From Lopez:
You're a big Second Amendment advocate, and you support national carry reciprocity. Are there weaponry restrictions you would support, such as attempts to ban semi-automatic weapons? Or do you fear that might be a slippery slope?

No, there aren't any I'd support, and let me tell you why. The Second Amendment is one of the founding principles of what makes America great. And I truly believe the Second Amendment isn't only so that we can protect ourselves from harm, but it's also for us to protect ourselves from a government that may go rogue on us. If the government decides to do something, we should have the ability to defend ourselves with the same amount, or close to the same amount, of weaponry that they have. So I would not look at doing anything that would ban anything. I know a lot of people don't like to hear this, but it truly isn't the weapon. It's the person. If it was the weapon, anybody who walked into a gun store would never come out. We know there are a lot of challenges out there with mental health, and the family structure is facing all kinds of challenges. People are having tough times with trying to understand what life truly means. And I want to have compassion and empathy for those who are suffering — and I want to help them before they get to that point where they feel they no longer need to value human life, theirs or anybody else's. But when we talk about those types of things, I stand behind the Constitution.

I don't like to see people mass-murdered. Nobody does. But we can't weaken the document put together by our founding fathers, because that's really what gives us freedom and liberty. And most people don't understand the true cost of freedom and liberty. It costs a lot. That's why they call America an experiment. And it will go forward as long as people truly believe that they're entitled to freedom and liberty. When they start thinking they're no longer entitled to that, the experiment will start to fail.
...

On your website's list of major issues, you don't mention either immigration or sanctuary cities. I know you've spoken about being opposed to sanctuary cities. But do you feel some of the other candidates are putting too much of their focus on immigration?

As governor, I need to focus predominantly on issues that apply to the state. Immigration is a federal issue. States don't truly have a lot of say in how the immigration laws of the country are going to be applied or not applied. Sanctuary cities I think are very important, because as a governor, and as a mayor, you're sending a message — and that message is, if you believe in sanctuary cities, you don't believe in the rule of law. You're saying you believe some people among us are entitled to extra protection and extra rights. That's not what America is all about. I'm talking about equality. So I do not support sanctuary cities. I don't have a problem telling people I support legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But those issues aren't truly going to impact the future of the state of Colorado. It's education, small business, the transportation corridors — it's those kinds of things. And if immigration issues are truly having a major impact on the state, I would hope the general assembly and all the elected officials would join me and talk about what we're going to do about it.

There are more important issues as they pertain to quality of life and making sure the governor and the state legislature are making decisions that impact the daily lives of all of us, not just some of us.

http://www.westword.com/news/greg-lo...rview-10228012