The time is right [for gun control]; says our governor


PDA






CoRoMo
December 14, 2012, 11:38 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/governor-hickenlooper-say_n_2294609.html

"I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but it is, I think, now is the time is right," Hickenlooper said.

...

Hickenlooper said the issues that merit discussion include "things like, do we all need assault weapons?" which he said are "designed for warfare" and "designed to pierce bulletproof vests and body armor."

...

"When you look at what happened in Aurora, a great deal of that damage was from the large magazine on the AR-15 (rifle). I think we need to have that discussion and say, `Where is this appropriate?'"
Here's what I'd ask you all to do... Please...

Contact a few members of our General Assembly by CLICKING HERE (http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2012B/csl.nsf/Directory?openFrameset). Contact a few members of each the Senate and the House. Note that there are several pages there. You can contact a member of a district where you might spend vacation, ski, hunt, fish, etc. by searching by district. If you live here, you MUST get involved!

Wherever you reside, PLEASE contact a member of our state legislature and let them know how Colorado's tourist economy will be impacted from the passage of any gun control legislation.

BUT ALSO - Contact our governor by CLICKING HERE (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovHickenlooper/CBON/1249674240317).

If there is going to be a discussion of gun control in this state, we must get out in front of it and frame the debate. It must be on our terms.

If you enjoyed reading about "The time is right [for gun control]; says our governor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BearGriz
December 14, 2012, 11:59 AM
That is unfortunate. To all of you in Colorado, I wish you the best and I hope you all can get everyone involved.

CoRoMo
December 14, 2012, 12:48 PM
You can help!

Contact one, or many of our representatives from any house district or a senator from any senate district that you might ever have the opportunity to spend money in. Our state's economy is utterly dependent on the tourist money spent here.

Here are the senate districts: http://coloradoaeyc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012_Senate_Districts.pdf
Here are the house districts: http://coloradoaeyc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012_House_Districts.pdf

Find an area that you may go on vacation to or through and contact that legislator and tell them that you will no longer consider Colorado for vacationing if your firearms are restricted here.

For example, Gail Schwartz is in senate district 5 where Vail ski resort brings in so many tourists from out of state and many hunters hit the West Elk Wilderness area around Gunnison in her district. If she knew how badly new gun control legislation would deter tourist dollars into her district, she might think twice about supporting any of it.

dbrow6272
December 14, 2012, 02:30 PM
I have read the Colorado gov's statement. Now with the shootings today, coupled with all of the others recently I am afraid this is giving the government leverage for this gun control. Sad situations all around. Pray for those poor souls.

XD 45acp
December 14, 2012, 03:07 PM
There will definitelly be a move coming from the anti's now due to today's events in CT. Buckle up.

Carpedium
December 14, 2012, 03:19 PM
If only guns were legal on school premises - schools would no longer be low-risk target rich environments for these psychopathic criminals. A teacher or some other law abiding responsible citizen may have been able to have taken this guy out before it escalated.

I believe that reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves and our loved ones from being victimized, and to ensure a remedy against government tyranny. Why do people choose to rely on the police when things like this happen? Why are there areas of this country that people have this right to protect themselves revoked?

gobysky
December 14, 2012, 05:12 PM
I agree with Carpedium. If new laws are passed, I hope they're effective in solving the real problem, not some emotional response that satisfies only the politically motivated anti-gun activists. Lets find a real fix, and put politics aside.

Pistol Ranch
December 14, 2012, 05:28 PM
As ususal, the media will put the gun issue up front, NOT the nut cases that commit the crimes. I believe that by over publicizing the event, the seed is planted in the crazies mind and eventually they act on the impulse.
If guns are not allowed in schools, why not install a "panic" button in each room that will lock the door to that room. Bullet proof the glass and teach the kids a drill to get away from the door window. At least some time will exist for someone with a weapon to fix the problem..just sayin..

P.R.

Prince Yamato
December 14, 2012, 05:39 PM
Something many of you may not realize is that most public schools employ resource intervention officers- which is a fancy name for armed police officers in various wings of the actual school building. If this school did and the response was ineffective to the point that students still perished, it may lend credence to the notion that gun control and gun free zones are truly ineffective at preventing tragedy.

Also, the new policy in most public schools is to lock all class doors from the outside, so that they can be immediately closed and instantly locked. Students are then instructed to move out of sight of the door's window.

CoRoMo
December 14, 2012, 06:45 PM
Anyone interested in contacting an elected official?

I never intended this to be a discussion thread.

Trent
December 14, 2012, 08:08 PM
I have a friend who lives in Westminster, will forward the information to him.

jon_in_wv
December 15, 2012, 12:57 AM
Personally I think its sick the way the antis exploit tragedies like the CT shooting to push their agenda. The problem we all need to address is WHY these things happen and how to protect ourselves from them. The answer isn't taking away the tool as if there is only one tool these sick people can use to kill. If they could tell me they KNOW this sicko wouldn't have used a bomb, or set the place on fire, if he knew he couldn't get a gun I would listen but the fact is you have to stop the PERSON not the tools he uses. We need to stand up to this madness and demand they address the real issue instead of attacking our rights again.

joneb
December 15, 2012, 03:37 AM
If new laws are passed, I hope they're effective in solving the real problem, not some emotional response that satisfies only the politically motivated anti-gun activists. Lets find a real fix, and put politics aside.
I agree, there must be a common thread to this madness ? Were these shooters under the influence psychoactive medication ? Would the media tell us if they were ?
Have guns become more evil or is this a symptom that something is going very wrong with our social wellness ?

leadcounsel
December 15, 2012, 04:54 AM
ttt

jon_in_wv
December 15, 2012, 12:11 PM
Have guns become more evil or is this a symptom that something is going very wrong with our social wellness ?

That answer is pretty obvious to you and me, our society has gotten sick. The media trumpets these people as some type of anti-hero while they shake their heads at the press they get. There is an entire generation who thinks saving the spotted owl is more important than human life or Mother Earth would be better off if we just killed off mankind. If they don't feel loved or they think they didn't get a fair shake then the world OWES them something. Everyone wants a paycheck, no one wants to work. They have a childish fear of firearms because they think equality means that everyone should be powerless and the government is a warm blanket to wrap yourself in. Now they embrace socialism and are tripping over themselves to sign away their rights and freedoms so they can feel safe. Our society and our culture produces these monsters and taking guns away from millions of people isn't going to make these people less monstrous.

As a side note, I've asked several of my friends when the last time was they saw a mental institution? Are there no more crazy people? The fact is there are plenty and now they live on the streets or next door so we don't have to feel bad about institutionalizing them. We don't want to address the problems of mental health in this country, just like we ignore the rest of our problems, so they want to just take away guns so our problems will be less scarey. Realizing the problems we have are with people, not tools, is a hard thing for an immature mind to grasp.

Dr. Sandman
December 15, 2012, 12:30 PM
Our culture has changed and the average person today is less decent than they were years ago. There is no easy solution that solves the problem.

Fremmer
December 15, 2012, 12:41 PM
Contact your local nra folks in colorado, too. Coordinate with them. And get ready to fight the new "safety" laws that won't affect anyone other than law abiding citizens.

Hickenloopers position has changed because he's got a democratic majority in the legislature, so your 2nd Am. Rights are subject to their decisions.

That's a shame.

elwoodm
December 15, 2012, 01:35 PM
look at it this way you have the libs and left wingers coming out the wood works to ban guns an a assault on the 2nd amendment thats right i said assault ha ha ha. we all know the majority of the people who make up this group that want to ban guns. now look at the people these events have just happened to. mainly white well off crackers that the left could care less about. the left will use you like a cheap whore and toss you to the curb to get what they want. the people in conn. co. and or. need to stand up and tell the crap media they dont want to be used like that. what needs to be said is if someone with a concealed carry had been at the seen responsibility for ones own safety would have won. laws that keep you from doing this make you a victim. where is it written that the weak survive?

Pilot
December 15, 2012, 01:42 PM
I lived in Douglas County (suburb of Denver) when Hickenlooper was mayor. He was a terrible mayor (Denver has the worst gun laws in CO), and he is a terrible Governor. I can't believe Coloradons elected this guy to that high of an office. He is playing to his far left base, and the law abiding people of CO need to stand up to this Obama clone.

jon_in_wv
December 15, 2012, 01:48 PM
I like they way the media is portraying the NRA as "extremist" while they want to disarm millions of people because of the actions of one lunatic. Yeah, thats not extreme at all.

Highcaliber
December 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
I think a "ballot initiative" is needed in States that allow such things . Require Principals, Office personnel and Teachers to obtain Concealed Carry permits and training. This would offer a tangible line of defense in violent attacks such as the recent tragedy in CT.

elwoodm
December 15, 2012, 02:06 PM
years ago a elementary school in russia was gunned down by rebels. do you think the response was to ban guns? now they have teachers that carry problem solved will not happen again without a fire fight. in this country run and hide dial 911 while some piece of trash removes you from the still sucking air club.

eddiegun
December 15, 2012, 02:18 PM
That answer is pretty obvious to you and me, our society has gotten sick. The media trumpets these people as some type of anti-hero while they shake their heads at the press they get. There is an entire generation who thinks saving the spotted owl is more important than human life or Mother Earth would be better off if we just killed off mankind. If they don't feel loved or they think they didn't get a fair shake then the world OWES them something. Everyone wants a paycheck, no one wants to work. They have a childish fear of firearms because they think equality means that everyone should be powerless and the government is a warm blanket to wrap yourself in. Now they embrace socialism and are tripping over themselves to sign away their rights and freedoms so they can feel safe. Our society and our culture produces these monsters and taking guns away from millions of people isn't going to make these people less monstrous.

As a side note, I've asked several of my friends when the last time was they saw a mental institution? Are there no more crazy people? The fact is there are plenty and now they live on the streets or next door so we don't have to feel bad about institutionalizing them. We don't want to address the problems of mental health in this country, just like we ignore the rest of our problems, so they want to just take away guns so our problems will be less scarey. Realizing the problems we have are with people, not tools, is a hard thing for an immature mind to grasp.
Very well said.

coondogger
December 15, 2012, 02:23 PM
In places that are not hoplophobic and there are no gun free zones, they don't sit and cower while a maniac takes his time and fires dozens of rounds. They don't wait until he stops. They don't wait for 'authorites' who never arrive in time. Ordinary citizens stop him. Here are some excellent observations by Mas Ayoob.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob81.html

Coltdriver
December 15, 2012, 06:06 PM
The sad part of this is that the root cause of all these shootings is being ignored.

Every one of these shooters is/was mentally disturbed. Yet we do not require a psychologist to report a person in their care to the authorities when violence is discussed.

All of this doctor patient confidentiality is non sense. If a person is a threat to society then how is the doctor not complicit in the act of the patient when the patient commits violence?

If mentally disturbed people were identified, put into a database to ban them from gun, knife, ammo and any other thing that could be used for mass destruction then many if not most of these cases could be avoided.

If parents were required to register their known disturbed kids in the data base and if the parents were held criminally responsible for not doing so it would take no time, between parents and doctors, to identify the majority of these people.

You nearly always hear, after the fact, of family and friends who knew the shooter was not stable or in fact knew they were outright disturbed. This is nothing more than plain common sense to get a handle on the problem this way.

krupparms
December 15, 2012, 06:42 PM
Our politicians are the ones that are responsible! They say the police are not here to protect us according to the supreme court. It is your responsibility to protect ourselves. How can we do so when they take our guns. Most politicians don't care as the weaker the gun laws the weaker we are when the government takes all our guns. The AWB was illegal &will be just as illegal as the last one! I expect our governor to calling for a weapons ban ASAP! With all the problems we have now it is a waste of time until our politicians quit breaking the law of the land.

jon_in_wv
December 16, 2012, 12:00 AM
I don't seriously think that efforts to disarm the public are nearly as nefarious as an effort to keep the populace weakened. The fact is the anti-gun folks have a simple and childish fear of guns. They don't care one whit about the safety of others, stopping crimes, or government control. They only fear guns and think the world a better place if they can get rid of them. I've worked in the federal government and the military for 20 years. There is no massive plot to control the populace. There is only fear and ignorance that people are stupid and guns are evil and when mixed together bad things happen. Listen to their arguments. They are based wholly on irrational fear and hatred of guns.

During the Senate subcommittee hearings leading up the assault weapons ban Charles Schumer held up a black shotgun (benelli maybe?) and said dramatically, "LOOK AT THIS! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE FEAR PEOPLE HAVE WHEN A GANG BANGER STEPS OUT OF A CAR AND POINTS THIS AT THEM?!?!" (Like somehow if it was a hunting rifle they would just laugh at him.) His basest argument was that it was SCAREY. This was even after the FBI testified at length that only a small percentage of murders committed in the US were with military caliber weapons and and only percentage of those were even assault rifles. They admitted that an assault weapons ban would have little to no effect on saving lives. Schumers response was, they are scary so we need to ban them. This is the crux of their belief and their argument. Until we elevate the conversation away from the paranoia and fear like the other side we will never convince them. We are the mature ones, not them, and we need to educate them instead of treating them like its a matter of point and counter point. They have no history, facts, statistics, or logic in their argument. We just need to teach the public how foolish the other side is so they will stop voting for them and we can get on the business of attacking the real problems driving crime in this country.

joneb
December 16, 2012, 12:22 AM
If parents were required to register their known disturbed kids in the data base and if the parents were held criminally responsible
The guns used in the New Town murders were stolen from the shooters mother.

Things are different now. As a youth I walked the streets with either a shotgun or a 22 rifle to get to my hunting or shooting spots, nobody seemed alarmed.
We never used to lock the doors of the house, the car was in the drive way unlocked with the keys in the ignition. And Guns without safes was standard storage, well things have changed :(

If you have guns make them hard to steal.

jon_in_wv
December 16, 2012, 12:53 AM
When I was in middle school we could bring a gun to school with us for firearms safety day. Funny we didn't just shoot each other huh?

.333 Nitro Express
December 16, 2012, 03:36 AM
Guys, I think we won't be 100% effective until we understand what motivates the antis. There are mainly two groups of anti-gun people:

1 - The first is made up of well-meaning but generally-misinformed or uninformed people who think that if you just make it harder to get guns, society will get safer. These are the ones who only know guns through Hollywood or the Liberal media, and couldn't tell you the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, let alone between a semiauto and a full auto. While many of them are close-minded, others among this group can be swayed by calm reasoning and statistics (which are in our favor).

2 - The second is the truly dangerous group. It is made up of the ideologues, the Leftist opinion leaders and the committed statists. To them, private gun ownership is a metaphysical sin--a thumb in the eye of statism and collectivism. Since they define social justice as the state being above the individual, they won't rest until this powerful symbol of the sovereign citizen is rubbed out, neutered or at least greatly inconvenienced.

Group 2 are the ones waiting with bated breath for the next tragedy so they can whip group 1 into a panicked frenzy and send them tugging at the government's skirt demanding gun control. They are the Machiavellian demagogues. They couldn't care less if more CCWs lead to less crime (I believe that deep down they know it): to them, the problem to solve is private gun ownership, not crime.

I think it's important to target our arguments carefully if we are speaking to group 1 or group 2. It's vital to persuade group 1 that statistics, reason, the Constitution, psychology and history all point to looking for more efficient and effective ways to combat crime. But with group 2 those arguments are a waste of breath: the only realities they understand are fear of political defeat, boycotts and ridicule.

So, you're never going to persuade a committed Leftist ideologue like the Governor of Colorado that more guns lead to less crime. He must feel political pressure, and be flooded with "not in your wildest dreams, buddy" letters, emails and phone calls.

I think the calls for gun control will die down soon, once the attention span of the media turns towards the next D-R fight over the fiscal cliff or whatever have you. But I think it pays to keep in mind who we're talking to, when and how, so that we may maximize our effectiveness when making our case.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Billy Shears
December 16, 2012, 09:14 AM
There is something I think everyone here should keep in mind. Right now, politicians are under tremendous pressure to "do something" to prevent more tragedies like this. And at a moment like this, the antis have the ability to exploit public anguish and public desire to see an end to horrors like this to shout down any opposition to the gun control measures they trot out in the wake of such incidents. I think this means we need to do more than just oppose gun control.

We need to reframe the argument. Make it known, be loud and clear, that we are just as committed to seeing an end to horrors like this latest mass shooting. But the way to accomplish it is not to take guns away from law-abiding people who had nothing whatever to do with the incident, but to keep them out of the hands of the kinds of deranged individuals who commit crimes like this. I think it is vital that anyone who intends to contact his governor or legislator to register his opposition to gun control should do more than just that. Give the politician a practical, and politically feasible alternative to just voting against the antis. Remind him of the need to make it more difficult for the non-adjudicated mentally ill to come into possession of weapons. Right now, not enough is being done, the medical community — psychiatrists, therapists, school counselors and the like — are worried about privacy issues and the legal liability they may face for violating them. Right now, states aren't submitting records of people who are supposed to be ineligible under the 1968 gun control statute, and a federal database with the names of mentally ill people barred from buying guns still lacks millions of records it needs to be effective. See: http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158932528/states-arent-submitting-records-to-gun-database

So don't just write your politicians and say: "don't you dare support gun control." Write to them and say: "don't support gun control, because it doesn't work, and it's not the real problem. The real problem is keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, and here's what you need to do about that..." Then explain the need to change whatever state or local laws are helping to prevent the records of people who have been involuntarily committed off the database of people ineligible to purchase a firearm.

ACP
December 16, 2012, 09:56 AM
"we all know the majority of the people who make up this group that want to ban guns."

More and more everyday it is NOT the "libs" and the "antis" but everyday people -- your friends, neighbors and co-workers -- who see mass shootings with legally owned firearms, and ask -- rightfully -- why??

Lots of reflection and SOME NEW THINKING is required by gun owners here, and NOT the reflexive statements like the "if only the kids and teachers had guns!" drivel that is put out by pro-gun groups. NOBODY believes that.

Maybe a common theme to focus on here is SECURING your firearms and COMPREHNSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS everyuwhere. Why are these young white males with mental health problems able to get handguns and rifles?

.333 Nitro Express
December 16, 2012, 10:37 AM
ACP,

"Lots of reflection and SOME NEW THINKING is required by gun owners here, and NOT the reflexive statements like the "if only the kids and teachers had guns!" drivel that is put out by pro-gun groups. NOBODY believes that."

I think you are caricaturizing what is instead a very sensible line of thinking, which is far from being drivel: letting teachers who have CCWs carry their guns in school is only politically unthinkable because we as a society have let it become so. And even then, there are states and municipalities that are seriously considering doing this, and we may live to see the day when an adult's 2nd Amendment rights don't stop in a school's parking lot.

"Maybe a common theme to focus on here is SECURING your firearms and COMPREHNSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS everywhere. Why are these young white males with mental health problems able to get handguns and rifles?"

Care to elaborate? Securing how? Are you talking mandatory trigger locks, disassembled storage and/or safes for everyone, a la Great Britain circa 1990? If so, look how well that turned out.

I honestly think that the only sensible thing to do here is to CALM DOWN. Laws passed in the turbulent climax of a moment like this are always emotionally-based and end up making problems worse on one hand while restricting people's liberties on the other.

jon_in_wv
December 16, 2012, 10:57 AM
I also don't believe armed teachers is the answer. First of all it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you ever want to find and anti-gun group its teachers. What can be done is improved security of schools and armed security. The NEA would crush any effort to give the teachers guns or make them carry them, I believe they would get behind stronger security as long as it didn't effect their own fat paychecks to pay for it. If the state says the school is my child's guardian when at school I would like more effective security than just happy thoughts and the unlikelihood something bad will happen.

Billy Shears
December 16, 2012, 11:10 AM
I also don't believe armed teachers is the answer. First of all it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you ever want to find and anti-gun group its teachers. What can be done is improved security of schools and armed security. The NEA would crush any effort to give the teachers guns or make them carry them, I believe they would get behind stronger security as long as it didn't effect their own fat paychecks to pay for it. If the state says the school is my child's guardian when at school I would like more effective security than just happy thoughts and the unlikelihood something bad will happen.
While I would support any effort to make it possible for teachers to carry (and would oppose any to make them do so), I also don't believe this will ever happen. On the other hand, I can't see armed guards being much of an answer either. First off, how are we going to pay for it? Too many states already are looking at massive budget overruns, and billions in unfunded liabilities down the road. How on earth are we going to afford more state employees, complete with benefits, pensions, etc.? Where's the money to pay for all this going to come from. Second, consider the caliber of the likely employees in this capacity. Most cops have a very low opinion of security guards, and for good reason. Too many of them are police wannabes who couldn't get on any department they applied to, and for the rest... well, the pay isn't enough to attract the caliber employee you'd want.

I still think the best way is to direct all the outrage and desire for some sort of response from lawmakers into an effort to improve the reporting of mentally ill people by the medical community for background checks. The more of these shootings there are, the more it will give support among non-shooters for a reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban. We need to come up with an alternative that we can point out to the non-shooting public as better and more effective, and which just might have some real effect in heading off a few of these incidents.

Coltdriver
December 16, 2012, 11:36 AM
It would be most effective if we were able to shift the argument to mental health and away from guns.

I will be calling Hickenlooper the next time he is on the Mike Rosen show.

The argument needs to be put into the public domain in order to get it moving.

That "uninformed crowd" also known as low information voters could be swayed.

We will never change the minds of the wannabe communists/tyrannical government types.

But the public could be rallied behind the management and correction of the root cause of these shootings which in every instance is mental illness.

elwoodm
December 16, 2012, 01:39 PM
good point about the teachers are mainly anti gun bet that thinking now might change. well back to the point of co. gov. my sister lives in aurora and has said in the last few years the amount of people coming from ca. has changed everything about the place. maybe this gov. is trying to pander the new crowd that has packed the u-haul with ca. libtard ways and now wants to shove it down co. people's necks. maybe that's why my sister is moving to n.c. next year had enough. lets pass a law that says ounce you have been raised in a libtard bastion you can't relocate to spread the sickness that you have absorbed.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 16, 2012, 04:50 PM
Hickenlooper said the issues that merit discussion include "things like, do we all need assault weapons?" which he said are "designed for warfare" and "designed to pierce bulletproof vests and body armor."

Which true answer to go with though? That is doesn't matter if we need them or not, because it's our right? Or that the fact is "YES" we DO need weapons designed for warfare as the 2A was written directly after a war with a tyrannical government.

ACP
December 16, 2012, 09:41 PM
Mandatory trigger locks required at time of sale?

Yes.

Penalties -- including mandatory minimum jail time, monetary fines and loss of your firearms -- if someone gets ahold of your firearm and uses it to commit a crime??

Yes.

The strictest background checks imagineable -- personal interviews, fingerprints, military background check, domestic abuse and drug abuse checks, etc. etc. etc. -- for everyone, every single time, including gun shows and personal sales??

Yes.

Mandatory safety and legal use training before purchase??

Yes.

Mandatory police re-interviews and re-qualification and re-testing every 3-5 years to maintain permit?

Yes.

leadcounsel
December 16, 2012, 09:44 PM
Well, to those supporters of Democrats, who pounded their fists saying that Obama wasn't going to ban guns, now we can say that we told you so.

His speech Friday called for gun control, and now we've got a Democtratic Senate that will push for it and a President who will eagerly sign it. And we also have states now pushing for it. Shameful!

I don't think it will make it through the House, or the Senate, but we are in REAL danger if it does because Obama will sign it in a heartbeat.

The assault on guns is on!!! (BTW, Romney wouldn't have signed it I don't believe, despite his MA history).

It's shameful that these morons in office can't read or comprehend the 2A. CT governor said that you don't "hunt with assault weapons," clearly clueless of the intent of the 2A and making statements from emotion.

So, my activism is posting all over facebook and other media to encourage others write their representatives, and I am going to do the same.

This is a reminder to all gun enthusiasts, VOTES MEAN SOMETHING!!!! We are in a real pickel here, that we wouldn't be in if those gun owners voted better.

I would also suggest that the 'victims' families sue the HECK out of "gun free" zones like the Aurora Theater, schools, etc. If a single responsible armed person were there, or guards even, many lives could be saved!

joneb
December 16, 2012, 09:49 PM
"YES" we DO need weapons designed for warfare as the 2A was written directly after a war with a tyrannical government.
I agree.
As we mourn the loss of innocent children we cannot loose sight of the dangers of being a unarmed society.
We cannot forget the crimes against humanity committed by such as Stalin ,Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Hitler and ect... where Millions were killed because they could not fight back.
If you think things are different now and it could never happen again, You are dead wrong it is happening as I type this.

Billy Shears
December 16, 2012, 09:55 PM
Penalties -- including mandatory minimum jail time, monetary fines and loss of your firearms -- if someone gets ahold of your firearm and uses it to commit a crime??

Yes.
So if you buy a gun, and someone breaks into your house and steals it, along with your laptop, the family silver, all the jewelry in the house, etc., and then kills some one with it, YOU go to jail?

I don't think so. Try again.

.333 Nitro Express
December 16, 2012, 10:29 PM
Sorry, ACP--I don't think so either.

I respect your point of view, but I think you consider gun ownership to be a concession from Government that we must go begging for, hat in hand, every three to five years. And just who is going to ensure that our enlightened betters will not clamp down on approvals as the political winds shift? No, thanks.

Besides (and this is not aimed at you), I find this obsession on "opportunity" to be peculiar--typical of the American deterministic mentality (with which I vehemently disagree). The gun made him do it. I wonder what would happen if we all of a sudden started focusing with equal tunnel-vision on "motive," and we went after the 1st amendment rights of journalists who lionize the monsters who commit these crimes. Hey, I'm a pathetic loser, but I'm a few dead bodies away from being plastered all over the news: let them all hear how I was such a nice, quiet kid, who loved animals and always took out the trash. Indeed.

I don't want to get off topic, but in this society, we must choose between true freedom (which behooves a nation of moral, self-restraining adults)--or to be a bunch of overgrown kids who behave like animals as long as our government child-proofs our world for us. And sorry, but our government doesn't need any encouragement in this regard, much less from us.

Over and out.

friscolatchi
December 16, 2012, 11:30 PM
There are plenty of teachers here in UpstateNY who carry and would do so on the job.

DAP90
December 17, 2012, 12:16 AM
Anyone interested in contacting an elected official?

I am. It might be helpful to craft some talking points people can make.

JERRY
December 17, 2012, 12:19 AM
its uncomfortable for politicians to place the blame on the mental illness which caused this, much easier to blame the object.

akin to blaming general motors for dui car wrecks.

Green Lantern
December 17, 2012, 11:18 AM
.333 - great post, reminds me of a John Connor column in American Handgunner, "Chalk and Cheese."

I am. It might be helpful to craft some talking points people can make.

IMO, it needs to be about more than making sure we law-abiding gun owners aren't all punished for the actions of a monster. That's important, yeah, but MORE important is making sure that any action taken will actually keep people safe! Paint gun control as a feel-good solution that will only grant the ILLUSION of safety, and ideally offer up some better alternatives.

CoRoMo
December 17, 2012, 12:08 PM
I don't like talking points because I don't want every email that my state's elected class receives to contain the very same list of remarks. They will too easily disregard those letters and emails.

Just speak from the heart. Tell them what to do and what not to do because they are our servants in government. If you hold dear to any belief in regards to RKBA, speak it forth to the ones who would destroy those dearly held beliefs.

MR2Aaron
December 17, 2012, 05:42 PM
Isn't "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable" technically gun control?

It's just smarter gun control than an outright ban.

ACP
December 17, 2012, 07:46 PM
With "freedom" and rights come responsibilities. It's as simple as that.

Jethro1200
December 17, 2012, 08:12 PM
Guess what small Ct. town closed all of the mental health clinics in 1995?

klyph
December 17, 2012, 08:43 PM
The shooter in Colorado had a high capacity drum, but it failed before 30 rounds were fired making it less lethal than a standard capacity magazine.

Also, the teachers with guns thing not only is a viable solution, it is already being implemented in Texas. I am going to work toward a similar policy at my child's school.

shooter_from_show-me
December 17, 2012, 09:06 PM
I like your way of thinking there jon_in_wv. Well put postings.;)

jon_in_wv
December 17, 2012, 10:22 PM
After the Virginia Tech shooting the ATF did a study of the mental health reporting and stated only 23 states report individuals that are adjudicated mentally defective or institutionalized and of those only 4 report regularly. The mental health reporting requirement is and unfunded federal mandate that few states choose to pay for on their own. Did congress pass a bill to pay for it?? NO. Apparently banning us from getting guns is more important than keeping the mentally ill from getting guns.

coloradokevin
December 18, 2012, 05:51 AM
If there is going to be a discussion of gun control in this state, we must get out in front of it and frame the debate. It must be on our terms.

Indeed. This is a serious threat at the moment. The Democrats have the governor's office locked up at the moment, with a governor who brought up this "discussion" in the first place. The Senate in Colorado is 57.1% Democrat at the moment, and the House is 56.9% Democrat. Though I know we don't like to argue party affiliations around here too much, we all know that the Democratic Party platform has generally been much more open to gun control than the Republican Party.

I'll be trying to send quite a few letters out this week, and may try to send physical mail rather than e-mail in this instance.

I'll also focus my efforts in a few cases, given that I've had more personal contact with some of our law-makers over the years. I've worked under Governor Hickenlooper in the past, and have talked to him on numerous occasions (I don't know that I have any sway with him whatsoever, but I'll at least try).

I also know a Democratic Senator in Colorado, and he's a darn nice guy. He's a huge education supporter, and that seems to be his primary political platform. But, I actually have no idea how he feels about guns. I've worked with his wife for years, and they're a really nice family. I don't know if he'll agree with my points on this issue or not, but I'll certainly try to convey them to him. Perhaps he'll see eye-to-eye with me on the need to make our schools into "harder" targets?

I can't honestly say that I know how any proposed legislation will be received at the moment, but I do fear that a party line vote may quickly change the culture for gun owners here in Colorado. Our state has always had fairly relaxed gun laws, and despite a few notable shootings, I think our violent crime late is relatively low compared to many other places.

joneb
December 18, 2012, 11:01 PM
So how do we prohibit access to firearms to mentally unstable individuals ?
I don't see a legislative option here :confused: It would be up to the parents or custodians of these individuals to prohibit access to firearms :confused:

coloradokevin
December 19, 2012, 02:59 PM
jibjab,

The sad truth is that we can't absolutely keep weapons out of the hands of deranged people, no matter how hard we try, or what laws we pass. Instead, we should focus our efforts on blocking their attempts to obtain weapons as best we can: 1) Make sure that the known violently psychotic individuals are receiving in-patient treatment 2) Appropriately flag some of the severely mentally ill people so that they can't walk into a store and buy a gun over the counter 3) Continue to educate gun owners on the importance of making sure that our weapons don't fall into the hands of those who would do harm with them.

Realistically, the only effective way to counter such despicable violence is with violence. Even if guns were 100% banned, nothing would have stopped this killer from walking into that school with a sword, or worse yet, a bomb vest. But, had that coward walked into a school where armed people were waiting to confront him, odds are strongly in favor of the idea that he wouldn't have been able to massacre nearly as many (if any) innocent children.

Remember, two of the worst attacks EVER on American soil were committed with a fertilizer bomb, and by hijacking airliners by use of box cutters. Evil people will always find a way around the laws, and will always find a way to kill innocent people. Good people can stop these attacks by being able/ready to confront this violence when it appears before them.

joneb
December 19, 2012, 10:14 PM
Even if guns were 100% banned,
We can't stop drugs coming into this country, and I doubt we could stop black market firearms either.
I think if a teacher chooses to be trained and wishes to carry they should be allowed to do so many of them have three month off a year for training.
I think a better option is to have trained armed security at schools and campuses, there are many former military persons that have a head start on the training that would be required.
I think we should ask Israel for help on this matter.

jon_in_wv
December 20, 2012, 08:24 PM
So how do we prohibit access to firearms to mentally unstable individuals ?
I don't see a legislative option here It would be up to the parents or custodians of these individuals to prohibit access to firearms

This is a start. The law is already on the books.

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

The fact is the law as it stands is an unfunded mandate and they don't supply the funding for the states to properly report the mentally defective to the FBI. Congress has made that decision to cripple the existing law rather than make it work. Its the Clintonian way at work. Ignore and cripple current laws so you can claim they don't work and get more passed. When you have everything you want THEN enforce them so you can get the draconian control you want.

Secondly I would support legislation that imposed penalties on people you knowingly gave free access of firearms to people they know are prohibited from possessing firearms. In the case of the CT shooter the mother knew her son was mentally disturbed and dangerous yet she kept guns unsecured in the home where he had access to them. That is extremely negligent in my book.


Jibjab, they know they can't get rid of them all. The idea is that in Utopia only the criminals will have guns and the police will play cops and robbers with them and the rest of us will live in peace and harmony with pink skies and unicorns. Eventually the police will seize and destroy the rest and we will all go to heaven.

joneb
December 21, 2012, 01:51 AM
they know they can't get rid of them all.
True,
and they can't can't stop more from coming in.
So any form of gun control would only empower criminals, and put law abiding folks at risk.

dbrow6272
December 21, 2012, 09:36 AM
Lets not forget-our then president-Ronald Regan signed a bill refusing funding to all states mental institutions. The states tried to keep up but could not so out into the streets they went. Now we have to have these type of tragedies because these unstable people are walking amongst us. Mom is to blame also, she knew his condition and as a previous poster said left firearms where he could get them.

arcsound
December 24, 2012, 12:05 AM
Just a couple of points that can hopefully steer the conversation with anti-gunners into a more productive direction:

There are many ways to neutralize a deranged shooter. I was thinking about this kid in CT, and how he was supposed to be so withdrawn as to be barely functional, he's not some trained SWAT or SF guy. (I'm really surprised he was so effective with the AR, including changing mags, unless....... *someone* had spent time with him at the range, which at best would have shown really bad judgement and and worst, been illegal, since his mental condition should disqualify him from owning/using/touching firearms per 4473's mental capacity restriction). Anyway, I digress, my point is that he should have been stopped by any reasonable action and with reasonable resources. To this end, schools could have a "panic room", with appropriate hardware, that would allow communications and remote control, i.e. the ability to isolate rooms or wings with electrical locks. This might be the principal's office, for instance. From there, additional resources could be deployed, such as remotely dispensed fog and/or sleep inducing sprays, which would put everyone in the zone temporarily down. Similarly, electronic vaults in strategic locations could provide non-lethal tasers, and teachers could be instructed, if willing, on how to use them. I'm sure others could think of additional measures in this vain. Yes, it is sad that we are having this conversation, but it is the world we are living in. The only question is whether we want to do things that will be effective in improving our safety, or do we want to do something in haste that "feels good", for the sake of doing something, regardless of the unintended consequences for our collective liberty and lack of efficacy?

CoRoMo
January 10, 2013, 04:06 PM
Today our governor gave his State of the State speech and everyone was watching to see if he would deliver a rant like Cuomo did yesterday. Hickenlooper is a faithful, blindly faithful, soldier of the Bloomberg mayors troop and he did not neglect the opportunity or avoid the topic of gun control today.

You can read the transcript here: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/01/10/colorado-gov-hickenlooper-delivers.html?page=all
Surely, Second Amendment advocates and gun control supporters can find common ground in support of this proposition
So he's asking you to swallow the gun control and consider it a noble compromise.

Please contact our governor and members of our state legislature.

Please.

Trent
January 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
Here's the thing. As long as we hold FIRM, we won't give any ground.

Blast the hell out of the phones, fax machines, and e-mail addresses of every government representative.

Keep doing it until they shut their damn mouths.

mokin
January 10, 2013, 11:08 PM
Thanks for the heads up CoRoMo. I just emaild my state reps letting them know I opposed any further "infringements".

Here is a link to the Colorado General Assembly for anyone who wants to do the same. This opens on the directory page so you may track your representative down.

http://www.leg.state.co.us

PLEASE ACT!

joneb
January 11, 2013, 12:37 AM
There is something I think everyone here should keep in mind. Right now, politicians are under tremendous pressure to "do something"
In the construction trade there is a old saying, "just do something even if it's wrong" I don't prescribe to this method as I can't afford to do things twice, but our government can :confused:

Texasrpbrock
January 11, 2013, 12:54 AM
Good luck in your beautiful state. Wish it was the Colorado of 20 years ago. Wouldn't be an issue.

r1derbike
January 11, 2013, 03:40 AM
I think a "ballot initiative" is needed in States that allow such things . Require Principals, Office personnel and Teachers to obtain Concealed Carry permits and training. This would offer a tangible line of defense in violent attacks such as the recent tragedy in CT.
Obama has gone on record saying officers or armed teachers are not the right path.

Attaboy! keep those gun-free, killing-spree areas unprotected.

The ultimate hypocrisy; his kids have protection at school.

Our kids aren't worthy of protection at school.

Another entitled elitist, who has shown his true colors in his second term. God help us, or anyone else.

Yeup, never let an atrocity or crisis go to waste.

joneb
January 13, 2013, 02:18 PM
The ultimate hypocrisy; his kids have protection at school.

The ultimate hypocrisy; his policies support the murder of over a million unborn children every year just in the US.

Nicky Santoro
January 13, 2013, 02:37 PM
He'd better hope that no one decides it's time for Governor control. That only takes one vote. Not advocating, just stating a simple fact.

If you enjoyed reading about "The time is right [for gun control]; says our governor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!