Jump to content
It should be no more difficult to enforce than the gun laws that were recently passed i.e. high capacity magazines.
The real challenge of course would be determining "head of household".
So nimrod, explain to me how you identify one similar magazine from another when none of these magazines, new or old have any identifying numbers or dates on them?
How will you prove if any magazine was purchased yesterday or 10 years ago?
I think your comment was about as well thought out as the new gun laws. And makes about as much sense.
All was good in the presentation; entertaining and interesting until it got political! Dr. Rummel, you lost me when you started the political rant on liberals, etc. I own guns, have been around them all my life and I am happy if people want to own guns and with those that don't. Why would you want to put a mandate in place that has no teeth; enforces the idea of 'big brother' and finally why would you want someone to have a gun that just has no interest in either owning one, let alone shooting one?
The economic argument really is mute in the case of hunting and the type of gun you are mandating for two reasons. One because a sportsman does not use a semi or automatic weapon to hunt and because if you look at all the tags available for hunting, all are filled within all the GMUs for elk hunting which supports MOCO being the Elk Hunting Capital of the World; one of the many reasons why the MCTA has chosen not to put advertising dollars into hunting.
Finally not 100% of citizens that you have spoken with support your efforts; they just don't argue back because why put the effort forward to state differently when you are so against having a true open discussion that does not support your point of view. My argument in this matter is supported by your unwillingness to have a resolution instead of an ordinance as suggested by six or the seven council members.
As Mayor Carwile suggested at the end of your presentation, you have a lot of homework to do!
I believe that Dr. Rummel has made an excellent point with his proposed law. It is just as unenforceable, and makes just as much sense as all the other recently enacted laws by our freedom hating governor who will never get my vote again.
A gun is nothing more than a tool. No different than a car or a pressure cooker.
Since it is a proven fact that many more people each year are killed by cars than by guns perhaps we need a law that limits how much gas you can put in your car at any one time.
And now that people are getting killed by pressure cookers, we need to register all pressure cookers. Enact a pressure cooker owner ID card system, and make sure you need to get training by a certified pressure cooker teacher to use your pressure cooker in secret.
You can see now how ridiculous the new unneeded, unwanted, unnecessary gun laws, that will do nothing to prevent gun crime or gun violence, appear when compared to other everyday tools like cars and pressure cookers.
Do you remember Morning Star Trading Post? This is the child of the couple who owned that shop; one of two gun stores which supplied Craig with ammunition, repairs, and sales back in the 90's and early 00's.
I just wanted to say I am highly interested in where this will lead, and unlike the previous comment-maker I do enjoy the implication of this law (federal government better not mess with our vitality).
I did use a semi-automatic weapon to hunt. Sometimes my father did too. It was always small game which we wanted to prevent from tunneling in the fields we farmed for alfalfa. In addition this prevented so many ground-holes for the horses to step in and break their legs while I rode locally. For big game we did use a single-load but only because we never owned a semi that carried rounds big enough for elk. I would not object if someone did own a rifle for this purpose because you know what? People miss -- and those animals suffer in the time it takes you to reload.
So... please do talk about it. Feel it out. I do support what I hear so far but would love many more details. While I have moved away from Craig, Co (we enlisted active duty 2003) we do hope to return there when we are done serving our country and it would be great to know our firearms would not be an issue once we return.
What an absolutely moronic proposal. So of course I expect it to pass in Craig.
Mandating gun ownership is absurd. It is not a solution. Just trying to enforce the mandate alone would be next to, if not, impossible not to mention cost prohibitive.
The city council, of course, could always hire inspectors to knock on every door & insist on seeing the occupant's gun. But that is not a viable solution. Nor is excluding ex-convicts & the mentally ill a viable solution either -- not without background checks. Furthermore the latter would also require hiring one or more qualified doctors to determine a person's mental health should it come into question. Good luck finding a doctor to volunteer his/her services to be on call full-time for free or for a small fee.
The fact is that anyone, regardless of their mental state, criminal history or background, at any time can purchase a weapon at any gun show & no one is the wiser.
There is a viable cost-effective enforceable solution, but that would entail closing the gun show loophole by requiring background checks which presumably the city council along with a number of residents oppose.
Last but not least, Rummel's statement, “This is about more than just guns, this is about protecting our economy ..." is misguided & ill-advised. This is not the wild west. Civilized people do not resolve their differences by shooting each other.
If serena truly thinks that Mr. Rummel wants people to settle arguements with guns, then she is severely separated from reallity.
This proposal is about trying to overcome the stupidity of the new restrictive firearms laws that our anti Bill Of Rights governor signed into law, against the protests of millions of Coloradans. These new law take away rights from honest citizens and will accomplish nothing to deter gun crime or gun violence.
I also think she needs to read the article again I believe some of her thoughts are incorrect.
Below is a direct quote from the article:
"A draft of Rummel’s proposal included exemptions for those not physically or mentally capable of operating a firearm; financially unable to afford purchasing a firearm; who have been convicted of felony; and who oppose owning a firearm for religious or other personal reasons."
If you are going to run your mouth you should make sure of the facts first.
I agree with Rummel!!!
Posting comments requires a free account
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.