!!

Zorloc, do you realize that they have been passing bills and laws that have "infringed" upon the 2nd for many years. Why are gun owners up in arms? Simple, we are not giving anymore. If we give up on this, what is next? Well AR-15's have been mislabeled as assault rifles when those types (select fire capable) have been outlawed since 1968. So we give up on magazine capacity, then we dont need "assault rifles", then someone will use a scoped rifle that many use for deer hunting in a crime and they will need to ban "sniper rifles". Then pump action and semi auto shotguns will be labeled as "riot guns". Do you see where this is going? Once it starts it does not end.

And by the way, show me in the constitution where it says anything about hunting in the 2nd amendment. It is there for citizen protection. Also, if you want to "infringe" upon the 2nd, dont bitch when someone starts messing with your 1st amendment freedoms. Think, that sometime in the future, what we are doing right here (openly discussing a subject in a public forum) could be deemed as a "threat" to the public peace and outlawed.

It all starts somewhere and no matter where you stand, trampling on others rights to get what you want, opens the door to have your rights trampled on.

When there is more crime and murder in Denver (which like Chicago, there will be), the fanny-pack wearing progressive-left can thank themselves. Bravo, you've just allowed more innocent people to have crime committed against them!

Well Colorado is far ahead of Georgia which has just passed legislation to encourage college students to carry concealed weapons. (in case those tenured Professors try to talk about evolution or any of those other forbidden topics). Wait until the Friday kegger - should be a real shoot out.

Haggis and the rest of you idiot sheep, I live in Colorado and Hickenlooper can start counting his political days. He wasn't elected to do whatever he damn well pleases. Like the story says: "first state west of New York City to....." terrific, now what used to be a sportsman's paradise is now a first cousin to New York City and if you look at the rest of the bills he's getting ready to or already signed, Colorado will soon be a paradise for gay, stoned illegal aliens going to college on our dime. Nice work Hippy Loopy

Ok to the people who lack in critical thinking on high cap mags:

If you are out hunting and run into a bear... Do you want 10 rounds, or 30 rounds?

If you are out hunting and run into a wild boar (which are very resilient to firearms), do you want 6 shots, or 30?

Thats just for hunting. Someone like corloc says oh you ahve to carry more mags to the range, its more about having the ammunition needed during conceal carry. Many stories that msnbc doesnt ocver, list how people survive getting hit with 6 rounds from a .38 revolver after they break into a house. had there been second purps, or if the purp wasnt scared and fled, that family could be in danger. Id rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. (IE i use a 1911, 8 round standard, 10 rounds high cap. But i would never infringe on someone elses rights to own a STANDARD 30 round clip or mag... 30 rounds is a STANDARD... to you anti gun guys, actually read the after media hype reports of the newtown shooting... THE AR15 WAS NOT USED. It was recovered fgrom his car and was NEVER fired from. Another thing, you say ban 100 round drums: bad news for you, those jam out the yin yang, and pretty much everyone except anti gun people know this... hence why they arent used often... Your biggest ANTI GUN activist, FEINSTEIN, in her seminar on firearms, decided to aim an AK47 with a 100 round drum AT THE CROWD with her FINGER IN THE TRIGGER. And they gave HER a CCP/CWP... Maybe the laws are designed simply for us law abiding citizens to weaken us vs the government?

Heafty, get your facts straight. Semi-automatic weapons use magazines, not clips. Also, semi-automatic weapons ARE NOT assault weapons, never have been, never will be, no matter what idiots against guns think.

For those of you in Chicago that need a new area to use your illegal weapons in, welcome to Colorado.

hey Magpul...your welcome in Michigan

Just Wrong

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people.

Have you ever been in a firefight? I'm assuming not. When it happens, your adrenaline levels skyrocket, you become shaky and panicked, you pull the trigger faster and more often than you would when shooting paper targets and your aim is generally more poor (depending upon whether you remembered to release the safety). So yes, limited magazine sizes can get you killed. That's why I want and need them.

Do you want the government determining all your needs for you?

oh Harold of the Rocks... you are completely misguided. First of all, I can change magazines in less than 1 second, 10 round, 30 round, 100 round, it makes no difference. Blaming the carnage on a magazine is stupid at best.

haggisbingo-2225582 Comment collapsed by the community

• Gun nuts: You will Eventually lose. It's just a matter of time. You might as well plan on self-seceding if you have a problem with it.

That is Very Un-American there. Problem is If the Gun Nuts (as you put it) lose, so do you. Fear the government that fears your gun If anyone should seceed it is you, Can you say the second revolution??

haggisbingo-2225582 - I guess you are lacing up your jack boots to start the house to house search throughout Colorado.......

Magpul is welcome in many states that are not run by LIBERAL NUT JOBS

Should cost CO about a thousand jobs

For those of you in Chicago that need a new area to use your illegal weapons in, welcome to Colorado.

1.101

illegal

is Illegal

Common sense prevails...congrats once again Colorado! Showing the country the way to change laws and an outdated constitution...one state at a time!

wild boar (which are very resilient to firearms)

When you hunt in areas where wild boar are known to roam, just make sure you have a load that can put down an Elk, that's all.

As far as background checks, good, I'm all for them!!

Just Wrong

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people

There are many people on this board who fear President Obama is going to take America from them. Fear in America is turning into a plague, I never thought I would see so many Americans turn into a bunch of sissies!!

RI Mom

"..A responsible gun-owner has no problem with Colorado's initiative..."

Responsible gun owner here, color yourself wrong.

Way to go, Hick! This will help ensure that you are a one term governor.

@Nathan, what about the guy who was 18, had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend the day before she turned 18, and by that states law, he is listed as a child molester... Some criminals can be rehabilitated, and some shouldnt even be listed as criminals.... Take it from someone who has worked law enforcement... Your statement however, is true if the criminals you are referring to are also called politicians...

Thank you Sir..my check is in the mail

Wrong again Colorado man, it will insure he is a two term governor.

Take away the guns.....okay i understand why some of you are behind that....it is really easy to take a couple of incidents and form a opinion on why it happens. It's called stereotyping and despite what a lot of you think...that doesn't just apply to race and sexual preference.

If this is such a victory...why aren't we doing anything about the mentally ill? Bullying does not create killers. It is never that simple or so black and white. You want to use Aurora....well how about that guy in Ohio that wore the KILLER shirt when we stood up and gave a middle finger to everyone in the court room...now...we get to keep him in jail for his whole life. Because even though he killed teenagers, his life is somehow worth more than the lives he took.

Maybe we wouldn't need guns if our laws were much stricter. They cut hands off in countries for stealing.....so maybe we need a stronger deterrent before we start passing more laws. Our court system is a joke and most of you just keep pushing for new laws....especially at a time when so many states face a budget crisis.

LOL..you anti-gun people are so funny....they take the assault rifle ban off the table and you guys cry cry cry...then they post this story and you guys think it's a victory for America. Wow...talk about bi-polar. Honestly I kinda feel more interested in "Who did Obama pick for the Final Four" story....cause it's just as ridiculous, useless and just as pointless of a story as this one and the bill Hickenloser signed.

William B Travis is a plagiarist.

I will no longer be wasting my money skiing in or otherwise vacationing in Colorado. I will only go to gun friendly states like Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. I challenge all fellow pro 2nd amendment people to do likewise.

I live here in Colorado, a gun ban never stopped Columbine and i was close by at the time. Did It work for Platt canyon? I was close by that as well.

Parental neglect says a lot about the nature of each child. If you don't know your kid you better ask yourself why you weren't there to find out. If your kid has mental issues, you better ask yourself why you didn't or haven't gotten help for him. If he slips through the cracks of society and becomes this? Then you better ask yourself why you weren't there.

Sorry a crazy man will find a way. Even a crazy hobo found a way wasn't that what Platt canyon was about?

Here's the plain facts. Lanza didn't use all the 30 rounds in each magazine. He stopped as short as half of a magazine before reloading and moving onto the next room. Magazine size does nothing to stop a prepared man. It especially does nothing to limit a determined man. Take a look at Virginia tech. He had 10 round magazines on a couple guns and 15 on a couple others. He went through 17 magazines.

Must be the magazine size huh? Maybe it just happened to be the person with the gun :O

@ Creek Dog

Yeah!! Now that we're defenseless, it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for the criminals... YAAAAAAY!

First, what about this law makes Colorado citizens "defenseless?" It doesn't ban or confiscate guns. And regarding magazine size restrictions, all I hear from the pro-gun side is that changing a magazine takes 0.1372 nanoseconds (which is why it won't reduce the killing potential of criminals), therefore this shouldn't be a problem whatsoever for any gun owner (they can simply swap magazines near-instantly, as it repeatedly asserted when talking about criminals doing so).

Second, are you having a bad day or something? You used to be a fairly reasonable voice on the pro-gun side on this blog (and I respected you for it). I've rarely addressed your posts because although I disagree with some of them, they were always well written, devoid of hyperbole, and reasoned arguments. Lately however (and in several posts I've seen of yours today) you've devolved into one of the crazed loons that make this board their home and give responsible gun owners a bad name. What happened?

Lets get to the real root of the problem. The real problem are liberals. The last 6 mass shooters are/were liberal democrats. Yes thats right. Liberals are killing Americans off at a rate higher than anyone else. Lets ban liberals and we will have no more mass shootings. Take away guns from law abiding citizens and only liberals will have guns.

1. Fort Hood: Registered democrat and muslim jihadist

2. Columbine: too young to vote. Families were registered democrats and progressive liberals.

3: Virginia Tech: Democrat, wrote hate mail to President Bush and his staff.

4: Colorado Theater: Registered democrat, staff worker for the Obama campaign, occupy wall street participant, progressive liberal.

5: Connecticut school shooter: REgistered democrat, hated Christians.

6: Tucson shooting: Jared Loughner was a registered Independent but voted along democratic lines, hated Bush, loved abortion, was angry with the Giffords for not having done enough against Bush.

I personally do not care what any laws are passed. I along with millions of Constitutional citizens will not obey those laws that infringe on our rights.

Liberals keep saying why do you need 30 round mags, well answer this, why do you need a Ford, or a Chevy. Why do you have a BBQ grill, or that X-Box in your house? Why do you wear a red shirt, or a blue one? Why, because it is my choice, it is my God given right. My damn choice. Quit trying to impose your opinions on me. What I do is my business, not yours or our government's business. I do not hurt anyone, I do not go around trying to make someone else live their lives according to how I think they should live their lives. I leave people to run their own lives. So leave my @!$%#ing life along. One of the reasons my wife and myself live in the middle of the woods. I can do as I please and no one is around to bother me. I can shoot off my front porch or my back porch. My dogs get to run lose and enjoy their lives. I hunt, fish, and grow my own food. I have chickens, pigs, cows, horses and goats. All on my own land. People leave me along and there will be no problems. Come and infringe on my right to live my life as I please and we will have problems. This is how this country was intended by our fore fathers. I infringe on no one's rights and will not tolerate anyone to infringe on mine.

Wow, goes to show that Colon Rado has been invaded by lib-tards, they care more about the rights of low lifes and deviants than passing common sense laws like death penalties and stiffer sentencing for self entitled whiners like James Holmes ,no they are more concerned with child rapists being given light sentences,legalizing dope,and gay marriage and sanctuary cities ...and building their socialist utopias on the backs of hard working Coloradans...Yah, libralism at it's finest....and most of those that are for oppressive regulations on the vine, never served anyone except themselves..they are the first in line for handouts, their votes are easily bought...and sold their souls cheap...right? haggis bunghole....If you really want to see how well Libtardism works ,ask Calipornia, Illannoys, Mass hole two chits, New Dork and all those other socialist utopias ..they already have the strictist gun laws on the books ,largest deficites, most poverty ,poorest education systems,rotting infrastructure . Yes, a real nirvana.....

I still remember the same stupid comments being made over the shot gun regulations of barrel length. The same stupid comments were made over and over. Look now 25 years later nobody cares you cant cut your shot gun down. Its a small minority that even remember.

Give it time let the dust settle and in the end nobody will care that you cant have super size mags just like you cant saw your shot down to 2". All I hear is "RAW RAW" "WAAH WAAH"

inmyday.... thank you for your comments and the polite way in which you expressed them.

Michael4yah... I do understand that magazines can be changed quickly. I also understand that Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson was stopped by local men when he had to reload magazines.

I believe that amateurs like Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza are where the limits on "capacity" have merit. I believe that all 3 would have been less effective if they had been limited to 10-round magazines.

RI MOM 1.101- You truly are ignorant. That is why they are criminals because they do things that are illegal. And I don't know what world you live in but man it surre must be nice that everything there is perfect.

Eric-913730- He will be a one term govenor. He as all but sealed the casket on his political career. That is unless he moves to Cali, NY or gets a post on Obumer's cabinet.

The carnage that Holmes inflicted is directly related to that 100-shot magazine. If he had been unable to purchase it, he would have just made another magazine selection. He would not have turned to gangs or the street to find a 100-shot magazine.

a shotgun would have killed more inside the building. Also he had bombs at his home...

And if he (and Adam Lanza) had been armed with magazines that only held 10 shots, it's highly probable that less people would have been shot and killed.

100 round mag is too heavy to swing around and target at close range. It is only ment for supressive fire at long range..

1. If you think you're going to require a 30 rd mag for some sort of firefight maybe you should move.

2. Who carries a 30 rd mag hunting. I saw that argument further up and its outrageous.

I honestly don't think magazine limits will have much of an effect but I still don't understand resistance to background checks. Most of the arguments I've heard just don't make any sense. Actually most of them smack of extreme paranoia. Yeah I hear you don't want the government telling you what to do but realistically how many scenarios do you see playing out in your lifetime that couldn't be handled with 12 gauge pump and a .357.

hardtostarboard

I will no longer be wasting my money skiing in or otherwise vacationing in Colorado. I will only go to gun friendly states like Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc

Might I recommend Brundage Mountain, Schweitzer, Targhee, or if you've got the wallet for it, Sun Valley? You can stop in and pick up a couple 30 rd mags while you're here.

I have been reading a lot ofthese comments and I, for one, have never seen any law that stops a criminal. The laws are on the books to punish a criminal not to stop a criminal. That is what a law does. Period. Should there be laws, YES, of course. That is how we as a society judge the behavior of people. Problem is we do not place enough into our judicial system and our legislators think the only way to prevent a crime is to enact more laws. The only problem is that certain new laws only curtail the Law Abiding Citizen and does not affect criminals. Why, because it is not the law that deters the criminal. It is the punishment the law allows that deters the criminal. The longer and harsher the time in jail, the less laws the criminal can ignore. If we started making capitol cases out of violent crimes especially with guns, then eventually the number of murders will go down. Right now we reserve the death penalty for the most horiffic murders imaginable. What if we made a felon in possession of a gun a capitol offence? A felon using that weapon a capitol offence? You bleeding hearts will say that is too harsh. I say killing a victim is even more harsh. I wold think most victims would agree. If the bleeding hearts and our lawmakers would look more into the punishment of existing laws instead of making more laws, then maybe we can actually cut the murder rate. Stop curtailing the Law Abiding Citizen and hit the criminal where it hurt. If we execute about 100 felons we might just save a thousand victims. Go ahead bleeding hearts tell me I am wrong. If you fought as hard for the victims as you do for the criminals, there would be no crime.

The black market will fullfill any demand that is being suppressed. I'm taking my big gulp and machine gun out in the back yard and having a party!

you are a...Major Dicke -

IF you had a reasonable point to make you destroyed that chance yourself with the "lib tard" talk and all the other stupid, juvenile word games you think are so cute.

@ Johnny (post #1.124)

all of that is debunked and/or irrelevant bull@!$%#. Please stop copy/pasting that crap onto every message forum regarding guns, you lose all credibility.

My fellow Americans;

1. Did not adolph Hitler take away the guns, and murdered over 6 million Jews?

2. This is exactly what the U.S. Government wants to do, look at the Native Americans; slaughtered!

3. Guns ain't the problem, "PEOPLE" not in their right minds is the PROBLEM!

4. I do not believe some of the people who post anti-guns are real people, someone at msnbc is trying to

sway opinions in favour of gun control!

5. The "PLAN" is to CONTROL the masses, like cattle!

6. Some of you might know this, but you refuse to accept the facts!

7. Antichrist is coming!!! 666

8. Get ready to worship him.

9. Your "ONLY" hope is Jesus Christ!

10. Repent of you sins and get right with God!

11. That is also why we(you) have the problems with the Muslims.

have a good day.

Jerry - Do you hear voices?

Just - I think the big issue is this is a law that will do nothing? Background check have to look into that more and see if real issues are being solved but the magazine limit? What does that do? That is my question. Passing a law to pass one and have it on the books to say you did something but it not mean anything or be worthless makes no sense. Elected officials aren't there to just pass meaningless laws. I know we have issues with gun control but laws like the magazine limit don't seem to do a damn thing as far as I can tell and that is the question I want answered, again what does this do to stop criminals? Yes I'm pro-gun as in having responsible gun owners be allowed to own guns. Does not mean I'm pro NRA either for anyone who wants to know, somewhere inbetween pro and anti I suppose. But what does this do?

Personally I don't care about the 100 round mags being banned they are kind of silly anyways but still that wouldn't make any sense. I care about passing laws that don't solve any issues or that act as a stepping stone to pass more restrictive laws that again will solve no issues or only harm those who are following the law currently. I think that is where this is going. Just tired of elected officials looking like they are working when if fact they are doing nothing at all. That and losing more rights and liberties. Don't care if I don't need 30 or 100 round mag, but why outlaw if it solves nothing?

Otherwise you say assault type weapons, they are semi auto and nothing like military counterparts that are full auto. You have a pull the trigger for each bullet fired. The rest is just for looks. Again just for looks, get that straight. Like putting mud tires and lift kit on a 2 wheel drive truck so it looks like it is 4 wheel drive, still doesn't make it 4 wheel drive.

Tom - great post and spot on. I agree make the punishment harder. Obviously criminals don't care about the law since they are breaking it. That goes for anyone for that matter, it is the punishment that makes it work. What you say also reminds me of Maryland's new ban on capitol punishment. Pie high dream of society that doesn't have to kill people for punishment (maybe someday we get there, I hope) but in reality doesn't work at this time and taking it away give criminals one less reason to be worried. Again you are right, lets focus on the punishment with laws we have in place first then altering or tweaking as need, but just putting more in the books does nothing.

It is time

PRober

Common sense prevails...congrats once again Colorado! Showing the country the way to change laws and an outdated constitution...one state at a time!

Outdated? That's odd since Article 5 has been part of the Constitution from day one. There's an option to update the Constitution without skirting it like you seem to support.

Thank you Jerry lot of numbers! Which brings me to my next comment Metal Illness............(face palm)

Other than a geographical minority (which happens to also be a numerical majority) consisting of Denver, the overwhelming majority of CO HATES the 'looper. He's little girl lib's who were voted in by the inner city minority thinking crowd are no less dispised. I've lived in several areas of the state and him and his idiots are RUINING the state. Those that want a teat to suck on come to Colofornia where you can toke away your concerns about onumbnuts and dickenslurper. Expect the state to start heading south economically VERY soon. Pot smokers are going to add very little to the economy especially since they will be far more of a drain than a tax base.

Arnt illegals from Mexico outlawed?

Thank you Jerry lot of numbers! Which brings me to my next comment Metal Illness............(face palm)

haha, agreed.

All I can say about post #1.136 by Jerry is "wow."

Totalitarianism like a virus is spreading from each coast inland. Inoculate yourselves now. Stash your ammo and guns somewhere where you can get them quickly in case the virus overwhelms your area sometime in the future.

deebo-2977870 I remember but may I point out that only stupid criminals saw their shotguns down.

I would also like to pointout that people fight against things like this because you fagtard liberals.

dream of a eutopia that never has and never will excist.

I would be a little more willing to talk about a magizine capacity if it was enforceable.

but just like everything else in liberalland they only punish the ones that follow the rules.

How about throwing the illegal spics back where they belong death sentances for murders and rapists.

I believe that these laws will not stop mass killings and are simply "feel good laws" to appease those who really haven't thought it all through or who simply refuse to face reality. So now, if I want to kill everyone in a theater or school, I just bring more clips or guns, or turn to using explosive devices instead. Or as others have said here, I just go to another state where the high capacity magazines are legal and buy them there. Truly, if one wants to do mass harm, they will find a way.

The issue isn't guns or gun licensing or clip capacity, it is the belief now that we must avenge grievances in extreme ways. I don't like my fellow students because they pick on me or simply haven't noticed me, I will just shoot them or blow up the school. People at work mistreat me or I didn't get that new position I wanted, I will just go to my office and kill everyone. We have simply learned to hate intensely, to allow fear to overwhelm us, and to react accordingly. Guns and killing have been a problem solver for those detached from reality.

We are now also a fame obsessed society. Too many crave fame, feel that life is totally inadequate without it, and are willing to kill to obtain it. Earn it by building a world changing company or curing disease or doing anything of real value, of course not! Why not just kill a bunch of people and wham, instant fame. Sadly often now individuals, mentally unstable obviously, kill for fame, for recognition and are unable to differentiate between being famous or infamous. And the press, society as a whole, is more than ready to heap fame on them. Movies, video games, songs will be made. The killers names will be bolded on newspaper headlines and countless hours of news reports will air about them. We feed it, nurture it, encourage it and then deny ownership of the beasts that we so create.

So these laws in Colorado, while well intentioned, will do nothing to stop the next mass killing. They simply do not address the root cause; the mental illness from which this evil grows, the undying need our society has now for fame nor the simple fact that few care about their fellow man.

No matter what state law is signed, the state of Colorado has no right to infringe on your constitutional right to have a gun of any kind or size of magazine. They are violating your constitutional rights in which states shall not be infringed upon. You are not obligated to abide by the bogus law.

Ah but Governor Hickenlooper has seen to that, and is expanding access to mental health care in Colorado as well.

Creek Dog--Have you seen your liberal friends call you out now that your opinion is different?

I'm not telling you anything you already know...I just find it funny you are a source of "reason" until you disagree. Then, you have managed to become ignorant in their eyes, despite the proof to the opposite that you have your own opinions and are informed (mostly by your own admission) when you post.

Kanic

No matter what state law is signed, the state of Colorado has no right to infringe on your constitutional right to have a gun of any kind or size of magazine. They are violating your constitutional rights in which states shall not be infringed upon. You are not obligated to abide by the bogus law.

I wonder how that defense would hold up in court. Would be very interesting to see. Sort of like Texas and the "speed limit" law, except I think the state would prevail in this case.

Kanic - What you have posted are the words of a criminal, an anarchist. The State of Colorado has a perfect right to regulate and control deadly weapons; those rights have been given them by the Constitution. These are the same rights that have been passed all over the country to limit possession of firearms to keep them out of the hands of the underaged, the criminally insane and convicted felons. These are the same types of laws that keep you from legally possessing weapons grade plutonium and fighter jets.

If you have a problem with any state enacting legislation as they are charged with doing in the Constitution you may file suit to overturn that law. Good luck.

DDay, You lost all credibilty when you resort to name calling epecuilly calling hispanics a cuss word. But I will try and at least a dencent retort.

We all dream of a utopia. For the religious folk its heaven on earth. For the others its Utopia. Rather than find agreeable terms and conditions that may prime the environment to get closer to peace you would rather cast stones and step farther away. What a rightly endowed Christian you are. You represent your clan well.

Excuse me for living my life in a country that I can and do live feeling safe. No its not perfect and I always hope that nothing ever happens to me. But I do relax to the thought that I have people around me in numbers to help. I can only hope to get better from here.

You still obviously missed the point I was making that:Yes only criminals cut their guns down but law bidding citizens don't mind the law its no big deal for them. It doesnt majorly effect them.

A very good reason to boycott Colorado.

Guess what guys? If you don't respect these laws, and you violate them, then that makes you a criminal. You know, the guys you all hate so much?

People with criminal histories live amongst us. Some of them are rehabilitating, somewhat, while most are biding their time before they can commit another crime because the law was soft on them. Others are ordinary folk who have been insulted one too many times, and start to tip over the edge. Criminal background checks are reasonable precautions that do not prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing weapons. It should be difficult to buy something that is meant to kill another human being. Background checks prevent habitual criminals from purchasing weapons from a legal source. That means they have to try harder to find illegal sources--delaying their efforts, making it more likely that they'll be found out by law enforcement [although, it seems like law enforcement has had their hands tied by the NRA political lobby]. Maybe we can make this first step, and then take another when we seek out those illegal dealers and put them in jail for accessory to murder. Come on, folks, don't you want America to be safer?

If a criminal can just walk into any gun store and buy an automatic gun with 30 rounds of ammo, then that is just too easy for them. They SHOULD have to scrounge, and scrape, for their garbage. We should not be supplying criminals with weapons. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens can still buy pistols, shotguns, rifles, and all kinds of other things that are plenty deadly to home-invaders.

I just find it interestsing all those people who think this "new" law in Colorado is a good thing. Maybe you should check the stats on those states with the strictest laws regarding guns. Illionois, New York, Massachusetts and California have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, they also rank in the top third of the country for violent crime. To boot two cities with some of the highest crime rates in the country, Washington D.C., and Chicago also has the strictest gun laws in the country. Those in the botton five, VT, NH, ME, ND, and UT all have moderate to limited gun laws. We are talking about percaptita crime, so don't to rationalize this about populate size - just more liberal B.S.

If any of these anti-gun advocates looked at what is really going on in our government they would see that the issue is not about avoiding, accidental deaths or crime but about disarming the poplace so that they can not defend themselves against tyrany. I know that many of my conservative friends on here and across the country are afraid to mention the REAL reason for the 2nd amendment, I suggest you all read it - in it's entirety. It was not meant to allow us to be able to hunt or target shoot or even defend ourselves from thieves or potential murderers, but to be able to defend ourselves from a potential tryanical government, not just foreign invaders, but domestic tyrants.

Time to stop playing footies with these leftist magots. They have brow beaten good honest patriots into believing that fighting for your God given (that's correct God given, not governement given) rights is somehow "extreme" or "radical". It is they, the people that suck off the government teat, that kiss the feet of their future task masters that are the traitors and radicals. Once the guns are taken away I gaurantee those leftists in power will burn the rest of the Constitution, and those that supported them will find that they were duped by the media and the liberal (an oxymoron if there ever was one, unless you think Mao or Marx were just liberal) politicians.

Wake up people your politicians are using noble talk to slowly remove all your freedoms.

So disingenuous when posters resort to downright lies.

1.124: JOHNNY BLACKWELDER & CO.

Your unfortunate post was authored by Roger Hedgecock.

YOU WERE DUPED

The Ft. Hood shooter was from Virginia and was stationed in Texas. Neither state has partisan registration so it wouldn't be possible for him to have registered as a Democrat or a Republican.

The same would be true of the Va. Tech shooter. No partisan registration in Va. either.

The Colorado theatre shooter was not registered to vote in his home state.

There is no evidence that the Sandy Hook shooter's mother was registered at all. While there are more Democrats in Conn. than Republicans, Newtown voted for Romney. Lanza's mother was a gun freak doomsday survivalist. I doubt she was either an R or a D. but if she was either, it would probably not be D.

The father of Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, was a retired Air Force man and his son, Harris, had planned to join the Marines. That doesn't necessarily make them members of one or the other party, but, in general, military types tend to be more R than D.

The reason no mass murderer has ever been identified as an NRA member is because the membership records of the NRA are a tightly held secret. This is no accident. The NRA would be fools to make that list public. If only one mass murderer was a member the whole membership would be blamed.

im a proud gun owner and i cannot begin to understand how is it possible that some individuals need larger mags just because the police have them. the police have them because they dont know what they are getting into, ex: the california bank robbery years ago. when large mags made national headlines because the police showed up with handguns, and the bank robbers had 100 round drums. many police officers were killed that day. i am beginning to think that alot of people in this forum has a blood lust and therefore needs certain types of guns and magazines on the street just to see what would happen. thats why alot of "responsible gunowners" undermine the restrictions and background checks. how do you think the gangs are getting these types of weapons, they have go to these states where its easy for them to get a hold of these guns then shoot the individuals that dont have access to one. universal backgound check should be mandatory.

for the sheriff that said he doesn't have the "desire" to uphold this law, he should turn in his badge. what kind of pathetic individuals are we becoming when we only question what is meant for the best. but when our leadres say it is o.k to invade other countries and send our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, and brothers to fight a war for profit we agree without asking any questions, because it would be "un-american", "un-patriotic", or "canadian" (the last one was funny as hell) to question them. so why is is not " un-american", or "un-patriotic" now to question our leaders opinions when it is for the well being of all of us. if you guys are so worried about the illegals coming over and under our borders, join ICE, do something with your guns, and help protect our borders. dont sit on your lazy a$$e$ and complain, all the while stockpiling weapons just to be stolen and resold to the illegals and gangbangers who are destroying this country. join the National Gaurds,or become a police officer if you want a gun at your disposal at all times and the right to use it in order to defend yourself, your family, and most importantly this Country.

cigarrette companies, liquor/beer companies, and the gun manufactures have been dictating policies and laws ever since the first one set up shop. they make 100 round mags, assaut rifles and then tell us its our constitutional right to have them, they dont care about our constitutional rights, they only care about their sales and board members pockets. wake up americans, they know we dont need to own 5 - 10 guns but what they do know is that for every one they sell its more $$$$$$$$ in their bank.

As criminals across the state applaud the Governor, I begin to wonder which side of the law many posters here come down on when they join together with the criminals in praising the Governor.

This is really a waste of time and money. One Sheriff has already said he will not enforce it.

“Why put the effort into enforcing a law that is unenforceable?” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told the Colorado paper on Monday. “With all of the other crimes that are going on, I don’t have the manpower, the resources or the desire to enforce laws like that.”

Besides that my 1911 R1 .45 cal only holds 8 rounds so I guess I still good.

OK, I read the story twice, and I saw no information as to what the magazine capacity limit would now be under this law. Anyone know?

I swear, one must have to graduate at the bottom 10% of your class to get a "journalism" job at MSN or NBC.

Just Wrong

Question: Why are so many of you posters against this gun law? Please explain why you need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, because I do not see the point of it other than mass shootings. Also, please explain why you think you need assault-type weapons. Again, the only reason I can see for those guns is to kill people.

If you have a different explanation, please advise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

the main reason gun owners don't want to give up 30 round magazines is simple convenience.... when we are out target shooting at a range paying by the minute for time, or we are teaching our family members, or practicing for sport, or whatever use a particular person has..... it is incredibly tedious and time consuming having to stop every 10 rounds, break your concentration, and screw around with reloading a magazine 1 shell at a time... don't forget, literally .00001% of gun owners actually use them for a mass shooting. The rest of us simply want a much more convenient magazine size.

also, 10 round magazines for a crazy shooter are no impediment whatsoever.... they will just spend whatever to buy a bunch more magazines and have them ready to go. As a practical matter, they can be easily swapped in about 1.5 seconds. Even at Sandy Hook, Lanza only fired about 1 shot every 7 seconds, he had plenty of time to switch magazines a few more times...

I know you guys don't get the logic, but to us gun owners, knowing the mechanics of using these machines, and seeing them as tools or sporting equipment, when you say the only thing assault style rifles or 30 round magazines are for is killing.... you guys sound completely ridiculous... its like a 14 year old who has never driven questioning whether or not a driver needs more than 75hp because "the only possible use must be racing"...

YO, GOVERNOR HICK-N-LOOPEY, YOU JUST ASSURED ANOTHER GUBERNATORIAL SEAT TO THE REPUBLICANS!!!

Once again, Liberals/Progressives govern based on emotions rather than policy.

I’m sure the criminals will be scared right out of Colorado now that real law-abiding Americans have to go through more exhaustive regulations, costs and restrictions.

Liberals/Progressives are people that wake up every morning with the sole intent of finding something that offends them?

It must be terrible to go through life constantly looking for another opportunity to be a victim.

RI Mom

A responsible gun-owner has no problem with Colorado's initiative.

Neither does any criminal.

LOL look at all the gun nuts screeching at the top of their lungs. What happened loons? Thought you were all about "states rights"? What's that, you are flipping again? You guys are so all over the map. You are complete jokes. And not a one of you are bright enough to realize it.

I don't really care what Colorado does...but, the law won't be enforced...not enough law enforcement to do it. And, I imagine, your tourist trade will suffer greatly. With the weed smokers and the "non-violent" naive left-wing crowd, well, you can have your state as it floats away in fantasy...just like California.

Why is a background check a problem? You have one every time you open a bank account, every time you have a drivers license, a gun purchased at a legal gun shop, when you cross the border, when you register to vote, when you travel outside the country on planes or boats, ....... what on earth are you knee-jerk gun lovers complaining about??????

Separate rules for gun owners? You voted for the Congress that passes the USAPATRIOT Act that looks into every aspect of your information and never blink. Yet when a responsible state tries tor screen out criminals and nut cases from certain gun priviledges, you cry fowl?

Criminals are not the biggest threat to most of us. It's the unbalanced, fear driven, loner, stressed out, those lacking problem-solving skills, those thrown out of college (Colorado), those with disorders (Connecticut), those still living with parents at age 35 with no education or job (Arizona), a few who are homeless, those with serious debt issues, those who are outside of society - these are who is shooting our friends, children, co-workers..... Background checks do not always identify them, but as a person who looks at these things, I can tell you we spot about 30%.... and that is 7 shootings less out of 10.

Criminals sell illegal guns... and always will. But if one person takes twice as long to shoot based on the need to reload, or is screened out based on screening information, wouldn't you be glad if the target was someone in your family?

Don't think that owning guns will protect you in most situations. It won't. Not unless you sleep with your guns, eat all meals armed, carry 24/7 - and even then, you probably won't get the thing out quick enough to stop the initial attack. If we don't learn how to live without relying on guns to solve our problems, this society will crumble.

haggisbingo, you're not very well educated on the 2nd Amendment or guns for that matter, infringement on the rights of American citizens is deplorable and being tolerant of a government that will infringe on those rights is idiotic. You'll deserve what the government gives you

Oldhamletman, If that is the only complaint is that you want to be able to reduce clips when target practicing then I have a compromise. I would rally with you that target practice area's have available extra large clips even belt feed at their locations. They are not for private resale and can not leave the premises. But under controlled circumstances in that protective area....SURE, GREAT, I'M WITH YOU!!!!

think_twice

im a proud gun owner and i cannot begin to understand how is it possible that some individuals need larger mags just because the police have them. the police have them because they dont know what they are getting into, ex: the california bank robbery years ago. when large mags made national headlines because the police showed up with handguns, and the bank robbers had 100 round drums. many police officers were killed that day. i am beginning to think that alot of people in this forum has a blood lust and therefore needs certain types of guns and magazines on the street just to see what would happen. thats why alot of "responsible gunowners" undermine the restrictions and background checks. how do you think the gangs are getting these types of weapons, they have go to these states where its easy for them to get a hold of these guns then shoot the individuals that dont have access to one. universal backgound check should be mandatory.

There were a lot of people in a certain Luby's cafeteria that had wished they would have had a 30 round magazine that day, they'd be alive if they had. Do you not get out much?? It can be a dangerous world out there and you never know what you might come up against........ no different than they cops, who by the way, have no duty to protect you from the bad guys. Don't forget, when seconds count the police are only minutes away..

Dorfy

Criminals are not the biggest threat to most of us. It's the unbalanced, fear driven, loner, stressed out, those lacking problem-solving skills, those thrown out of college (Colorado), those with disorders (Connecticut), those still living with parents at age 35 with no education or job (Arizona), a few who are homeless, those with serious debt issues, those who are outside of society - these are who is shooting our friends, children, co-workers..... Background checks do not always identify them, but as a person who looks at these things, I can tell you we spot about 30%.... and that is 7 shootings less out of 10.

OK, Dorfy, I’ll play.

As commendable as background checks for, as you put it, “the unbalanced, fear driven, loner, stressed out, those lacking problem-solving skills, those thrown out of college (Colorado), those with disorders (Connecticut), those still living with parents at age 35 with no education or job (Arizona), a few who are homeless, those with serious debt issues, those who are outside of society - these are who is shooting our friends, children, co-workers.....” are, they will involves years and hundreds of billions of dollars to complete.

I don’t think you, or the gun-haters, understand how difficult identifying these “nut cases” is. Jerod Loughner and Seung Hui Cho are perfect examples of this.

Following are the main excerpts from the article linked below that describes the reality of the NCIS being able to identify the massive amount of mental health in our nation.

Why Jared Loughner was allowed to buy a gun

Despite evidence that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner is mentally unstable, he was never declared mentally unfit by a court, so his name did not appear in the federal background-check database used by gun sellers….

The law passed after the Virginia Tech shooting that year, in which a mentally ill student killed 32 people. In 2005, a judge had declared the shooter, Seung Hui Cho, a danger to himself and ordered him into psychiatric care. But Mr. Cho was still able to purchase two semiautomatic handguns, because his name did not appear in the NICS database….

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported last Friday, the day before the Tucson shootings, that between Jan. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2010, the number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted to NICS by states and territories had more than doubled – from 402,047 records to 929,254. Adding federal records brings the total to nearly 1.1 million.

But the Brady campaign argues that “millions of relevant records” are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign….(emphasis mine)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0110/Why-Jared-Loughner-was-allowed-to-buy-a-gun

So, despite having the back ground check done Loughner was still able to buy a gun.

More importantly as the article states,,,

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

This is compounded by this statistic from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

Here’s the problem.

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records.

But the NIMH states we have about 57.7 million Americans that suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

So, do we just ignore the other 55.7 million Americans that suffer from mental illness? Or do we require all those 55.7 million other Americans are included.

And if that’s the case, do all 313 million Americans have to undergo mental health testing? If so, who is going to be responsible for testing this massive amount of people?

What if someone is tested and found to be mentally competent and the goes out and still kills a group of people? Who is responsible? The shooter? The Psychiatrist/psychologist? The gun dealer?

I don’t think many people understand the enormity of the statement, “keeping mentally unfit people from buying guns with background checks”.

If we don't learn how to live without relying on guns to solve our problems, this society will crumble.

Now, here we both agree. But the problem with “learning” in our great Republic involves more than solving our gun problems. When most American’s only read at an 8^th grade level, 20% of high-school graduates can’t read their diploma and nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate," they can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job, our society will crumble.

But this is a discussion for another time.

“I think the governor will be replaced by someone who has Colorado values instead of New York City values,” Brophy said. “If Republicans are returned to control we will repeal these bills immediately"

I would like to know if this politican gets any funding from the NRA . I think it is time for all voters to find out just who is drawing lobbyist funds and from who...and no matter what the purpose of those funds..replace that politican..no matter if he or she be local, state or congressional. These political want to bes were elected to work for this nation and its people...Not for the weal;thy..or private corporations..or...groups who feel they know better than us voters...who , by the way, are paying these politicans who are accepting those funds from whoever hands them out for any reason..that means they are bought and paid for by that lobbyist, corporation or wealthy individual to do what they want done.

Deebo-2977870

Oldhamletman, If that is the only complaint is that you want to be able to reduce clips when target practicing then I have a compromise. I would rally with you that target practice area's have available extra large clips even belt feed at their locations. They are not for private resale and can not leave the premises. But under controlled circumstances in that protective area....SURE, GREAT, I'M WITH YOU!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that wasn't my only complaint,..... so what do I do, when I'm out camping with my kids, or at home on the off chance 3 guys invade to kill my family (which happened a couple doors down a few years ago)

in hunting small game, target shooting, shooting while camping, home defense, just about any use for AR-15s, a 10 round clip is simply retarded... except for large game, which you wouldn't use an AR for anyway.

I don't own one, but if I was going to buy a rifle, there would be a 100% chance it would be an AR and a 100% chance I would want 30 round magazines....

Well Congrats to Colorado and New York, the Scientific Company I work with Just Shut its Doors in Colorado and New York, taking with it about 5000 Jobs, due to the Stupidity of CO and NY.. And these are New Gun Laws that are Unconstitutional to begin with, I ve heard we will be closing our California Operations as well, so Congrats Job Killers, the Memo also stated there would be NO conferences in these three states as well, talk about loosing..

reality is, we don't restrict rights in this country without a very good reason... and the burden of proof is on you anti gun people.... and saying that .000001% of gun owners used an AR-15 with 30 round magazine to shoot someone, so we need to outlaw them both doesn't fly

Colorado is the looser

1.175

Starman

Looser definition, free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end. ... free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around ...

.

.

.

I agree... Colorado has loosened itself from the minority of gun whiners.

.

.

.

1.174

oldhamletman

The burden of gun registration is now a LAW in Colorado. That's a FACT. It isn't anti-gun... it's PRO-GUN... pass the background check and YOU GET A GUN.

Simple.... not hard to comprehend.... and really not much of a burden.

Re.: 1.176

Fast typing.... GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS.... (I was distracted by the phobias on "registration"

BTW... Johnny Blackwelder poster isn't helping the gun cause by printing out a debunked pile of nonsense...all those thumbs up on his post are disturbing. Shows how clueless & gullible some not so SMART or sharp some shooters are .

If you want to stop criminals from killing dozens of people at a time stop being the coward in the room. Man up! Buy a gun and be a responsible gun owner, no one should die while you cower in the corner or run outside and empty your gun barrels into the air.

Right, because private citizens are stopping crime every day with their guns. NOT. This is not an assult on the 2nd Amendment. Nobody wants to take away your little guns.

These laws wouldn't be necessary if you folks would:

1. Actually secure your guns. Where do you think criminals get those guns? They steal them. Scheese

2. Allow universal background checks so guns sold at gun shows private sales give us a reasonable assurance of a legitimate transfer of that gun.

3. Stop whining. Most Americans are sick and tired of this constant drum beat and squealing of they'll taker our guns, they'll take our guns. Nobody is going to take your little guns.

4. Understand that there are people in this country who would love to see all guns go away. That's their right to feel that way. Many have legitimate reasons. Stop calling them the vile names that you call them. It just turns people off and they stop caring what you think.

5. If you're going to keep screaming Constitutional Rights all the time. At least try to actually read the Constitution. That way you don't look so incredible uninformed.

RI Mom

The burden of gun registration is now a LAW in Colorado. That's a FACT. It isn't anti-gun... it's PRO-GUN... pass the background check and YOU GET A GUN

So, background checks will fix everything, right?

Let me ask you a question. Are criminal records or mental health records more important? Remember, neither Holmes, Lanza, Loughner or Choi had criminal records, but they all had mental health issues.

So if mental health disorders are the concerns read my above post (#1.170), and explain to me how we create background checks on the 57.7 MILLION Americans with mental health disorders?

RI Mom

You are so correct. That Johnny Blackwelder clown does nothing to further their cause. All he did was spew every discredited BS talking point put in chain emails by the NRA and baggers. The very fact that people voted it up is proof of the limited abilities of many we are forced to deal with in our lives.

I'm always amused by these so called patriots that fancy themselves to be this great warrior who will save us all from marauding criminals. This is what happens when you deal with people who spend multiple hours each day playing Medal of Honor and other first person shooter games. They think they have the skills of trained Seals and Swat Team members. Those are the people we need to be protected from.

@ DingleB

brian-1924638

War on Drugs = Proliferation of illegal drugs

War on Terror = Proliferation of terrorists in the ME

War on Poverty = Proliferation of poor

War on Guns = Proliferation of guns

Maybe it's time for a war on education.

#1.32

I don't know Dingle, but maybe it is time for a war on classic liberalism (Conservatives) as well.

Maybe throw in a war on morals. ;-)

Dennis Price

If you want to stop criminals from killing dozens of people at a time stop being the coward in the room. Man up! Buy a gun and be a responsible gun owner, no one should die while you cower in the corner or run outside and empty your gun barrels into the air.

Right, because private citizens are stopping crime every day with their guns. NOT. This is not an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Nobody wants to take away your little guns.

These laws wouldn't be necessary if you folks would:

1. Actually secure your guns. Where do you think criminals get those guns? They steal them. Scheese

2. Allow universal background checks so guns sold at gun shows private sales give us a reasonable assurance of a legitimate transfer of that gun.

3. Stop whining. Most Americans are sick and tired of this constant drum beat and squealing of they'll taker our guns, they'll take our guns. Nobody is going to take your little guns.

4. Understand that there are people in this country who would love to see all guns go away. That's their right to feel that way. Many have legitimate reasons. Stop calling them the vile names that you call them. It just turns people off and they stop caring what you think.

5. If you're going to keep screaming Constitutional Rights all the time. At least try to actually read the Constitution. That way you don't look so incredible uninformed.

#1.178

OK Dennis, dazzle me with your brilliance and explain to me how this is not an assault on the 2nd Amendment? Remember I am just a dumb farm kid, grew up in rural America, away from all the sophistication of the city.

And while your at it explain to me what my Constitutional Rights are. How the Constitution gives me my Rights and how it Guarantees them. I'll be waiting.

Also, maybe you can explain how you plan to enforce this Universal Background Check thing, and in your mind what it entails. (oh, I know at the Guns Shows it will be easy, there are numerous FFL dealers there, but what about outside the gun shows?)

Or how should I "secure" my firearms, to ensure they are not stolen.

oldhamletman

in hunting small game, target shooting, shooting while camping, home defense, just about any use for AR-15s, a 10 round clip is simply retarded... except for large game, which you wouldn't use an AR for anyway.

I don't own one, but if I was going to buy a rifle, there would be a 100% chance it would be an AR and a 100% chance I would want 30 round magazines....

#1.172

You do realize the AR comes in a multitude of calibers, not just .223? You can get uppers in just about anything from .22 cal LR, to .50 Beowolf. I have one for Prairie Dogs in a .243 WSSM, and was planning on getting a 6.8mm upper for deer, until this stupidity started.

Here is the funny thing, it takes a 30 round (.223) mag to hold 8 rounds of the .243 WSSM. I guess if these numbnuts get their way, I'll only get to put three rounds in mine.

REFERENCE: SPENCE 1.79

Did exposing addictive cigarette consequences stop cancer? NO, but cancer from nicotine sure went down.

Did removing lead from paint mean that no child ever dies from ingesting poison? NO, but kids aren't dead from paint chips anymore.

Did that "slippery slope" of giving women the right to vote kill democracy? NO

Mr. Spence professes to be an opinionated SMART GUY... and Mr. Spence KNOWS that background checks and controls won't "fix everything".

It's a silly question...and I question how smart Mr. Spence really is. His 2nd Amendment rights are secure.

All that bluster, whining and chest thumping ....what's the point?

Do I think that background checks are a positive step...YES I DO.

Do I want YOUR guns taken away? Absolutely not...as long as you are responsible, law-abiding, checked out on safety,and willing to accept the consequences of a mis-handled weapon designed to kill.

@ RI Mom #1.184

What is so truly sad about the "gun control freaks" and you are definitely one of them, is that they know absolutely nothing about firearms. A gun is a gun. Well a book is a Book, and piece of art is a piece of Art, what's the difference if we ban or burn a few of them, you can still have a book to read, or a piece of art to look at or at least the ones I don't find offensive. Or maybe we need to ban MSNBC, NPR and the Huffington Post, you can still get your news from Fox, Talk Radio, or Newsmax. Does that help put it in a perspective you can understand?

And how do you propose to enforce a universal back ground check? What constitutes a background check? Am I to be forced to pay an FFL dealer to do a background check on a guy who wants to by my gun? What gives the Government the authority to "tax" such a transaction? What information am to give a person I buy a gun from, and what assurances do I have that information will be safe guarded? And what are my remedies if it is not? I have owned and sold numerous guns over the years, as have many other people, what is to keep someone from saying they sold that gun before the UBC was in place, even though they didn't?

I understand why so many people are in favor of a Universal Background Check, it sounds good on the surface, but I don't think any of them have thought it through. The NRA has, undoubtedly, and they can see the pitfalls in it, and have probably come up with a whole lot longer list than I have, which is no doubt, why they are against it. I am not against UBC, but I see no way of enforcing it, and I see it as being in no meaningful way effectual against reducing crime.

And since you know nothing of firearms, or the Constitution (from many of your other posting, I know of for a fact that you are an advocate for abdicating citizens Rights and Responsibilities to Corporations and Governments) HOW CAN YOU ASSURE Mr. Spence his 2nd Amendment Rights are secure? Can I sue you like McDonalds if you are wrong?

And how is banning certain firearm based solely on lipstick features and mascara appearance, not denying future gun owners their Right to keep and bear? I get to keep mine, but what about the next generation?

And to be honest, I really don't know why I waste my time you. My guess is you are too ignorant or of a sufficiently diminished mental capacity to formulate a cognitive and cohesive argument to support your position. And you must revert to parroting what others have said, even though you fail to fully comprehend what was said. But hey, you're cool, right?

freak, an ignorant person, and one with diminished mental capacity...

The vast MAJORITY of Americans would find your name calling repugnant.

You are against Americans finding some middle ground on the subject of background checks and heavy-duty firearms.

There isn't a small median strip of rationality between your political paranoia and common sense.

According to polls, Americans want a rational discussion..... without that name calling you repeatedly resort to.

I pointed out that I’m dead against repeal of the Second Amendment.

If you find it necessary to go into the woods armed with a 30-round AR-15, you must either have poor aim or afraid the deer are going to fight back.

Your refusal to accept the background checks is YOUR PROBLEM. Frankly, I hope your defiance swallows you up in total anguish. The rest of us regard your fears as comical.

This all-encompassing anger and the irrational belief that I want Americans stripped of their guns is bizarre.

It is simply not true (nor would it be feasible).

.

.

.

I know of for a fact that you are an advocate for abdicating citizens Rights and Responsibilities to Corporations and Governments

Might I say that your posts are disturbing..... back off on that kind of attack. You've already discredited yourself.

Got it... DUMB?

RI Mom

freak, an ignorant person, and one with diminished mental capacity...

The vast MAJORITY of Americans would find your name calling repugnant.

You are against Americans finding some middle ground on the subject of background checks and heavy-duty firearms.

There isn't a small median strip of rationality between your political paranoia and common sense.

According to polls, Americans want a rational discussion..... without that name calling you repeatedly resort to.

I pointed out that I’m dead against repeal of the Second Amendment.

If you find it necessary to go into the woods armed with a 30-round AR-15, you must either have poor aim or afraid the deer are going to fight back.

Your refusal to accept the background checks is YOUR PROBLEM. Frankly, I hope your defiance swallows you up in total anguish. The rest of us regard your fears as comical.

This all-encompassing anger and the irrational belief that I want Americans stripped of their guns is bizarre.

It is simply not true (nor would it be feasible).

I know of for a fact that you are an advocate for abdicating citizens Rights and Responsibilities to Corporations and Governments

Might I say that your posts are disturbing..... back off on that kind of attack. You've already discredited yourself.

Got it... DUMB?

#1.186

And the vast majority of Americans find Ignorance repugnant as well, yet you liberals and those in the MSM seem intent on remaining so, in so far as the gun debate goes.

And I am not against any measure that would significantly reduce gun crime, and therefore the need for me to worry about defending my Right to Life. But I refuse to fall in line with anything just for the sake of doing "something". When we do "something" I want to know it is going to work, and not have unintended consequences, as is so common with Government "Solutions".

First I gave examples of how these gun bans are no different than bans on books or art among the numerous things covered under the 1st Amendment, and you failed to refute any of them. I asked you to explain to me how we can enforce the UBC, and instead you resort to ad personem attacks. Hey, if you can answer the questions, then call me what ever you like, and I will apologize for being repugnant. Until then I will continue to insist that you are nothing more than talking parrot.

If you have read and UNDERSTOOD the Constitution, and the frame of mind of the Authors of said document, then you would know the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. And if you read my previous posts you would know that I can not even get 30 rounds of ammo into one configuration of my AR. I also have numerous other guns for hunting, each one has its own particular application, just like the tools in my tool box. If you knew anything about firearms, you would know a gun is not just a gun, just like a wrench is not just a wrench or a book is not just a book.

Nor did I accuse you of wanting "Americans stripped of their guns..." Where did you get that idea? I said;

And how is banning certain firearm based solely on lipstick features and mascara appearance, not denying future gun owners their Right to keep and bear? I get to keep mine, but what about the next generation?

Is this not just like banning certain books or art, denying the following generations of their 1st Amendment Rights? I guess I needed to spell out to you "denying future gun owners their Right to keep and bear" those certain arms.

You know in order to have an intelligent conversation, it helps to have one with someone who is not only intelligent, but knowledge of the topic as well. Why don't you get away from your keyboard for a while, go down to a local gun range, and get a little education.

Phhhht...

go back to your comics

@ RI Mom

Phhhht...

go back to your comics

#1.188

I am truly devastated by your withering retort. I may need to seek counseling, and may be impaired for life. The way you dis-affirmed my entire argument was truly magnificent. I am going down to the voter registration office right now and change my affiliation to Democrat. Nothing puts a person in his/her place like a dismissive argument.

You know, the truly sad thing is, you have learned nothing here. Tomorrow you will espousing your same wrong headed beliefs.

You should know, that I am appreciative to someone who can give me a new perspective to view different from my own. I may not agree with it completely, but it does give me something to contemplate, or change or revise a belief I have. I can not say the same for you.

But like I said, I waste my time here, good day, RI.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

"Ordinary military equipment" is protected by the Constitution. That means military style rifles and their magazines ( i.e. equipment) in whatever capacity used by the military.

This has nothing to do with the NRA.

If you are a law abiding citizen it matters not the capacity of any magazine.

If you are a criminal you don't care anyway.

Criminals get what they want and need.

@SRS - typing in capital letters doesn't make your hysterical arguments any more valid. You sound like the nut!

He is a traitor. They have taken the rights of the people and hopefully during the next election cycle they will pay for it with their careers and freedom loving Americans will be vote in to restore those rights.

SRS-798254

Chill out. Stop slobbering & slinging snot. It will all be OK. Don't have some kind of seizure or something.

Magazines are needed for various reasons.

I for one get tired of constantly re-loading at the range.

They are safe, and they are fun.

No one needs more than a 30 for anything.

For one reason, they are too heavy.

If you REALLY went nuts and wanted to do some damage, a shotgun with those "little magazines" of

00 buckshot are way worse than a rifle with a thirty round mag.

SRS, why do you keep yelling? You lose your audience when you start acting irate. And just name calling doesn't do any good. What are you trying to hide from, other than the truth?

Today you lost a few rounds of ammunition and tomorrow there will be another restriction to your freedoms in the effort to provide the illusion of safety.

Next

DON'T HAVE A SEIZURE! With these nuts talking nutty trying to protect the real nuts that are actually killing hundreds of people a year? What are they thinking? They really believe that the constitution protects every possible weapon their paranoid delusions makes them think they need? So we should all have 50 caliber machine guns? 155mm Howitzers? Nuclear Weapons? These are all types of "ARMS" that they say the constitution allows them to own.

THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS!

Colorado gun owners beware... The next set of laws to be signed by Guv. Sh!ttypooper/Chickenf#*cker will be the door to door search and seizures. That is the only way they can enforce these laws

I sure am glad the criminals won't have guns anymore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was getting veeeery scared!!!!!!!!!!

Now we here from the "slippery slope'ers".

They will seize my weapon next (add extra hysteria here).

No they won't. Hickenlooper believes in the 2nd amendment, but there are limits. To everything.

Congratulations Governor Hickenlooper. It takes a man to stand up to the gun nuts. I have found that most of them are cowards and bullies. Wayne LaPierre, N.R.A. C.E.O. got so anxious when confronted with military service that the Psychiatrist declared him unfit to carry a fire-arm. And Ted Nugent - the N.R.A. Board member and spokesman lost control of both his bowels and urine - made a real mess. The Army Psychiatrist discharged him as well and said he was unfit to carry a fire-arm. Guess the N.R.A. is concerned about the possibility of back-ground checks. Most of them will not be able to carry. David Keene, President is guilty of a straw purchase for his under-age son who committed a felony with the gun. Embarrassing.

SRS,

you're a funny dude, keep it up. your uneducated opinions about gun owners are always good for a laugh

He is a traitor. They have taken the rights of the people and hopefully during the next election cycle they will pay for it with their careers and freedom loving Americans will be vote in to restore those rights.

this law takes away exactly ZERO rights.

SRS, get back on your meds. I'M NOT CRAZY! YOU'RE CRAZY! LALALALAL.

SRS,

'Banning guns does work.' FAIL!!

It is an absolute fact that the crime rate in the UK went up 40% after all the guns were banned in that country.

Hey nut head, go research the fact for yourself and then come crawling back to this forum to tell the truth!

Drowning Grover, Post 3.17,

Quote "this law takes away exactly ZERO rights."

You are completely and utterly wrong. It takes away many rights including the right to sell a gun to anyone, including family members, without going through a timely and costly paperwork bureaucracy, it takes away ones right to buy 30 round magazines, etc, etc, etc.

Just because you don't believe in those rights does not make it no less of a right!

It was the Left in this country lead by the ACLU that released all the mentally people out on the streets.

Liberals are responsible for the poor state of mental health in America and crazies shooting up the innocent on the streets.

I like what a Tulsa police officer said to me the other day while encouraging me to get a gun and training for personal protection. He said: "Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"

How many minutes were the police away while a crazy killed many children and adults at Sandyhook?

How safe where those victims in their 'gun free zone'!

to all you over zealous anti gun morons that think guns kill people and high capacity magazines are a problem, explain please why Chicago, who has the strictest gun laws in America also has the highest rate of firearms related murders in America......... gun restrictions do not work, plain and simple, and infringement on the rights of honest law abiding citizens does nothing to make them more protected from criminals, in fact, it does quite the opposite. Welcome to your serfdom.

@ SRS

No RATIONAL HUMAN BEING would even CONSIDER the need for a magazine bigger than about five rounds. And just about ALL these MASS SHOOTERS were law abiding citizens UNTIL THEY WERE MASS MURDERERS.

Tell me why no rational human being would even consider the need for a magazine bigger than 5 rounds?

Are you telling me that all the people in law enforcement who use high capacity magazines in their rifles & handguns are not rational? Are you telling me that 80+ million civilian gun owners are all irrational? Most gun owners have one or more firearms than hold more than 5-rounds.

How does limiting magazine capacity make anyone safer? A criminal/killer will just bring more magazines and/or guns with them if they were limited to amount of ammo each magazine can hold. Of course the reality is a criminal won't be limited because they don't follow laws/rules. They will still go on their killing sprees with high capacity magazines.

How does it make you any safer if someone has six 10-round AR15 magazines instead of two 30-round magazines? It is still the same amount of ammo. It only takes 2 to 3 seconds to change a magazine.

You personally would like people to be limited to 5-round magazines. So lets hear your logical reasoning why that would be ideal?