Posted on 12/17/2013 6:50:58 AM PST by rellimpank
CENTENNIAL—Democrats have long insisted the state’s new gun laws were passed to help stop mass shootings, but Gov. John Hickenlooper said Sunday that the measures did nothing to prevent a teen gunman from storming Arapahoe High School.
In an interview on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation,” the Democratic governor was asked why the laws failed to avert Friday’s shooting at the suburban high school.
“You actually passed some pretty tough gun laws out there in Colorado after those other incidents happened, and yet they continue to happen,” said moderator Bob Schieffer.
Hickenlooper responded that Coloradans “care deeply” about two things: protecting their Second Amendment rights and “making their communities safer.”
“So things like universal background checks, I think they are going to make us safer, but in this specific case aren’t going to make a difference at all,” said Hickenlooper. “And that’s the challenge.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoloradoobserver.com ...
Looper has been campaigning nonstop for months. He knows his election chances are a lot thinner.
Well, if Colorado had had background checks on Molotov cocktails and machetes, that would have stopped it. Right?
Mothers are allowed to kill their babies before they’re born. Once they get a SSI number and become a government asset then the rules change.
Without the massacres what is going to be emotional enough to bring people to vote away their own freedoms?
Democrat being honest? Ping.
“...Have they tried posting ‘Gun free zone’ signs near the schools?...”
Gotta make those signs REALLY REALLY bigger... and BOLDFACE... and maybe Italics would work.
Yeah... Italics! THAT’LL stop ‘em...
Hey! Wait a minute! Let’s just pass a law banning SCHOOL SHOOTINGS!!!
There. Solved it.
Well, criminals don’t buy legally, so background checks don’t affect them at all.
We all know this, of course.
I would guess that the number of criminals who intended to use a gun in a crime, and tried to buy it legally, and got rejected, is vanishingly small.
I would guess that most background check rejections are ordinary folks who just wanted a gun for hobby or self defense, but have something in their background that gets them rejected. Most likely they had no idea that their background would cause a rejection, or they wouldn’t have tried in the first place.
I would guess that a jury of the peers of most of the rejections, would vote not to reject them for whatever ATF rejected them for...
But background checks are what we have, and that’s that for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.