Colorado Governor Hickenlooper and ot...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Two words......TOTAL HYPOCRICY
THREE words: Not at all.
Wondering

Farmington, NM

#123 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
THREE words: Not at all.
If I were a CONartist (thank GOD I am NOT!) I would be ashamed to admit that Carter, protrayed as a WEAK President, could do ANYTHING in 4 YEARS that 3 of the following 4 Presidents could NOT repair or abolish in 20 YEARS of the following 28 years. This includes 8 years of the Presidency that CONartists percieved as GREAT Savior!!!! DAMN WEAK DON'T YOU THINK???
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#124 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
THREE words: Not at all.
One little word. Bullshite!
Gustavo

Dillwyn, VA

#125 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
And we were right then, just as we are rightly blaming modern liberal Democrats John Hickenlooper, Dannel Malloy, Michael Bloomberg, and Barack Obama for taking away, and attempting to take away, our 2nd Amendment rights today.
Hm, so I skimmed over Colorado HB13-1228, 1229, & 1224, and the 2nd Amendment. The first three deal with (1) who pays for the costs of background checks,(2) mandatory background checks for the transfer of guns, with certain exceptions, of course, and (3) banning certain high capacity magazines.

So the assertation is made that certain Democrats including Gov H is "taking away, and attempting to take away, our 2nd Amendment rights today". So I skimmed the 2nd and I truly don't see where it gives the right to high capacity magazines, freedom from background checks, or where the state must pay for said background check. I guess if one were to extrapolate from these 3 bills, one possible scenario is what the author of the above quote envisions but that entails making many assumptions as to the intents not only subject Demos but the framers of the 2nd. Not to mention a dash of paranoia and clairvoyance. LOL

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#126 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were a CONartist (thank GOD I am NOT!) I would be ashamed to admit that Carter, protrayed as a WEAK President, could do ANYTHING in 4 YEARS that 3 of the following 4 Presidents could NOT repair or abolish in 20 YEARS of the following 28 years. This includes 8 years of the Presidency that CONartists percieved as GREAT Savior!!!! DAMN WEAK DON'T YOU THINK???
No. Not weak at all.

Democrats controlled congress for the vast majority of those years, and frankly, there was no will to fix something that wasn't, at the time, broken. ALL government-mandated programs have unintended consequences, and sometimes those consequences don't appear for decades..as was the case with the housing collapse that had it's roots going all the way back to President "Jimmah" Carter.

When the warning signs DID appear, fiscally responsible Republicans repeatedly approached the Democrats who were in charge at the time, but the Democrats, including Barney Frank, were too stupid, too ignorant, or were simply unwilling to solve the problem due to political expediency. After all, if Democrats could hang the housing collapse on Bush, all the better for them, right? Create the problem, and then rush in to "save" everyone. It's what the left does.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#127 Apr 22, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hm, so I skimmed over Colorado HB13-1228, 1229, & 1224, and the 2nd Amendment. The first three deal with (1) who pays for the costs of background checks,(2) mandatory background checks for the transfer of guns, with certain exceptions, of course, and (3) banning certain high capacity magazines.
So the assertation is made that certain Democrats including Gov H is "taking away, and attempting to take away, our 2nd Amendment rights today". So I skimmed the 2nd and I truly don't see where it gives the right to high capacity magazines, freedom from background checks, or where the state must pay for said background check. I guess if one were to extrapolate from these 3 bills, one possible scenario is what the author of the above quote envisions but that entails making many assumptions as to the intents not only subject Demos but the framers of the 2nd. Not to mention a dash of paranoia and clairvoyance. LOL
Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."

So, what is YOUR explanation of why Hickinlooper and the hypocritical Democrats specifically allowed that high-capacity magazines could be manufactured in Colorado, as long as they were sold outside the state? I've challenged many leftists to explain it, but it's like playing "Stump the Chump"...only silence do I get in return.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#128 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."
So, what is YOUR explanation of why Hickinlooper and the hypocritical Democrats specifically allowed that high-capacity magazines could be manufactured in Colorado, as long as they were sold outside the state? I've challenged many leftists to explain it, but it's like playing "Stump the Chump"...only silence do I get in return.
Apparently YOU don't understand the words since you've never said what you think/know they mean. I doubt you understand any of the sentence.

The reason you get silence is that everybody knows all you're trying to do is call Hickenlooper a hypocrite.(As you already have). So what's the point.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#129 Apr 22, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently YOU don't understand the words since you've never said what you think/know they mean. I doubt you understand any of the sentence.
The reason you get silence is that everybody knows all you're trying to do is call Hickenlooper a hypocrite.(As you already have). So what's the point.
They mean exactly what they say..and Hickenlooper, like most Democrats and modern liberals/leftists, IS a hypocrite.

What Colorado Democrats said by putting specific language in their bill allowing manufacturers to continue making high-cap mags in Colorado is this: We believe that high-cap mags are dangerous and that owning them turns people into mass-murderes, so we will outlaw them here to prevent mass-murder...but we will still build them here so that mass murderers in other states can buy them from us.

That, my friends, is hypocrisy at it's zenith.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#130 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
They mean exactly what they say..and Hickenlooper, like most Democrats and modern liberals/leftists, IS a hypocrite.
What Colorado Democrats said by putting specific language in their bill allowing manufacturers to continue making high-cap mags in Colorado is this: We believe that high-cap mags are dangerous and that owning them turns people into mass-murderes, so we will outlaw them here to prevent mass-murder...but we will still build them here so that mass murderers in other states can buy them from us.
That, my friends, is hypocrisy at it's zenith.
Actually it was put into the bill to appease the Reps so they would vote for the bill.
Wondering

Farmington, NM

#131 Apr 22, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not weak at all.
Democrats controlled congress for the vast majority of those years, and frankly, there was no will to fix something that wasn't, at the time, broken. ALL government-mandated programs have unintended consequences, and sometimes those consequences don't appear for decades..as was the case with the housing collapse that had it's roots going all the way back to President "Jimmah" Carter.
When the warning signs DID appear, fiscally responsible Republicans repeatedly approached the Democrats who were in charge at the time, but the Democrats, including Barney Frank, were too stupid, too ignorant, or were simply unwilling to solve the problem due to political expediency. After all, if Democrats could hang the housing collapse on Bush, all the better for them, right? Create the problem, and then rush in to "save" everyone. It's what the left does.
Makes about as much sense as "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132 Apr 22, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it was put into the bill to appease the Reps so they would vote for the bill.
So that makes the Democrats what?

Hypocrites.

No matter...it didn't appease the voters of Colorado:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/1...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#133 Apr 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes about as much sense as "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Yeah! Wasn't that sweet!
xando

Scottsdale, AZ

#134 Apr 23, 2013
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

Hypocricy and political myopia afflict these kneejerk cons who have a remarkable inability to think for themselves.

Take CLN, the originator of this thread about hypocricy. Just laughable! He and others of his "ilk" mouth about their 2nd amend rights and yet are unconcerned about any of the others. If they recognized other amendment infringements they might have to back up their words and pull their guns. Of course, we don't see that happening because they're just hot air windbags.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#135 Apr 23, 2013
xando wrote:
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs -const.html
Hypocricy and political myopia afflict these kneejerk cons who have a remarkable inability to think for themselves.
Take CLN, the originator of this thread about hypocricy. Just laughable! He and others of his "ilk" mouth about their 2nd amend rights and yet are unconcerned about any of the others. If they recognized other amendment infringements they might have to back up their words and pull their guns. Of course, we don't see that happening because they're just hot air windbags.
Thank you for your insightful and fact-filled analysis of Constitutional rights...the only thing missing is the insight..and the facts.

Your link provides many cases where the website owners indicate that the Patriot Act is in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution...the only thing missing, and what liberals never provide, is actual cases where any of those violations of the constitution have actually occurred, and the situations surrounding those cases.

Never mind the fact that the Patriot Act was originally passed with the support of liberal Democrats..and has been renewed with the support of liberal Democrats, not to mention the support of President Barack Obama.

Those are inconvenient facts that leftists conveniently gloss over when they are confronted with it.

So while leftists go after American's right to keep and bear arms in a direct assault..the only argument it appears they can conceive of to explain their actions is to state that we've already lost rights through the Patriot Act..so we might as well give up some more.

Nonsense.
Gustavo

Charlottesville, VA

#136 Apr 23, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you do not understand the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."
I understand the words. The Supreme Court has, at least twice, ruled that the 2nd applies only to the national government, not state regulation. From Presser v Illinois,

"the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States."

Your second question is a red herring, or strawman at best.
Gustavo

Charlottesville, VA

#137 Apr 23, 2013
But Cary, all is not lost. Per MagPuls law firm's letter to Gov H, opposing HB13-1224, most, if not all, gun magazines are easily converted to high capacity mags. And, the letter also describes how to easily get around the laws. Your "well regulated milita" LOL is safe.
Wondering

Farmington, NM

#138 Apr 23, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah! Wasn't that sweet!
It was. Made the CONS feel tough! Maybe 10 YEARS and +4000 AMERICAN lives early, but SWEET.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#139 Apr 23, 2013
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
So that makes the Democrats what?
Hypocrites.
No matter...it didn't appease the voters of Colorado:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/1...
Last I heard, it was still the law in Colo.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#140 Apr 23, 2013
Gustavo wrote:
But Cary, all is not lost. Per MagPuls law firm's letter to Gov H, opposing HB13-1224, most, if not all, gun magazines are easily converted to high capacity mags. And, the letter also describes how to easily get around the laws. Your "well regulated milita" LOL is safe.
So please explain to us: Why it is necessary for citizens of the United States to alter hardware, or "get around" ridiculous and useless laws, in order to simply exercise our constitutional rights?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#141 Apr 23, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>Last I heard, it was still the law in Colo.
Apparently, you heard wrong. Colorado's new restrictions upon Second Amendment rights do not take effect until July 1st.

Hopefully, between the recalls, and the lawsuits filed by half of Colorado's elected sheriffs, citizen's rights will be restored:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/co...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Aztec Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 3 hr T rules 6,985
Sexual Dec 3 Make me 1
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Dec 3 47 days remaining 676
News Two small children in distress after being left... (Aug '10) Dec 1 Tuylo 417
News 4 US Senators :Ask the Army Corps of Engineers ... Nov 28 Where are the Lea... 1
chance of a lifetime!!!! Nov 26 Twizzler937 1
News CCSD board member files motion addressing claims Nov 21 Whammer Jammer 1

Aztec Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Aztec Mortgages