Boulder Gun Owners Defiant Of Assault Weapon Ban

[CLAX1911]

Well that's what happens when you "thought" but should have been thinking. In other words what goes down one place and and people let slide goes down elsewhere.

I think his point is that if you care about policy in another city you're not adhering to some very specific definition of conservatism. I read some of his things and when I got to that one it seems kind of bizarre and rather silly.

 

[Grand Mal]

When you ban a certain type of gun that's not a processing fee.

I guess this is proof that gun bans don't work. Lol.

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered. From the article...

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

 

[VanceMack]

You live in South Florida. Why exactly would you care what a municipality over a thousand miles away does? I thought you guys were all about local control.

Coming from you thats both a downright STUPID comment and massively hypocritical. Or do you not comment on gay rights issues in Oregon...Colorado...North Carolina...etc.

It should be well understood that local infringements on CONSTITUTIONAL rights impact us all...went left unchallenged.

 

[Black Dog]

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered. From the article...

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

You have got to be kidding? Are you blind to certain words?

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

Then you act like having to pay an extra fee on property you have owned possibly for years is somehow OK. Then you just overlook the inspections and background checks, nonsense.

I have no respect for those who just roll over like the wimps they are and let the government take away our rights.

 

[Lursa]

Reading the article, it seems people have to turn in or get rid of their semi-auto handguns? Is that right?

Or yeah, 'register' them, and that is also bull****.

 

[Grand Mal]

You have got to be kidding? Are you blind to certain words?

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

Then you act like having to pay an extra fee on property you have owned possibly for years is somehow OK. Then you just overlook the inspections and background checks, nonsense.

I have no respect for those who just roll over like the wimps they are and let the government take away our rights.

I'm not as blind to words as you are. You just kind of glossed over my post, didn't you. Missed this part completely...

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

The story isn't about banning a category of rifles, it's about mandatory registration. That headline is deliberately intended to make people froth at the mouth by featuring the words 'assault weapons ban'.
I have no respect for people who allow themselves to be manipulated like children. No, I don't "act like having to pay an extra fee on property you have owned possibly for years is somehow OK." I plainly said I sympathise with resisting mandatory registration. But nobody is gonna lead me around by the nose by threatening me with the boogeyman

 

[Black Dog]

I'm not as blind to words as you are. You just kind of glossed over my post, didn't you. Missed this part completely...

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

The story isn't about banning a category of rifles, it's about mandatory registration. That headline is deliberately intended to make people froth at the mouth by featuring the words 'assault weapons ban'.
I have no respect for people who allow themselves to be manipulated like children. No, I don't "act like having to pay an extra fee on property you have owned possibly for years is somehow OK." I plainly said I sympathise with resisting mandatory registration. But nobody is gonna lead me around by the nose by threatening me with the boogeyman

That post is dishonest bull****.

First line of the post I responded to...

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered.

From the article...

If both certificates are lost or destroyed after December 31, 2018, possession of the weapon is no longer legal.

On top of that they are again banning cosmetic parts of the BANNED weapons...

A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and that have any of the following characteristics:
• A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
​• A folding or telescoping stock;
• Any protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.

All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics:
• Have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip or;
• Have a secondary protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.

All semi-automatic shotguns that have any of the following characteristics:
• A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
• Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
• A folding or telescoping stock;
​• A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds or the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein. Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Damn looks like a ban to me.

Your post is laughable man.

 

[Grand Mal]

That post is dishonest bull****.

First line of the post I responded to...

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered.

From the article...

If both certificates are lost or destroyed after December 31, 2018, possession of the weapon is no longer legal.

On top of that they are again banning cosmetic parts of the BANNED weapons...

A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and that have any of the following characteristics:
• A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
​• A folding or telescoping stock;
• Any protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.

All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics:
• Have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip or;
• Have a secondary protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.

All semi-automatic shotguns that have any of the following characteristics:
• A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
• Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
• A folding or telescoping stock;
​• A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds or the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein. Any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Damn looks like a ban to me.

Your post is laughable man.

What you're calling a 'ban' is the consequences of failing to register the rifle. From the article..

https://bouldercolorado.gov/police/firearm-certification

Does failing to renew your driver's license mean you've been banned from driving?
Listen. I'm not going to be backed into a corner and made to defend this by-law or whatever it is. Like I said, I sympathize with anyone who resists it. But I stand by what I said- this story is about mandatory registration, not banning guns.

 

[jdog21]

What you're calling a 'ban' is the consequences of failing to register the rifle. From the article..

https://bouldercolorado.gov/police/firearm-certification

Does failing to renew your driver's license mean you've been banned from driving?
Listen. I'm not going to be backed into a corner and made to defend this by-law or whatever it is. Like I said, I sympathize with anyone who resists it. But I stand by what I said- this story is about mandatory registration, not banning guns.

Owning a gun is a right, driving a car on publicly built road ways is a privilege. You do know you its not illegal to operate a vehicle without a license on your own private land right?

 

[Grand Mal]

Owning a gun is a right, driving a car on publicly built road ways is a privilege. You do know you its not illegal to operate a vehicle without a license on your own private land right?

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to quibble about it. My point still stands- the story is about mandatory gun registration and that's bad enough without trying to provoke hysteria with words like 'gun ban'.
And if owning a gun is a right, why do you need to be background checked to see if you have the 'right' or not? If a right has to be granted and can be taken away, you have a whole other quibble ahead defining 'right'.

 

[jdog21]

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to quibble about it. My point still stands- the story is about mandatory gun registration and that's bad enough without trying to provoke hysteria with words like 'gun ban'.
And if owning a gun is a right, why do you need to be background checked to see if you have the 'right' or not? If a right has to be granted and can be taken away, you have a whole other quibble ahead defining 'right'.

Private ownership should never be taken away imo, if you want to be able to take that gun into public like to hunt on public lands or to carry for protection in public then having a permit or license is acceptable. But we have that with conceal carry permits and hunting licenses. What someone keep in the privacy of their own home is none of the governments business.

 

[Black Dog]

What you're calling a 'ban' is the consequences of failing to register the rifle. From the article..

https://bouldercolorado.gov/police/firearm-certification

Does failing to renew your driver's license mean you've been banned from driving?
Listen. I'm not going to be backed into a corner and made to defend this by-law or whatever it is. Like I said, I sympathize with anyone who resists it. But I stand by what I said- this story is about mandatory registration, not banning guns.

I know for a fact you are not this stupid. So the only conclusion I can come to is you have some kind of issue with the weapons more so than the actual causes of said crime. So you are telling fibs and being intellectually dishonest.

You act like you don't know what "Ban" means. Well lets see...

ban (băn)►
v. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.
v. South African Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
v. Archaic To curse.

Now if you can no longer purchase said weapons, what is that called?

No, your point is bull**** and nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered. From the article...

the only reason for registration is for later confiscation.

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

you mean to tell me this is an effort to register all semi-automatics? That's even worse I hope the people of Boulder are resoluteness and defy their idiot government.

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

especially since we're not just talking about assault weapons were talking about all semi-automatic guns. That includes nearly all pistols shotguns rifles that aren't bolt or breach action.

I think he made it sound a little nicer than it is.

 

[zsu2357]

Reading the article, it seems people have to turn in or get rid of their semi-auto handguns? Is that right?

Or yeah, 'register' them, and that is also bull****.

What gets me is if all these "fully" semi automatic "assault weapons"need to be removed. Because they are so dangerous why would there be the stipulation you could spend fuc* all how much to register them? Fill the town coffers? Test the waters? Get a list of who has what? I think maybe all three. Though I do think the water has their nuts saying hi to their tonsils.

 

[Rucker61]

Some of those tests only focus on social stuff. But one of the things I try to do here it's not worry so much about labels. On certain things I agree a lot with conservatives on others I agree with Democrats sometimes I agree with libertarians.

I think it's a good thing when you can't find a label that fits you exactly. It means you're intelligent and you don't adhere to labels.

It's hard to find candidates to support, though.

 

[apdst]

That doesn't answer my question. Say that Boulder, Colorado wants to do something else that you don't like. As long as those changes don't make it down your way, what exactly is it to you? Why is it so hard for you to just let Boulder be Boulder?

The Boulder city council did something the residents of Boulder don't like. We're showing solidarity with the residents of Boulder.

 

[Rucker61]

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered. From the article...

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

Really? The Democrats hold a majority in both Houses and hold the governorship. I bet we see legislation for an AWB introduced in the next six months.

 

[apdst]

It's not a scheme to ban those rifles, despite the inflammatory headline. It's a scheme to have them registered. From the article...

Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department, a process that includes a firearm inspection, background check and $20 fee.

You want to resist a registry, fine with me. I sympathize. But it seems the threat of mandatory registration should be enough without headlining the words 'assault weapon ban'.

Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

 

[Rucker61]

Fine, whatever. I'm not going to quibble about it. My point still stands- the story is about mandatory gun registration and that's bad enough without trying to provoke hysteria with words like 'gun ban'.
And if owning a gun is a right, why do you need to be background checked to see if you have the 'right' or not? If a right has to be granted and can be taken away, you have a whole other quibble ahead defining 'right'.

I'm picking up what you're putting down.

 

[apdst]

What you're calling a 'ban' is the consequences of failing to register the rifle. From the article..

https://bouldercolorado.gov/police/firearm-certification

Does failing to renew your driver's license mean you've been banned from driving?
Listen. I'm not going to be backed into a corner and made to defend this by-law or whatever it is. Like I said, I sympathize with anyone who resists it. But I stand by what I said- this story is about mandatory registration, not banning guns.

Are you really missing the point, or are you just being contrary?

None of the described firearms will be registered/certified after 31 December. Which means, if you don't already own one, you are prohibited from buying one for as long as this law is in place.

Geez!!

 

[CLAX1911]

It's hard to find candidates to support, though.

I don't support candidates. I'm normally voting for the least worse.

 

[jet57]

[FONT=&]The city of Boulder, Colorado thought it was going to make a firm stand against so-called assault weapons. It passed a controversial law that banned them inside the city.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Take that, gun owners![/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Well, it seems that there are a lot of people in Boulder who aren’t remotely interested in rolling over and playing dead in the face of a tyrannical local government. Instead, they’re hoisting their middle fingers in a universally understood gesture of defiance. Metaphorically.[/FONT][FONT=&] - [/FONT]https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/...45LCsz3-uCmtL5rSvv2VGyr9DkeeGbVx3bDYJ866k_ito

I am standing with them. No more. Not one more law.

I refuse to give up anything I own legally because it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I will no longer stand by and let these untrained, limited experience douchebags take or register my property.

No matter where I live, I have drawn a line in the sand and stand with the gun owners of Boulder. In defiance of this disarming of honest citizens I will stand. We will no longer stand by and let these morons take weapons from law abiding legal gun owners.

Well since it was the public who voted for and passed the ban, it looks like you're just going to have to live with it. I've been warning you guys for some time now that these bans were coming down the pike and your own attitudes, demonstrated here have put this in the Hot Rush column of priorities. 2020's right around the corner and a Republican is not going to win the White House and there will be a super majority in both houses, so - what the hell are you guys gonna do then? - eh?....

And -

I refuse to give up anything I own legally because it is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I will no longer stand by and let these untrained, limited experience douchebags take or register my property.

There you go with the paranoid propaganda again! Where is being pushed, besides your own minds, that anybody's gonna storm your house for your guns? You're just adding to the growing perception of instability amongst your ranks.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well since it was the public who voted for and passed the ban, it looks like you're just going to have to live with it. I've been warning you guys for some time now that these bans were coming down the pike and your own attitudes, demonstrated here have put this in the Hot Rush column of priorities. 2020's right around the corner and a Republican is not going to win the White House and there will be a super majority in both houses, so - what the hell are you guys gonna do then? - eh?....

And -



There you go with the paranoid propaganda again! Where is being pushed, besides your own minds, that anybody's gonna storm your house for your guns? You're just adding to the growing perception of instability amongst your ranks.

what nonsense-appease the gun haters or they will take your guns.

that's why we are getting more and more judges

 

[Phys251]

Because you have no room in your little boxed in world, to understand not everyone who supports the 2nd is a conservative. You obviously did not even bother to read the article...

Here’s something for the anti-gun Left to consider. When you have wide-spread defiance in someplace like the People’s Republic of Boulder on a gun control law, you may want to check your assumptions about your constituents sharing your anti-gun views. I suspect quite a few Boulder residents with “Coexist” stickers on their Prius’s also have “Molon Labe” stickers on their gun safes. - https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/...45LCsz3-uCmtL5rSvv2VGyr9DkeeGbVx3bDYJ866k_ito

Satisfactory to you. I don't care about YOUR concern at all. I answered your question and you don't like my answer because you want to put me into your little box to fit your world view. No. :mrgreen:

And there you go again.

The point that sailed right over your head has nothing to do with your opposition to the ordinance. No, it has to do with the fact that you're implying a uniform, one-size-fits-the-whole-nation set of gun laws/freedoms. Now if you believe that one-size-fits-all works in more instances than it is typically given credit for, then welcome aboard, but your inconsistency on the matter is strange.

Do you see it now? Let Boulder be Boulder. If you don't like how they operate, don't go there. Simple.

 

[Black Dog]

And there you go again.

The point that sailed right over your head has nothing to do with your opposition to the ordinance. No, it has to do with the fact that you're implying a uniform, one-size-fits-the-whole-nation set of gun laws/freedoms. Now if you believe that one-size-fits-all works in more instances than it is typically given credit for, then welcome aboard, but your inconsistency on the matter is strange.

Do you see it now? Let Boulder be Boulder. If you don't like how they operate, don't go there. Simple.

Typical of weak willed left wing dishonesty. Laws one state can affect many, this is a fact. Your argument? Opinion backed by hot air, not facts at all.

Fact: What Boulder has done is stupid and will have no effect on gun crime, none. Feel good nonsense.
Fact: Other Municipalities, counties and states may also try this if they see it sneak by avoiding challenge in court. Of course the lawsuits have already started.
Fact: The ordinance has everything to do with me backed by the FACTS, you chose to ignore.

You have no real argument. You are trying to say "don't fight there, let them do whatever they want" and this is about as dishonest as it gets.

SO I will just sit back and laugh at you at this point.