No Need for Guns, Just Whizz and Upchuck on Your Assailant, Says Colorado

Posted on February 20, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , |

It looks like Colorado is joining the parade of states intent on criminalizing legal firearms owners, following examples set in New York, Washington, Missouri and Minnesota.

There are four gun control bills that have already passed the Colorado House, and have moved to the Senate where they are expected to pass. The bills are:

  • HB1224 – Limits gun magazines to 15 rounds
  • HB1226 – bans conceal carries on campus
  • HB1228 – background checks for gun transfers
  • HB1229 – cost for the background checks for gun transfers


The worst of the lot, which does not deal directly with controlling guns is HB1043 (sponsored by freshman Representative Mike Foote), which changes the definition of a deadly weapon. It would make a firearm a deadly weapon, for any purpose, at any time.

“It is very insidious on how it’s using the definitions of deadly weapons,” [Colorado Senator Kevin Grantham] said. “It moved a little piece of the paragraph up to a prior higher level paragraph, and it changes the intent of the legislation. Basically, it’s taking away the whole idea of the intent. It doesn’t matter if I have a weapon; it doesn’t matter how I use it or how I intend to use it. Even if it’s just laying there in my hand unloaded, it would be considered a deadly weapon.”

The importance of that is it’s illegal to have a deadly weapon, to possess a deadly weapon or to use it, Grantham said.

“Basically, that makes anyone who owns a firearm a criminal,” he said. “If you are handling a weapon, you are essentially handling a deadly weapon.”

The irony is that guns are deadly weapons. That’s the point. It’s not like they were ever intended to be used as steak knives or anything. They are created to solely be deadly. Guns kill humans and animals. People use them for target practice  solely for the purpose of getting better at hitting that target. They are meant to be a deterrent and a defense.

Instead, if someone is a potential rape victim, the University of Colorado has suggested such defenses as telling the rapist that you are on your period, urinating or vomiting on them, or telling them you have aids or herpes.

I’m not kidding. These were some of the suggestions made for warding off a potential rapist.

From the Daily Beast: The University of Colorado updated its online advisory for students to avoid a sexual assault, suggesting that a woman could “tell your attacker you have a disease or are menstruating” and “vomiting and urinating may also convince your attacker to leave you alone.” By Tuesday afternoon, the university backtracked, posting that its updated advisory had nothing to do with the bill or Salazar’s comments.

If you follow the backtrack link, you see that the university is claiming their words were “taken out of context”. Why is it that when a public figure or institution says something stupid, it was always taken out of context? Why can’t they say “yeah, we said it, and on further reflection, we realized it was kind of dumb, so we took it down”?

I’ve got an idea, how about you threaten to call the police while you’re at it? Oh, wait…

More from the Daily Beast: Freshman Democrat Representative Joe Salazar said that’s why “we have callboxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. Because you don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Did he actually mention safe zones? Wasn’t Sandy Hook Elementary a “safe, gun free zone”? Criminals laugh at your safe zones. Predators see it as an easy kill zone.

It’s not about what’s happening, it’s about what they are afraid might happen. I mean, God forbid that a rapist might get hurt or anything.

There are other alternatives than firearms; mace, small air horns, or a device like one my wife used to carry on her keychain. She used to carry (and I wish she would put it back on her keychain) a sturdy piece of metal that was pointed on one end, and had two other points that stuck out from between her fingers as she grasps it. That thing had the potential to do some major damage.

However, firearms should not be prohibited as an option. Ask Virginia Tech how well their ban on concealed carry worked out for them.

One has to wonder, however, why so many legislators are intent on criminalizing law abiding citizens? We are not the problem, and turning us into criminals doesn’t solve anything. It just turns us all into helpless victims.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,728 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: