B-Man Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 If Hickenlooper Signs The Gun Bill Wednesday, We’re Leaving Colorado. Magpul Industries Corp. Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said: We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees. It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.
Delete This Account Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) i fired a gun once, a sniper's rifle, in fact. it was quite powerful. missed the target some 100 yards away. probably a result of the recoil, which i wasn't accustomed to. the police sniper, meanwhile, blew a hole through the quarter on the next shot and gave it to me as a souvenir. i still have it hanging on a pin on my bulletin board here at home. electric and memorable as the moment of pulling the trigger was, and feeling the butt end of the rifle jam into my shoulder, it wasn't enough to convince me to purchase a gun. i was trying to quit smoking that weekend, and after two days of sucking lollipops and chewing gum, i got a speeding ticket on the way home because i found it difficult keeping focused. the cop was nice, and gave me the minimum fine because i pulled over right away on the I-5 just north of Seattle, on my way home to New Westminster. i bought a carton at the duty free, and picked up smoking again, a terrible habit, and left the guns behind. i guess you can say i've left myself to my own vices. jw Edited March 19, 2013 by john wawrow
3rdnlng Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 i fired a gun once, a sniper's rifle, in fact. it was quite powerful. missed the target some 100 yards away. probably a result of the recoil, which i wasn't accustomed to. the police sniper, meanwhile, blew a hole through the quarter on the next shot and gave it to me as a souvenir. i still have it hanging on a pin on my bulletin board here at home. electric and memorable as the moment of pulling the trigger was, and feeling the butt end of the rifle jam into my shoulder, it wasn't enough to convince me to purchase a gun. i was trying to quit smoking that weekend, and after two days of sucking lollipops and chewing gum, i got a speeding ticket on the way home because i found it difficult keeping focused. the cop was nice, and gave me the minimum fine because i pulled over right away on the I-5 just north of Seattle, on my way home to New Westminster. i bought a carton at the duty free, and picked up smoking again, a terrible habit, and left the guns behind. i guess you can say i've left myself to my own vices. jw Gotcha. I think. Anyway, that's quite an autobiography. So newsworthy, yet so poignant at the same time.
B-Man Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 ‘Assault Weapons’ Bill Dead, Obama in Denial Today in utterly predictable developments, Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill was dropped by Harry Reid. Still, the White House is not going to let such prosaic things as votes get in the way. Per Aaron Blake from the Washington Post: White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said in an interview Tuesday that Senate Democrats’ decision to introduce a gun control bill that doesn’t include an assault weapons ban does not constitute a setback for President Obama’s gun control efforts. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, McDonough said the bill can still be brought up as an amendment and that there should still be a concerted effort to pass it. “We’re going to work on this. We’re going to find the votes,” McDonough said, according to a transcript. “And it deserves a vote and let’s see if we can get it done.” This will be an interesting experiment: Can sheer bloody minded insistence work against a Senate that’s not interested, a House that will never pass such a measure, and a raft of evidence that suggests that banning guns based on their appearance does nothing?
boyst Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/teenage-gunman-in-ohio-mocks-victims-families/ guns do not kill people, deranged bullied social outcasts do.
peterpan Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Maybe if Cuomo and people like him actually focussed on the problems, stories like this wouldn't happen. Maybe this perv would have been locked up in jail? http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/woman_found_stabbed_and_bleedi.html PS: I just put in my two weeks notice. I am leaving NYS. The gun law was the straw that broke the cammels back. Taxes, lack of jobs (ie taxes and regulations on business) and weather all player a part in my decision.
B-Man Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 The New York Times reports that Cuomo will now try to rush some changes into his banner gun-control legislation that forced New York gun owners to use magazines that no one manufactures, with even the one exception to the rule found to be unworkable: In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines. But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15. The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines. Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again. One would be … wrong. This New York governor has decided to correct one idiocy with another, emphasis mine: As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines. Er, what? Will the police be around to check how many bullets are loaded into each magazine? And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine? The whole idea of magazine limits is to limit those with criminal intent from firing too many bullets without having to reload, at which point the law expects the disarmed to rush the criminal rather than shoot back and hope he’s worse at reloading than they will be at beating someone into submission. How will Cuomo’s latest idea deter criminals, who will have zero fear of having a gun inspection before committing their crimes? “Hey, let’s go rob that bank. Get your guns ready, and — oh yeah, don’t load more than seven bullets into each magazine.” http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/21/cuomo-that-gun-law-i-signed-turned-out-to-be-utterly-unworkable-huh/ .
Koko78 Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 The New York Times reports that Cuomo will now try to rush some changes into his banner gun-control legislation that forced New York gun owners to use magazines that no one manufactures, with even the one exception to the rule found to be unworkable: In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines. But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15. The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines. Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again. One would be … wrong. This New York governor has decided to correct one idiocy with another, emphasis mine: As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines. Er, what? Will the police be around to check how many bullets are loaded into each magazine? And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine? The whole idea of magazine limits is to limit those with criminal intent from firing too many bullets without having to reload, at which point the law expects the disarmed to rush the criminal rather than shoot back and hope he’s worse at reloading than they will be at beating someone into submission. How will Cuomo’s latest idea deter criminals, who will have zero fear of having a gun inspection before committing their crimes? “Hey, let’s go rob that bank. Get your guns ready, and — oh yeah, don’t load more than seven bullets into each magazine.” http://hotair.com/ar...unworkable-huh/ . Either way, he's still going to have problems enforcing this law in most of the state. Sheriffs in rural counties aren't going to sacrifice their elected positions for him, nor, I suspect, are many elected District Attorneys.
Chef Jim Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Yeah, it's a gun problem. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57578677/at-least-14-wounded-in-texas-college-stabbing-attack/
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Yeah, it's a gun problem. http://www.cbsnews.c...tabbing-attack/ Those poor dead Texas students! Errr, wait...
Chef Jim Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Those poor dead Texas students! Errr, wait... And the dumbass response I was expecting. Just wasn't expecting it in 5 minutes. From you yes but I figured it would take you at least 20 to read the article.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 And the dumbass response I was expecting. Just wasn't expecting it in 5 minutes. From you yes but I figured it would take you at least 20 to read the article. I read all about it a couple of hours ago. There's a good reason for expecting such a response: it makes a valid point. I'm not sure how a mass knife attack with few or no casualties supports your 'no gun problem' hypothesis. What are you getting at exactly?
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 And the dumbass response I was expecting. Just wasn't expecting it in 5 minutes. From you yes but I figured it would take you at least 20 to read the article. You need to give progressives like Gene a break. They get very upset when they hear about students being randomly attacked by a fully automatic X-acto knife.
B-Man Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure how a mass knife attack with few or no casualties supports your 'no gun problem' hypothesis. What are you getting at exactly? Its very simple (as is your playing dumb response) NO ONE is claiming the 'no gun problem' hypothesis that you offer as a false alternative. However, the "lets do something even if it doesn't solve the problem" crowd is wrong too There is little point in explaining anything to someone who starts out with such a transparent falsehood. You have little to no understanding of what others are thinking apparently. . Edited April 9, 2013 by B-Man
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 I read all about it a couple of hours ago. There's a good reason for expecting such a response: it makes a valid point. I'm not sure how a mass knife attack with few or no casualties supports your 'no gun problem' hypothesis. What are you getting at exactly? Two victims are in critical conditions. If one dies, will that change your mind or will it just be "only one dead?" Classmates of the suspect said he would walk around campus carrying a teddy bear. Clearly this would have been avoided if only Barnes and Noble had access to a full background check.
Magox Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Considering that the Colorado Killer was partially influenced by the violence of the Batman movies and that the Connecticut kid thought he was in a virtual video game killing people, why don't liberal gun control advocates talk about the root causes of these two occurrences which was Mental health and violence in the Gaming and Movie industries?
Gene Frenkle Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Its very simple (as is your playing dumb response) NO ONE is claiming the 'no gun problem' hypothesis that you offer as a false alternative. There is little point in explaining anything to starts out with such a transparent falsehood. You have little to no understanding of what others are thinking apparently. . Lol, I understand why you feel the need to redeem your apparent reading comprehension skills, but my statement was in response to Chef's post: Yeah, it's a gun problem. Two victims are in critical conditions. If one dies, will that change your mind or will it just be "only one dead?" Classmates of the suspect said he would walk around campus carrying a teddy bear. Clearly this would have been avoided if only Barnes and Noble had access to a full background check. How many more dead/wounded if the attacker had an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine do you think? Considering that the Colorado Killer was partially influenced by the violence of the Batman movies and that the Connecticut kid thought he was in a virtual video game killing people, why don't liberal gun control advocates talk about the root causes of these two occurrences which was Mental health and violence in the Gaming and Movie industries? I have no problem with that discussion, but it seems like you're valuing the right to bear arms over freedom of speech. Unless I'm missing your point, which is quite possible.
Magox Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Lol, I understand why you feel the need to redeem your apparent reading comprehension skills, but my statement was in response to Chef's post: Yeah, it's a gun problem. How many more dead/wounded if the attacker had an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine do you think? I have no problem with that discussion, but it seems like you're valuing the right to bear arms over freedom of speech. Unless I'm missing your point, which is quite possible. To be honest with you, I'm not in favor of restricting much of anything. That's not to say that I'm opposed to some sort of Universal Background checks, just that the emphasis by liberal gun control advocates has been just about exclusively about guns, and very little to do with what I just brought up. If the president or liberals for that matter was truly serious about accomplishing anything worthwhile, then he and liberals would of taken on his base and spoke out forcefully about violence in the gaming and movie industries, while speaking about universal background checks. Now that he and liberals have taken the route of demagoguing gun owners, what they have done is two things. One, show that they aren't serious about helping solve this issue, or else they would of done what I just suggested. And two, accomplish jack ****. If he would of taken on his own base (Hollywood), he would of shown that he was serious about this issue, and it would of given him more capital to deal with the NRA. Now everyone has entrenched themselves to their old partisan habits. It was a complete missed opportunity by the president on this issue.
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 How many more dead/wounded if the attacker had an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine do you think? Oh, good. We're playing "Let's pretend the situation was worse than it ended up being so I can make a point that fewer and fewer people accept!" Okay, so let's see. Would he have killed more with an AR-15 or by strapping a bomb to his body? It was a complete missed opportunity by the president on this issue. Yep. He completely screwed up. And he's running out of people to surround himself with during press conferences.
Recommended Posts