Hickenlooper to Gunowners: "I will take your guns"

[TFOGGER]

The problem with "meeting in the middle" is that the next time, the other side will expect you to meet "halfway" again....halfway between the middle and their side. Do this a few times, and you end up a whoooooole lot closer to their position, than ours.

RMGO/GOA/NAGR has the right idea: No Compromise when it comes to our rights.

What would the liberals have to say if someone expected them to compromise their freedom of speech, religion, freedom from self incrimination?

[Troublco]

1st: yes there is a middle ground a good example is scott brown. He supports CCW but makes you register the pistol as well as carry a license to own it. Another good example is pro choice, they support the right for people to choose for themselves. They aren't going to tell you what to do, and it doesn't mean they are telling people to abort babies. Concession is not synonymous with infringe, mainly because this wouldn't be infringing. Illegal guns does not mean Legal guns, and illegal guns are clearly defined.

2nd: you can get a ccw in new york, to get one in NYC you have to plead your case. do get one in an upstate county you have to apply but can't take it into NYC. So you can still get it.

3rd: They don't need a mayors against illegal rape, or illegal kidnapping because those aren't major issues used to get votes. You join an Illegal gun organizations to get votes from undecided anti-gun people. That doesn't mean it is on your agenda. Obama is another example as previously stated.

Use your head, and learn to comprehend the reading material, and do outside research to prove your point. You clearly need to open up your mind, take off the tin foil, and realize there is such thing as a middle ground. There isn't only an extreme right or extreme left, there is also a thing called centrist. You honestly sound ridiculous to me, you sound uneducated at anything involving politics, and like a cranky old man who thinks everyone is out to steal his gun. I probably sound like a wide-eyed college kid, but at least i'm wise enough to open my head and look at both sides of the subject.

Register my gun? Why? And don't bring up the "you have to register your car" line. You don't have a Constitutional Right to own a car, and I won't even get into the definition of what the Militia consists of according to the U.S. Code.

I'd like to know how many people have CCW's in New York City, and of the ones who do how many aren't bodyguards for people like Bloomberg. How 'bout you dig that up to support your point?

You're the one who sounds uneducated. Every time the socialists start talking about "Common sense gun control", it is aimed at law abiding gun owners, not criminals, and the Brady Bunch has ADMITTED that their goal is the total elimination of the private ownership of handguns, and they don't like what they consider "assault weapons" (never mind that those are actually defined as SELECT FIRE weapons, not what most of us own) either.

It's good that you look at both sides. However, when you look at the "left" side, or whatever you want to call it, you can either listen to what they spew OR you can look at what they really espouse, and their history and what they recommend. So I suppose we can all sound like tin hat commandos to you, but when Obama says something, listen to his VOTING RECORD and not his words. Same with any politician. Voting records are how you tell what they really think.

So feel free to think we're all sounding ridiculous. Or that we're all paranoid freaks with our tin hats on and our fingers on the trigger. Whatever floats your boat. Your opinion of what we think is just that, your opinion. (As are ours!) And opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one and they all stink.
A lot of us have a lot of years of seeing what the politicians really do, have watched them say one thing and do whatever they want, and then listen to people like you. You're welcome to your opinion. And so are we.

[SAnd]

"Look at the history of gun rights. When has anyone, ever, tried to steal all of your guns? Never."

You are flat wrong.

Every one of those laws are a compromise. The antigun people have time after time have tried to ban guns. The assault rifle ban did ban some guns. The 1986 law bans any new machine guns, they wanted them all baned. Yes I can get a Mac but the price went from $250 to $2500 overnight. The NFA act of 1934 is a tax because the Supreme Court ruled congress couldn't outlaw machine guns. They could tax them to a level very few people could afford them so they did that. Ask around to people who had transfers done during the Clinton years how long it took. Or check on how many dealers were harrassed out of business during the same time. I have read the laws that were introduced in congress that did call for bans that scare people into accepting other less restrictive compromise laws. If I work at it I could come up with many more examples.

Every one of those laws are the result of hard fought compromises. The original bills were much worse than was finally passed. You need to research the history of the bills. Read the history of how those bills became law. Check into the bills that never got passed. They may have ended up in the trash but they still were an attempt to take away our gun rights. It won't easy but the facts are out there. They do want all guns banned. To me you sound like a ignorant kid who hasn't bothered to find the histroy behind the gun rights battle. You can't just go by the reasons being given now. You need check what has actually been done and said in the past, something you are obviously ignoring or haven't researched.

[Mista Bukit]

Don’t forget all of the state sponsored lawsuits against the gun manufacturers for making a “dangerous product” if my memory serves me there were some cities involved in them.

[GreenScoutII]

I will not compromise any of my rights. There is no such thing as a "common sense" gun law. ANY infringement of my right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Period.

[BigBear]

These threads keep popping up. If "they" want my guns, they can come get them. Smile for the flash please. There is no sound reason to register your firearms. There is no sound reason to have a "buy only one handgun a month" law that they were trying to pass. There is no sound reason for blah blah blah. Read the Constitution, read the BoR, read the other founding documents, then make up your mind.

If you don't like firearms, don't buy 'em. As for me and my house... we kind of like 'em.

Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.

[GreenScoutII]

These threads keep popping up. If "they" want my guns, they can come get them. Smile for the flash please.

Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.

[sniper7]

Walmart's having a special on koolaid and tin foil if anyone is interested.

Yeah you guys go get some, we are all stocked up around here

[Eow]

Moviestar, why don't you enlighten us with an explanation of what the purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is, given that illegal guns are already, well...illegal.

[alan0269]

There are a few mayoral groups that Hickenlooper can join in lieu of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are:

Mayors Against
- Illegal Drunk Driving
- Illegal Murder
- Illegal Felonies (I hear this group will have a "Crime of the Month")
- Illegal Illegalities (parent group of "Illegal Felonies", but covers misdemeanors, etc also)

Moviestar, I as well applaud you for taking the time to read through the entire PDF in order to keep yourself informed. I would encourage you to read it again, taking the time to read between the lines (sometimes this is more important than what is in the black and white print).