- We believe the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in defense of their home, person, and property and to protect against a tyrannical government.
- We believe there are people who prey upon others regardless of what laws are enacted and the possibility of being the victim of a violent criminal attack is very real.
- We believe the criminal justice system cannot and does not protect us from criminal activities--the presence of any law enforcement official during the perpetration of a crime is highly unlikely which makes protection of the innocent a legitimate concern of free citizens.
- We believe the ultimate responsibility for the safety of an individual lies with that individual; therefore, resisting attack is a legitimate right which must not be abridged.
- We believe the means of self defense is a matter of choice, and the option to use firearms in the endeavor is guaranteed by both the United States and the Colorado Constitutions.
- We believe individuals engaged in the legitimate activity of self defense have the right to defend themselves with an instrument as effective as those commonly used by criminal elements.
- We believe to control crime, we must focus on the perpetrator rather than his instrument. The irresponsible banning of a weapon based solely on emotion only serves to empower the criminal as law-abiding citizens, by definition, do not break the law.
- We do not believe the only legitimate use of a firearm is sport. Responsible citizens are the first line of defense against criminals and these individuals, legally armed, should not be identified as radicals or trouble makers.
- We believe the firearms issue to be entwined with Civil Rights, and object to all anti-gun proposals that limit the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, or other legally armed citizens their ability to defend themselves.
- Finally, we firmly believe that exercising one's right to bear arms should not justify being identified on any government list, as precedence has shown time and again that agreeing to "reasonable controls" has only resulted in the continuing and irrevocable infringement by the government on the rights of the individual.
