Denver Post Editorial piece.

[BPTactical]

Todays Post has an editorial on why the AWB should be reinstated and Colorado should lead the way. I can't link it but dig it up if you want to puke.

[ray1970]

What? An anti-gun editorial from a news publication? What's the world coming to? [Coffee]

[OneGuy67]

It was written by a woman who lives in Aspen and writes periodically for the Post. She thinks she is witty and deep. She is glad Colorado is a blue state.

[02ducky]

Wow, just wow. I miss the old Colorado when there wasn't this many idiots in this state.

This stuff just pisses me off to no end.

[ray1970]

Wow, just wow. I miss the old Colorado when there wasn't this many idiots in this state.

This stuff just pisses me off to no end.

Just wait, Ducky. You don't think amendment 64 isn't going to draw in tons more hippy/liberal types from other states? Hell, half the popluation of California will probably move here in the next couple of years.

[T-Jet]

Just wait, Ducky. You don't think amendment 64 isn't going to draw in tons more hippy/liberal types from other states? Hell, half the popluation of California will probably move here in the next couple of years.

My wife & I were just talking about this very thing today. Seems one of the friends of her family is moving to Colorado just for Amdmnt 64. He won't admit it to your face but everyone knows that is why he's doing it. So you don't have to wait for years to come for this to come true. It's happening already.

[buffalobo]

I went and dug up the column. Was a pain to find it, even though it was dated today.

Read it and could not help but respond and try to engage this person in debate. Below is my email to Meredith Carroll.

Dear Meredith,

After reading your column I felt the need to respond and invite you to discuss this topic further.

I think you did the topic much injustice by using rhetoric and statements designed to evoke fear to convince citizens to agree with you and ban semi automatic military pattern rifles. The firearms you wish to ban are not actually assault weapons and in most of the incidents you refer to, pistols were the tool used. Do you also propose to ban this type firearm as well?

opinion
M. Carroll: It's not the Wild West anymore
Colorado has proven its mettle. Now it must push to reinstate a federal assault weapons ban.
Posted: 11/18/2012 12:01:00 AM MST

By Meredith C. Carroll

"I think we should, and I think that's where it starts," U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, replied over the summer on CBS's "Face the Nation" when asked about reinstating the assault weapons ban following the movie theater massacre in Aurora.

On Election Day 2012, for the second time in four years, Colorado made its mark on the map as a solidly blue state. As such, it seems there's no moment like the present for the Centennial State to stop acting quite so yellow and do nothing more than chat about change when the cameras are rolling, and instead reflect somberly on our anachronistic gun laws and think bravely and earnestly about making significant modifications to ensure a less violent future.

Citizens are cowardly if they choose to exercise the right to self protection? The police are not there to protect you, they cannot, they can only respond after you have been victimized. Look around the world, banning firearms does not lessen violence, it only disarms the future victims.

The Wild West was tamed ages ago. Colorado has long since become the crown jewel of the glorious West, where we've proven through our lifestyle — and elected officials — that social, environmental and quality-of-life issues are close to our hearts.

As such, it's about time we recognize that eyes on the back of our heads and a finger on the trigger at all times is not only unnecessary, but also unreasonably mistrustful. We've evolved meaningfully — although judging by the easy availability of such agents of death as a Smith and Wesson .223-caliber assault rifle outfitted with a 100-round magazine, it's hard to really blame those who fear a high-noon shootout outside the swinging doors of the saloon.

Being armed is not being mistrustful, it is being responsible for ones own safety. The firearm used in the Aurora theater shooting is not the agent of death, the disturbed person wielding it is. He was out to harm people, the weapon he chose made very little difference.

It's a deadly cycle, though: We're scared of others wielding weapons, so we go out and buy them for ourselves as a means of self-defense. It's safe to say, however, that most members of Colorado's imaginary militia are arming themselves out of paranoia instead of a threat-based in reality.

While students on college campuses around the country have had to run for their lives too many times to count from deranged classmates firing guns, Colorado colleges and universities are forced to welcome many brandishing them thanks to a recent state Supreme Court ruling upholding a ghastly law allowing students with concealed-weapons permits on campus.

Those students had to run for their lives because they did not have the tools to defend themselves. The campuses they were on do not permit students to protect themselves. They force them to be at the mercy of an attacker until the police can respond. I don't know about you but I have no desire to face unarmed, a deranged person with any weapon until the police arrive.

Your statement about students brandishing weapons is disingenuous at best. Brandishing a weapon is already illegal and crimes committed by conceal carry permit holders are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.

A Sept. 22 article in The New York Times about the unease of faculty members at the University of Colorado regarding the law said one particular CU-Colorado Springs student carries a Ruger p90 pistol on campus "for protection" when he leaves school in the dark.

It's hard to argue against someone who needs legitimate defense, except CU-Colorado Springs security guards are actually state-certified police officers who meet the same qualifications as municipal law enforcement officials, plus they carry weapons and can make arrests, and readily offer to escort students at night, according to a university spokeswoman. Emergency phones are located throughout that campus, too, and other CU campuses have similar and additional protections in place.

So a victim only has to fend off an attacker long enough to get to one of these phones and then wait for police to respond?

Without diminishing students' fears of walking alone in deserted areas late in the evening, carrying a gun when armed and trained professionals are available for literal and figurative hand-holding is like showing up to squash a spider with a grenade missing its pin.

Maybe some people live in neighborhoods so unsafe they feel as if they have no choice but to keep a pistol under their pillow, but just how adept at using it will they be if awoken from a deep slumber? Can they be certain those bumps in the night weren't a raccoon knocking over a trash can or their teenage children sneaking in past curfew? Have burglar alarms been ruled out? What about working with local police departments to beef up neighborhood security? Maybe get a stronger lock on the front door?

You mention many scenarios except the one were the bad guy gets inside and intends to harm you and your family. If you are armed you have a chance to survive. If unarmed you have no choice but to be a victim at the mercy of the bad guy.

We need to figure out how to stop laypeople from being so ready and willing to mete out punishments that aren't on par with crimes that haven't even been committed. And we need to hold our elected officials to becoming proactive instead of reactive.

It's a hopeful sign that we voted to keep Colorado's rivers and streams running blue, but we also need to make sure this cowardly yellow tint we've been harboring for so long doesn't stain them blood red.

This column is not about keeping the citizenry safe. It is about banning firearms, all of them. Beginning with the incorrectly labeled assault weapons and moving on to the rest. Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes and criminals do not follow laws or recognize bans. If successful you will only remove the victims ability to protect and defend themselves.

Thank you for your time.

Kevin Koger

[KestrelBike]

Alright who's going to pony-up for a full-page Ad in the Denver Post with Buffalobo's reply in it. I'd pitch in $10.

[sniper7]

I'll pitch $10 as well. wonder what it costs...of course they probably won't publish it...and nobody reads the paper and it certainly won't change their opinion. people have their minds made up, they just like articles to reinforce their opinion. works for both sides. where we need to succeed is with the youth. get them involved, get them educated, get them wise.

[buffalobo]

I plan to submit it to the post as a response to the printed article as well. Not much expectation though. I have written probably 10 times to Post over the years. Have yet to get any printed yet. Any replies by M. Carroll or the Post will be copied here.

[DOC]

What a misinformed reporter showing how yellow journalism can get.

[Kraven251]

I can see the logic she is running with, and it truly is sound logic if you live in a sane, rational world, where everyone regards each other with respect and conducts themselves as such. We do not live in that world, which means there will be some seriously unstable and deranged people out there that have no regard for you, your loved ones, or anyone else. I will concede though that I personally do not need to own anything capable of full-auto, I don't think we should be denied the right to own such weapons if obtained through the proper and legal channels. Granted something tells me if I put out a 10/22 with some tacticool package next to one with a wood stock, these same folks would say it was an assault weapon.

This line of thinking and mislabeling, is short sighted, ignorant, and just plain dangerous.

Outside of that, do these people have any concept of what the firearms industry has and continues to do for the economic stability of the state? ...who needs a workout I am pretty sure I just got my heart rate up without even getting on the bicycle, or maybe that was just my BP.

[JohnTRourke]

wait? people still read the paper?? seriously, why? the media is NOT our friend. fuck 'em, stop giving them your money.

[DavieD55]

wait? people still read the paper?? seriously, why? the media is NOT our friend. fuck 'em, stop giving them your money.

^ This is it. Stop feeding the beast. I cant stand to read it, it pisses me off, let alone pay for it.

[buffalobo]

wait? people still read the paper?? seriously, why? the media is NOT our friend. fuck 'em, stop giving them your money.

They get no money from me and they will not get a pass to spout the type of crap I responded to.

To ignore them is perilous in my opinion. They will do much damage in the public arena unopposed.

[nynco]

So how much does it cost to print an add. I think a full page one would be really expensive. I would chip in towards the cost. Also I would contact Magpul and some other industry types to see if they wanted to get in on that to help defer the costs.

[Ronin13]

So how much does it cost to print an add. I think a full page one would be really expensive. I would chip in towards the cost. Also I would contact Magpul and some other industry types to see if they wanted to get in on that to help defer the costs.
Good idea- considering Magpul is based out of Erie...

The gun grabbers will continue to look for "reasonable" legislation to weasel their way around the 2nd Amendment... We need to start waking people up and telling them the truth- When the 2nd goes, so do all the rest of your freedoms.

[Snowman78]

So how much does it cost to print an add. I think a full page one would be really expensive. I would chip in towards the cost. Also I would contact Magpul and some other industry types to see if they wanted to get in on that to help defer the costs.

This is what I found on the website:
Denver Post
Full circulation color rates
Monday–Saturday Sunday
Spot color $3,221 $3,985Full color 3,953 4,589
101 West Colfax AvenueDenver, CO 80202-5315303-954-1000
Premium positions
Premium positions carry a 25% surcharge.Please contact your sales representative for moreinformation.
Holiday rates
Sunday rates will be charged on the following holidays:Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day,Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.

[DavieD55]

Good idea- considering Magpul is based out of Erie...

The gun grabbers will continue to look for "reasonable" legislation to weasel their way around the 2nd Amendment... We need to start waking people up and telling them the truth- When the 2nd goes, so do all the rest of your freedoms.



I have tried to get through to several people...Most people dont get it. I dont know what is going on with people lately, but i cant believe how incredibly stupid and dumb down people have gotten.

[Dalendenver]

Teach others how to shoot, education is the best defense. I have 4 children, two of them shoot and own handguns. The other two want to learn and we may start them shooting this Friday. I taught my 19 year old granddaughter how to shoot a handgun when she came to visit in March. Any chance I get to take a first timer shooting I do. Familiarity overcomes fear. Generally after they try it they enjoy themselves so much they want to do more.

My nephew was an instructor in the Marines in all types of firearms in Virginia. He said he could shoot as much as he wanted and would shoot a million dollars a month worth of ammunition. Our tax dollars well spent for a change. When I next get up to Washington state he is going to take my wife and I to the range and help us improve our skills.

[hatidua]

So how much does it cost to print an add. I think a full page one would be really expensive.

You would need to access their media kit and see what rate card was appropriate to the ad you wanted to place. Additionally, before pulling out the checkbook, it'd preferably be written by someone with grammatical skills: you don't achieve much by printing an Addition, you would do better to print an Advertisement. While the readership here may not differentiate between the two, the audience you are targeting surely would.

[Danimal]

Here is a little something that I have been working on along those lines. I need some constructive criticism so that I can brush it up. I threw it together today in response to reading some of these articles coming out in the media:

Support the ACB

Today I want to bring your attention to an issue that I hold very near and dear to my heart. It has caused the senseless death of friends and family members of us all. Now is the time for regulation, now is the time to take action. 40000 to 60000 deaths are caused annually in the US thanks to these death dealing weapons of destruction, and I for one cannot take it anymore. Join with me and ban dangerous cars.

First we should start by banning the fastest cars, and any cars that look like them. Obviously fast cars and cars that look fast have a higher probability of causing a serious accident and we cannot trust anyone with their use. You would have to be out of your mind to want to drive something fast, and obviously it has no practical uses on our public roads where there are speed limits. Also note that the Government will still have fast cars because they need them and know how to use them safely whereas the common man/woman cannot be trusted to do so.

Second, we need to ban hybrids and cars that look like hybrids to include anything with electric drive. The reason for this is that they are too quiet and can sneak up on unsuspecting victims leaving little or no warning. They are the tool of assassins and as such we will never feel safe in a world filled with these ultra quiet electric dealers of death.

Third we need to ban cars with gas tanks larger than 10 gallons. Why would you want one with anything bigger? Are you planning on going on a gasoline fueled rampage across the state? A car that gets an average of 25 MPG is capable of driving over 400 miles on a single high capacity tank. This could allow a raging motorist to cause multiple fatalities and multiple accidents all without the need to refuel. Only extremists and unstable motorists would want high capacity tanks, because on average the normal person only needs to drive less than 40 miles per day.

Fourth, ban the fully automatic and semi-automatic transmission. Do you feel safe knowing that there are cars out there that can shift while only pushing the gas pedal once? I didn’t think so. This means with a single press of the gas pedal a car could accelerate to speeds great enough to kill an entire family. I firmly believe if all cars are manual, and be limited to a maximum speed of 45 MPH it will keep the driver and passengers safe from the inherent blood lust we all posses behind the wheel of a speeding vehicle.

Finally I think that all cars should be outfitted with breathalyzers, low jack and have fingerprint identification prior to being able to start. What good is a car if any psycho can get behind the wheel and do his bidding? Yes it will significantly raise the cost of car ownership and some families will not be able to afford cars, but that is a small price to pay for road safety. Along with this all cars should be kept in a central lock up so that in the event of a crime being committed, a car will not add to the carnage that ensues. If you need your car, simply take public transit to the nearest lockup facility and sign out your vehicle. In the event of an emergency call the police and they will be there as soon as they can. Hopefully you do not choose to live out of town, or the weather is inclement as this will slow response times greatly.

So join me and support the Assault Car Ban because as you know we cannot trust our fellow man to abide by the laws set forth by the government of this great nation. It is not right to hold a person accountable for their personal actions, and as such we all must sacrifice in the name of future generations. Getting these weapons of death off our streets will certainly reduce automotive fatalities. This is the first step toward ridding our streets of cars all together and a step towards a future where we can all ride public transportation together in harmony.

I hope that you enjoyed my submission, and my desire is this points out the inherent flaw in an Assault Weapons Ban. The flaw is that you cannot legislate against the acts of a mad man, and regulation even taken to the extreme will not prevent the criminal mind from finding a way. Regulations against law abiding citizens will in no way help to protect you, and in some ways it will only add to your vulnerability. True progress in reducing firearm fatalities can only come from public education, holding people accountable for their actions and accepting the personal responsibility for your own safety. Our police do a fine job, and I respect them to the highest degree. They lay their life on the line each and every day not knowing if it will be their last. It still stands that they are reactionary, and cannot come to your aid without you contacting them first. This leaves a person with a given amount of time that they are responsible for their own life and well-being. But what are the reasonable limits for defending one’s life at the hands of an attacker it terms of magazine size or weapon capability? I will let you decide that for yourself, but in a life or death situation hopefully the limit is not one round less than it takes to save your life or the life of a loved one. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon and in the hands of someone intent on your destruction it does not matter if it a gun, a knife, a bomb or even as we have seen in the past an airplane. Their will is their own, laws and regulations do little for public protection through their eyes. As a citizen of this great nation I enjoy shooting sports, and I take a great deal of pride in my ability to protect myself and those who I care dearly about. Anything that puts limits on my ability to save a life is adding to the capacity of a criminal to take one.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

^^^^^ That is the best thing I've read in days. Hopefully you get a response from the author of the article. I doubt it will, liberals(most) are incapable of reason beyond their own selfish needs/wants.

[Danimal]

^^^^^ That is the best thing I've read in days. Hopefully you get a response from the author of the article. I doubt it will, liberals(most) are incapable of reason beyond their own selfish needs/wants.

Yeah I know that it will most likely be brushed aside with little thought, but I might start submitting my writing again and see if I can get any takers. My goal is to start getting stuff like this into places where the people that read it will naturally have a conflict with it and try to formulate a response. If you can get that far, then you will win the minds of people who have not seen anything contrary to their media fed beliefs.

[rkfulgor1]

What is Colo coming too...can we just annex Boulder to Calif?

[Great-Kazoo]

What is Colo coming too...can we just annex Boulder to Calif?

Want to know what CO has become? Look through some of the threads in GD. O voters/ board members (not sure if they actually own a gun) who see nothing wrong with O and his stance on firearms. This is What CO has Become

[speedysst]

What is Colo coming too...can we just annex Boulder to Calif?

I plan on starting a petition to have Colorado renamed to Eastern California. That will more closely represent the direction politically and socially that the state is headed. Im outta here as soon as I can move. Just one more native pushed out by the liberal idiots that have invaded this once livable state.

[DOC]

I say we stay and fight back against Californian crazyness.

[Kraven251]

The most important thing here is to keep speaking out, loud and proud, but keep it civil, factual, and to the point. In general folks who follow this logic will often try to swing things around and piss you off to get an emotional and often poorly worded or thought out response. Using words like "liberal" and what not will get ya labeled as a conspiracy theorist nutbag. It doesn't matter that it is the unfortunate truth.

Hardest part is sticking to the facts, presenting a good and solid argument without tripping any of the buzz words that most folks tune out as soon as they read them. The second amendment does grant us the right to bear arms, but too many folks don't have a true concept of why. That is where much of the NRA rhetoric turns people away that are either on the fence or just flat out anti gun. Most of the time this position exists out of ignorance, and you need to ease people into the thought process and help them to arrive at the point that guns are not a bad thing and that gun owners are not crazy people that want to overthrow the government or go on some rampage.

Media is what it is, and the responsible gun owner rarely makes the news.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I say we stay and fight back against Californian crazyness.

I say we should start a movement to give California back to Mexico. Hell, we already dug all the gold out and we could hold back the Colorado River water they've been stealing and boost our own agricultural industry.

[sabot_round]

She's the reason for the gene pool to be chlorinated.

[DOC]

I always wanted to annex Mexico. We are already supporting it might as well make it a state.

[OneGuy67]

9news ran a piece today on two democrat state senator/representatives who want to have a state wide assault weapons ban in place. Pretty hard language; wants to ban all existing and future weapons. Normally, i wouldnt get worked up by it, but with both houses in democratic control as well as the governors office, i will have to watch this one closely.

[DOC]

They can say goodbye to their comfortable government jobs if they try it.

[DavieD55]

They can say goodbye to their comfortable government jobs if they try it.


I think they're gonna try it this year. I have a feeling the 2nd along with everything else is going to be attacked like no other in the coming years in our state.

[Ronin13]

9news ran a piece today on two democrat state senator/representatives who want to have a state wide assault weapons ban in place. Pretty hard language; wants to ban all existing and future weapons. Normally, i wouldnt get worked up by it, but with both houses in democratic control as well as the governors office, i will have to watch this one closely.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The underlined part is the key... Honestly, I see any gun control legislation as infringement upon the right of people to keep and bear arms. YMMV.

[OneGuy67]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The underlined part is the key... Honestly, I see any gun control legislation as infringement upon the right of people to keep and bear arms. YMMV.

You can think that all you want, but look at other states like California, who have stricter laws on the books. Even with the Heller decision, D.C. hasn't changed much in regards to their gun laws.

[DOC]

But look at places like IL and DC that have dramatically changed their total bans. Besides, the SCOTUS didn't deal with so-called assault weapons in Heller or any other case in recent times.

[Ronin13]

You can think that all you want, but look at other states like California, who have stricter laws on the books. Even with the Heller decision, D.C. hasn't changed much in regards to their gun laws.
Still, they ban here I'm moving. AWBs do absolutely nothing but hurt those of us who love the rifles and love to shoot and do no law breaking.

[Guylee]

I can't even count the number of times I've read some dumbass editorial in the Post that's made my blood boil.

[DOC]

I bet they hate that "reply to a story" section. They have almost convinced themselves that they speak for the ignorant masses and they know what's best for them.

[theGinsue]

Besides, the SCOTUS didn't deal with so-called assault weapons in Heller or any other case in recent times.
Perhaps not directly, but they did say this:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

From the Library of Congress:

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

What constitutes a "dangerous weapon" to you and me is probably far different that what most of our legislators (especially here at the state level these days) consider to be "dangerous". Remember that in the last AWB, many of the restrictions in place were due to nothing more than aesthetic items which didn't change the functionality of the firearm at all. The Heller decision, which barely went in out favor was so watered down that it left states with a great deal of room for individual interpretation and regulative authority.

Those elected individuals (at both state and federal levels) who currently govern us see their election into office as their call to duty to protect us from ourselves. This state, with it's current liberal bias, is nothing short of a recipe for further infringement upon our Right. Mark my words, increased regulation and control is on the near horizon.

[DOC]

That doesn't say anything about banning assault weapons. It actually says guns carried for lawful purposes. My AR and AK fall under that definition.

And if the liberals want to do something good with their new found power. They could remove the law that bans smoking in Bars. I think that falls out of favor with them too since their world is seen through either Marxist ideals about control and opression or their own worlds that they live in and nothing else matters.