Gun Laws Debate - Fort Collins, CO

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Fort Collins, CO.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Fort Collins thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
11
Yes
 
1
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Fort Collins:

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
warren

Wellington, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 31, 2012
 
no need
Tony

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 11, 2012
 
Its unfortunate that nut cases do the things they do with guns. Its unfortunate that nut cases use those horrible acts of others to try to disarm us. Hitler, Stalin and Mao got it right. Tens of millions died. If not hundreds of millions. We are the strongest nation on earth. If our constitution is abolised, suspended as President Obama and his administration and the UN wants. We loose as a civilization. Our country keeps the peace. We the people of this great nation keep the government in check.
Bryan Carpen

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 15, 2012
 
Guns should be outlawed. Only teabaggers who want to kill African_Americans want guns.
Michael

Greeley, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 21, 2012
 
It has been proven, crime goes down when people are armed.
Lea Ann

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 29, 2012
 
The bad guy will always have the gun.
Gray

Golden, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 30, 2012
 
As gun laws have relaxed, murder has dropped. We don't need the double murder rate we had when gun laws were stricter.
Dylan

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 14, 2012
 
Our gun laws are sufficient. The root of crimes which involve firearms, being it poverty, desperation or just the inability to control emotions given a mental illness or immaturity will never be ratified or corrected through laws which constrict our rights. I am a Democrat by the way, and I feel my party is finally coming around to this conclusion with the realization that restrictions have gone far enough, and the distinction between gun ownership and crime itself.
Jason

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 14, 2012
 
Tony wrote:
Its unfortunate that nut cases do the things they do with guns. Its unfortunate that nut cases use those horrible acts of others to try to disarm us. Hitler, Stalin and Mao got it right. Tens of millions died. If not hundreds of millions. We are the strongest nation on earth. If our constitution is abolised, suspended as President Obama and his administration and the UN wants. We loose as a civilization. Our country keeps the peace. We the people of this great nation keep the government in check.
You have a loose grip on reality and obviously little to no education. You are the embarrassment of this 'great nation.' Our president has not imposed any legislation regarding restrictive gun laws, but I would not expect you to know that. In actuality, he has only passed a law that allows us greater weapons freedom within the National Parks. Just know that your random and incongruent muttering about things and ideas you obviously have little command over expose you for the simple mind and lack of education you possess.
Jason

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 15, 2012
 
Buck Fiden wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one needing educated. He only signed that because it was packaged with the credit card consumer protections he sought. He would have never signed the bill for guns in National Parks if it was presented as a stand alone bill.
So how then is Obama teaming with the UN to take our gun rights away? You obviously disagree with me; show me you side and enlighten me to your lodgic seeing as I am "needing educated." Nice English buddy. How did ' Hitler get it right' like my buddy above had said?
Jason

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 15, 2012
 
Buck Fiden wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say he was.
<quoted text>
No, I know Obama is ambivalent when it comes to guns hence his "cling to guns and religion" BS.
<quoted text>
I just schooled your assertion that Obama was expanding gun rights. Do I need to remind you again?
<quoted text>
You mean like "lodgic"?
<quoted text>Why don't you ask him?
You defend this guy saying I need the education, or 'needing educated.'

Senate Republican Tom Corbin's bill, the Bill Of Rights for Credit Card Holders is what you are referencing, which the president signed. It contained an amendment that altered the carry laws in the National Parks, allowing for more freedom. How is this more restrictive?

My original point which you decided for one reason or another to challenge is that the President has not imposed upon or made any attempt to restrict our gun rights, pointing out that he, in reality, did quite the opposite.
A side note; A typo vs. the repeated use of the incorrect tense is no case towards your command of the English language.

So, given that the President's one and only piece of legislation regarding gun control EVER was one in which rights were expanded, not repressed, how in the world did you 'schooled' me and what exactly is your point?
Jason

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 16, 2012
 
Buck Fiden wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was simply stating fact. Didn't have anything to do with what he said.
<quoted text>
I never said it was restrictive. I said that Obama only signed the bill because he wanted the Credit Cardholders Protections. It had nothign to do with how he felt about guns in National Parks.
<quoted text>
Not really. He had to compromise to get what he wanted. Again, he didn't sign the legislation because he wanted to allow guns in parks, he HAD to sign the legislation for the Credit Cardholder Protection that he DID want. Big difference over his wanting to "expand gun rights" as so many have tried to credit him for.
<quoted text>
What's the matter Jason, losing the debate?
<quoted text>Because AGAIN, you fell for the whole "he expanded rights" codswallop. The original poster is incorrect in saying that Obama restricted rights (though he's on record for his Gun Control stance). You correctly responded that such a restriction of rights never took place. That's where it should have ended.
You said I have been 'schooled,' and I am 'needing educated,' for giving a reason behind the fact I stated. What debate are you referring to?

I think this originates from some other source within you, desperate for something. To defend someone that says such things as the guy I originally responded to just shows the breed of person I am dealing with here; does it not?

All you did is state a reason behind the fact which I mentioned, which is in agreement with me. Yes Buck Fiden, a real win in a true debate about... How right I am.... Congratulations.

It seems like you are a little desperate for some sort of personal victory, but my apologies; there is none to be had here.

Your point is empty and your attempt at some sort of weird attack is pathetic. I would tell you "nice try," but that would be dishonest.

I am a PhD candidate at CSU, and have literally all day in class with Internet access. I have nothing but time. I jokingly reference this as I would a prison term. How much of your personal time have you spent arguing with me about how right I am? All you have have asserted is the conditions in which I am right.

Last of all Mr. Fiden, I entertain you because this is very entertaining to me. I refuse to believe people like you and the "gentleman" I originally commented on are actually out there. You keep me grounded in this sad reality.
You ' winning your debate' here is funny to us. It is hard to believe that you are serious, and that you are, like I said previously, a real person, who really believes they are winning something.

There it is Buck.

Perhaps this all stems from the fact that you look a little stupid in hindsight for challenging me with no challenge, and denial is always easier than acceptance, ain't it there buck?
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 16, 2012
 
Buck Fiden wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was simply stating fact. Didn't have anything to do with what he said.
<quoted text>
I never said it was restrictive. I said that Obama only signed the bill because he wanted the Credit Cardholders Protections. It had nothign to do with how he felt about guns in National Parks.
<quoted text>
Not really. He had to compromise to get what he wanted. Again, he didn't sign the legislation because he wanted to allow guns in parks, he HAD to sign the legislation for the Credit Cardholder Protection that he DID want. Big difference over his wanting to "expand gun rights" as so many have tried to credit him for.
<quoted text>
What's the matter Jason, losing the debate?
<quoted text>Because AGAIN, you fell for the whole "he expanded rights" codswallop. The original poster is incorrect in saying that Obama restricted rights (though he's on record for his Gun Control stance). You correctly responded that such a restriction of rights never took place. That's where it should have ended.
Amen!!
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 16, 2012
 
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
You said I have been 'schooled,' and I am 'needing educated,' for giving a reason behind the fact I stated. What debate are you referring to?
I think this originates from some other source within you, desperate for something. To defend someone that says such things as the guy I originally responded to just shows the breed of person I am dealing with here; does it not?
All you did is state a reason behind the fact which I mentioned, which is in agreement with me. Yes Buck Fiden, a real win in a true debate about... How right I am.... Congratulations.
It seems like you are a little desperate for some sort of personal victory, but my apologies; there is none to be had here.
Your point is empty and your attempt at some sort of weird attack is pathetic. I would tell you "nice try," but that would be dishonest.
I am a PhD candidate at CSU, and have literally all day in class with Internet access. I have nothing but time. I jokingly reference this as I would a prison term. How much of your personal time have you spent arguing with me about how right I am? All you have have asserted is the conditions in which I am right.
Last of all Mr. Fiden, I entertain you because this is very entertaining to me. I refuse to believe people like you and the "gentleman" I originally commented on are actually out there. You keep me grounded in this sad reality.
You ' winning your debate' here is funny to us. It is hard to believe that you are serious, and that you are, like I said previously, a real person, who really believes they are winning something.
There it is Buck.
Perhaps this all stems from the fact that you look a little stupid in hindsight for challenging me with no challenge, and denial is always easier than acceptance, ain't it there buck?
PhD as in Piled Higher and Deeper? Lighten up Francis, Law schooled you. Nuff' said!!
Jason

Fort Collins, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 16, 2012
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>PhD as in Piled Higher and Deeper? Lighten up Francis, Law schooled you. Nuff' said!!
That is it!? At least try... Tired of Buck Fiden? Maybe upset that Fiden bucked Ryan?
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 17, 2012
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>PhD as in Piled Higher and Deeper? Lighten up Francis, Law schooled you. Nuff' said!!
Careful, you're going to piss off the lil' professor.
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 17, 2012
 
Buck Fiden wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was simply stating fact. Didn't have anything to do with what he said.
<quoted text>
I never said it was restrictive. I said that Obama only signed the bill because he wanted the Credit Cardholders Protections. It had nothign to do with how he felt about guns in National Parks.
<quoted text>
Not really. He had to compromise to get what he wanted. Again, he didn't sign the legislation because he wanted to allow guns in parks, he HAD to sign the legislation for the Credit Cardholder Protection that he DID want. Big difference over his wanting to "expand gun rights" as so many have tried to credit him for.
<quoted text>
What's the matter Jason, losing the debate?
<quoted text>Because AGAIN, you fell for the whole "he expanded rights" codswallop. The original poster is incorrect in saying that Obama restricted rights (though he's on record for his Gun Control stance). You correctly responded that such a restriction of rights never took place. That's where it should have ended.
Agreed. Obama doesn't have a history of a pro-2nd Amendment stance yet tools will point to the National Parks legislation and say "SEE! He's OK with guns!!"
Larry Fleshner

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 24, 2012
 
working well, leave gun laws alone!

Since: Dec 12

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Dec 31, 2012
 
If anyone is interested in getting their concealed carry permit, please visit WWW.Equip2Conceal.COM for dates and times in your area. Or give us a call at 866-371-6111 to get Pre-Registerted today! Have a Happy New Year!
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 2, 2013
 
Bryan Carpen wrote:
Guns should be outlawed. Only teabaggers who want to kill African_Americans want guns.
Said a gutless, fleabagging excrement pile.
Law

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 2, 2013
 
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a loose grip on reality and obviously little to no education. You are the embarrassment of this 'great nation.' Our president has not imposed any legislation regarding restrictive gun laws, but I would not expect you to know that. In actuality, he has only passed a law that allows us greater weapons freedom within the National Parks.
Speaking of clueless. He HAD to sign it as it was an amendment to a bill he wanted for credit cardholders.
Educate yourself.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Fort Collins Discussions

Search the Fort Collins Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Discriminatory Job Application and Hiring - Old... 21 hr Anani 1
CO Colorado Primary Election August 10: Will you v... (Aug '10) Apr 15 paula baby 30
Review: H & K Towing (Aug '09) Apr 14 Whistleblower 210
Review: Center For Family Care - Nancy R Smith PHD (Jun '11) Apr 9 DAD 8
Review: Allergy & Asthma Clinic - William Lanti... (Dec '09) Apr 6 Toni Blake 2
RH Line calls printed March 26, 2014 Apr 6 Todd 1
CO Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 3 Ryell 9

Fort Collins Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]