Gun ban for Colorado tenants overturned by property owners. Tenants can keep their guns.

[shadowrider]

CASTLE ROCK - A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.

The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few,"

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

[Politicalboi]

1. Too bad

This was a good idea. I know I don't want to live next door to a gun owner. Why should I have to live next to a gun? The gun nuts should be segregated and have to pay more money for insurance just in case. Why don't people who are against guns have ANY rights not live next door to a potential sudden death? If they can ban smoking, guns should be right there with them. I hope we aren't done with this issue. It raises all kinds of rights for people who don't think the jackass next door, or upstairs should be able to have a "mishap" and you lose your life.

Insurance is the answer. Raise the landlords rates so no one in his building can own a gun. Or charge the gun owners hundreds of dollars more a month for their paranoia so they can cover injuries if and when they decide to be Barney Fife. Deaths from your gun should result in a life sentence unless you shoot the aggressor ONLY.

What about our rights not to have a gun near us. I think we should treat gun rights like the GOP treat abortion rights, with NO regard at ALL. Guns are in MY way of the pursuit of happiness. A gun brings NO happiness, just "security" to some. A very small "some" might I add. Let's overwhelm that "some" and make them the pariah that they are.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. You have a right to mind your own business. You have no right to mind mine.

[gejohnston]

3. and?

Insurance is the answer. Raise the landlords rates so no one in his building can own a gun. Or charge the gun owners hundreds of dollars more a month for their paranoia so they can cover injuries if and when they decide to be Barney Fife. Deaths from your gun should result in a life sentence unless you shoot the aggressor ONLY.

Since the odds of such things are so microscopic, insurance is quite cheap. People own guns for a lot of reasons. BTW, most people who harm others with guns, or anything else, can't and don't legally own them.

What about our rights not to have a gun near us. I think we should treat gun rights like the GOP treat abortion rights, with NO regard at ALL. Guns are in MY way of the pursuit of happiness. A gun brings NO happiness, just "security" to some. A very small "some" might I add. Let's overwhelm that "some" and make them the pariah that they are.

I'm sorry, I didn't see that in the BoR. How about my right not to have bong owners near me? since most most gun violence is drug and gang related, I don't want to be collateral damage in a business dispute.

[sarisataka]

4. Wow, I've heard words like this before

although the targets of the speeches were different.

I will ask one question: If a criminal uses a gun should that also be an automatic life sentence?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I remember just after the Lanza rampage

I made a comment that those suffering from *violent* mental illness should be more closely monitored by the authorities. I was castigated by numerous posters for oppressing the mentally ill even when I repeatedly asserted I was referring ONLY to the VIOLENTLY mentally ill.

All the while those who railed against my suggestion were adamant that people with no history of violence or mental illness should have the full weight of the law brought against them for daring exercise their natural and constitutional rights.

The dangerous are to be given every benefit of the doubt. Those who would defend themselves from the dangerous are to be doubted out of any benefit.

Ironically, if the grabbers were to deal with those who are actually dangerous and violent in intent then those who simply wish to defend themselves would lose their impetus. The grabbers are their own worse enemy. Or perhaps they're just in it for the control.

[sarisataka]

8. Or perhaps they're just in it for the control.

I think you hit a ringer

From reading threads this week here and GD, I think there is an aversion to the concept of self-defense. There is a nobility in being a victim and a person should not defend themselves against even a lethal force attack

[GreenStormCloud]

21. You hit the bulleyes.

Being a victim is a cherished status in our society. You get lots of sympthy and in many cases there are social and gov't benefits to being a victim, even money. Those of us who engage in successful self-defense are rejecting being victims, and thereby rejecting a closely held value.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. "The grabbers are their own worse enemy.".... I'll respectfully disagree with that statement...

They are also the worse enemy of those of us stuck in the Deep Red Southern States, working our asses off trying to change the minds of 3rd & 4th Generation wingnuts, many of whose first words are "The Democrats want to take away our guns!!", along with the other, more far flung things such as "they want to make us all gay" or "we'll be forced to have abortions". I'm talking about some people who are really out there.

Back in 2006, while out canvassing, I actually had a guy tell me "I couldn't vote for a Democrat, my 'grandpappy' would come up out of the grave and get me if I did, cuz them Democrats want to take away our guns". I showed him where the Democratic Party Platform supported the 2nd Amendment and tried to explain the impossible logistics of an actual ban and seizure. There's no way possible that the Government could go house to house all across the country and search for, then seize, any guns they found. In my small town, by the time they hit the second house, word would be all over town. I have 15 acres, with lots of woods, where I could just go bury my guns. Are they going to search every inch of every property with metal detectors?? There are a LOT of farms here too, ranging from 50 acres to over 500 acres. There's just no way possible they could search every home and property in this Country. Of course, the first ones they would go for would be all the *registered* owners, so they do have that on their side.

It's hard to change the minds of some stubborn, irrational people by showing them a Democratic website that happens to have a Pro RKBA forum, yet there are people here actively, and seriously, advocating for total bans and seizures. Yet, here it is, right here in black and white for everyone to see. It makes it kind of hard for us to get our point across.

As a gun owner, I have no problem with gun laws, regulations and some control and or restrictions, but I feel we have enough in place already and they need to work harder on enforcing the existing laws. I also think that the "grabbers" should be banned from this group. Most of them are only here to disrupt, and are incapable of rational discussion, yet others here spend hours upon hours, days upon days, weeks upon weeks, month after month trying to reason with them. They might as well be throwing spears at airplanes because the results are the same... FUTILE! The grabbers have their minds made up, and NO AMOUNT of logic, reasoning and discussion is going to change their minds. Period.

Ghost

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hahaha nice troll, you got three fish on! That's a good day of fishing.

[sarisataka]

9. Let's have a serious discussion on gun violence...

or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. What's serious about the post I was replying to?

Not a damn thing.

[sarisataka]

14. That is my point

we keep hearing about his need for a serious discussion but when any discussion is engaged one side turns to slander, insult and innuendo.
It seems the desire for "serious" discussion is equivalent to being Against "Illegal" Guns or wanting "sensible" legislation
The reality is parroting talking points (which have vanished again ), Against Guns (except for our members) and draconian legislation.

Edit: I forgot to mention acceptable bigotry, but I think that is self-evident.

[DonP]

24. That's part of that "National Dialog" they keep calling for ... and avoiding

After the Newtown tragedy there was a genuine and sincere hue and cry for a review of everything from mental health care, media etc.

In less than a week everything else was forgotten and it turned in to a full on effort for more gun control with states racing Feinstein to have the first/toughest laws on the books to prove their gun control bona fides for future office. Anyone interested in discussing any other avenue of dealing with dangerously ill people and their access to firearms or school security was told to shut up and go away. If you didn't agree with them "you must want more dead children".

We also had our most recent round of assertions that the NRA is dead/dying/irrelevant/KKK/old white guys/racist, et. al.

There is no interest in any kind of dialog from the control side and I think even the most open and well meaning gun owners finally realized that there is no serious compromise to be achieved with them. So they stopped trying to even discuss it.

Every time they start a new demand for controls/bans/common sense legislation, gun owners quietly sit down at their kitchen table and get out their checkbooks and they all start calling/writing legislators, while the control side rants and raves online and waits for Bloomberg to write a check supporting their beliefs.

Until somebody on their side actually understands what a compromise is, nothing is going to change and they will continue to steadily lose ground.

[beevul]

7. Whos forcing you to "live next to a gun?"

Whos forcing you to "live next to a gun?"

Answer that in some way that can reasonably and accurately be described as intellectually honest, and maybe we can have a discussion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. C'mon. You know how *those* people are.

Once a couple of them move-in there goes the whole neighborhood.

[beevul]

12. ROFL

Truth by any other name, smells just as sweet.

[jimmy the one]

19. where is this house of horrors?

nuclear uni: (after lanza @ newtown) I made a comment that those suffering from *violent* mental illness should be more closely monitored by the authorities. I was castigated by numerous posters for oppressing the mentally ill even when I repeatedly asserted I was referring ONLY to the VIOLENTLY mentally ill.
All the while those who railed against my suggestion were adamant that people with no history of violence or mental illness should have the full weight of the law brought against them for daring exercise their natural and constitutional rights.
The dangerous are to be given every benefit of the doubt. Those who would defend themselves from the dangerous are to be doubted out of any benefit.

Could you post a link to where all this sadistic junk is supposed to have happened to you? because, from my pov it sounds like so much spindoctoring. You of course have a barking dog in the hunt here, I'd like to hear the others.
Or just the name of the OP or the approx date, just to keep you honest. Thanks.

NU: Ironically, if the grabbers were to deal with those who are actually dangerous and violent in intent {,} then those who simply wish to defend themselves would lose their impetus.

I doubt much impact the latter, while the former is a simplistic specious accusation/solution(?) which only sounds good to the anti gun grabbers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I already gave the approximate date, i.e. not long after the Newtown tragedy

Are you seriously suggesting that it is simplistic and specious to say reducing violent crime will curtail people's concern for self-defense?

And yet you make this from the simplistic and specious viewpoint that disarming good people will somehow reduce violent crime and alleviate people's need for self-defense.

PS - PLEASE learn how to use the "Reply" button. Click the link of the post to which you actually want to reply, not some random post in the thread or some other sub-thread. And when you copy and paste text from others while it is still highlighted click the button that says "excerpt." It's actually a pretty nice format the admins provided.

I'm not trying to be cruel but it is genuinely hard to follow whatever it is you're trying to convey.

[Niceguy1]

18. I coukd be your neighbor

And you would never know if I own a fire arm, or not. An inanimate object next door to you doesn't effect your rights

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. I wonder how the poster would react if his neighbor said

he didn't want some "dope-smoking weirdo" living next to him.

(NOTE: I've been a dope-smoking weirdo in the past. I'm not slamming dope-smoking weirdoes, I'm just making an analogy.)

[DonP]

25. Substitute pretty much any other group description in those posts and they'd be gone from DU

Make it a religious, ethnic, national, gender, sexual preference or other group description and the MIRT team would be all over it. But it's perfectly OK to say things that only Bull Connor would say about gun owners though.

Prejudice is alive and well on DU, you just have to hate the right groups to get away with it. And if you're really good at it, you might get your own group.

[Duckhunter935]

29. correct, thanks

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. +1 brazillion

irony is delicious and best served when cold. to mix metaphors.

[jimmy the one]

30. need another clue

nuc uni: Are you seriously suggesting that it is simplistic and specious to say reducing violent crime will curtail people's concern for self-defense?

Yes I am; nationally violent crime rates have steadily fallen past 20 years, while gun sales have increased ~30% (albeit mainly to previous gun owners accd'g some reports). Personal gun ownership rate has fallen some over same period, which could be explained (relatively) by younger people not wanting to own firearms, & fall off in hunting & hunters.

nuc uni: I already gave the approximate date, i.e. not long after the Newtown tragedy

I searched your name from dec 13 2012 to jun 12 2013 using 'violent', 'mentally ill', but no posts came up except your post from yday. I also searched under the broad 'Health' boards, & Politics, but nothing came up with those keywords. Perhaps it was in General Discussion, which I tried to search a dozen times but kept crashing, even with just one word & even when I refined search to just one month dec2012 to jan2013 etc..
So, can you give me another clue?
.. This is what I'm having trouble with, when you wrote this: All the while those who railed against my suggestion were adamant that people with no history of violence or mental illness should have the full weight of the law brought against them for daring exercise their natural and constitutional rights... The dangerous are to be given every benefit of the doubt. Those who would defend themselves from the dangerous are to be doubted out of any benefit.

I doubt 'numerous' people actually wrote or meant or intended that, I think it's a buncha baloney what you contend.

nuc uni: PLEASE learn how to use the "Reply" button. Click the link of the post to which you actually want to reply, not some random post in the thread or some other sub-thread. And when you copy and paste text from others while it is still highlighted click the button that says "excerpt."

So the reply gets buried in the middle of some sandstorm? & disregarded by all but one or a couple? I much prefer 'newest posts at bottom' style boards, where 'all' posts get greater exposure, so I try to hug the bottom. If I just wanted to converse with someone specifically I'd email them... I know how to use the reply button. I did alter so as to reply to the specific poster tho might not be the particular post. I prefer my method of copy & pasting my own relevance so as to avoid irrelevancy.

[rrneck]

20. You're funny. nt

[Nunliebekinder]

27. Well I don't want to live next door to an ignoramus like yourself,

but that's just part of living in society.

[Eleanors38]

28. I hope "pariah" doesn't become the cornerstone language of liberals. n.t.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Sanity prevails.

Head 1; wall 0.............. for today.

[HolyMoley]

15. The NRA would have eaten DCHP and Ross managment for breakfast, lunch and dinner

if this had gone to court.

I'm kind of disappointed that it didn't, but as long as it worked out for Mr. Dorsch and the Constitutional rights of the tenants living there, all is well.

[gejohnston]

16. Actually, I think SAF would

would have been doing the eating.

[HolyMoley]

17. Doh!!!

You're right.
Brain fart on my part.

[tumtum]

26. WTF was Ross Management thinking?

That they could implement an arbitrary rule without the knowledge and consent of the property owners?
Were they really that ignorant?
On the face of it, it would appear so.
I hope they lose their contract and any other contract they may have with the Douglas County Housing Partnership.
That would be apropos.