New Colorado gun laws..

[granite7]

Big government backs off and allows cities to make their own rules and right-wingers lose their minds. LOL You can't make this stuff up.

It is amazing that multiple people have explained it to you, and you still don’t comprehend. Instead, you resort to childish claims like this.

 

[Rob5589]

Big government backs off and allows cities to make their own rules and right-wingers lose their minds. LOL You can't make this stuff up.

Everyone has their own idea of "freedom" I suppose. The name calling isn't called for, you're better than that.

 

[5MilesBack]

"You can only explain it to them, you can't understand it for them."

These are the reasons why states could always make "more restrictive" laws than federal, but not less restrictive. Yet we've seen how that has gone in recent years with marijuana and sanctuary cities and states. Liberal strongholds have basically told the federal government to take a hike. So, as a precedent.....we could do the same here and tell Polis and Denver/Boulder to take a hike and do whatever our community wants instead. But that's not freedom.......that's anarchy......just as we've seen extensively over the last few years. We have states, communities, and judges all just making it up as they go. Again, that's not freedom.......that's anarchy......which makes our right to bear arms even more important.

But the bottom line has always been "Constitutional". Is it Constitutional for certain cities, states, and judges to just ignore only certain laws and crime?

 

[riversidejeep]

Everything worked so well for a few hundred years, then it all starts swirling down the toilet. What we need is a good old fashion civil war to straighten things out again. I just wish it happens soon so my children and grand children don't have to do it.

 

[Newtosavage]

Everyone has their own idea of "freedom" I suppose. The name calling isn't called for, you're better than that.

Huh? Some of the remarks I've seen above are classic right-wing talking points, which is precisely what boggles the mind. We want government out of our lives until we want it to tell cities what they can and can't do. It's just yet another double-standard in today's toxic, polarized political arena.

I guess Wyatt Earp was wrong all along?

Let the cities decide for themselves I say. How is this any different than states deciding whether women can have abortions or not? Please explain that one.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm still finding it very difficult to comprehend how you don't seem understand clear points made about this issue.

Feel free to explain how this issue is any different than saying states should be allowed to choose whether abortion is legal or not.

 

[ChrisAU]

You'd make a crappy Wyatt Earp. LOL

I respect the right of a community to make their own rules.

So if the elected leader of your macro-community, Joe Biden, decided to ban firearm ownership through an EO, you'd respect his right to do so?

I know the answer to that question.

But you are making the same assumption for the community of Denver, Boulder, etc. Sure, the elected officials of those communities are hard left ban all guns people. So your take is it should be impossible for someone to live in a given community just because they disagree with one law about individual rights and freedoms?

 

[Newtosavage]

I think at some point (we can disagree about where that is) a city or municipality, etc. should have the right to make rules that are more restrictive than the state or feds. It's done literally ALL THE TIME for hundreds of reasons. It's exactly (in my mind) what conservatives say they want for abortion - to let states decide for themselves.

What I have an issue with is the obvious double standards from either end, whether liberal or conservative.

Still nobody has tried to explain how this is different from wanting states to decide for themselves on abortion. Offer a reasoned explanation and I'll listen.

 

[gelton]

I think at some point (we can disagree about where that is) a city or municipality, etc. should have the right to make rules that are more restrictive than the state or feds. It's done literally ALL THE TIME for hundreds of reasons. It's exactly (in my mind) what conservatives say they want for abortion - to let states decide for themselves.

What I have an issue with is the obvious double standards from either end, whether liberal or conservative.

Still nobody has tried to explain how this is different from wanting states to decide for themselves on abortion. Offer a reasoned explanation and I'll listen.

Simple, nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention abortion. And yes it's done all of the time for hundreds of reasons but it cant be done to restrict someone's inalienable rights.

inalienable
[inˈālēənəb(ə)l]

ADJECTIVE

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Man I wish the founding fathers would have set our gun rights in stone on an important document or something so we didn't have to have this discussion every 6 minutes..

 

[Ratbeetle]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

Bolded for the confused. Here's a hint, the local city council is not THE PEOPLE.

For the sake of argument, I'll just ignore the pesky fact that we're talking about a Constitutionally protected right of which the BOR expressly states shall not be infringed.

The 10th amendment is clear in that state governments don't have the authority to delegate their legislative powers to local municipalities full of mini-tyrants. The founders intended this to be a nation governed by the states and held together through loose federal governance. It was not intended to be a nation of tens of thousands of local dictators trampling the Peoples rights based on whatever their feelings happen to be this week.

We are so far removed from what this country is supposed to be, it's pathetic.

 

[5MilesBack]

Feel free to explain how this issue is any different than saying states should be allowed to choose whether abortion is legal or not.

That's easy. How is that different than states allowing the killing of those of a certain race or anyone else for that matter just because they don't want them here? A lot of people claim "my body my choice". Fine. After every abortion all they have to do is test the DNA of the baby that was aborted, and if the DNA is exactly the same as the mother, then fine.......it was her body. If it's different, then it was a different body and would and should be classified as murder just like killing any other human being. Problem solved.

 

[Rob5589]

Huh? Some of the remarks I've seen above are classic right-wing talking points, which is precisely what boggles the mind. We want government out of our lives until we want it to tell cities what they can and can't do. It's just yet another double-standard in today's toxic, polarized political arena.

I guess Wyatt Earp was wrong all along?

Let the cities decide for themselves I say. How is this any different than states deciding whether women can have abortions or not? Please explain that one.

The real issue is that there will now be 271 different sets of laws/regulations for firearms in Colorado. So while each municipality can now enact more stringent laws, they do not have the freedom to loosen them, if that is what they feel is best for their residents. And to be completely honest with the situation, the governor knows he faces an uphill battle with gun control. So it was easier to allow each muni to make its own laws so that cities like Boulder, Denver, Ft Collins, etc, can restrict citizens with little to no resistance.

 

[Newtosavage]

Good explanations above. I guess Wyatt Earp was a liberal after all. Who knew?

 

[gelton]

Good explanations above. I guess Wyatt Earp was a liberal after all. Who knew?

Issues like the 10th amendment and states rights have always been a conservative mantra but I do think that the marijuana issue has helped open the eyes of those on the left that for issues that aren't inalienable and arent in the constitution, it does squarely lie on the states.

Even if Obama's Justice Dpt didn't feel the same way.

 

[Mustang06]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

Bolded for the confused. Here's a hint, the local city council is not THE PEOPLE.

For the sake of argument, I'll just ignore the pesky fact that we're talking about a Constitutionally protected right of which the BOR expressly states shall not be infringed.

The 10th amendment is clear in that state governments don't have the authority to delegate their legislative powers to local municipalities full of mini-tyrants. The founders intended this to be a nation governed by the states and held together through loose federal governance. It was not intended to be a nation of tens of thousands of local dictators trampling the Peoples rights based on whatever their feelings happen to be this week.

We are so far removed from what this country is supposed to be, it's pathetic.

Right on Ratbeetle!

Indeed there have been several Supreme Court cases that have held up that when the words "the People" are used in the Constitution it means the INDIVIDUALS. That's why the "P" in People is often capitalized.

I can't seem to find anywhere that a "community" is recognized to have any Rights...only the People. Any instance where a community would make a law that tramples the inalienable rights of the individual that are recognized in the Constitution, that law is void on its face. "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void" C.J. Marshall - Marbury vs Madison That's what the foundation of a Republic actually means. I get so sick and tired of hearing people call this country a Democracy. The founders were very careful to ensure it wasn't a true democracy, where majority rule could trample an individuals rights.

 

[Newtosavage]

Man I wish the founding fathers would have set our gun rights in stone on an important document or something so we didn't have to have this discussion every 6 minutes..

Would have helped if they had defined "arms" and "well regulated militia" so we didn't spend the next 250 years arguing over their definition.

 

[def90]

Big government backs off and allows cities to make their own rules and right-wingers lose their minds. LOL You can't make this stuff up.

Except that they can't, are you that f'ing stupid?

 

[Newtosavage]

Except that they can't, are you that f'ing stupid?

now now.

 

[204guy]

@def90 and everyone else trying argue logic. You're wasting your time and being setup. The game is to irritate/agitate and toe the line of insult as closely as possible. Then you will cross the imaginary line and be accused of making a personal attack, and how it was just one man's opinion being shared. Then others will agree with your comment and the victim card can be played.