Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Colorado introduces landmark gun laws

john hickenlooper gun laws colorado

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 23 March 2013 - 03:22 PM

I just went through this thread and re-read all except the really wordy ones.  I must say that although I think Americans who have to have their guns, for whatever reason, are just plain stupid, it is obvious the situation in the States is going to need a long time and probably several more generations and a good deal more mass murders before good sense wins out.  In the meantime politicians who would control guns are wisest to keep their heads down and work quietly.

The other topic I saw in the thread was about American royalty.  I think America needs a royal family.  I think Queen Elizabeth is too old, but maybe the British could be persuaded to provide some royal family member who is not too much of a nitwit and marry this person to a prominent American and start a dynasty.  It would provide some much needed class.  Move the President into Dianne Feinstein's house in Georgetown and let the new royal family have the White House.  I'm not sure what would happen to Senator Feinstein, but I'm sure some reasonable arrangement could be worked out.


#62    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 23 March 2013 - 04:00 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 23 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

I just went through this thread and re-read all except the really wordy ones.  I must say that although I think Americans who have to have their guns, for whatever reason, are just plain stupid, it is obvious the situation in the States is going to need a long time and probably several more generations and a good deal more mass murders before good sense wins out.  In the meantime politicians who would control guns are wisest to keep their heads down and work quietly.

The other topic I saw in the thread was about American royalty.  I think America needs a royal family.  I think Queen Elizabeth is too old, but maybe the British could be persuaded to provide some royal family member who is not too much of a nitwit and marry this person to a prominent American and start a dynasty.  It would provide some much needed class.  Move the President into Dianne Feinstein's house in Georgetown and let the new royal family have the White House.  I'm not sure what would happen to Senator Feinstein, but I'm sure some reasonable arrangement could be worked out.

Well it is your right to think of others as stupid if you want to frank,but the reason i am going to have mine is because the constitution says so  :tu:

Im sure me and others here could go through vietnams laws and find several pieces of what we would consider stupidity aswell  :lol:

Oh and if you love Feinstein you can have her if you wish  haha

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#63    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 23 March 2013 - 04:46 PM

A royal family in America!? Ridiculous. Live in the Whitehouse? Not so long as I'm paying for it. Much needed class? We are the most generous nation in the entire world. You're entitled to opinion but this is yet another case where I have to ask of your country... What have you done for us, the world, lately? Oh, nail salons! Thank you for getting our women to pay $30 for someone to paint their nails. Guess we owe you one.

Posted Image

#64    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 23 March 2013 - 04:54 PM

You don't even get to elect your own President. You have a lowly 500 communists dictate who is in charge of your life. No wonder you think it's stupid of us to be able to make our own decisions. You don't know any better.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 23 March 2013 - 04:55 PM.

Posted Image

#65    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,639 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 23 March 2013 - 07:13 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 23 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

I just went through this thread and re-read all except the really wordy ones.  I must say that although I think Americans who have to have their guns, for whatever reason, are just plain stupid, it is obvious the situation in the States is going to need a long time and probably several more generations and a good deal more mass murders before good sense wins out.  In the meantime politicians who would control guns are wisest to keep their heads down and work quietly.

The other topic I saw in the thread was about American royalty.  I think America needs a royal family.  I think Queen Elizabeth is too old, but maybe the British could be persuaded to provide some royal family member who is not too much of a nitwit and marry this person to a prominent American and start a dynasty.  It would provide some much needed class.  Move the President into Dianne Feinstein's house in Georgetown and let the new royal family have the White House.  I'm not sure what would happen to Senator Feinstein, but I'm sure some reasonable arrangement could be worked out.

We offered g. Washington the king ship he turned it down and rightfully so.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#66    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,952 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:35 PM

View PostKowalski, on 23 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Most Americans support the ban?! Bull****!
Obama is such a LIAR! Most Americans do NOT want new gun laws.

you might want to check your beliefs...America has changed and very recently.





Quote




By Carrie Dann, NBC News
The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new pollfrom the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
In the survey, 85 percent of respondents said they favor background checks for private and gun show sales, while only 12 percent say they oppose such checks.
Sixty-seven percent of adults surveyed approve of a federal database to track gun sales, the poll indicated. A majority -- 55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons, with 40 percent saying they don't approve of the ban, a measure for which President Barack Obama again voiced support during a press conference today. (The partisan breakdown, however, is stark, with seven in ten Democrats backing the ban compared to just 44 percent of Republicans.)
A major gender gap also remains on the gun issue; women favor an assault weapons ban by almost 20 percentage points over men. Women are also far less likely to support the idea of encouraging more gun ownership among teachers and other school officials.
Overall, the NRA-backed idea of encouraging more armed guards and police officers at schools garners wide support, with just 32 percent opposing and 64 percent favoring the proposal.
But when it comes to arming more teachers, those numbers are nearly flipped, with 57 percent giving the idea a thumbs down.
The Pew survey was conducted January 9-13, with a sample size of 1,502 adults. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 2.9 percentage points.

http://firstread.nbc...und-checks?lite

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#67    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:46 PM

View Postninjadude, on 23 March 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

you might want to check your beliefs...America has changed and very recently.





http://firstread.nbc...und-checks?lite

Well these "polls" only survey a fe thousand people at any given time.Hardly the "majority" of the country speaking right there.I also have a feeling they mostly poll city folk aswell  :lol:

I can get behind the tougher background checks but if they just enforced the laws already in place this wouldnt be such a big issue.I do not own any "assault" style weapons myself but i do not support a ban on them either,its just a accessorized rifle hardly "assault"

Believe me if the vast majority supported it barry would have got his way.Ol charlie rangel getting up there telling people that "millions of children die each year from these weapons gunning them down" sorry but stretching a few hundred into millions does not help make ones case  ;)

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#68    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,106 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:48 PM

Well, lookie here. How could this have possibly happened? Conn. just passed all kinds of laws against this!!! Impossible!!!

(CBS/AP) STAMFORD, Conn. - Three men were treated for gunshot wounds after rival gangs in Stamford, Conn. opened fire at a 15-year-old girl's birthday party this weekend, CBS New York reports.
The gangs traded gunfire and sprayed bullets everywhere early Saturday morning outside 18 James St., in what The Stamford Advocatedescribed as "a quiet beach neighborhood in the Cove."
Stray bullets hit two nearby houses and parked cars. One bullet came within inches of a woman sitting in her bed in a house adjacent to the party.

http://www.cbsnews.c...-stamford-conn/

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."
- Hunt for the Skinwalker

"So many people forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own." Dr. Abraham Erskine

#69    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:07 PM

View PostSweetpumper, on 08 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Well, lookie here. How could this have possibly happened? Conn. just passed all kinds of laws against this!!! Impossible!!!

(CBS/AP) STAMFORD, Conn. - Three men were treated for gunshot wounds after rival gangs in Stamford, Conn. opened fire at a 15-year-old girl's birthday party this weekend, CBS New York reports.
The gangs traded gunfire and sprayed bullets everywhere early Saturday morning outside 18 James St., in what The Stamford Advocatedescribed as "a quiet beach neighborhood in the Cove."
Stray bullets hit two nearby houses and parked cars. One bullet came within inches of a woman sitting in her bed in a house adjacent to the party.

http://www.cbsnews.c...-stamford-conn/

I agree impossible!!!Not with all the strict new gun laws!Must be right wing mischief and lies!  ;)

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#70    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:15 PM

View PostSweetpumper, on 08 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Well, lookie here. How could this have possibly happened? Conn. just passed all kinds of laws against this!!! Impossible!!!

(CBS/AP) STAMFORD, Conn. - Three men were treated for gunshot wounds after rival gangs in Stamford, Conn. opened fire at a 15-year-old girl's birthday party this weekend, CBS New York reports.
The gangs traded gunfire and sprayed bullets everywhere early Saturday morning outside 18 James St., in what The Stamford Advocatedescribed as "a quiet beach neighborhood in the Cove."
Stray bullets hit two nearby houses and parked cars. One bullet came within inches of a woman sitting in her bed in a house adjacent to the party.

http://www.cbsnews.c...-stamford-conn/

You mean hoodlum gang bangers don't follow laws? What a shocker!


#71    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,106 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:34 PM

Good luck, Colorado.

Campus Police Respond to Gunman Scare With Pepper Spray & Batons Because of State Law
Uproar After Campus Police Respond to Gunman Scare With Pepper Spray & Batons Because of State Gun Law

University of Rhode Island (URI) police responded to a call of a gunman on campus last week with pepper spray and batons, Major Stephen Baker of the URI Police Department and Community Relations Programming Officer Mark Chearino told Campus Reform. And that’s causing alarm on a state and national level.

Deputized campus police officers in Rhode Island are apparently prohibited from carrying firearms on public campuses, in accordance with rules handed down by the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education.

State police officers– who are allowed to be armed on campus– were still arriving roughly twenty minutes after the first call for help went out, reports add. Thankfully no shooter was found and no one was injured, but the situation “shouldn’t give any student at the university, or residents in the surrounding community, peace of mind,” PolicyMic writes.

State Representative Joe Almeida, a retired police officer, is pushing a bill that would allow campus police officers who complete a firearms training course at the state’s municipal police academy to carry weapons on duty, according to WPRI-12 News.

He told the station: “Because of what happened at URI, what happened in Connecticut, what’s happening in California, all across the country…something needs to be done. Do we wait for somebody to be hurt in Rhode Island or do we move now?”

But the situation isn’t as unique as it may seem.

A 2004-2005 survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that only 67% of the campus law enforcement agencies they spoke with use armed patrol officers (a more recent comprehensive poll is not available).

The difference is that campus police in Rhode Island ​can’t ​be armed even if they want to be.

Rhode Island is currently the only state in the country that prohibits public university police from carrying guns, according to the Associated Press.

URI President David Dooley has long disagreed with the policy, but apparently there aren’t any plans to change it anytime soon.

“Simply more guns in the mix isn’t a solution to violence on university and college campuses,” Christine Hunsinger, the communications director for the state’s Gov. Lincoln Chaffee, told Campus Reform. “The governor is very opening to listening to both sides but it should be looked at as part of a whole solution…. We need to see what else can be done to make those places safe.”





http://www.theblaze.....nt-carry-guns/

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."
- Hunt for the Skinwalker

"So many people forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own." Dr. Abraham Erskine

#72    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

Quote

you might want to check your beliefs...America has changed and very recently.

Ill agree with that statement but I dont believe that the change you are refering to is any way shape or form a positive one and we are now the most polarized as a nation that we have been since the Civil War.


#73    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:53 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 23 March 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

You don't even get to elect your own President. You have a lowly 500 communists dictate who is in charge of your life. No wonder you think it's stupid of us to be able to make our own decisions. You don't know any better.
You haven't the slightest notion of how the government in Vietnam functions, and what you say is just absurd propaganda.I happen to be a royalist. I think the Thai or Japanese situation, as well as those of the Benelux and Scandanivian countries, is optimal.  Vietnam hasn't had a king for several hundred years, and the last few were puppets, so our experience is not pertinent.  There are many useful things a properly housebroken constitutional monarch can do, especially in constitutional crisis, where they can intervene and cut short a mess that might otherwise take years to resolve.  In the meantime, since we would hope such crises are rare, they make a good tourist attraction and someone neat to send to state funerals so that the country involved is flattered but the President's time is not wasted.

Vietnam is a one-party state.  As such it is not a democracy as much as a meritocracy, as who is a member of the Party is done nowadays on merit (education, non-participation in the legal or commercial or religious affairs, reasonable moderation in behavior, non-criminal connections, only moderate holdings, and a few other considerations).  Partisanship and special interest still occurs, but nowhere near the level you see it in the States.

Edited by Frank Merton, 09 April 2013 - 06:54 PM.


#74    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,108 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:17 PM

You're right. I don't. I looked it up and found that you elect 500 representatives but not your president or whatever it is. It said those 500 pick who leads. It also said you are a communist nation. I don't think it was propaganda and I didn't hear it on FOX. I believe it was Wikipedia which I know can be less than reliable at times but I think for basic info about nations it is ok.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users