Colorado Governor to Sign Shotgun Ban Into Law

[KarenD]

There are seven anti-gun bills to be heard in the Senate on Monday. If you are in Colorado, boots on the ground, mouths to the phones.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jim in Idaho]

I have to tell you that these kinds of scare messages don't help our side in this debate. In fact, they do the opposite. They wound our credibility. We are on the right siode of the gun issue, and don't need to use these phony scare tactics. The governor is NOT signing a law outlawing shotguns. The explanation is a complete stretch to suggest he is.
Jim

 

[KarenD]

I have to tell you that these kinds of scare messages don't help our side in this debate. In fact, they do the opposite. They wound our credibility. We are on the right siode of the gun issue, and don't need to use these phony scare tactics. The governor is NOT signing a law outlawing shotguns. The explanation is a complete stretch to suggest he is.
Jim

Jim, did you even watch the news report in the YouTube video?

It's not some whack-o homemade "the sky is falling" video. It is an actual network news legislative update.

So tell me, how is that a scare tactic? I expect an answer.

The most popular hunting shotgun in Colorado is included in the banning criteria of the bill. The reporter said that Senate Democrats were working on an amendment, but did not elaborate on how they would change it, so who knows. They are the ones who wrote the bill, so who knows.....

Why are you trying to shut me up?

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Jim, did you even watch the news report in the YouTube video?

It's not some whack-o homemade "the sky is falling" video. It is an actual network news legislative update.

So tell me, how is that a scare tactic? I expect an answer.

The most popular hunting shotgun in Colorado is included in the banning criteria of the bill. The reporter said that Senate Democrats were working on an amendment, but did not elaborate on how they would change it, so who knows. They are the ones who wrote the bill, so who knows.....

Why are you trying to shut me up?

Yeah, I watched it....I have the same opinion. The law doesn't specifically outlaw shotguns, which is what the glaring headline suggests. And, to top it off, the bill is maybe going to be amended, and is not going to the governor yet. So, it's what I said, a scare tactic. I hate it when Obama does it, and I really hate to see our side stoop to it. And, it does hurt our credibility. I'm a conservative, and staunch defender of our gun rights, and that's how I look at it, and I'd bet others feel the same way. My daddy had a saying, back in the old days...be sure you've been stung before you start crying.
Oh yeah,.....I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm expressing my opinion....in this case, it's my opinion of your post. I don't like the whole anti-magazine rage. Lets get that clear. But, the way to fight it is with facts, assuming it can be fought.No matter what the Constitution says, if people want gun laws, we're going to have them. The only way to defeat them is with facts, facts, facts. In this case, as is typical of the news media, they are "reaching" to make a big story.
Jim

 

[KarenD]

I appreciate your input.

 

[Crispin]

Yeah, I watched it....I have the same opinion. The law doesn't specifically outlaw shotguns, which is what the glaring headline suggests. And, to top it off, the bill is maybe going to be amended, and is not going to the governor yet. So, it's what I said, a scare tactic. I hate it when Obama does it, and I really hate to see our side stoop to it. And, it does hurt our credibility. I'm a conservative, and staunch defender of our gun rights, and that's how I look at it, and I'd bet others feel the same way. My daddy had a saying, back in the old days...be sure you've been stung before you start crying.
Oh yeah,.....I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm expressing my opinion....in this case, it's my opinion of your post. I don't like the whole anti-magazine rage. Lets get that clear. But, the way to fight it is with facts, assuming it can be fought.No matter what the Constitution says, if people want gun laws, we're going to have them. The only way to defeat them is with facts, facts, facts. In this case, as is typical of the news media, they are "reaching" to make a big story.
Jim

Preach on Brother Man! Very well said. Both sides of any debate in this country use manipulation. They have experts who target propaganda at our emotions. Both sides play people like fiddles. We, as the people, have to stand together against it no matter what side it is on. Stockpicker has been spreading this message for a while...I hope you are better received then he was.

Best,
Crispin

Ps. Can I interest you in a position as Minister of Truth?

 

[KarenD]

So what I hear you saying, I think, Jim, is that I have sensationalized the issue. Is that correct? And that the sensationalistic title turns you off. That right?


The title, as stated, " Colorado Governor to Sign Shotgun Ban Into Law" could indicate all shotguns OR some shotguns, perhaps specific shotguns, OR not.
It depends on how one perceives it, I suppose. The fact remains, that as currently written, some shotguns will be banned, which does not make the title an inaccurate statement. It is also a fact that the Governor has stated that he would sign the bill into law, as is, when it crosses his desk, independent of any amendments. I have to conclude that the content of the title is accurate: The Governor intends to sign a ban that will include some shotguns.

Another point that deserves attention is whether or not people want gun laws, which is really something that remains to be seen.


Yes, the title paints a broad stroke, and in my opinion, invites a reader to take a closer look to see exactly what is happening; that is what I want, people to see what is happening - "watchdog."

Ultimately, I invite you to offer, my new friend, Crispin, too, a suitable title for this announcement. I'll choose one and repost with a title that makes you feel better.

 

[0121stockpicker]

So what I hear you saying, I think, Jim, is that I have sensationalized the issue. Is that correct? And that the sensationalistic title turns you off. That right?

The title, as stated, " Colorado Governor to Sign Shotgun Ban Into Law" could indicate all shotguns OR some shotguns, perhaps specific shotguns, OR not.
It depends on how one perceives it, I suppose. The fact remains, that as currently written, some shotguns will be banned, which does not make the title an inaccurate statement. It is also a fact that the Governor has stated that he would sign the bill into law, as is, when it crosses his desk, independent of any amendments. I have to conclude that the content of the title is accurate: The Governor intends to sign a ban that will include some shotguns.

Another point that deserves attention is whether or not people want gun laws, which is really something that remains to be seen.

Yes, the title paints a broad stroke, and in my opinion, invites a reader to take a closer look to see exactly what is happening; that is what I want, people to see what is happening - "watchdog."

Ultimately, I invite you to offer, my new friend, Crispin, too, a suitable title for this announcement. I'll choose one and repost with a title that makes you feel better.

Karen, I think you did a good job catching the problem yourself. If the point of the piece was to convey news / facts they obviously should not have used such an ambiguous title. I think anytime you see something like that it has to call into question what follows (whether you agree with the position or not).

 

[Jim in Idaho]

OK...I know nothing about the bill. So, my information comes from the posted video. From that I deduced these facts.
1. The bill doesn't ban the ownership of shotguns.
2. The bill will prevent the replacement of some shotguns once they are wornout, or whatever.
3. The people pushing the bill have said they are interested in amending the bill.
4. The reason some shotguns MAY be included is that some shotguns are "Readily converted" to carry more than the allowed rounds.
5. The term "readily" has not been through any court action,and may be found ambiguous, and thus non-enforceable, as ambiguous laws usually are.
So, looking at the facts as I see them, the headline is completely ridiculous, and designed to either stir up opposition, that otherwise wouldn't be there,
or designed to stir up readership for the media. At least that's how I see it.
Also, when you look at "readily". The Feds have allowed only 2 rounds in the magazine, for migratory bird hunting, for many years. It takes about 10 minutes to remove the "plug" that's in the mag to reduce the capacity to the legal limit. The Feds don't allow the plug to be too easy to remove in the field. So what exactly does "readily" mean?
Jim

 

[austin]

Guys, guess what? They pass one bill banning guns, they WILL pass others. Good work Karen. Thanks for the info...

 

[KarenD]

Guys, guess what? They pass one bill banning guns, they WILL pass others. Good work Karen. Thanks for the info...

The Overton Window....

*****
Jim Said:

The bill will prevent the replacement of some shotguns once they are wornout, or whatever.

and

The Feds have allowed only 2 rounds in the magazine, for migratory bird hunting, for many years.

and

The Feds don't allow the plug to be too easy to remove in the field.

Those are all small increments of infringement. Incrementalism is what we fight against because that is how our right "to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed" is infringed.

This is how it works:

1) A bill is written that is purposefully far over-reaching.
2) A protest ensues about the over-reaching nature of the bill.
3) An amendment to the bill is authored to reduce the amount of over-reach. It is still over-reaching, but is considered a compromise and is accepted.
4) Governor signs compromised, but still over-reaching, bill into law.
5) The rights of the people have once again been infringed.

In regard to constitutionally correct gun law, any move toward tighter control is unreasonable and infringing. We have already been seriously infringed, and it has happened through slow and careful incrementalism, so much so that when enacted, many people thought it was a pretty good thing to do. Google "Overton Window".

The steps in the only constitutionally-consistent, and thus right, direction are to undo the infringement that has already occurred. The CHL is infringement, background checks infringe, age restrictions infringe, prohibition of open carry infringe, prohibition against carrying in certain places, etc...on and on ad nauseum.

Are some of these things good ideas? Sure! But they infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be a law.

 

[dieselram94]

The Overton Window....

*****
Jim Said: and and

Those are all small increments of infringement. Incrementalism is what we fight against because that is how our right "to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed" is infringed.

This is how it works:

1) A bill is written that is purposefully far over-reaching.
2) A protest ensues about the over-reaching nature of the bill.
3) An amendment to the bill is authored to reduce the amount of over-reach. It is still over-reaching, but is considered a compromise and is accepted.
4) Governor signs compromised, but still over-reaching, bill into law.
5) The rights of the people have once again been infringed.

In regard to constitutionally correct gun law, any move toward tighter control is unreasonable and infringing. We have already been seriously infringed, and it has happened through slow and careful incrementalism, so much so that when enacted, many people thought it was a pretty good thing to do. Google "Overton Window".

The steps in the only constitutionally-consistent, and thus right, direction are to undo the infringement that has already occurred. The CHL is infringement, background checks infringe, age restrictions infringe, prohibition of open carry infringe, prohibition against carrying in certain places, etc...on and on ad nauseum.

Are some of these things good ideas? Sure! But they infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be a law.

Well said Karen!!!! I suspect many of the anti-gun crowd have never heard of The Overton window.....and even if they had they wouldn't read it as they are far to close minded.....

 

[Gold Maven]

Readily converted?

Any weapon with a tube magazine can be "readily" converted. Come to think of it, all weapons with box magazines can be easily converted to higher capacities.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The 2nd amendment says "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infrienged!" It doesn't get much simpler than that.....It baffles me that the left tries to tell us the constant attack on our freedom isn't taking our freedom or right to carry away and can't understand why we don't believe their rethortic....

The left's constant excuses to justify the attack on the 2nd amendment always begins with "it is only", "it only includes" "it is just", "you can still have" "you can still use".................. What if gun was removed from the equation and the words freedom of speech replaced it. Would all the "it is only", "it only includes" "it is just", "you can still have" "you can still use" even enter into the debate then, or would they be willing to surrender that right just as easily? In my opiinion, they would surrender any right the government tells them they need to surrender.....

 

[packerbacker]

Actually, it seems the people of Colorado would just as soon have dope instead of guns if you look at their new laws. I guess, if you get the populous high and submissive, you can then take everything away from them............except their dope.

 

[dieselram94]

This is why I would never consider even going to Colorado, I used to think it could be a nice place but now.....not at all. I wouldn't even drive through Colorado now.

 

[packerbacker]

What's funny is the knowledge of the news station itself. It reflects the intelligence of MOST of the anti-gun people. She starts out with a statement that a "popular hunting rifle could be banned." A shotgun is NOT a rifle. Some of this population just submits to their masters. Sad

 

[Rebel - KGC]

And there are POT SMOKING CLUBS in Colorado... DUNNO!

 

[Red James Cash]

Some of this population just submits to their masters. Sad

They got so use to living on their knees that they no longer know what it means to stand.Whether for themselves or something else.Its just easier for them to continue kneeling.

 

[63bkpkr]

Interesting topic. Regardless of hype there is a bill that includes a common shotgun. ANY BAN is breaking the 2nd amendment. That is against the law. Some select minority of people in the U.S.A. are choosing to use firearms to Murder other people in this country, it is a ghastly fact. Murder is against the law.

Who is responsible for upholding the law? Our government backed by US is what is supposed to protect society by maintaining law and order. Why is our government telling us what to do instead of us telling the government what to do? Why do so many Legal Citizens of the United States of America not vote? What does that tell the government? When we see a government go out of its way to unravel the goodness of our country by not enforcing existing laws what should that tell us? When both governing parties have failed to do their jobs to protect and guide this country what should be happening? When We The People have failed to guide the government of this country what should be happening? Think of the Roman Empire and compare it to the United States Right now. What do you see?

I believe we are about to go over the brink of no return and it will topple our Democratic Society.

It is illegal for me to write a check without sufficient funds in my account to cover that check. Why does our government allow itself to write checks that will bounce? Why do we allow it to do that?

It is not in my best interest to constantly keep spending more money on credit. People who do not take care of themselves financially and morally eventually loose all they have. Health, home, material goods, food, family, income, honor, love as well as a meaningful life. A government that walks its citizens down this path is irresponsible and needs to be stopped before it causes the collapse of its entire society. Think of the once Great and Powerful Roman Empire and compare it to the United States of America. This country, Our Country, is broke! Those in charge, Republicans as well as Democrats as well as US the citizens of this failing country, have let this society down!

It is My Opinion that unless We The People take charge and stop our government from its wanton ways and if we the people do not take charge and stop ourselves from our wanton ways that our society will fail. The bickering of all sides must stop. We must focus on the true health of this nation. This will mean ALL of us will suffer! Poor, Middle Class, Wealthy as well as Super Rich and Powerful, this is an all or nothing deal.

Back in 1776 this country had just gone through a horrific time. The only way We The People gained our Freedom was by fighting the British Government. Yes the rich and powerful colonists stayed rich and powerful but at least the little people began to have a chance of moving themselves upwards IF they chose to be industrious, honest, moral and maintained their integrity. In other words they chose to use their free will for good purposes. Free will is a powerful and wonderful tool when it is used with integrity and even I have failed to always use it with the respect it deserves.


Respectully,....................63bkpkr/Herb