Printable View
Despite the testimony of Dr. Lott and Nikki Goeser bills were pushed through and signed by the governor. As I listened I came away with the impression, it did not matter what these speakers had to say. The gun control narrative never has been about data and actually public policy based in factual data, but just an emotional feel good dog and pony show.
https://crimeresearch.org/2023/03/ni...ary-committee/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I realized this 10ish years ago when I sat in the Judiciary chambers at the capital hoping to testify on the magazine ban.
I realized this when I stood on the steps of the Capital and spoke in opposition.
https://youtu.be/vD94dVu8lqQ
What Bert said.
The CO legislature made it beyond clear back in 2013 that they were passing whatever anti-gun bill they decided they wanted, regardless of how much opposition and FACTS were presented against said legislation. Stories from Bert and so many others to how the legislature stacked the decks and significantly limited who and how many could get a voice to speak against the bills (so the public record on any opposition was officially small) while those in favor of the bills were given carte blanche to simply walk in and speak their minds. Anything to create the illusion of actually following the mandatory process for these things without actually following the process and allowing THE PEOPLE the right to have any say in their government.
More and more people are getting disenfranchised with governments at all levels because those running things have forgotten that citizens have the right to have a say in how things are being run at all times, not just at the ballot box.
With the recent federal court decision overturning the Virginia ban against 18-20 yo buying/possessing firearms, I'm curious if it will have any effect on CO new law from SB 23-169 doing the same thing. Likely no effect without a direct challenge here.
All of politics is based on feelings.
Pick any political issue and gather the facts. Those facts will be interpreted differently depending on how one "feels" about the issue.
It is very difficult to get someone to change how they feel. Especially politicians who are elected because of their stance on certain issues. When presented with overwhelming facts, they still will not change their mind because they wish to retain their grasp on power.
Do you really think Tom Sullivan (or insert Democrat name here) would listen to Jon Lott or Dave Kopel and go, "hmmm. These guys make a lot of sense. Maybe I was wrong to author these restrictive bills."
Of course not. He is an anti-gun zealot and nothing will sway his belief that guns are evil and have no place in our society.
In 2020, according to the CDC, there were 620,327 abortions performed in the U.S. That is an average of 1699 per day.
A pro-lifer will say that is far too many. Someone on the pro-choice side will say that is proof abortions should remain legal. Extremists on either side will proclaim one is too many or 620,327 way too few.
It all boils down to how one "feels" about it.
Anyone remember Kimberly Weeks? She was a rape victim who was mocked by D legislators while testifying in 2013 [Mad]
It looks more and more like the public needs to just outright defy the laws.
We know what they want: "End gun violence", " no more mass shootings", "no more school shootings".
There's only one way to get there.
That isn't what they want at all. What they want is to be the only ones with access to guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
2013... after protesting and sitting in the chambers listening to nonsense from .gov figures the dog and pony show became apparent.
Very few on colfax are bright enough to write a coherent bill. Outsiders present the bills to the puppets so they can do their bidding.
All Star wrestling is more entertaining and affects our lives a lot less.
As long as the Dems are in control at the wheel, they will pass as many as they can because no one can stop them. And as we all know, the new laws aren't going to stop one single act of gun violence so that means next go around, they'll pass even more strict gun laws and on and on, until one day they say "turn them in or else". It'll be their only solution and yet won't solve the actual problem.
Their hate for guns has blinded them to the actual problem.
Fields said just that. The bills come (at least in CO) from Bloomberg's group. They are tied to campaign funding. If they vote against them, or don't push them as requested, their campaign dollars will be taken away. Then they get primaried out. They want power more than to serve the people. It is that way at the Fed level and almost all blue states.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcolorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
DEAD RIGHT!Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
If it was about ending violence, they'd provide more protection in schools, etc. If it was about ending violence, they'd allow law-abiding citizens the "non-infringed right to conceal carry without a permit (and associated "fees").
You can't force an armed populace to do as you demand, you can only try to force them until they decide they've had enough. This is the same lesson we taught the British in the 1700's and the anti-gunners/would-be rulers know this lesson very well and it scares the shit out of them.
Everytown and it's many tentacles have a long, well funded reach.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
There is no counter on the other side that has the money, the reach or is staffed by zealots.