Denver Post Editorial piece.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.