CO Gun Owners Speak Out

The Colorado Freedom Report:  A libertarian journal of politics and culture.

The Colorado Freedom Report--www.FreeColorado.com

CO Gun Owners Speak Out

by Ari Armstrong, January 1, 2000

The Colorado Freedom Report hosted a survey on gun-owner rights issues during October and November of 1999. While the numerical results of the survey are mildly interesting, the comments sent back with the survey are the real story. Those comments are provided below.

212 people replied to the survey, including 70 Coloradans. Those numbers are relatively low for a couple reasons. The Report is a radical libertarian journal, and thus marginalized (and besides I have no budget for advertising).

In addition, the Firearms Coalition, the organization that asked me to host the survey, voted to disassociate from me and the Report soon after I put the survey on line. The Coalition insisted that I remove the group's name and contact information from the survey, and it stopped publicizing the survey. The Coalition took that step because of an article I wrote that criticized House Majority Leader Doug Dean's recent proposals. It seems Dean is something of a sacred cow among the state leaders of the National Rifle Association and the Colorado State Shooting Association. CSSA director Aimee Rathburn in particular took issue with my article about Dean, going so far as to accuse me of "felonious dick stepping-on" in a letter to members of the Coalition. In closed-door meetings (which I didn't hear about until after the fact), the Coalition held their vote on me. Apparently a minority defended me there. The Coalition has since come under the CSSA umbrella and hosts its web page at the CSSA site.

I rewrote the survey from a draft I received from the Firearms Coalition.

193 of the responders "strongly agreed" that "Peaceable individuals should have the right to bear, own, and trade firearms."

In response to the question, "Have you switched your political affiliation away from the Republican Party due mostly or completely to that party's support of legislation restricting gun rights?", 63 said "yes" and 132 said "no." Note that the 132 includes those who remain Republican, those who never were Republican, and those who switched for other reasons. 63 "yes" replies is 32% of the total responses.

40 responders strongly agreed that "George Bush lost the Presidential election in 1992 because he betrayed gun owners," and 73 agreed, for a combined 53% of the total 212, or 56% of the 203 who replied to the question. 56 responders were neutral and 34 disagreed or strongly disagreed.

When asked the same question about Bob Dole, the numbers were slightly lower. 45 agreed strongly and 59 agreed, for 51% of the 203 who replied to the question. It should be noted that some responders may have blamed the respective defeats partly on the candidates' positions on guns, but not to the extent that would warrant a response of "agree" or "strongly agree."

Three questions deal with the Republican Party on the national level. The first of the three states:

Answer only if you often vote for Republican candidates. To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "The Republican Party will lose my support if it assists in the passage of national legislation further restricting gun rights."

175 people responded to the question. Of those, 137 strongly agreed, 25 agreed, 3 were neutral, and 10 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The combined for agree and strongly agree is 93%. Even though the survey got limited exposure, these numbers clearly indicate that a significant number doesn't want the Republican Party to compromise the rights of gun owners.

In reply to the statement, "If the Republican Party assists in the passage of legislation further restricting gun rights, I will retaliate by voting against all Republicans," 83 strongly agreed, 47 agreed, 35 were neutral, 35 disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In reply to the statement, "If the Republican Party assists in the passage of legislation further restricting gun rights, I will stop giving money to that party," 92 strongly agreed, 15 agreed, 5 were neutral, and 3 disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Two questions were limited to Colorado residents. The first states, "The Republican Party will lose my support if it allows the passage of legislation further restricting gun rights in Colorado." 52 strongly agreed, 10 agreed, 2 were neutral, and 4 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The combined for agree and strongly agree is 91% of the 68 responders.

In response to the statement, "Colorado Governor Bill Owens will lose my support if he signs any legislation further restricting gun rights in Colorado," 49 strongly agreed, 8 agreed, 2 were neutral, and 2 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The combined for agree and strongly agree is 93% of the total 61 responders. (The question included the sentence, "Answer only if you are a Colorado resident who voted for Bill Owens.")


Comments

Sandra Johnson, Colorado
Do these politicians know that government tyranny follows after the people are disarmed?

Bob Johnson, Colorado
Where do these politicians think they get the power to take away a basic right that is spelled out in our Constitution?

W.L. Boucher, Colorado
Although I personally choose not to own a firearm, I believe that responsible adults should not be denied that choice (or any other choice, for that matter, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights). The key word here is RESPONSIBLE. Every firearm owner needs to take personal responsibility to ensure that unauthorized people (e.g., children or lawbreakers) do not have access to their weapons. However, because of the alarming number of lawbreakers who think nothing of using their guns to infringe on my rights and the rights of other citizens, any law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own a firearm for the purpose of defending himself and his family.

Steve Reinschmidt, Colorado
The actions of the Republican controlled congress and Republicans like Bill Owens have proven to me that there is little or no difference between the Republican and Democrat parties anymore. I therefor now support the Libertarian party with my money and my votes.

Melissa Brookstone, Colorado
I'm really fed up with being blamed for the acts of criminals by having my civil rights increasingly infringed every time some CRIMINAL commits an attrocity and it gets sensationalized into outright propaganda by the anti-civil rights media and anti-liberty politicians for such purposes! It's the criminals, stupid!

J., Colorado
As I recall, the Firearms Coalition supported Bill Owens, and quite a few other anti-gun politicians. Are you willing or unwitting dupes of the GOP?

Morgan Fairlamb, Colorado
I do not believe everyone has the right to own firearms. Convicted felons do not, for one. Frankly, I don't think Democrats should be allowed to own firearms either. They don't seem to know the meaning of taking responsibility for ones actions. Finally, the only choice we have is to work within the Republican party to retain our rights to gun ownership. Trying to change our party from the outside is futile.

KC Boyce, Colorado
No party has betrayed gun owners as greatly as the Republicans. At least the Democrats are honest when they talk about guns. Only the Libertarian Party has taken a consistently principled stand on the Second Amendment -- it has never, and will never violate gun owners' Constitutional rights to keep and bear military-style weapons.

Johanna C. Fallis, Colorado
At least 2 of our elected Republican candidates have sold us out on second amendment right: our governor and our congressional representative from Discrict 6. I can just imagine that Dan Schaeffer if appalled.

Jimmy Kagebein, Arkansas
I think that our Reps. Should hold to the oath they took to the American people. Not to big money and politics.

Greg Chamberlin, Colorado
Gun rights is just one issue that the Republican party is going to lose voters over. The Republican party appears to be abandoning its supporters over issues such as smaller government, less intrusive government, integrity in government, rights to privacy, in addition to 2nd Ammendment issues. They appear to be garnering support solely on the basis as the only viable alternative to a liberal Democrat victory - in other words "vote for me or its going to get really bad!" Sorry - its starting to look really bad regardless of whether its going to be a Democrat or Republican victory.

Jerry D. Droppleman, Colorado
I already make it plain to the candidates that I will not contribute to them directly, I direct them to the ILA of the NRA. I also tell them specifically that I am dissapointed with their continued support of the liberals. And that there is no such person as a moderate Republican -- just another naname for a liberal democrat.

Terry W. Donze, Colorado
Several differing attitudes on guns exist within the Republican Party. If those who wish to continue chipping away at the Second Amendment take control, that is the end of my support for the Party. Some points about guns from Harry Browne:
* If you're ever in a restaurant and a maniac starts shooting people at random, I hope someone in that restaurant will have a gun that can stop the assailant.
* I doubt that I would take advantage myself of a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I feel safer in a community where anyone I see _might_ be carrying a concealed gun -- so that any criminal has to wonder whether _I_ have a gun.
* Although you hear about unusual accidents in which guns have killed children, or cases where a maniac has fired on a bunch of children, you don't hear of the thousands of commonplace events in which a home containing children was defended from an intruder by a gun owner -- or even defended by a child with a gun. Nor do you hear about the criminals who were deterred from entering a neighborhood where they didn't know which houses might contain guns. Your home is safer if some of your neighbors happen to have guns.
* Criminals rarely buy guns in gun stores or at gun shows, because they don't want guns traced back to them. They buy their guns in the underworld or simply steal them. So they are rarely affected by gun-control laws. The number of criminals nabbed by such laws is microscopic compared to the number of innocent citizens who were prevented by waiting periods from buying guns when threatened by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse, or a crazy person. Like most laws, gun control hurts the innocent far more than the guilty. And since the criminals will have guns no matter what, the more the innocent are deprived of owning guns, the less safe _you_ are.
* Women especially need access to guns to protect them from stronger men who might assault them in parking lots, on city streets, or in their own homes. To prevent them from carrying guns is to deny them the only way to resist an attacker.
* The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only _after_ he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is _your_ responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens -- even if you don't own a gun yourself.
* It is unrealistic to say such things as "But no one needs an assault rifle." How can we know that? If you were a store owner during the Los Angeles riots and a mob was about to enter your store to destroy your life savings, which would you have wanted in your hand -- a knife, a 6-bullet revolver, or an assault rifle? Giving politicians the power to decide what you need and don't need is to force you to live your life according to _their_ needs and circumstances -- making you vulnerable to any whim that strikes the politicians during a period of temporary hysteria.

Fayez Damra, Tennessee
Republicans like taxes, Democrats like taxes. What difference will there be between the two parties if the Rs cave in on Guns?

Kenneth P West, Colorado
It seems that everyone on both ends of the political spectrum are very busy trying to take away personal freedoms guarnteed in our Constution instead of protecting them.

Carol Hill, Colorado
I switched my political affiliation from Republican/Independent to Libertarian several years ago. That switch was not specifically prompted by 2nd Amendment concerns, but rather from a growing conviction that neither party represented--or was even concerned about--the principles on which, and for which this country was founded. It doesn't surprise me to find Republicans now jumping on the "gun-control" bandwagon, just as it doesn't surprise me to find Democrats claiming to be "fiscal conservatives." The goal of both "major" parties is to win elections, i.e., to stay in power, and by their actions, both have demonstrated their committment to only one thing: expanding the size and scope of government--the real issue is not gun control, but "people control."

George Hyatt, Colorado
I have already stopped giving money to the Republicans, over their lack of RKBA support. Now when they ask, I tell them: "Go ask the NRA or the LP, I only give money to them. Get their endorsement, then maybe we'll talk."

Ben Clayton, Colorado
While I am most intrested in the 2nd amendment, I am very concerned with the way RIGHTS are being lost. As an older American I REMBER the way it should be.

Leonard Horner, Colorado
I have already stopped making donations to Repub Party subsets (House, Senate, etc) and have given only directly (To their legal offices (US Capitol, Colo Capitol) to uindividual encumbents who are reliable pro-gun voters,so that nothing goes to those who cross over and vote wrong on gun issues.

I have spoken at length with Colo State Republican Party Chairman Beauprez (who is solidly with us) encouraging him to warn Bill Owens that he might lose in Nov '02, or even sooner, be opposed in the primary, unless he works with the Colo House and Senate to make it clear that he is encouraging the passage of "Shall Carry" and a "Preeption" bills. We (gun owners) worked hard in the hustings and donated to his campaign, and his 8,000 vote win margin included at least 50,000 from gun owners and their family members who were encouraged to get out the vote.

Michael Crass, Indiana
Gun rights is the most important right of all. It is the protector of all our other rights, not voting!! Because of the continued Republican betrayal on this and many other issues, I will vote third party- especially Libertarian- as often as I can.

Harry W. League, Maryland Socialist Republic
A caveat on question #8....George Bush lost the 1992 election because he broke his promise of "read my lips...No new taxes" on questions #12 & 13..... It's the continued lack of any kind of political courage that may keep a sizable percentage of voters from the polls in the upcoming election cycle. Gun rights is a small but significant part of the overall dis-satisfaction with the GOP. Apparently they believe that these members of the disenfranchised electorate have no place else to go but I'm going on record that unless I'm convinced they plan to make a stand against this encroaching liberalism come election day 2000.... I'll be going out to dinner instead of the polls. I expect the restaurants to be very crowded that night!

Bill Wyckoff, Colorado
George Bush lost the 1992 election because too many Republicans voted for Perot. A vote for Perot was the same as a vote for Clinton. I am ashamed to say I was one of them. NEVER AGAIN!! Dole lost because he didn't have the TV appeal of Clinton, not because of his two faced dealings on the Brady Bill. Women and Minorities elected Clinton. But there were, again, too many Republicans who bolted to the 3rd Party candidates. This is still a TWO Party world and anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves. The way to change is not to bolt to a 3rd. party. The way to change is to nominate Republican candidates who support the Constitution and all it's ammendments and to hammer the others into line by changing thier minds or finding replacements for them. We must persuade Owens not support anti-gun legislation. If we can't then we work to replace him, but bolting to some 3rd party, who doesn't have a snowball's chance, is a big mistake! Finally, the biggest problem that the pro Second Ammendment supports have, is that they have falied to consolidate their power. Instead they have split into many seperate groups, organizations and Party affiliations. "Divided we fall" is still true. There are over 50,000 NRA members in Colorado and less than 10% of them belong to any of the State organizations (CSSA, FCC, RMGOA). Until we get the majority of these people and the firearms owners who don't belong to any organization, together-united, we will continue to loose, a little bit at a time. So, if you want to do something constructive, work on uniting the firearms owners and the supporters of the Constitution. There are more than enough of us to change the outcome, if united. Bill Wyckoff Arvada, CO

"They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

R. Fulton, Wyoming
I strongly suppoort our Wyoming congresmen, as they all have strongly supported pro-gun legislation. However I have notified that after 305 years of strong financial supoort, I wil no longer donate to the Party until they stand up and represent the people against all anti-constitutional moves.

Jason Stanfield, Illinois
My journey: Rush Limbaugh+Republican+NRA Ayn Rand+John Ross+GOA+JPFO+Vin Suprynowicz+ Murray Rothbard+George Reisman...

David L. Tharp, Colorado
Regarding question 15, "retaliate by voting against all Republicans"
Many individual officeholders, both Republican and Democrat support the right to keep and bear arms (as well as the other invaluable personal liberties to which we are entitled). I will vote for these people, and perhaps even contribute to their campaigns, in spite of the antics of their parties. But the days of voting for a candidate because he is of one party or the other are gone. Today, neither party has a personal liberty plank in its platform, and the majority of candidates on both sides are control freaks, differing only slightly in their choices of who to control first.

John H Moore, AK/FL
We should spend the time with educating people/children with live fire exercises. Waco,TX was just a percurser of what Mr Clinton/Ms. Reno have planned for there subjects.

Keith Fronk, Tennessee
I have worked on the streets of America for 17 years as a Paramedic, I am scared to death of the unscrupulious individuals that will rob maim or kill for little or no reason. How can ANYONE tell me that I cannot defend myself or my family in the face of these odds? Because I am an honest citizen I will eventually become a victim if disarmed. At least with a firearm I have a chance to survive an encounter and defend my family. Otherwise I would become fodder to any drug crazed individual looking to make his mark. With my .45 commander in a concealed holster I can go to the grocery store or a movie. Without it... it is a gamble in todays socieity. How many mass killings would have been stopped cold had an armed citizen defended himself? Remember I have seen man's inhumanity to man up close for over 17 years, day in and day out... I will not be fodder for ANYONE!! Politicians have nothing to fear from my sidearm, hell Ted Kennedy has killed more people than I have. Repu! blicans unite!!! George W. Bush carries!!

James P. Mallett, Indiana
The Second Amendment was put into the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of keeping our government from becoming the tyranical mob that it is today. I believe that if the founding fathers were alive today , we would be in the middle of a civil war. I have no doubt about that. It's a sad day in "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."

Carson Lowe, California
Any government that fears it's armed citizens is a government that should be feared. A look at the history of the world reveals that any government that disarms it's citizens is a government of tyranny and corruption. Any law enacted in the United States relating to gun ownership and posession is un-Constitutional. Period. The difference between "citizens and subjects" is one singular componet - FIREARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE CITIZENS!

Nick Cowsert
hey every man has a god given right to own a gun. and when another man attempts to take away that right that should be against the law.

Scott Pacer, Kalifornia
The Republicans have caved in to the democrats over and over during their hypocritical, ineffectual reign over the Senate and House. we might as well have democrats, because the government keeps growing, and rights keep disapppearing with every passing day. The Libertarians are the only party left that truly understand and believe in America. The Republicans have lost it. I don't know what they stand for any more, except for prayer in public schools. Nice going.

Brian Batcheller, Iowa
I think if you take guns from the people, people will make guns themselves.If the people who wish to kill a person or a large group of people does not have a gun,cant get a gun,cant make a gun the desire to do so goes to the next option avaiable to do what they wish to do.Like a explosive,monkey wrench,fork or spoon.So lets out law anything the offender might reach for next& try to get elected wile doing so.So far my main question for law makers who dont know anything about a guns is,what about the bullet?The bullet is the killer not the gun,sue the bullet maker.My personal opinion is dont sue them sue the sick person who did it.But since most kill themselves due to lack of balls whos next in line?Eye for an eye laws,tuffer,I mean really extream laws,death to the offender, not a better life inside prison than what they had out.To extream ok no tv.,no nuthin.Enough food to stay alive.Once a few people are liveing that sentance the word would get out fast (media)!This ! will never be a world that has nuthing in it that will or could harm a person.Bottomline.A gun is just a drop in the bucket.Lets all get together & make a list of all harmfull things we could live without starting worst first and see what we have left.You really didnt need that car or tooth pick anyway did ya.HA Brian

Steve Cochran, Alaska
In the past the republican party, or at the the majority of it could be depended upon to protect the rights of law abiding gun owners. However in the last 5-8 years republicans have been willing to compromise our Second Amendment rights in an effort, what I believe, to show themselves as willing to produce "reasonable" gun legislation. They have forgotten that in other countries where the gun grabbers have succeeded in passing restrictive laws, that it has led to outright bans. I for one am no longer willing to compromise my rights. As a police officer I get to see first hand what works and what don't. Those criminals who have no conscious thought about using violence are the ones we need to address. They have as a result of being irresponsible, forfeited their rights. Put the monkey on their back. It would seem that the republican party has forgotten this. I'm now leaning more toward either the Reform Party or the Libertarian Party. Which depends on whom wishes to uphold the Constitution, with ALL of it's amendments as supreme law of the land. No more compromise.

James Machado, Massachusetts
look at the increase in crime since australia changed its gun laws!does a car make a drunk driver a killer?or is it the person? guns dont kill,morons kill.

Ed Miller, Ohio
If the firearms are removed from all people, the only people who will have firearms are the criminals, and the honest law abiding people will suffer from this.....!

John R. Bagley, New Hampshire
It is my "HOPE" that we elect people that "Strongly Agree" with the "Constitution". That is not the present Democratic Party.

Gary J. Dewyn, Colorado
Even though I am a former Republican I still get very dismayed by the Party's collapse in the face of the smallest of criticisms by the Democrats. Often I ask Dems, "Is President Clinton the best candidate you could find in '92?" Too often the answer is "Yes." But then they say he's still the best they have. Now I say, if that's the depths that their standards have sunk why do Republicans feel they can't stand up to them? Next time the Democrats say that guns will kill our children or some other inane statement just reply, "PROVE IT!"

Gordon F. Corbett, Oregon
I left the Republican Party for the American Independent Party in 1970. Then, in 1972, I joined the Libertarian Party, and have never left. Sorry, guys, but Question No. 5 is badly drawn. And, as for Question No. 13, I vote Libertarian. I vote Libertarian because I believe in liberty. To the extent to which I vote to retaliate against anyone, I vote to retaliate against the leaders of both parties, who together control one actual party, and who maintain a semblance of duality in order to confuse and to deceive the voters.

Brett Markham, Massachusetts
The republican failure to uphold the 2nd amendment makes them essentially the same as the democrats - statists. I am politically active. I have worked for several Republican campaigns over the years. Unfortunately, republicans have lost my vote over the gun rights issue. Specifically, I didn't vot for George Bush when he ran against Clinton nor did I vot for Bob DOle in the NH primary. (I lived in NH at the time.)

I will continue to look at candidates individually, and may contribute to individual campaigns, but the republican party will no longer receive my support unless they get their act together on gun rights.

Joe Garcia, Pennsylvania
I have a problem in that: I believe that the right to bear arms is the guarantor of all the other rights listed in the bill of rights and once it is gone, I fear for the others. Tied to this is the use of Executive order and regulations to end run same. The only party that supports my point of view is the liberterian party and it is a, seeming, non entity.

Jim McHenry, Colorado
Free men bear arms

Wes Witten, Oklahoma
I have voted Republican since I first voted for Nixon in 1972. I have seen the Republican party infiltrated incrementally over the years as it adapts a socialist aganda. The Democrat party has become the mouthpiece of of American socializm. I strongly object to this incrementalism. I intend to be a free man and you can't be free under socialism. I can't imagine living a life where I would have to request permission to do anything that American's take for granted. Look at America now: Federal laws dictate land use of the land we own. Federal laws dictate the dumbing down of American schools with the addition of political agendas. Federal laws dictate the size of each of our toilet tank flushes. Common sense asks me to look forward twenty years to see what they have created. Regardless of what they call it freedom will not exist if this rush to socialism isn't stopped and rolled back.

Nathaniel Foley, Arizona
It's simple, you have certian rights given to you by our bill of rights. These rights should not be taken away unless we commit a crime that abuses that right, therefor meaning that we are willing to give it up.

Todd O. French, Maryland
I strongly support the right of peaceable citizens to own and bear arms. I strongly support right to carry legislation and have had a carry license in the past. I stronly support the swift punishment of violent criminals and I support the death penalty for murderers.

George Amaral, Maine
Illegalizing cocaine and other drugs does not keep them off the streets, why do you think stricter gun laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? Why does the party and the government want to take the right of the law abiding citizen to defend himself away?

Ross Faley, Michigan
I thought the seccond amendment was cut and dry. We have the right to bare arms not only if we are a political or law enforcement official or we conform to some Government regulation. We have the right because we are citizens of the United States of America. Nowhere in the seccond amendment does it restrict us to specific wepons. If a citizen with no history of violent crimes or mental illness wants to own any gun from a small calliber pistol to an assault rifle, then god bless them for living our great nation. The bill of rights is what makes this country great. Please dont change the documents our fore-fathers fought so hard to create.

Jacob, Arizona
Law abiding citizens who carry a gun are still law abiding citizens.

Mike Weinberg, Illinois
Guns are not used for any good purpose. They only exist to injure people and animals. Since I don't belive that it is right on any occasion to kill another human being(even in the event of self-protection) I am not very concerned with gun rights being taken away. I am concerned with other rights however. Especially those concerning free speech and internet censorship.

Mr. Beanie
Guns are ok, but should be more restricted. People have the right to bear arms, but not to buy guns big enough to shoot down low-flying commercial aircraft.

Kevin James, Colorado
Current Republican politicians don't have any "cajones" left. But, who would I vote for if I didn't vote for Replicans? Democrats? Yes, if the Democratic running for office supported the 2nd amendment. I've voted for 2 democrats since I first voted in 1972.

Jason, Ohio
It is my "BIRTH RIGHT" as stated in th "Bill of Rights" for me own a firearm. If this is taken away I will be denied my liberty as an American. If this happens, could i defend my right as an American? If they change the rules of "rights" then I MAY have to also. As a Vietnam veteran's son, I LOVE MY COUNTRY!

John A. Brooks, The peoples republic of New Jersey
Americans who are lawabiding have a RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms.Any one in elected office who shows otherwise by his words or vote will never get my support!!!!! JAB

Antonio Robinson, Michigan
The Republican lost my vote, and contributions. THey went with the only presidential runner that openly supports the 2nd amendment - Pat, and now the RNC lost Pat, but my money and support follows Pat.

Tony Blank, Indiana
Right to bear arms. . . IT'S A SIMPLE STATEMENT. Murder and crime is ALREADY illegal! It is CRAZY to ban guns to try to prevent these crimes. . . It's like banning automobiles to stop reckless driving. IT does not make sense. . .

North Dakota
"Peaceable" is a subjective term. If you are a citizen not convicted of a felony you have a duty to bear arms. Some people now will consider you not "peaceable" if you so much as spank your child. I will not vote against a party because I disagree with them, I will not lend them my support but I won't vote against what is right to "make a statement" that's cutting off your nose in spite of your face.

Peter, Massachusetts
I think it is disgusting what the world has come to. People and their gun laws disgust me to no end. Just today i got into a fight with someone over gun restristions and firearms laws.The constitution states that i have the right to bear arms and i think that there should be no way for them to take that right away from me. But what do you know, William Clinton did just that by passing the new laws restricting the sale of so called assault weapons. I am a strong suipporter of the USMC and other Military programs and i realize the severity of weapons and the consequenses of owning them, but that is a risk we all take and if we own a gun we understand that risk and accept it for what it is. I think that by restricting my access to guns you (the government) is making me think twice about citizenship the the unitedstates of america. With the taking away of my ammendments they take away my freedom and they take away everything i hold dear to me in this country.

Kevin Jaeger, Kalifornia
If its a choice between Barbara Boxer and Satan, or Dianne Feinstein and Satan, well... Satan gets my vote! Thats why I've voted Republican the last decade, given the Republican's lukewarm support for Libertarian (i.e., civil liberties) principles. Where are all the libertarian Republicans?

Wayne McVeigh, California
Honest citizens should not be penalized for the actions of others. Taking away our rights will not deter others who are set on committing violent or illegal activities. By taking away the rights of honest citizens you make them susceptible to becoming the next victims of these heinous crimes or actions. By the way after the story of the man who beat his family to death with a hammer did we try to outlaw hammers??????

William S. Masters, Colorado
Colorado Republicans and CCW advocates need to read the the Constitution of the State of Colorado Art.II Section 13. Right to Bear Arms. "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

Seems like the authors of the Colorado Constitution wanted people to be able to protect themselves by bearing arms out in the open however felt that only crooks, cheating gamblers and cowards wanted to get the drop on the rest of the citizens by concealing their firearms.

If you read the tales of the early lawmen of Colorado like Sheriff Doc Shores, they always stood tall in the face of armed men. They figured if they walked around freting about armed citizens then they were in the wrong business. Sheriff Bill Masters

The Colorado Freedom Report--www.FreeColorado.com