Colorado Democrats lose recall elections over gun-control votes

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

So you agree we should eliminate the loophole that allows private individuals from selling guns to people they don't know are felons or not. 

Most people who want gun control aren't trying to get rid of all guns, just want some common sense laws to require responsible ownership and use.  Just like most people who support DUI laws aren't trying to bring back the 18th amendment. And requiring drivers licences and licence plates on cars, is far different than banning all automobiles.   

I have no issues with trying to improve the system to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as long as that does not infringe upon my rights to carry as I see fit without costing me a ton of money.

Unfortunately for a lot of people it is an all or nothing approach on both sides and that will never work.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Unfortunately for a lot of people it is an all or nothing approach on both sides and that will never work.

Not true.  Very few on the gun control side want a complete ban of guns Fau is very much the exception.  And even the majority of gun owners supported the gun control that passed the Senate but was filibustered. 

It is just the extremest NRA that takes such an approach -- and tries to paint every reasonable law as a complete ban on all firearms. 

[Spider-Dan]

I have no issues with trying to improve the system to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as long as that does not infringe upon my rights to carry as I see fit without costing me a ton of money.

The problem with framing it as "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" is that such laws would, by design, have had no effect on Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza (who were not criminals until they started shooting people).

Unless you're fine with that, in which case I suppose there is no problem (from your perspective).

[Phishfan]

you don't support closing of the "gun show loophole":

And you also don't seem to support the idea of a purchasing permit:

Never said anything along either of those lines. You like to disagree with me so much that you change my stance in these threads quite frequently.

I pointed out the misnomer of the so called "gun show loophole" by saying background checks are indeed ran by licensed dealers at the gun shows and then discussed what I saw as an issue of Hoodie's proposal. He then clarified.

[Spider-Dan]

When someone brings up potential gun control legislation, the only comment you make is invariably an objection.  You've done it twice so far.

Why don't you just end the suspense and say which gun control legislation you are in favor of?

[Phishfan]

So what do you support, exactly?  Banning of assault weapons?  Restriction on high-capacity magazines?  National gun registry?

I do not have issue with limiting magazine capacity. Assault rifle ban, we've had one before and it did not stop much from happeneing. I'm willing to listen to it though. Gun registry, I have mixed emotions on and can expand if necessary. Background checks, no issue with. Enhanced training, probably needs to happen.

There may be some more ideas but this is off the top of my head

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

The problem with framing it as "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" is that such laws would, by design, have had no effect on Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza (who were not criminals until they started shooting people).

Unless you're fine with that, in which case I suppose there is no problem (from your perspective).

Sorry I know you love to pick apart every little detail and misstep people type so I honestly don't even know why I am entertaining you but for the sake of the old collage try here goes.

You will never keep the guns out of the hands of criminals so let's try to reduce it as best we can without infringing upon the rights of those of us who obey the laws and enjoy firearms.

You aren't going to catch them all.....No law in the world outside of a complete removal of all guns from this planet will prevent fucked up people from doing fucked up things with guns. All you can do is hope to reduce it. If there weren't guns these people would find other means to kill people.

They are going to get them anyways no matter the amount of regulation or restrictions you put on them, so I will take my chances by keeping mine to better my odds of survival.

[CF DolFan]

Guess I should have used mountain lions as an example... Since our use of firearms has made them extinct and all... -EK

Not sure that's a good analogy either because mountain lions aren't extinct unless you know something National Geographic doesn't. Got another one? 

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/mountain-lion/

This powerful predator roams the Americas, where it is also known as a puma, cougar, and catamount. This big cat of many names is also found in many habitats, from Florida swamps to Canadian forests.

Mountain lions like to prey on deer, though they also eat smaller animals such as coyotes, porcupines, and raccoons. They usually hunt at night or during the gloaming hours of dawn and dusk. These cats employ a blend of stealth and power, stalking their prey until an opportunity arrives to pounce, then going for the back of the neck with a fatal bite. They will hide large carcasses and feed on them for several days.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You will never keep the guns out of the hands of criminals so let's try to reduce it as best we can without infringing upon the rights of those of us who obey the laws and enjoy firearms.

I agree with that.  

I want to treat guns like cars.  

Granted treating cars like cars hasn't prevented all accidental deaths nor completely prevented the use of autos in criminal behavior.  But imagine what it would be like if someone could drive a car w/o getting a license first.  

1. Require a license to buy or use a gun.  Holder must not be a felon nor adjudicated insane.  Plus holder must pass a test proving they know the proper safety rules for a gun.

2.  Register and track who owns each gun.  

3. Require basic safety equipment.  Guns must be store locked when nobody is home.  Prevent the guns from being stolen by the bad guys.

4. Guns must be locked or stored out of the reach of children, if children are present.

5. Ban high capacity magazines.  

This will still allow the good guys to keep their guns, and while it would not eliminate every gun death, it would decrease them substantially.   

[CF DolFan]

Then I guess it's a good thing that bombs are already illegal, and civilians are not permitted to stockpile huge caches of explosives under the cloaks of "self-defense" and "sport hunting" and "stopping government tyranny."

I would also like to point out that the fertilizer-based components of the OKC bomb were later outlawed by Congress.

Umm ... Ammonium Nitrate is still in fertilizer. In April of this year 15 people died at the West Fertilizer Co. when it exploded ... remember that?

Safety regulations and outlawing are hugely different.

The saddest part is I can make a bomb from internet directions much faster and easier than I can obtain a gun as a 15, 16 or 17 year old.

[Spider-Dan]

You will never keep the guns out of the hands of criminals so let's try to reduce it as best we can without infringing upon the rights of those of us who obey the laws and enjoy firearms.

It's obvious that you'll never have 100% success with any ban.  The statement, "If ______ is banned, criminals will still have ______" applies to near any banned item you can think of: heroin, explosives, machine guns, you name it.  It is a shapeless, catch-all argument against banning things, and is not particularly useful (unless you're a libertarian and believe the government has no right to ban things).

That all being said, the handgun bans that have been enacted in countries like Japan and England have been very effective at reducing gun crime... just as the machine gun bans that have been in place in the U.S. for nearly a century have been very effective at reducing crimes committed with machine guns.

[Spider-Dan]

Umm ... Ammonium Nitrate is still in fertilizer. In April of this year 15 people died at the West Fertilizer Co. when it exploded ... remember that?

Sorry, when I said "outlawed," I meant in the sense that cocaine, bazookas, napalm, etc. are "outlawed," which is to say that they are tightly regulated by the government.

[EKnight]

Not sure that's a good analogy either because mountain lions aren't extinct unless you know something National Geographic doesn't. Got another one? 

You must've missed my clarification about Eastern Mountain lions- declared extinct and removed from the endangered species list in 2011.

"The "ghost cat" is just that.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday declared the eastern cougar to be extinct, confirming a widely held belief among wildlife biologists that native populations of the big cat were wiped out by man a century ago.

After a lengthy review, federal officials concluded there are no breeding populations of cougars – also known as pumas, panthers, mountain lions and catamounts – in the eastern United States. Researchers believe the eastern cougar subspecies has probably been extinct since the 1930s."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/eastern-cougar-extinct-mo_n_830181.html

-EK

[pondwater]

You are not going to see this more often. It happens occasionally, but not often. Most people mindlessly vote for the same party election cycle after election cycle. It takes something special to cause a recall, and in this case the recall was only 50% successful.

You will see more of this if politicians keep ramming legislation down the throats of people who don't want it. Maybe in general elections or maybe in recalls. Hell, the democrats in senate ran from from this shit back in April and it was only expanded background checks. I think they remember what happened back in the 90s when they pulled this shit with their made up term of "assault weapons". Plenty of them were voted out. They may talk tough, but they don't want to lose their jobs anymore than anyone else does. If the dems ain't even going to vote it in, it must be shit legislation.

As for a second civil war and secession, it is not going to happen. People in this country are too lazy and comfortable to engage in a civil war or to secede. It is easy to spout rhetoric on the internet and puff out your chest. It is whole different story to actually lace em on, ruck up, and spill blood...and to face the hardships involved with a civil war and secession.
I am not surprised you have ignored these convenient facts.

If you say so. Go ask all the other countries that have gone through civil wars in the last 50 years. Oh, I forgot. It can't ever happen here because the left says it can't. Keep pushing and eventually you'll get pushed back.

[pondwater]

I agree with that.  

I want to treat guns like cars.  

Granted treating cars like cars hasn't prevented all accidental deaths nor completely prevented the use of autos in criminal behavior.  But imagine what it would be like if someone could drive a car w/o getting a license first.  

Driving a car is a privledge and the right to bear arms is a right. That is a big difference.

1. Require a license to buy or use a gun.  Holder must not be a felon nor adjudicated insane.  Plus holder must pass a test proving they know the proper safety rules for a gun.

As previously noted, if tests, licences, and fees are required then that activity is a privledge. It's called the right to bear arms. You don't need permission to exercise a right.

2.  Register and track who owns each gun.

 Tracking and registration is the first step toward confiscation. Not acceptable.

3. Require basic safety equipment.  Guns must be store locked when nobody is home.  Prevent the guns from being stolen by the bad guys.

Common sense. However, locks don't prevent theft. Pointless and near impossible to enforce.

4. Guns must be locked or stored out of the reach of children, if children are present.

Again, common sense. People have been prosecuted for this.

5. Ban high capacity magazines.

 What you you call "high capacity"? 100 rounds?

This will still allow the good guys to keep their guns, and while it would not eliminate every gun death, it would decrease them substantially.   

I doubt it.