You could suggest your extreme disappointment in this important freedom-of-choice issue and that you will be voting AND donating to his opposition.
I stand corrected. Absolutely right.thallub said:We need registered, gun-owning voters in those jurisdictions who will vote for pro-gun politicians.Spats McGee said:What's more is that we, the gun-owning community, need for them to stay. Why? Because we need registered, gun-owning voters in those jurisdictions.
Too many gunowners do not value their Second Amendment rights. They vote for anti-gun politicians because of other issues.
Mr. Jones, I'd like to express my grave reservations with a number of bills that will pass your desk in the near future. I would like to you to vote against their passage. Below I list the prospective measures and my reasoned arguments against each:
1. HB 13-1224 "Banning high capacity ammunition magazines."
Is there any evidence that the 16th bullet is a magical bullet that kills more people than the first 15? None. Will this reduce the numbers of people hurt by firearms? Not according to FBI data. California passed a capacity ban effective in 2000 and the per capita murder rate of "the golden state" has exceeded that of gun-happy Texas for 9 of the last 11 years.
Source:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
As if that bit of empirical data weren't enough, the National Institute of Justice (www.nij.gov/) has predicted failure of such measures in an internal memo:
Source:
www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
If the magazine limit will do nothing to limit violence, we shouldn't add such a law to the books merely to occupy law enforcement nor to baffle ordinary citizens.
2. HB 13-1226 "Banning conceal carry on College Campuses"
The argument for repeal has NO empirical data to back it up. Conceal carry has been legal for several years and there have been no criminal shootings involving any licensed concealed weapons carriers at either CU or CSU. None.
Source A: http://police.colorado.edu/uniform-crime-reports
Source B: http://police.colostate.edu/pdfs/2012-Safety-Report.pdf
Why should citizens who are licensed to carry concealed in their public activities in other parts of society suddenly be considered "dangerous" when on campus? Statistics show that CCW carriers are less likely to commit crimes than other sub-sets of citizens. The first 5 years of concealed carry in Texas (I quote them b/c they have done the best study) shows non-carriers are 7.7 times (males) and 7.5 times (female) more likely to be commit violent crimes.
source: www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm
Conversely, as opposed to numerous other states, Colorado has suffered NO mass shootings on our college campuses in that period. There is no evidence that this is causally related to the ability to conceal carry on Colorado campuses, but if there has been no harm NOR has there been any damage, why would you want to tinker with the current situation? As with other forms of bigotry, the prejudice against concealed carry on campus cannot be justified using empirical measure.
3. HB 13-1229 "Requirement for background checks for all gun transfers within the state."
Consider first that this requirement would have done nothing to prevent the Aurora theater shooting. His guns were purchased legally and that madman passed a background check.
Consider second that the myth that this will prevent guns reaching criminals has been disproved. California already has this rule in effect and yet the earlier-quoted NIJ memo finds that criminals in Los Angeles continue to prefer to source their firearms from local gun shops via straw purchases by people who can pass gun background checks rather than from other states with less stringent gun laws.
Source: www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
Consider also that Colorado Bureau of Investigation shows that most homicides in our state in 2011 (the last year of available statistics) shows that although there were 78 homicides committed with firearms, the total number of crime-related circumstances (drugs, assault on officer, other felony, gang-related) was 11 which indicates that we are not undergoing a crime wave that is being enabled by scads of guns leaking from the hands of private citizens to criminals.
Source: http://crimeinco.cbi.state.co.us/cic2k11/supplemental_reports/homicide.html. Note: these statistics are not detailed enough to determine if the 11 murders I note above were even committed using a firearm. Perhaps you could ask them to provide more details concerning the source of firearms used in homicides in future reports.
Consider as well that after our Columbine tragedy, Colorado requires a standard NICS background check on all firearms transfers that take place at gun shows.
Enacting bad policies that don't substantively improve a problem doesn't qualify as good governance.
I look forward to meeting you in your office to discuss this at your convenience. Please send me your available office hours for an appointment.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your detailed response.
I always find the "just move" argument amusing. Pack up your family, your life, your business, and start over! Sounds great, in theory. In reality it just isn't that easy for most people. Not to mention these jokers tend to follow us around and get their brand of stupid voted in. For most people FIGHTING to take their rights back makes a lot more sense than moving to a new state that may have the same problem 5 or 10 years down the road.
Too many gunowners do not value their Second Amendment rights. They vote for anti-gun politicians because of other issues
“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb,” Hickenlooper said when pressed by CNN’s Candy Crowley on her show, “State of the Union”.
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
What in the world happened to the rugged Colorado one of the central backbone states of American heritage?
What kind of population has migrated to this area that would be so liberal.
That is too simplistic