Best
125 Comments
Post
  • #125
    !
    Tyranny? Magazines are not arms and therefore not protected under the 2nd Amendment. That is my unqualified opinion, which is just as valid as yours.
  • #2
    !
    I said it before and I'll say it again, the American people will not stand for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. We the people are tired of obama stealing away our rights!
  • #71
    !
    {triple facepalm} Neo, no one is trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Try not to get yer boxers in a bunch over nothing. It ain't gonna happen.
  • #95
    !
    @Denizen_Kate Agree, outright repealing won't happen. But a gun restriction here, and a magazine ban there, along with registration and other rules, basically results in a right that is no longer existent. Freedom is always lost in small chunks, so that it goes less noticed.
  • #3
    !
    Colorado legislators are the epitome of stupidity. I read someone's post that said something that gun control was like raising the thermostat in your home and expecting the weather to get warmer outside? That was spot on! I can remember not too long ago when Colorado was being raked over the coals as being anti-gay over Amendment 2 (don't confuse that with the 2nd Amendment!)
  • #8
    !
    Remember, most guns found on criminals are not acquired legally. Crooks don't undergo background checks, or registration, to get their guns.

    "Background checks for criminals" is the most foolish thing I've ever heard Obama say.
  • #63
    !
    @DARSB
    Always exceptions to the rule, but the rule stands. Obama said the background checks are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not non criminals. Non criminals will continue to get their guns legally and criminals will continue to get their guns illegally. Obama proposal will not change that.
  • #6
    !
    My o my no mention of the police officers that were disgusted by obama using them as a back drop for his personal agenda.Obama is, I give him that the second master of deception.
  • #14
    !
    Several sheriff's have said they won't enforce these new laws. Before anyone bitches about that remember, they are simply following the federal governments lead is selective enforcement.

    We are going to have our law officers researching when someone purchased a friggin magazine? BS.

    Lets examine what these people that passed the laws are saying.

    CO State Rep. Diana DeGette (D):

    "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."

    It is difficult to imagine anyone more clueless than this woman. Those that know weapons will see she doesn't know anything. She doesn't even know a magazine can be reloaded.

    You wonder why these laws won't be enforced. There is already an investigation in to extortion in how this was passed. Sheriff's were threatened with their pay in an upcoming bill if they didn't support these gun proposals. Chitcago style politics in Colorado now.
  • #42
    !
    @Medicinebow So does Diana think you can't just go to the state next to you and buy them. Not all states are as STUPID as Colorado. Are they going to ban hunting trips to their state as well?
  • R Load more replies

  • #49
    !
    Hellooooooo! Has any of these power hungry politicians read the US Constitution? You know the document, the contract that transfers limited power from the people to the government. I'm very sure that the 2nd Amendment is still there. It forbids the government from infringing on the people's Right to keep and bear arms. This individual right has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.
  • #65
    !
    Hellooooooo! The Supreme Court has most certainly upheld the 2nd for the people to "keep and bear arms". The Supreme Court has also upheld that it is not an unrestricted right and the government can pass laws restricting certain people from obtaining arms, restricting certain arms, restricting arms from being carried in certain places, and imposing conditions on the sale of arms . You omitted that fact in your little write up.
    Please try to do better next time. I'm sure you don't want to be branded as a gun nut job who only tells part of the story in order to mislead the reader.
    Now there's a good boy. Go forth and do the right thing, my son.
  • #118
    !
    @factologest: " and the government can pass laws restricting certain people from obtaining arms restricting certain arms, restricting arms from being carried in certain places, and imposing conditions on the sale of arms ." Well, not really. The Supreme court did not say that the government can restrict certain firearms (they did say that the 2nd Amendment protected the sorts of lawful weapons that were possessed at home.) So if you lawfully owned a machine gun (and many people do), then it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Nor did they say that the government can impose conditions on the sale of arms (only commercial sales), nor did they say the government can restrict certain people from obtaining arms (only felons and the menatlly ill are recognised as prohibited). The only places that can be restricted are sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Your reply has a very liberal interpretation of the court's ruling. What gave you away was the condescending remarks at the end of your mixed up factoid. Only liberals try to win their aurgument by twisting the facts and demeaning their opponent.
  • #119
    !
    @Gatnos Well sonny, don't look now but you just repeated what I had already written. Your only whine is that you think I'm a liberal.
    Try hard, little man, to separate your bias and stick with facts.

    Facts
    1)My post that you responded to was to illustrate that constitutional laws COULD/HAVE BEEN be passed that limit the 2nd amendment.
    2)Those restrictions I cited from an SC ruling are not protected by the 2nd. Can you read, little guy. I wrote "cited" in a SC ruling" not from my liberal interpretation.
    3)Certain people have the opinion that that the 2nd can not be tampered with in any way.
    4) They are wrong. As written in a SC ruling, something to the effect of "all rights have limits".
    NOW, what facts have I twisted?
    Now put your big boy pants on and quit whining about liberals.We are here to stay and win presidential elections.

    BTW, you demean yourself, this liberal didn't do it.
    Now see how much you can learn from us liberals.
  • #120
    !
    @factologest: It appears that you either don't understand the English language or just want to ignore what is clearly written. As for the facts; here is the link to the text of the Heller decision. Your "cited" text leaves out critical elements. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07... I'm done with you, since you can not or will not argue the facts, but instead insist on calling me names.
  • #121
    !
    @Gatnos I called you no names, sonny. You come across as a whimpering child, I merely responded to you that way.
    And I suppose you either don't understand the English language or just want to ignore what is clearly written, my references came from the Heller case conclusion.
    Here's the exact verbiage sans references.

    " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Some salient points from this
    1) the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited
    2)the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
    3)prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Now just what did I omit or distort?

    Talk about distortions; your comment that " It [the 2nd] forbids the government from infringing on the people's Right to keep and bear arms" your use of the word "infringing" is a gross distortion.(def:Verb
    1)Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
    2)Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".)

    The federal government has no intention of purposely "infringing" on the 2nd and it's a distortion on your part to hint at it. The government simple makes laws. The SC decides if the law is an "infringement" on the constitution and the only way to find out is to make the law and have it challenged and taken to court. Also, I must point out to you that Never, as in never ever, in our history has the "federal government" disobeyed a ruling of the SCOTUS. AND YOU KNOW IT!
  • #32
    !
    So he backs knocking down magazine sizes to a size that doesn't even exist for 99% of firearms....... and infringing upon Americans rights... Well we knew the last part already.
  • #25
    !
    A role model for WHAT? The measures enacted in Colorado would not have saved any of the lives lost in Aurora or Newtown. I hate to beat the same drum over and over again but guns don't kill people. People do. I wish our legislators would figure that out.
  • R Load more replies

  • #62
    !
    Obama treats people like Dogs who are rewarded for their obidience by getting petted.
    Surrender, Submit, OBEY.......The Obama!! Good Boy. Now sit up for me Rover. Now roll over. Good Boy!!
  • #56
    !
    It is also a great litmus test for political candidates.

    If someone supports gun control, they are truly against the individual and freedom, and against America and it's principles in general.
  • #58
    !
    @Concerned_Cit yep. I imagine Hickenlooper's political career in Colorado is over. Maybe he should move west. Feinstein is about 200 years old, maybe she'll die or retire soon and the fruit loops in San Francisco can send him to the senate.
  • #35
    !
    No let's Colorado's politicians pay that price... but as long as this schmuck president has decided to continue his tour of all the mass shooting sites , he might as well pop in on Texas and pay Fort Hood a visit ... I'll bet his speech writer will have to work overtime for that one
  • #29
    !
    You know Obama has said we should have "shared sacrifice". Yet he goes often on extravagant vacations as does his entire family. If Obama wants gun control, let's start with him. NO ARMED GUARDS for the lieberal elites, including Obama.
  • #16
    !
    This crap passed because the enitre body is democrat controlled. Colorado is no model for gun control. None of the new laws make schools or any public place safer. He calls this progress because they won't be satisfied until only the government themself has guns. You can bet your ass if a bill to ban all weapons were put on his desk he'd sign it in a heartbeat.

    Anyone that believes he respects the 2nd amendment is a fool.
  • #15
    !
    A broken model? Obama has made it clear that he is the pawn and hench-man of the rich's will, and that he wants to disarm American citizens, but for what end?

    The ONLY reason for gun control is to make the people easier to control, so that some new order or rule over them can be imposed.
  • #7
    !
    This is nothing more than govt smoke screening that neither party is doing a damn thing about reforming the tax code, reining in the Banks/wall street or bringing Jobs back to America. I wonder how many many hours in the White House and Congress and how many millions have been spent on this smoke screen?
  • #21
    !
    @jessejaymes Congress and the White House will do anything to avoid getting a real budget and cut spending. Your admonition to vote for anyone but an incumbent is choice, hope people listen to you.
  • #24
    !
    @Bill2E The won't. They'll keep sending incumbents back over and over again because poll after poll shows more than 90% of Americans think Congress is corrupt EXCEPT for THEIR congress people. Stupid.
  • #83
    !
    What the simple minded moron in chief does not realize is that all those Democrats who voted for gun control in Colorado will lose their next election. Harry Reid only has 40 votes in the Senate, and the bill will never reach the floor of the House. Obama is just pandering to his base. He knows this has zero chance for passage.
  • R Load more comments...
Post