Colorado recalls two gun-grabbers from its state senate.
Two Dhimmicrats who voted for strict gun control laws in Colorado were ousted yesterday in recall elections. One of them was president of the state senate. The gun-grabbers received $3,000,000 in donations from out-of-state liberals, including $350,000 from Nanny Bloomberg. They outspent their opponents by 8-to-1 and still took a rump-pounding.
Under those laws, you could still purchase an AR-15 or pretty much any assault rifle that's available in other states. You could purchase any type of handgun, including 9mm semi-automatic pistols. And, of course, there was no limit to on how many guns you could purchase and own.
I'm just curious, if you consider these gun laws to be "strict," exactly what would you consider to be "loose" gun laws?
I'm sure you'll want to go off on the same tired, canned speech about "liberals-this" and "Obama-that," but before you do, how about actually answering the question I asked. If you think those gun laws are "strict," what kind of gun laws would you consider to be "loose"?
I live in Colorado and I feel I have lost a lot of freedom by these new gun laws that were rammed throu' and our Governor signed.
I cannot even by a gun at a yard sale or the farmers market now...not that I was going to, but I sure want the right to.
We already had way more laws than the Second Amendment writers intended for us to have...For example my Grandfather got some Federal felonies back in 1969 for growing MJ weed in Minnesota
as my grandparents were trying to buy some farm land and served time. My Grandmother would have to if she had not underage....to this day my Grandfather cannot own a gun even tho' his crime was very unviolent....we have to many laws instead of not enough.
I can't hardly wait to next fall in 14 months I can see more of these people get their political heads cut off including our now very unpopular governor.
I believe Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in America and the highest rate of gun violence.
I would say it's loose if nuclear war heads were legal.
It's tard incrementalism hacking away at the second amendment.
At one time, there was no income tax. Then it started at just 1% or so. It got as high as what 90%? And the thing is, by the mathematical nature of tax "rates", as income increases, the taxes increase proportionately. Increase economic activity and tax revenues increase automatically. Bush proved that with his record revenues, bonobo has yet to match.
We don't need more taxes or more gun laws taking away more second amendment rights, we need a government that lives within its means and enforces the existing laws.
When did the people demand new laws or ask to change any existing laws? Unless you want to count the infomercials that were made by the Bloomberg's of the country. The people only asked that the laws already on the books be enforced but for some reason the focus was changed to law abiding citizens and what would be a good way to eventually ban firearms. Perhaps the generous Bloomberg's should donate their money to a Police departments budget of their choice or build a few more jails instead of attacking law abiding citizens or the Constitution. Why does the President still feel that he has try again and push for more laws when all was already voted down by those that represent the people?
The question you ask is not really up for debate.