View Full Version : Colorado Gun Owners for Safety
I just saw this group pop up in a bunch of local press. Anyone know anything about them?
They had a press conference with Gabby Gifford introducing them and have a face man who talks about being a gun owner and thus his opinions reprint us. They want to start with Red Flag and Stolen reporting.
It looks to me like a direct out of state effort with only minor cloaking by I singing a local fool/activist. Google searches show little but one thing I found interesting is this group was protesting the Western Conservative meeting last fall with a bunch of Resist? groups.
Game is on folks, get ready because they are coming for us.
Great-Kazoo
01-22-2019, 22:01
The games been on. it's only gotten bolder with the "dark money" that flowed in to the political arena, in an overt effort to oust trump.
Zundfolge
01-22-2019, 22:26
I don't believe they're gun owners.
I don't believe they're for safety.
I'm not even sure they're Coloradoans.
I don't believe they're gun owners.
I don't believe they're for safety.
I'm not even sure they're Coloradoans.
I know zero about this group, but pretty much this.
I don't believe they're gun owners.
I don't believe they're for safety.
I'm not even sure they're Coloradoans.
Ditto
ChickNorris
01-22-2019, 23:58
Ditto
Squared
Rucker61
01-23-2019, 07:46
They have a Facebook page - no, wait, actual gun owners in Colorado have a Facebook page. It seems that the Giffords' group was a bit too slow to secure the page under the "Colorado Gun Owners for Safety Name".
https://i.imgur.com/N0wMfwp.gif
kidicarus13
01-23-2019, 07:56
Anyone know anything about them?
They had a press conference with Gabby Gifford introducing them
That's all I needed to know. ...to know
GeorgeandSugar
01-23-2019, 08:09
That's all I needed to know. ...to know
Dittos!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
hollohas
01-23-2019, 08:38
They have a Facebook page - no, wait, actual gun owners in Colorado have a Facebook page. It seems that the Giffords' group was a bit too slow to secure the page under the "Colorado Gun Owners for Safety Name".Nice.
hollohas
01-23-2019, 08:46
They have a Facebook page - no, wait, actual gun owners in Colorado have a Facebook page. It seems that the Giffords' group was a bit too slow to secure the page under the "Colorado Gun Owners for Safety Name".Comments so far on the FB page are folks who apparently don't read and think the page is Gifford's group. Funny to see people say how stupid the page is for supporting gun control at the same time the commenter being too stupid to realize the page was created to fight against Gifford's gun control push.
Is this the group fronted by that fossilized asshole who, in 2013, was ranting in front of legislature about how he only needed 1 shot to shoot a deer and didn't see the need for anything that held more than about five rounds?
That might be me, what are you seeing that indicates who that page represents?
hollohas
01-23-2019, 12:34
That might be me, what are you seeing that indicates who that page represents?The 'About' link on the FB page as well as other posts/comments they've made on the page.
Will1776
01-23-2019, 13:27
Is this the group fronted by that fossilized asshole who, in 2013, was ranting in front of legislature about how he only needed 1 shot to shoot a deer and didn't see the need for anything that held more than about five rounds?
There's a special place in hell for fudds
Honey Badger282.8
01-23-2019, 14:58
Oh look, another "common sense" gun rights group.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/01/22/gabrielle-giffords-mark-kelly-gun-safety-colorado/
Martinjmpr
01-23-2019, 15:45
Astroturf. :rolleyes:
Bloomberg dark money.
Also, by all accounts, Mark Kelley is a first rate jerk in real life.
They have a Facebook page - no, wait, actual gun owners in Colorado have a Facebook page. It seems that the Giffords' group was a bit too slow to secure the page under the "Colorado Gun Owners for Safety Name".
Awesome! I followed their page..
From their "about" page:
We are a PRO Second Amendment group seeking to protect Colorado gun owners from unjust laws.
COLORADO GUN OWNERS FOR SAFETY WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019
We are not affiliated with any anti gun organization. We are not seeking to create more laws, regulations or rules on firearms in Colorado. Quite the contrary, we want to reduce laws, rules and regulations. We believe in these four rules of safety:
1) All guns are always loaded
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy
3) Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
4) Identify your target, and what is behind it
Among other initiatives, we want to see
- Constitutional Carry in Colorado
- Expanded programs for armed teachers/staff
- Repeal of all of the 2013 Colorado gun laws
- Enforcement of the Colorado Preemption law
- Expand firearms training and education in public schools
- Our legislators honor their oaths to the United States and Colorado Constitutions
Oh look, another "common sense" gun rights group.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/01/22/gabrielle-giffords-mark-kelly-gun-safety-colorado/
Polis has indicated support for taking guns temporarily from people who are mentally unstable and with Democrats in control of both chambers, the bill will likely pass this year.
I can agree with it, but it should be based on a judge's decision, not a phone call from some citizen saying they are a threat.
Aren’t the ERPOs a thing where there is no real due process and no awareness of the impending “confiscation” or ability to give evidence in one’s defense prior? And what recourse (real, not fictitious legal BS) is there for return of the firearms in a rapid manner upon demonstration of not being a threat? How does one prove a negative (that they aren’t a threat)?
We have plenty of laws in place already to deal with these issues that don’t violate due process.
Aren’t the ERPOs a thing where there is no real due process and no awareness of the impending “confiscation” or ability to give evidence in one’s defense prior? And what recourse (real, not fictitious legal BS) is there for return of the firearms in a rapid manner upon demonstration of not being a threat? How does one prove a negative (that they aren’t a threat)?
We have plenty of laws in place already to deal with these issues that don’t violate due process.
For the most part, I agree. But then you have guys like James Holmes, where his psychiatrist said he was a risk, and nothing was done about it. There absolutely needs to be a receipt of what is taken, and there does need to be a means to promptly get your stuff back once a psychiatrist can clear them.
DavieD55
01-23-2019, 22:01
The red flag laws are designed to be a political weapon. This law is already being used as a poltical weapon in certain places where it has been implemented. In places where this law has been implemented but hasn't been used for narfarious purposes, eventually it will be used for narfarious purposes. It is completely unconstitutional to begin with.
If and I say if the MSM narrative was factual with regards to James Holmes, his psychiatrist had ample opportunity to initiate a 5150 civil commitment if the psychiatrist suspected him to be a danger to society. Again, if the MSM narrative was factual with regards to Holmes. In recent years we have watched MSM feed off of shootings to advance a politcal agenda against gun owners and the RKBA.
Edit: The media apparatus and the gun grabbers are never going to stop their war on gun owners and the RKBA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PR40QtoUOA
UrbanWolf
01-23-2019, 22:08
Is this the group fronted by that fossilized asshole who, in 2013, was ranting in front of legislature about how he only needed 1 shot to shoot a deer and didn't see the need for anything that held more than about five rounds?
Lol, so single action revolvers hold too many rounds now.
Great-Kazoo
01-23-2019, 22:33
For the most part, I agree. But then you have guys like James Holmes, where his psychiatrist said he was a risk, and nothing was done about it. There absolutely needs to be a receipt of what is taken, and there does need to be a means to promptly get your stuff back once a psychiatrist can clear them.
His shrink felt he was a risk. Contacted LE BUT...................AS she admitted later, Never Followed up on anything. NEVER............ Then when the spotlight hit her. She said (loosely quoted) I guess i should have done more.
DISCLAIMER:
MY belief and mine alone is . People like Holmes shrink , the education system in parkland along with the LE community in Parkland. Among others. Has a blind eye towards potential violent people.
AGAIN, MY BELIEF
yet do little if anything, hoping the soon to be criminals actions will further their political agenda. be it Gun Control,Red Flag Laws, more funding for public school "sensitivity classes" , more means to wipe out toxic masculinity (educational castration) funding for more LE's etc.
In short a political agenda has overshadowed doing what's right to stop this shit before it happens
She notified law enforcement, what else can be expected of her?
Great-Kazoo
01-23-2019, 22:47
Followed up. If she were treating a client who she knew owned a gun. You don't think she would have been on the phone every day. To make sure the LE acted.
I can agree with it, but it should be based on a judge's decision, not a phone call from some citizen saying they are a threat.
http://youtu.be/VT-_7P3JEnQ
http://youtu.be/NaHVWiMan6U
In the 300+ cases of red flag seizures in Florida, they have yet to return a single firearm.
Legal framework for dealing with Holmes already existed.
I hate infringement but the standard of "involuntary commitment" was well intentioned. It necessitated a court hearing and provided due process to the subject with an understanding of what was at stake. It also had the benefit of addressing the actual problem (mental illness) rather than blaming perfectly sane gun owners for the behavior of a handful of nutters.
Red flag, like most gun control laws, are pushed by people who fail to enforce the existing laws. Sad that folks don't realize this.
How does red flagging a person prevent him from being dangerous? It doesn't.
Singlestack
01-24-2019, 14:36
I can agree with it, but it should be based on a judge's decision, not a phone call from some citizen saying they are a threat.
That isn't due process, at all. How many times have we seen activist judges throwing out any notion of fairness or the law and act as straight political hacks? No thanks.
I predict that BS red flags will become de rigueur in divorce filings, piled on top of the other BS used to harass men.
I can agree with it, but it should be based on a judge's decision, not a phone call from some citizen saying they are a threat.
It will not be a judge's "decision". No judge wants to be the one that DIDN'T sign a red flag order only to have the person go postal. They will sign every single one that hits their desk.
SWATting and confiscation made legal. It's a feature according to the left.
O2
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.