Colo. gun sales shoot through roof in '08
By Kevin Vaughan, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Judi Villa, Rocky Mountain News
Published January 5, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Gun sales reached record levels in Colorado in 2008, a spike many attributed to fears that Barack Obama's election will mean tougher firearms laws.
Background checks to clear buyers exceeded 200,000 for the first time in history. More than a quarter occurred after the Nov. 4 election.
At the Crossroads of the West-Gun Show of the Rockies on Sunday at an Aurora hotel, gun dealers and Second Amendment advocates alike said there is a direct relation between the election results and firearms sales.
Jimmy West of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, a gun-rights group, said business has been noticeably more brisk in the wake of Obama's election.
"Quite a spike - I've never seen anything like it at a gun show before," said West. "It's unprecedented."
The National Rifle Association has attempted to portray Obama as a threat to gun rights, circulating fliers and mailers touting a "10-point plan to change the Second Amendment."
Among the NRA's claims: The president-elect will ban the use of firearms for home self-defense; ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting; and ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
Obama has said he respects the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms and that he would protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns, according to a fact sheet put out by his campaign.
But West and Steve Schreiner said they don't trust Obama.
'Gun Ban Agenda'
Sunday, Schreiner, another representative of the Firearms Coalition, handed out a flier that detailed "Obama's Gun Ban Agenda." He said he has distributed 15,000 fliers in the past six weeks and that gun-rights supporters are intensely interested in Obama's plans.
"It's been that way since the elections," he said. "And it's not just here. It's happening all over the country."
West said the concern has grown out of comments Obama has made publicly and his past votes.
"It's mostly due to the fact that Obama has never made a pro- gun statement or a pro-gun vote in his entire career," West said. "Quite the opposite."
An analysis of the NRA claims in September by factcheck.org, which calls itself a nonpartisan group that monitors the accuracy of political statements, found that the NRA campaign "distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."
Whether people believe the claims or are simply in a gun- buying mood, one thing is clear: Background checks are through the roof.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation conducted nearly 30,000 instant background checks for potential gun buyers in November and more than 26,300 in December.
That compares with 18,569 checks in October and 14,556 in September. In January 2008, the CBI conducted 13,161 background checks.
Overall, background checks were up 26 percent in 2008. Total background checks last year numbered 202,772, compared with 160,756 in 2007. Roughly 97 percent of all background checks are approved.
Lance Clem, spokesman for the CBI, called it a "staggering year" for the Insta-Check Unit, which conducts the background checks.
"November was the biggest month," Clem said. "We had records set on three separate days in November."
Uncertainty ahead
Eldon Leasure, a federally licensed gun dealer from Colorado Springs, attributes at least part of the increase in gun sales to confusion about what, exactly, Obama plans to pursue in terms of gun laws.
"I think it's the uncertainty of which way the government is going to go," he said. "Sales are always good. Right now they're just a little better."
Don Collins, who was working Leasure's booth Sunday, agreed.
"There's a definite fear there," he said.
For two men looking for guns at Sunday's show, the impending change in administrations in Washington meant different things.
One man, who said his first name was Nathan but would not give his last name - said he was in the military - bought a World War I-era Russian pistol to add to his collection.
Politics had nothing to do with it, he said. Any new restrictions imposed in an Obama administration would not hinder his ability to add to his gun collection, he said.
Another man, Philip, was looking for a handgun, and said he was likely to buy one Sunday.
"That's probable, given the political climate and the environment," said Philip, who also would not give his last name.
A short time later, he found a pistol he liked and began filling out the pale yellow form needed for a background check through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
******************
How it works
Federally licensed firearms dealers as well as gun show sellers are required to conduct background checks on prospective buyers through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's Insta-Check system. Buyers must show a valid government-issued ID card, such as a driver's license, and answer a series of questions. Sellers then contact CBI to make sure the buyer is not prohibited from purchasing a weapon. The process usually takes a few minutes. Under state law, gun dealers cannot sell to anyone who:
* Was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.
* Is a fugitive from justice.
* Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
* Has been adjudicated as a "mental defective" or has been committed to a mental institution.
* Is illegally or unlawfully in the U.S. or admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa.
* Has been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
* Has renounced his U.S. citizenship.
* Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
* Was adjudicated as a juvenile for an act that would have constituted a felony if done by an adult.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 5, 2009
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
The good old fear mongering of the GOP gets these fools every time. You people are all idiots. I remember in 1992 they claimed Clinton would do the same. Well guess what? See what you clowns don't understand is there is a difference between taking your guns away and gun control. It's like your your right to drink alcohol and smoking cigarettes. No one has taken them away it is just who when and where you can do it.
January 5, 2009
5:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
REALITY_CHECK, everybody's a coward but you it seems; your the only brave person on these threads. Everybody else you made sure to call a name or insult them directly with personal insults, like "ignoramus", "idiot", "cowards". Many people set me straight on my opinion; most are very well constructed and challenge me to think about what they are saying. GREENLEAF, MCGRAW, many I oppose yet I still respect them personally and would never make my attack personal with name calling. They bitterly oppsed my opinions, but responded in a framework of civility in bring my arguements up short in the balance of consideration. I have a great respect for them, and I had to give great creditability to their opinion even though it was different than my own. I try very hard to attack the opinion and maintain personal respect for the individual whose opinion I may bitterly object to the content thereof. Even you REALITY_CHECK I have taken the time until you decided name calling was your last resort of arguement in previous threads. Name calling is both juvenile and unproductive, and it shows immaturity in addressing the debate with a creditable opinion when you oppose someone. And to think I and others must defend your right to an opinion, no matter how personal your insults and lack of civility offend. Attack the issue or the opinion, leave the personal insults elsewhere. Otherwise, I am begining to see real insecurities in your personality, leading me to believe the only real coward is the one calling the names! Just a thought...
January 5, 2009
5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
DILLIGAF, yes they banned guns in Washington D.C., until the Supreme Court ruled on the right of all law abiding citizen's rights to bear arms. More law are forcing the trade to go underground. Point in case is after the Brady Bill went through, Colorado had lost 2/3 of the FFL holders who gave up their dealer licenses. They didn't give up their love of guns nor their collections, the just gave up the government intrusion with the license. Thus the government lost greater insight into many transactions that are now being conducted privately outside government supervision. Regulations are necessary especially with felons and the criminal element in America; but over-regulation is equally as bad if it closes off knowledge of the trade. Colorado went from over 3000 licensed gun dealers down to a little over 1000 after the Brady Bill, those giving up the license still love and trade their guns, only now it's without government oversight as a dealer was required to report every trade and deal he did. Over-regulation creates underground markets allowing them to florish; regulations need to be balanced so that law enforcement has the greater insight into the trade, as well as the one being regulated is not so encumbered as to desire to take his transactions private out of government view. Only people buying firearms from licensed dealers are using CBI for background checks; many former license holders are still selling, buying and trading outside licnsed businesses privately. Many of those transactions were being recorded and reviewed before the dealer gave up the FFL. I can't own guns, but I support the right for all law abiding citizens. I would never advocate leaving any man defenseless against the criminal elements in this country. Nor do I think law abiding citizens should lose a constitutional right, as the Supreme Court just upheld, because of the criminal element. You don't make honest people accountable for the actions of the criminal, you make the criminal accountable. The only foolish one is the government for over-regulating and pushing many transactions out of their view.
January 5, 2009
5:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Cling Baby, Cling.
January 5, 2009
5:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
DILLIGAF, I think you'll find plenty of law abiding democrats in those gun lines buying guns as well right along with the republicans. Gun ownership crosses all party lines even if the party they support advocates stricter laws. I know many democrats who don't care for overbearing gun laws, just like I know some republicans who don't care for restrictions on abortion. Thus today in Colorado, many are now unaffiliated by party like myself and look at the candidate and not the party.
January 5, 2009
5:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
SHIEK, it's more like CHA-CHING BABY, guns aren't losing value. they're gaining value with more laws.
January 5, 2009
5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Frank_Zappa writes:
A lot of this going on right now: Hype, panic buying, price gouging.
January 5, 2009
6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
What frightens me is how many people are willing to rush out to buy a gun (when the economy is in the toilet) simply because the NRA puts out a bunch of hugely distorted information. Are these the people I want running around with tons of guns? Anyone who has ever taken a history class knows that guns aren't going anywhere. Americans love their guns. And anyone who has lived in the country knows that we do have a problem with SOME people getting access to guns (who never should) and killing loads of innocent folks. The trick is trying to figure out how to avoid as many of those situations without taking away access to guns totally.
January 5, 2009
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
LOUIE
Well aware of the ban in DC. And I don't recall that being Clinton that introduce that ban. But you made my point that no president can ban guns. There is a Constitution they need to deal with. The Supreme Court did their job. My biggest point is that ALL politicians run on fear factors. The GOP's biggest two are:
1. They will raise your taxes.
2. They will takeaway your guns.
Now to be fair the Dems are:
1. Tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. They will keep us in war.
January 5, 2009
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
luckyLEW writes:
Factcheck.org. That's "unbiased Obama supporter" David Axelrod's domain name, right? Probably as reliable as the RMN for fact checking.
January 5, 2009
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sixtysixdeuce writes:
"dilligaf writes:
The good old fear mongering of the GOP gets these fools every time. You people are all idiots. I remember in 1992 they claimed Clinton would do the same. Well guess what? See what you clowns don't understand is there is a difference between taking your guns away and gun control."
Clinton did plenty of damage, to include a number of regulations that did not expire with the 1994 AWB.
We will not see a gestapo-style disarmament any time soon. Far too dangerous and controversial. That's the whole idea behind gun control. Its incrimental, progressive erosion of the right that is tolerated with little more than some grumbling. It's the fact that politicans realize most of America's 80 million gun owners will say "yeah, I guess I can live without a magazine-fed semi-auto rifle, so long as they leave my deer gun alone" and the law gets passed. 10 years later, the next gun control bill hits the floor, and this time it outlines a prohibition on "armor piercing ammunition". Doesn't sound so unreasonable to the average gun owner, but that's because they didn't read far enough to realize that the definition of "armor piercing" for the purpose of the legislation is written to include virtually every rifle cartridge extant (such legislation has been introduced more than once, BTW). By the time they realize that the "reasonable, common sense gun control" has outlawed ammunition for their hunting rifle, it's too late.
The second amendment is not about hunting, and we cannot tolerate the continued piecemeal destruction of our constitutional right.
And if Barack Obama is as smart as he wants everyone to believe, he'll leave firearms alone and focus on the important issues facing this country that he was elected to deal with. If he goes after guns and ignores major problems like the economy and illegal immigration, it will be a matter of months until people forget about how bad Bush was, as they'll have a new "lame duck" to hate on.
January 5, 2009
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
Bill of Rights supporters, I wouldn't sweat too much on the Rocky's latest slanted and biased diatribe: the paper is very likely to be gone forever sometime next month, which is a shame, actually, but the paper's "leadership's" own fault.
People have many choices these days when it comes to getting the news, and many are obviously tired of farcical articles like this, so they move to a different news source.
Temple and Carroll have no one to blame but themselves.
January 5, 2009
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Nothing exemplifies Obama’s antipathy for American culture better than his statement that Americans “cling to” religion and guns out of frustration or bitterness. Does Obama regards religion or firearms as aberrations that need to be eradicated ?
Of course, both guns and religion are essential aspects of American culture. The United States was founded by people seeking religious freedom. Our freedom and the right to self-government were won by farmers with guns.
The American Revolution started when the British marched to Concord with the intention of confiscating colonial arms. Both the right to “keep and bear arms,” and the right to “free exercise” of religion are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
January 5, 2009
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
the paranoia among conservatives is stunning. now if only they would learn how to properly align their sight picture. they would not have such a need for all that ammo.
or spend all that cash on real estate, American made cars, or invest in renewable energy sources...
they would not look so foolish.
January 5, 2009
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
theairdog writes:
Dilligaf:
Perhaps then, you are aware of a little thing called "The Clinton Gun Ban?" (Apparently not). It has since expired.
Perhaps you are also aware that "gun control" laws only affect those who obey the laws? (I hope that you are also aware that criminals don't obey the laws - including gun laws).
Perhaps you are aware of existing "Gun Control" laws that don't work because the Court System is so crowded that only 10% of people arrested actually go to trial for the crime for which they were arrested? The rest arrange a plea bargain deal through their attorneys to keep the case out of court. Ever wonder why there is such a problem with people that have been arrested dozens of times managing to avoid jail?
Perhaps you are aware of the fact that the "Hollywood Shooutout" bandits were arrested 4 years prior to their infamous shooutout in a car containing "two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9 mm and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.Though they were initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,neither of them served more than 100 days in jail, though they each were put on three years' probation.
After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.
So much for California's strict gun laws.
Perhaps you are aware of the fact that it is illegal to fly an airplane closer than 2000 feet horizintally and 1000 feet vertically to a building in a congested area such as New York city? Air Traffic CONTROL Laws are among the strictest that exist. Gee, how effective was that at stopping 9/11?
How effective was Prohibition in curbing alcohol consumption? How effective have existing immigration laws been in keeping illegal immigrants out of our country? Shucks! How well do speed limit laws keep people from speeding?
Obama has already demonstrated his support (vocally and with votes) for laws that make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Just because the NRA says something, doesn't mean it's NOT true.
Last, here's a nice video documentary on how happy the British are that the government first made everyone register their firearms (all the while promising them that they wouldn't take them away), and then took them away promising that the Government would protect them (which hasn't happened either).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NE...
What "clowns" like you don't realize is that you can't legislate away evil from this world. The best you can do is establish penalties for evil acts, and then prepare to meet evil (on equal terms) when it confronts you.
Some people would prefer that others do that for them.
January 5, 2009
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Even I, as a democrat and a lover of firearms can clearly see that the paranoia has begun. I'm not worried about Obama and his stance on weapons nearly as much as I am about the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Bill. These to pieces of legislation are currently your biggest threat to gun ownership. They don't nessessarily address guns, but what they do allow for is no knock searches without warrants. Should the feds find anything they deem to be illegal in your household then, away they walk with your guns. This idea of "I have nothing to hide" is nonesense. People should take the approach of "I have everything to protect."
I'll give you an example: Lets say you like reading conspiracy web sites for fun, or you donate some money to an organization you think is legit and it turns out to be a front for an anti american group. It's not your fault, but the NSA has pointed you out as a threat. They search your home and computer and decide further investigation is needed. In the mean time they confiscate your guns because you are deemed a threat to the government and society. Just how much littigation and time do you think it will take to get your guns back? Can any of you afford the littigation?
This is why Obama is not one to worry about. It's the current legislation that is already in place that you need to focus on and worry about. Those two pieces of legislation alone are your biggest threat gun ownwers.
January 5, 2009
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Fear motivates many things, that's true DILLIGAF. Guns are being purchased by all people who value them, democrat and republican alike. Think republicans don't get abortions, what they vote for and do are two different things, and it works vise-versa with gun ownership. I know a lot of democrats who love and collect guns, all the while voting democrat. Don't ask me why, I just know it's true when it comes to people. Guns are not a bad investment, rarely do their prices fall; and mark-up from the manufacturer to the distributor to the dealer is realitively low compared to other products. As far as the war in Iraq, although I agree it was a mistake in the begining to invade, Mr. Obama has wisely chosen a conservative from Bush's cabinet to see it through. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat impressed with Mr, Obama's willingness to include conservatives in his administration, both bring the intrests of our nation to the table with great thought and insights. My concern is in his doing so, can he run this administration smoothly with opposing views sitting alongside him in power? If he can, he will have shown an ability that many, including all of the presidents in my lifetime, never had. See we are so polarized into party ideologies of these two parties in power, we can't see the good in the opposition or admit the shortcomings of our party of choice. It's a very noble experment and it's risky; yet if Mr. Obama is willing to be fair and recognize conservatives and grant them a position in his administration, even if they are minor in number, it shows he has recognized a very important fact about this two party system. Democrats walked us into Vietnam if I remember correctly, Nixon walked us out after years of fighting and loss of life. Mr. Obama's choice of secretary of defense was a young man making a very wise decision. I always believed after the election was over, I'd support the president out of respect for the office he holds. Mr. Obama has a hard road ahead, I pray for the sake of my nation he makes good. If he is truly wlling to seat all men, conservative and liberal at the table to debate and render opinions he truly finds valuable, and if he can master the opposing parties to being constructive, he will possess a jewel of power few ever would attempt. Let history judge if this was wise or not.
January 5, 2009
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
DILLIGAF, Washington DC wasn't the only city to ban gun ownership, Chicago, New York also I believe had restricted gun ownership, as after the Supreme Court decision, many localities and cities had to re-examine their laws. It took over 30 years for the right to be restored by the Supreme Court in the Washington DC case. I am still waitting for all the horror stories we were promised when concealed weapons permits went into effect here in Colorado. I can tell you of a few criminals that experenced bad times confronting the permit holder, a particular restaurant owner comes to mind. But all the horrors stories we were promised by those opposing concealed handgun permits I am still waitting for it to happen. Did somebody lie to me, was it a scare tactic that was unfounded, or do we have to wait for that one magic case to pop up to be the proof? I'm still waitting...
January 5, 2009
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
How many Supreme Court justices will President Obama replace in his four or eight years in office?
The DC gun Ban was overturned by a 5-4 vote.
Gun sales rising is not about paranoia. Gun sales rising are about the simple fact that gun ownership was affirmed by a single vote from a group on 9 people that were appointed by presidents.
I’d like to be able to feed my family in the event that the economy completely collapses. My children will inherit the skill of hunting and preparing the meat too. Will yours?
January 5, 2009
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
MARSHDALE, that an excellent post, not only the two acts you cited, but the one Jimmy Carter signed into law as well allowing confiscation of excess wealth in case of a national emergency. These acts you cited as well as others are a direct affront to all we as Americans regardless of party must be concerned with. The law enacted under Carter was only the begining, but it sits there silently on the books, never defining wht constitutes a national emergency. How do you strip your people and your nations citizens of their wealth? This is what made us great even in national crisis. Private industry built America. There are many silent laws sitting on the books that scare me, excellent post, MARSHDALE!
January 5, 2009
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
FRED, if the economy "totally" collapses, you might need the gun for the two legged animals preying upon you. Michigan is nothing but crime in their cities, as the economy is all but gone there.
January 5, 2009
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
FRED, when the robber confronted me, I had to fight back with nothing and took a bullet. It would have been nice during the heat of the robbery and the fight to have been on equal footing. Guy had 9 prior felonies before meeting up with me, he's in prison now, but he'll be free again in about 10 years we figure. Tore the hell out of my family's store fighting with this man; it's like a flashback to my days in the joint. You never know when it's your number on the wheel of life.
January 5, 2009
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Twenty-bucks says you go to church in Colorado Springs were the shooting occured, and the folks there have trust and faith in God, while Sam Colt is giving them real security and looking out for their welfare today.Sam Colt is sitting in the pews praising God right along with the children of God. Hard lessions I guess.
January 5, 2009
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
"One man, who said his first name was Nathan but would not give his last name - said he was in the military - bought a World War I-era Russian pistol to add to his collection."
Everytime there is a background check doesn't mean some guy is stocking up on AK-47's. The Left needs to relax and let fellow Americans exercise their 2nd Amendment right as much as they like. I personally have no concerns about excessive gun-control. Gun-control is an immediate career killer in politics and no politician today has the stomach for it.
Responsible gun ownership is no threat to public safety. Has gun violence also seen a historic high in November? Hardly. The problem is illegal guns in the hands of gang-banging felons - NOT the law-abiding citizen.
Be happy! It is good to see just about any business booming these days!
January 5, 2009
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Gunny Bob
I'm a bit surprised to see you blame Vince Carroll for the demise of this paper. He's one of the few who remained true to his readership.
Louie
Reality_Check's entire post was removed. Amazing she can do that.
Check its wording, nothing here about plinking or hunting. THE PRIMARY IDEA OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS TO AVOID A STANDING ARMY. The people comprise the militia and must be armed to carry out their duties which include throwing off tyranny, the thing that frightens liberals most, thus terms such as "gun nuts." That’s the thrust. Buy guns. Support the industry. Join a gun club. Learn to shoot.
"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."
January 5, 2009
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Cowboy
Given the Left's total lack of information about legal gun owners, I would say stocking up on AKs is advisable.
January 5, 2009
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Louie,
I don't have time to participate in this debate today, so I'm giving it a pass. I just wanted to pass on my compliments to you for setting a civil tone and giving your unique perspective. I have enjoyed our talks and regret not having time to post with you today. Take care my friend and keep posting!
January 5, 2009
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
djpulse writes:
Gun control is going to come in the form of taxes, to the tune
of 800% or so.
You will get a notice in your mail telling you that you need to pay
your taxes on the Guns you own.
If you cant pay your firearm taxes, you will be forced to turn them over, and if you sell them you will need to provide a bill of sale to the govt, to prove you are in no longer possession of said firearm.
Big brother knows how many guns you have, and what caliber if you have them registered.
I am shocked no one hasn't picked up on this yet, be prepared!
January 5, 2009
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
HOPI, I don't like seeing REALITY_CHECK removed or censored; as I said I would always support his right to his opinion. I think there are some great minds that post here more than willing to step up and police the debate. Others have spoken to him on other threads about the name calling and lack of respect; but I don't believe censorship to be the answer as much as his fellowman being able to set him right. Believe me, I've had to apologize a few times on the ROCKY, one was a man named Blue Horse concerning his tribal beliefs. I was one ignorant man that day, and I couldn't apologize enough after others showed me the error of my way. If I ever meet the man, I owe him bigtime for his forgiveness. I think most of the people here can disagree and still respect the person they are debating. I've come to learn a lot from the people here. I was moving on to other places online, but after hearing the RMN was on the block, I figured to hang out awhile longer as I love reading the opinions of others. Especially those that oppose my own and make me think. Can't find that anywhere, but here there is sure to be a differing opinion to just about everything.
January 5, 2009
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
djpulse -
I don't see it happening. Not that many nanny-state politicians wouldn't WANT it to happen - I just don't see them having the political will to carry it out. On the flip-side, any politician that comes out AGAINST such taxes would be a hero to the people and re-elected for life. Neither side wants to give the other the edge.
Any politician will say goodbye to their career the minute they start pushing for those kinds of taxes. Politics is becoming a hereditary position these days and these people wont upset the apple cart.
January 5, 2009
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Cowboy63
YOu and I disagree most of the time, but on your last point, I would have to agree with you 100%. The politions don't have the cajones to match their own convictions. It would be political suicide for them to do so.
January 5, 2009
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Arch_Stanton writes:
650,000+ population in North Dakota, no gun-control, with only 2 homicides (neither by firearms) in 2008.
500,000+ population in DC, maximum gun control (total handgun ban), 186 homicides in 2008.
Gun control really works well...
January 5, 2009
5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
GatorNation1 writes:
A few points. D.C. is (STILL!) denying firearms to law-abiding people for use in their own homes for self-defense. Second, violent crimes are down overall in handgun shall-issue states. Now 48 states permit concealed carry, with certain restrictions. Perhaps the most egregious error being done by mayors and politicians in general, is substituting their own preferences and ideology on the population, while ignoring the 2nd amendment and the ruling and order in the D.C. v Heller case. More subtly, they are ignoring incorporation (14th amendment) and its application to the 2nd. The NRA is NOT the villain in this case, although many stand in line to vilify them. If these same politicians spent more time going after the criminals and then sentencing them fully, and spent less time adding with futility to the some 20,000 gun laws already on the books, our nation would be a lot safer. The greatest danger to Americans are criminals, foreign and domestic terrorists and those who would deny citizens their basic, natural right to keep and bear arms, pretty much in the REVERSE order listed. --- And NO, I am not a member of the NRA, nor am I a pure redneck, I am very well educated, am a gun owner and do not suffer gladly fools choosing which parts of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights they will simply ignore, or edit at will. The Constitution is NOT a living document, freely editable by politicians and groups far more mentally deficient in reason than our forefathers who wrote the Document in the first place.
January 5, 2009
6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sixtysixdeuce writes:
"djpulse writes:
Big brother knows how many guns you have, and what caliber if you have them registered."
Well, we don't have a registry in CO. Only thing CBI/NICS knows is whether it's a handgun or long gun, and those BG check files are *supposed* to be destroyed within 24 hours of approval. The only way the BATFE can trace a gun from manufacturer to owner is if you were the original purchaser of that firearm. If you bought it second hand (whether from an FFL or a private party), there is no paper trail (at least not a mandatory one; some folks keep records).
There is NO database for CO where they can pull up an individual's name and know how many firearms he/she owns, and what type/chambering they are. And that's how we want to keep it. Registration is the first step toward consfiscation. Just ask the Brits.
January 5, 2009
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Arch_Stanton writes:
So President-elect Obama is a supporter of the second amendment? From http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/...
his position:
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."
(1) The Tiahrt amendment already does restrict ATF trace data to Law Enforcement. LEOs don't want this information disseminated to the public because it could endanger under-cover officers.
(2) What does "keep guns away from children" mean? Trigger locks, maybe, like that of DC that was voided by the DC v Heller decision?
(3) Closing the gunshow loophole... What loophole? NICS checks are required for all sales at gun shows, just like at gun shops and sporting goods stores. What he really wants to do is force all private sales to go through FFLs.
(4) Reviving the "assault" weapons ban, which affects semiauto rifles, not actual assault weapons (automatic weapons like the M16) which are already sufficiently regulated by the 1934 Firearms Act.
None of his ideas are consistent with his pro-second-amendment allegation.
January 5, 2009
9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
2ndamendmentrights writes:
I have a guy here in town that took all his black rifles (AR type rifles), 9 in total, and most of his shotguns, hunting rifles, and handguns and put them in a waterproof box and sealed them in a storage unit. I am not this extreme, and have mine securely locked and loaded at home. I would not be surprised to see others squirrel their guns away and start buying more from other gun owners than from gun stores as hand to hand transactions do not have to be back ground checked. That way the gun is not registered to you and the govt has no way of knowing what you have. Obama is dumb and will prove every red blooded american right if he goes after guns in his first term. His second term, however is a different story. His second term he will have nothing to lose, and he will climb in bed with the Brady campaign and Clinton. Not a doubt in my mind!
January 6, 2009
3:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Actually ARCH_STANTON, two ways to look at the Washington DC and North Dakota statistic you quoted at 5:42pm. When looking at the homicide rate you quoted, 2 for N. Dakota verses 186 for Washington DC, someone can easily present the arguement Washington DC has shown the need for greater handgun or firearm laws. I agree handgun and further restrictions don't work, but not only for the reason you cited in that particular post which is valid as they don't work, but in many ways the same statistic will, and is often used, to support the opposite side of the arguement. Anytime laws are created restricting a particular item, the article now becomes a underground market and placed out of government supervision. Thus handguns are all over New York and Washigton DC with the bans in effect, yet the government has no oversite having pushed the market underground. Unlike the unwinable war on drugs, firearms are constitutionally protected by expressed wording of the constitution, it is the right of the people to bear arms as the Supreme Court finally has ruled and correctly so. Guns that are stolen elsewhere bring a premium in cities that have a ban, thus the trade still flourishes illegally creating a unregulated market, and another unwinable situation for law enforcement as even with the bans in effect, gun violence has not been stopped as your statistic has sited. I think if you are a honest law abiding citizen there should be no restriction; in today's society citing even your statistic for Washington DC of 186 (assuming this is correct) gun murders, I'd say the people have a right to have some means of defense should the situation arise. Police are rarely able to protect the victim of a crime, and we are fortunate they will investigate and perhaps solve the crime. No honest law abiding citizen should be left at the mercy of the criminal, stripped of his right to defend himself by the very actions of the criminal. Hold the criminal accountable for his actions, not the law abiding citizen. But murder statistics are often cited as the need for greater gun control; while some of us see the statistic as a need for greater gun ownership, in defending the law abiding citizen from becoming one of those statistics. Just a thought of the statistic you gave, it is openned to be argued either way and often is.
January 6, 2009
3:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
2AMENDMENTRIGHTS, I love responsible gun owners such as yourself, just remember to secure them in a good gun safe as this Pepsi generation (kids) aren't as bright about how to peel a safe as my generation was. See, burglary was one of many crimes I committed as a young man. All the fireams we stole went to some fellas who payed us lock stock and barrel for the whole lot or collection, I'll leave who these people were out of the conversatiion, as this was well over 20 years ago when I was a young man. We set up on you, we'd watch you and your family leave, even call from a payphone to make sure, and everything you left in your home belonged to me. We even knocked out phone service on entire blocks while hitting homes, relinquishing the alarms useless. Once we even drove pass the officer and the phone company as they were repairing the damaged box, we hit a place right under their nose. What made it crazy is Sonitrol, the alarm company was sitting there as well, talking to the cop and the phone man. Whatever valuables you have in your home get a good safe like a Tann TL 6 or better, this Pepsi generation is dumber than dirt thank God! Stolen firearms are a real problem that can often times be prevented with a good safe today. Whats a few grand to have piece of mind? Plus, get a good security system if you can afford it, digital cameras concealed from view, you can run and leave the recorder in your safe as well,(some folks have dual recorders in different locations) even alarming the safe itself. Take every precaution you can, it will help you in the end as the latest technology has come along way, while the average criminal has become dumber...again thank God! Just remember, when you leave, your home is at the mercy of the thief. Midnight burglary is another problem altogether and is the deadliest of crimes when it goes haywire. Florida put a life sentence on Midnight burglary, but that a conversation for another day as I was in a situation years ago outside Dayton, Ohio that ended peaceably, but broke me of doing that one again. I went straight and changed, but I'll always step up and tell you straight; take the added measure to protect both you and your home, it's worth it!
January 6, 2009
4:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Lastly 2NDAMEMEDMENTRIGHT, it's hard for me to peg any man who makes it to the office of the President of the United States as dumb; never underestimate your opponent, recognize his brilliance as well as his flaws. Treat him as dumb at your own peril; I'd prefer to think about what he is capable of and how it may affect a situation. Even Jimmy Carter and his failed presidency (in my eyes a failure) wasn't dumb. If they can make it there, I'd say it looks good on the next job application after the presidency. Not many have that reference to fall back on! Got to be fair about that one, I think "dumb" is a grave underestimate of what he's capable of.
January 6, 2009
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Arch_Stanton writes:
LOUIE wrote: "...citing even your statistic for Washington DC of 186 (assuming this is correct) gun murders"
Assume nothing. You and I have no way of directly knowing the number of homicides in DC, since we didn't personally perform body counts. This number is alleged on the DC Police's own website http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,12...
Note that 2008 was actually a good year; the peak was 479 in 1991.
I agree with you, the crucial flaw of any gun-control law is that it only affects law-abiding citizens, not violent criminals.
January 6, 2009
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
"Well, we don't have a registry in CO. Only thing CBI/NICS knows is whether it's a handgun or long gun, and those BG check files are *supposed* to be destroyed within 24 hours of approval." Believe that and I've got some land to sell you in Tampa, Florida - a low tide..........
I'm glad I've got some pre-BG check hunting rifles, though I may have blown any anonymity by ordering ammo with a credit card. Time to start having it in your mind - just WHAT are you going to do when local LE starts coming door to door looking for your guns.......
About reality_check - any topic about guns threw he/she/it into a rage...it was a regular poster on the Daily Camera..I don't like censorship, either, and I think posters as extreme as it was are always helpful - know your enemy.........it's why I - a liberal gun owner - listen to Rush!
January 6, 2009
6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tracyduane writes:
For over 25 years I have watched the gun control debate and it is the same old story.
Gun control laws put in place crime goes up, gun control laws repealed crime goes down.
In the years leading up to Washington, D.C.'s gun ban crime had been dropping and was in line with the national average, then in 1976 they passed their ban and crime went up above the national average and has been there ever since.
In 1987 Florida passed their shall issue concealed carry law, since then 24 more states have followed, and the more permits a state issues the less crime it has.
1997 the U.K. banned hand guns and made ownership of rifles and shot guns nearly impossible, since then their violent crime rate has doubled, criminal gun usage has increased 50%, illegal gun manufacture has become a cottage industry tying up valuable police resources and hot burglaries (when the victim is home) have skyrocketed from 15% to 49% of all burglaries. During this same time gun ownership in the U.S. has increased from 60 million to 80 million, the number of concealed carriers has increased by 2.5 million, while violent crime has dropped 38%.
Guns in the hands of law abiding people deters crime, while absents of guns in the hands of law abiding people emboldens criminals and leads to more violent crime.