Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Colorado House thankfully starts bar-setting process on gun control

February 20, 2013

It comes as little surprise that the state of Colorado, the state where a gunman opened fire at a movie theater last summer, has taken the lead on stronger gun control within its borders....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-20-13 9:01 AM

All encompassing background check means that if I sell a gun to my friend I have to do a background check on him. The only way for the government to regulate this is to have all guns registered and then do checks to make sure the guns are in the possesion of the person they are registered to. That means the government will have a list of the guns you own. Makes it pretty easy for the governement to confiscate your gun if they decide to.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 9:48 AM

It seems like there was a sign saying no weapons allowed at that theater. Sure worked good didn't it? If these politicians would put more money into solving mental problems instead of the fanatical behavior we are seeing it would be money well spent. I would also suggest you look at how good gun control is working in Chicago and New York. There is a change needed but the issue should be on two fronts. Mentally ill people are not being hospitilized as in the past, Drugs are prescribed which mess with peoples head in that they have no common sense or values. Then you have the criminal bunch who just laugh at the laws in effect. I would suggest enforcing the laws we have instead of making new ones.

6 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 9:59 AM

None of these proposed laws will work and the enforcement will be the same as current laws - ineffective.

We are not enforcing current laws.

6 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 10:47 AM

SMSUguy, I'll bet there is a class at the college where you would learn that it's virtually impossible for the government to come and take your gun. It would be a direct violation of our first 2 amendments plus you'd need the majority of Congress AND the courts to all go along. You can't even get that type of agreement on minor changes to our Constitution. I don't know why you think actual violations of the Constitution would be easy. Besides, your cell phone makes it easy for the govt. to track your movements and record your conversations. Why doesn't that frighten you?

rangeral, what specific laws are not being enforced that would reduce gun violence?

19 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 11:30 AM

All of them - including not going after felons identified as trying to buy guns and failing the background checks, putting criminals in jail as a result of crimes with guns - that killed the girl in Chicago several weeks ago, no prosecution for Fast 'N Furious - you name it they don't prosecute and lock up the criminals. Why should they - it is much easier to go after law-abiding citizens with more laws that won't be enforced to show "they are doing something".

6 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 11:48 AM

So, it will now be illegal for law abiding folks to carry firearms as protection in these places. But, the criminals will still do it regardless (if you are intent on killig, the fear of a fine for carrying a weapon is not of concern).

I feel sorry for those law abiding citizens who disarm themselves in good faith and yet as a result become a victim of a crime they otherwise had a fighting chance to survive.

I support fixing gun crime, but this seems more politics and less substance.

6 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 12:30 PM

Hartman; the Governor of New York proposed banning some guns, and said confiscation of existing guns was an option. Some Governor will do this, some judge who agrees with him will rule it is legal, and then they will ask the owners of those gun to turn them in. I never said this will be easy for them to do, but it will happen.

7 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 12:58 PM

Whats truly sad is that all the laws that have been proposed and signed into law have everything to do with criminalizing the law abiding and NOTHING to do with making people think twice about committing violent crime or those who facilitate it. Common Sense Gun Laws are NOT Common sense. I WILL NOT WILLINGLY give away my right to protect my family or myself. When the criminals and those that facilitate violent criminals are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and they actually attack the problem rather than scape goat the law abiding I will then consider something But until the law abiding firearm community is cleared of the blame that we are getting for the law breaking and the media and fear mongering politicians quit attacking what IS NOT the problem will a solution come. I did not serve my country twice to have a right garunteed to me by the Constitution stripped from me by some politician who has no experience outside of MN

5 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 1:18 PM

How about doing what has been done with "Hate Crimes" and automatically enhance the penalties for those crimes committeed with a firearm.

This will influence some. However, in those cases where folks are willing to commit suicide after the attack - this is unlikely to have an effect and focusing on improving the moral fabric and mental health programs in our nation would be prudent alternatives to explore.

6 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 1:21 PM

Yes thank you Colorado thank you for showing us the path to tyranny.*****fools. It's disappointing, the Independent becomes more of a liberal rag everyday. USVet- Thank you for your service.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 2:00 PM

Colorado democrats. The same geniuses that stated a woman should use a whistle instead of a gun for self defense from rapists. The same thoughtful bunch expounding ball point pens as weapons to stop a shooter. You just have to wait till they stop to reload, if your still alive that is. If your lucky they will just have a revolver, thats only six dead or injured. The liberal self defense manual, blow your whistle, cower and hide till they quit shooting, then poke em in the eye with your bic pen. Far more effective than say, armed law abiding citizens stopping the threat after the first shot. Yet democrats are thought of as the political party that "cares" more. Yeah, about who?

4 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 3:13 PM

"'s virtually impossible for the government to come and take your gun." `h75

Except if the government wants to.

"No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns,"~ P. Edwin Compass III, superintendent of police, New Orleans, LA.

As police joined looters, other police went door to door breaking into homes and seizing weapons and anything else they could cart away. This left the strong free reign over the weak. Police did nothing to protect the public from criminals, they just made sure the public couldn't protect themselves from criminals.

Registration will simply streamline the process.

8 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 5:14 PM

Gun zealot hysteria is exemplified by the idea that somehow ANY enhancement of background checks or magazine limits will result in an effort to take away our guns or render a gun owner defenseless. It’s a deflection. It’s an attempt by the gun zealots to draw the issue away from the real problem: preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. The ONLY way that happens is to perform background checks on every gun buyer. No exceptions. The other is to require the registration of all guns and owners. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to hide. Gun owners must be held accountable for their weapons. Anything less is ignoring the safety of millions of Americans and will do little to reduce gun violence. We shouldn't allow a few gun zealots to jeopardize the well being of innocent Americans by creating a police state.

18 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 6:42 PM

Who's going to do these background checks, hartman? It is also the law to have insurance if you drive a car, but about one seventh of drivers do not have insurance. Current gun laws do not even have that good of a compliance record by authorities.

What we need are stiff penalties for using a gun in a crime and truth in sentencing - if the law calls for 20 years, then keep them in jail for 20 years.

5 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 6:47 PM

"..the idea that somehow ANY enhancement of background checks or magazine limits will result in an effort to take away our guns or render a gun owner defenseless."~h75

Who will be doing the background checks, and who'll have access to that information?

Today the results of a state data base abuse audit shows 88 cops accessed drivers license information unrelated to police work, and abuses of the criminal data bases are widespread.

I see no need or legit gain in putting my most confidential information in the hands of people that can't be trusted with it.

Besides. The current system is effective if used.

7 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 7:43 PM

I would think Colorado has a better perspective on increasing gun violence than Minnesota and I commend them for ignoring the cries from hunting groups and the nra about their right to bear arms. Many illegal guns are obtained from fools who think they are armed to "protect their family", then get beat up, mugged, robbed, burgled and the guns end up in the wrong hands. While I appreciate some of the pro-gun commentors passion, I think it is misguided. Thank you Marshall Independent for standing up for our safety and freedom from gun zealots.

17 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 7:57 PM

KK, by the way, your cohort prod was expounding the simplicity of turning ballpoint pens into effective weapons as a reason for NOT having gun control laws. You are saying it's as worthless as a pea shooter. What's it gonna be?

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 11:32 PM

It's like bringing a jacknife to a gun fight.

How many guns were wrestled away from legal owners by criminals? Where are your statistics?

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 5:34 AM

We're now a couple of months past the Sandy Hook shootings. Are your kids any safer than they were on that day? If your school has taken firm action you are one of the lucky minority. It's more likely your kids are still at risk largely thanks to the anti-gun activists foot dragging while they try to advance their cause. Had a magic wand disappeared all of the evil black guns the following day they would still be at risk.

Scary guns aren't behind the violence. Scary people are. Until that is addressed kids will continue to be at risk. As long as efforts are aimed at restrictions that only affect the law abiding the risk will remain. Bad people will continue to try to do bad things. If all of the time, effort and dollars spent would have been used to protect soft targets kids would be safer than they were sixty days ago. On the current trajectory nothing has or will be accomplished.

7 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 9:01 AM

I’m sick of the name calling on both sides. Right wing nuts and left-wing liberals fighting. How about this. Add 10 years mandatory prison time to anyone convicted of any crime committed with a gun. Mandatory. And, give anyone found to possess a gun illegally 5 years of mandatory prison. Mandatory. Gun owners who hold this right seriously, will make sure they have followed the rules. And, those seeking a reduction in gun violence will get it. No soft enforcement. No soft judiciary. Mandatory 10 years.

Start there – not much else is needed.

7 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 2:47 PM

Colorado politicians are the same ones that think using marijuana and driving a car are compatible. Add in a little alcohol and gun deaths will pale in comparison.

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 8:09 PM

And how many days past that innocent 9 year old being randomly shot in the cities, Pirate? If only al or prod had been there with their conceal and carry permits, or a random guy with an ar style weapon. Perhaps prod can cite how many guns were wrestled away vs. bad guys shot by legally armed civilians to back up his buddy al?

17 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 8:34 PM

Lets keep the question simple, common. How many of these shootings took place where there was an armed response or even the possibility of one vs it being little chance of a response or the ability to respond was outright banned and advertised as such?

5 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 11:27 PM

common - how many times was a 9 year old killed because one of his parents was driving drunk or on drugs? Happens more than gun deaths.

4 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 10:33 AM

Here are statistics that disprove your claim rangeral:

Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

2,793 children and teens died from gun violence in 2009. (Children Defense Fund)

So what was your source rangeral or did you simply make up the information to fit your purpose?

A fact you CAN"t dispute Pirate, is that kids are in greater danger ANYTIME guns are present. Guns will not keep us safe but changes is existing gun laws and increased enforcement will.

18 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web